Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Dutch gambling authority has sanctioned both Royal Panda and LeoVegas following the two operators being found to be offering games of chance to consumers within the country.

The KSA has emphasised that “online gambling is currently prohibited”, and subsequently handed Royal Panda a €400,000 while LeoVegas was then issued with a €350,000 fine.

The fines have come after research which was carried out by the KSA during the latter half of 2018 and early 2019, which came to reveal that the two gaming operators, “despite this prohibition, still focused on the Netherlands with their offer.”

Part of the ruling said that it was emphasised on both companies being accessible to the public via a Dutch IP, as the KSA offered examples of actions that constituted the receipt of the two penalty fees, which included the option to wager using the Dutch iDEAL payment method.

Both sites also offered a variety of games of chance to the public, which included sports betting, casino titles and virtual slot machines.

Earlier this year, Kindred Group received a fine of €470,000 by the KSA after it was found to be in breach of the legislative terms set by the ‘1964 Gambling Act’.

Kindred explained that the KSA had sanctioned the penalty to its Malta-based trading subsidiary Trannel International Ltd for accepting wagers from Dutch customers, this violated the 1964 Gambling Act regulatory provisions.

As it stands under Dutch legislation, all physical or online gambling offerings are illegal with Holland Casino being the only exception.

Providing an update on the imminent change to Dutch law, the regulator commented in a media statement where it was said: “In February this year, the Senate passed the Remote Gambling Act (Koa).

“The law is currently being worked out in more detail. It will soon be possible to obtain a license under strict conditions for offering games of chance via the internet. Supervision is then possible, allowing players to play protected.

“The Ksa takes action against illegal gambling providers because there is no check on the fairness of the game. It is also impossible to check whether vulnerable groups, such as minors, are being excluded from participation.”