Integrity test for applicants of remote gambling licence
Category: Gaming law
A licence for online betting and gambling can be applied for in the Netherlands as from March 1, 2021. The KSA is the competent authority that deals with the licence application. The KSA has published policy rules (beleidsregels) for the application procedure. Paragraph 3 deals with the strict integrity test that will apply to the applicants. I’ve translated this section for you in the following text. Please note that the application for a licence and application itself will be in the Dutch language. Of course our firm can assist you with that application.
Integrity assessment for online gambling licence
Article 3.1 Assessment
1. An application shall, in all cases, be subject to an integrity assessment by the Management Board.
2. In its integrity assessment, the Management Board shall, at the least, investigate the following aspects:
a. whether the reliability of the applicant, the persons who determine or co-determine its policy and its ultimate stakeholders is beyond doubt on the grounds of their intentions, actions or antecedents, as referred to in Section 31i(1) of the Act;
b. whether there is a lesser degree of danger or serious danger that the licence will also be used to obtain benefits of monetary value from offences committed, as referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of the Bibob Act;
c. whether there is a lesser degree of danger or serious danger that the licence will also be used to commit offences, as referred to in Article 3, paragraph 1 (b), of the Bibob Act;
d. whether there are facts and circumstances that indicate or suggest that an offence has been committed in order to obtain the licence, as referred to in Article 3, paragraph 6, of the Bibob Act.
Article 3.2 LBB (Dutch Probity Agency)
1. In the integrity assessment, the Board of Directors may seek advice from the LBB.
2. The Board of Directors may, in all cases, request advice from the LBB where:
a. relevant questions remain regarding the organisational, ownership and control structure of the applicant or the group to which the applicant belongs, despite the documents or records provided by the applicant;
b. relevant questions remain regarding the method of financing, notwithstanding the documents or records provided by the applicant;
c. relevant questions remain regarding a (possible) business association of the applicant, despite the documents or records provided by the applicant;
d. indications have emerged that there may be a lesser degree of danger or serious danger, as referred to in Article 3 of the Bibob Act;
e. the Public Prosecutor has advised the Board of Directors as referred to in Section 26 of the Bibob Act;
f. there are facts and circumstances which indicate or reasonably suggest that an offence has been committed for the purpose of the application.
Article 3.3 Persons or legal entities involved
1. The Management Board may, at the least, involve the following (legal) persons in the integrity assessment:
a. the applicant;
b. its direct, indirect and ultimate stakeholders;
c. the (legal) persons who determine or co-determine the policy of the applicant;
d. the (legal) persons who directly or indirectly manage or have managed the applicant;
e. the (legal) persons who directly or indirectly control or have controlled the applicant;
f. the (legal) persons who directly or indirectly provide or have provided capital to the applicant;
g. the (legal) persons who are or have been part of a business partnership with the applicant;
h. the legal entities to which, about which or from which the above-mentioned (legal) persons belong who:
i. determine or have determined the policy;
ii. co-determine or have co-determined the policy;
iii. are or have been directly or indirectly concerned;
iv. are or have been directly or indirectly managerial;
v. have or have had, directly or indirectly, control.
2. As part of the integrity assessment, the Management Board may also include other
persons in order to assess whether they qualify as one of the (legal) persons referred to in the first paragraph.
Article 3.4 Sources
1. When carrying out the integrity assessment, the Management Board may, in all cases, look to the following sources:
a. the applicant;
b. the information on which the Management Board relied, in the context of the implementation of the legal tasks;
c. the LBB;
d. the Judicial Information Service;
e. the Public Prosecutor’s Office;
f. the National Police;
g. the National Tax Office;
h. the Basic Registration of Personal Data;
i. the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten);
j. De Nederlandsche Bank NV;
k. the Consumer and Market Authority;
l. the Living Environment and Transport Inspectorate;
m. the Institute for Employee Insurance Schemes (Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen);
n. the Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank);
o. municipalities, provinces and their administrative bodies;
p. the public entities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba;
q. the Supervision Department for Legal Entities Analysis Control and Notification
r. Foreign (gambling) supervisors and authorities; and
s. public sources, including trade registers and land registers.
