Caregiver convicted after spending €52,511 on gambling
•
23 Aug 2026 •
Reading time: 3 minutes
A man responsible for caring for a vulnerable woman has been convicted by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal after he and his partner used her money beyond the authorised limits. A significant portion of the sums in question was spent in casinos and on online gambling.
A relationship of trust gone awry
For six years, from July 2016 to July 2022, the man and his partner looked after a woman in need of assistance. They visited her home several times a week and helped her with various everyday tasks. To do her shopping and cover other necessary expenses, the couple were authorised to use her bank card. This trust therefore gave them access to her means of payment, but not unlimited rights over her money.
According to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, the two carers significantly exceeded the limits of the authorisation granted to them. The court records show, in particular, that the woman’s money was used to fund spending at casinos and on gambling websites.
A supplementary report put these expenses at 52,511 euros. The court used this figure to establish that several tens of thousands of euros had been embezzled in total.
Had she authorised the use of her money for gambling?
The defendant claimed that the woman had given him permission to gamble with her money.
The judges did not entirely dismiss this version of events. The court considered it plausible that some of the expenditure had indeed been authorised. But did that permission extend to spending tens of thousands of euros? In the court’s view, the answer is no.
The defendant believed he could spend around a few hundred euros a week on gambling. However, particularly in 2016, the sums spent far exceeded this level, according to the court.
The couple’s own statements also weighed heavily in the assessment of the facts. Both carers knew they were spending far too much money on casinos and online gambling.
Although the woman subsequently stated that it did not bother her, this did not, in the judges’ view, negate the offence. The court found that the defendants were aware they had exceeded the permitted limits but had nevertheless continued.
A two-month suspended prison sentence and 160 hours’ community service
The defendant had never previously had any dealings with the police or the courts. The Court of Appeal sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment, entirely suspended, subject to a two-year probation period. He will also be required to carry out 160 hours of community service. If this sentence is not properly served, it may be replaced by 80 days’ imprisonment.
Another financial issue concerned the heir of the woman, who had died before the criminal proceedings began. The heir was claiming €137,129.68 in damages.
The court declared this claim inadmissible within the context of the criminal proceedings. The woman had already died before the proceedings began, and her death was not a consequence of the offence. According to the court, her heir could not therefore join the proceedings as an injured party to seek compensation for the damages she had personally suffered.