On 13 February 2026, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled in the case, with the judgment published on 19 March. According to the case record, the former employee abused a support tool used to grant customer compensation in exceptional cases by repeatedly issuing free bets without valid grounds. The free bets were normally capped at €200 each.
The court established that the credits were not distributed randomly but were sent to four specific player accounts, including profiles associated with people known to the employee. In one account, there were as many as 594 free bets. The disputed bonus distribution totaled €495,909.40. The credits were used in bets, generating €254,388.11 in direct profit and €401,556.15 in total payouts, including follow-on winnings, as reported by the Dutch industry based on the ruling.
The argument that the weak supervision at the operator reduced the responsibility of the employee was not accepted by the judges. The court’s decision stated that the actions were intentional and designed to evade detection, including structuring the credits to stay below internal fraud-control thresholds. So, the court treated the conduct as an intentional breach of employment duties rather than an operational error.
More Than a Bonus Fraud Story
One of the player account holders was also held liable in the case, whereas the former employee was ordered to pay several amounts tied to the winnings generated through the scheme. Dutch coverage of the case highlights that the employee has to cover more than €150,000 personally, as well as share the liability for a further amount of over €86,000, including investigative costs.
What is also noteworthy in this case is the approach taken by the court to assess the damage. The ruling supported BetEnt’s broader calculation of losses and accepted that subsequent winnings linked to the unauthorised credits were part of the claim. This puts pressure on operators to tighten permissions for support tools that may appear insignificant in practice but can be costly if abused from within.
For the market, that’s a reminder that fraud risk in betting is not limited to player behavior. Where internal bonus tools can be used repeatedly without a business rationale, the real risk starts long before a compliance team even becomes aware of it.