2. The Management Board may, in all cases, request the following information and documents from the applicant:
a. the (legal) persons referred to in article 3.3;
b. network drawings;
c. foreign licences;
d. foreign equivalents of statements of conduct; and
e. the antecedents referred to in Article 3.5(1).
Article 3.5 Prior experience in gambling
1. In the integrity assessment, the Management Board shall, in all cases, include
the following records:
a. criminal records;
b. supervisory background;
c. financial history;
d. Administrative tax records;
e. other administrative law offences.
2. In assessing the antecedents referred to in the first paragraph, the Board may, in all cases, take the following aspects of governance into account:
a. the degree of certainty that antecedents have occurred;
b. the number or duration of antecedents;
c. the nature, seriousness and context of antecedents;
d. the lapse of time after antecedents have occurred or have been punished;
e. the magnitude of the monetary benefit that can be measured by a criminal record
f. the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the person to whom it relates
3. In assessing the degree of certainty referred to in paragraph 2(a), the Management Board may, among other things, impose convictions, criminal settlements, transactions, settlements, policy depots, suspicions, administrative sanctions and intend to impose such sanctions and substantive sanctions. A conviction or order shall not be required in order to be sufficiently certain that a prior event has occurred.
4. Even if a person has not been prosecuted for an offence or the prosecution has not continued, the Management Board may include the offence concerned in the integrity assessment referred to in Article 3.1.
5. Where a person has been finally acquitted or dismissed from all legal proceedings, the Board of Directors shall not include the offence concerned in the integrity assessment referred to in Article 3.1.
6. When assessing the period of time referred to in the second paragraph, section d, the Board of Management shall take into account the length of time spent in detention. The time spent in detention shall not cause the management board to give less weight to antecedents.
Article 3.6 Serious antecedents of a manager
1. In its integrity assessment, the Management Board may, in all cases, consider that the following are serious antecedents:
a. the provision of incorrect information with the application;
b. failing to pay fines, forfeited charges under penalty payment or costs of administrative coercion imposed by the Board of Management, or failing to do so on time;
c. failure to pay the gambling tax or gambling levy due or to pay it in time;
2. There shall, in all cases, be deemed to have been late payment as referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) if the Board of Management has proceeded to a coercive collection.
Article 3.7 Intentions and actions
In the integrity assessment, the Management Board shall also take into account intentions and actions.
Article 3.8 Beyond doubt
1. The reliability as referred to in Section 31i(1) of the Act is in any case beyond doubt if:
a. no antecedents are involved in the assessment other than offering the opportunity, without the required permit, to persons present in the Netherlands to participate in remote games of chance and antecedents necessarily related thereto;
b. when registering participants in remote games of chance after 31 December 2019, the age of all tenderers was verified in a manner visible to them before the registration process was completed;
c. during the two years and eight months preceding the date on which the application was submitted and during the processing of the application, all of the following criteria were met:
i. the game offer did not take place on a website of which the extension
ended on .nl;
ii. all or part of the game offer did not take place in the Dutch language;
iii. no advertising was made for the offer in question or the
provider on television, radio or in printed media aimed at the Dutch market;
iv. a domain name was not used for the offering of games including typical terms referring to the Netherlands in combination with game of chance indications;
v. the website(s) on which the games of chance were offered contained no characteristics from which a focus on the Netherlands can be inferred;
vi. no use could be made of the games of chance on offer made from means of payment that are exclusively or largely used by the Dutch.
d. there are no other reasons to doubt their reliability.
2. Insofar as it follows from the first paragraph that the reliability is beyond doubt, the Executive Board shall not reject an application on the grounds of the Bibob Act on account of the antecedents referred to in the first paragraph, part a.
3. The provisions of this article shall only apply to applications submitted before 1 March 2022.