PLAYER FUND PROTECTION
Conclusion The primary objective of gaming regulation is the protection of players. This is especially true when it comes to the security of player funds. Various approaches to this have been taken across different European jurisdictions. This article examined the approaches taken in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands. It also compared these various approaches using the case study of Peter Nikolaj Hardgrove Hansen v DK Gambling ApS, a recent Danish bankruptcy case. Upon review of the case and comparing the various jurisdictions, it became clear that the Danish approach to player fund protection, which takes the form of offsetting accounts, may achieve this theoretically but in practice is inadequate. It also became clear that the outcome in the UK could be similar should operators opt for
lowest levels of fund protection allowed by UK regulation, but this does not need to be the case. If operators implement the medium or high level of protection available under UK regulation, the player’s funds would likely have been recovered as these approaches are set up with the aim of keeping the funds owed to the players from co- mingling with the funds of the operator. Finally, if the Dutch approach to player fund separation is applied to the facts of the Hansen case it is likely the player funds would have been secured. This is mainly due to there being no danger of funds becoming co-mingled because the operator does not control the accounts or the foundation. The foundation’s ultimate responsibility is to the players and its independence means there is no way for the operator to control or influence its decision-making processes. The foundation’s independence also means that its continued operation is not contingent on the continued operation of the operator.
JASON FLEISCHER Legal Account Manager, EM Group Netherlands For information contact
jason.fleischer@ the-emgroup.com +31 6 1379 5466
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker