Holland Casino reveals what PowNed left out in Cruks test 

Holland Casino has clarified its stance on how PowNed presented the entry control process at its Eindhoven branch. A reporter listed in Cruks successfully entered using a colleague’s driver’s license. However, according to Holland Casino, his identity was checked more thoroughly than the video suggested. 

At the same time, the casino operator acknowledges that the reporter should never have been admitted. Employees had doubts about his identity during the check but ultimately gave him the benefit of the doubt. According to Holland Casino, this meant internal procedures were not followed correctly. 

PowNed reporter tested ten casinos 

PowNed reporter Abel Bijlsma registered himself beforehand in the Central Register for the Exclusion of Gaming (Cruks). He then visited ten land-based casinos and slot machine halls to test their entry controls. 

At five locations, Bijlsma used his own ID. Because that document was linked to his Cruks registration, he was denied entry in all five attempts. That part of the test demonstrates that the technical verification of the Dutch Cruks register worked as intended. 

At the other five visits, the reporter used a driver’s license belonging to a colleague who was not listed in Cruks. Three locations allowed him entry using it: Holland Casino Eindhoven, Jack’s Casino in Utrecht, and Casino Be One in Rotterdam. 

This was not a homemade or forged driver’s license; Bijlsma used a genuine ID belonging to someone else. Consequently, the deception could only be detected by carefully comparing the document and its photo against the visitor. 

Following the test, PowNed asserted that identity verification represents a weak link in the protection surrounding Cruks. The register recognized the reporter when he used his own document, but could not detect that someone else was using the driver’s license of a non-excluded individual. 

Employee noticed discrepancy in the photo 

The PowNed video shows a Holland Casino Eindhoven employee inspecting the driver’s license and expressing doubts about the physical resemblance, noting that the visitor’s weight and hairstyle differed from the person in the photo. 

The reporter was ultimately granted access anyway, creating the impression that Holland Casino admitted him based merely on a superficial comparison with the ID photo. 

According to Holland Casino, that depiction is incomplete. The operator states that the reporter told staff his appearance had changed significantly due to substantial weight loss. Staff members then reportedly looked beyond just the photo on the driver’s license. 

According to Holland Casino, they also consulted an older photo of the ID owner taken during a previous visit to the casino. On that older image, the ID holder reportedly bore a stronger resemblance to the reporter standing at the reception desk. 

This underscores the broader importance of identity checks at gambling venues. A valid document is not enough; the venue must also confirm that the document actually belongs to the person attempting to enter. 

Holland Casino points to extra behind-the-scenes checks 

A spokesperson for Holland Casino emphasized that the decision was not based solely on the driver’s license photo. Staff reportedly reviewed multiple pieces of data and images before admitting the reporter. 

Nevertheless, the employee deviated from standard protocol. In case of doubt, the matter should have been escalated to security. Instead, only a reception colleague was consulted. 

“Instead of further escalating to security as protocol dictates, the reception employee consulted a colleague.” 

Afterward, the reporter was given the benefit of the doubt. Holland Casino states that staff kept an eye on him after he entered. He did not use any gaming facilities and quickly left the premises. According to the casino, this unusual behavior immediately triggered an internal investigation. 

The additional explanation does not alter the final outcome: someone listed in Cruks managed to enter using another person’s driver’s license. However, Holland Casino’s response indicates that more verification took place than the final video edit suggested. 

Hospitality weighed too heavily, according to Holland Casino 

Holland Casino admits its staff made the wrong call. Whenever there is doubt regarding a visitor’s identity, entry must be refused. The older photo and the explanation regarding weight loss did not fully eliminate that doubt in this instance. 

According to the operator, employees were overly influenced by hospitality considerations. They were evidently reluctant to turn the visitor away outright and sought an explanation for the discrepancies. As a result, the doubt was not given the weight required by the security protocol. 

The incident highlights how technology and human judgment remain interdependent. Cruks can only verify the data entered into it. When a valid ID belonging to another person is presented, an employee at the door must spot the substitution. 

This differs from a technical outage in the register. Separate guidelines apply to such issues, regarding which the Ksa previously clarified casino operators’ obligations during a Cruks outage. In Eindhoven, the register itself functioned properly; the failure occurred during the verification matching the visitor to the document presented. 

Employees reminded of procedures 

Following the incident, Holland Casino reminded staff of the entry procedures. If an identity is in doubt, entry must be denied. Consulting a colleague at reception is insufficient when protocol mandates escalation to security. 

Additionally, Holland Casino is exploring ways to make the system more effective. Ultimately, the operator refers to entry control as a human process, despite the digital systems running in the background. 

“Holland Casino welcomes millions of visitors every year. Extensive identity and entry checks are conducted as part of those visits. Although these procedures are highly effective, they ultimately remain a human process. That is precisely why we carefully evaluate incidents like this, draw lessons where necessary, and continue investing in improving our procedures.” 

The challenge lies in avoiding a trade-off between hospitality and security. An employee may be understanding of a changed appearance, but must still refuse entry if doubt persists. This decision is crucial regarding Cruks, as the system is designed to protect individuals temporarily or long-term from gambling participation. 

The growing use of the register makes reliable verification at the door increasingly essential. In 2024, an average of 488 new Cruks registrations were added weekly. Every registration loses part of its effectiveness if someone can still gain entry using another person’s document. 

Ksa calls the outcome a serious signal 

The Netherlands Gaming Authority (Ksa) acknowledges that Bijlsma deliberately misled the casinos. However, according to the regulator, this does not absolve the operators involved of their responsibility. Door checks should have prevented him from entering with a colleague’s driver’s license. 

According to the Ksa, casinos must do more than just verify whether an ID is valid. They must also carefully establish that the visitor matches the person on the document. In case of doubt, employees can ask follow-up questions, such as about the date of birth or other details on the document. If doubt remains, entry must be refused. 

At the same time, the regulator sees the test as proof that Cruks works technically. In all five visits where Bijlsma used his own ID, his registration was recognized. In two out of the five attempts using a colleague’s document, he was also turned away. 

According to the outcome, the vulnerability lies primarily not in the register itself, but in the identity verification preceding it. NEXT.io documented both Holland Casino’s response and the Ksa’s announced actions. 

Parliamentary questions regarding identity fraud at casinos 

The PowNed report has since reached Dutch politics. Ingrid Coenradie of JA21 submitted written questions to the State Secretary for Justice and Security on September 2, 2026. 

Coenradie wants to know, among other things, how often identity fraud occurs at casinos and what guidelines govern identity checks. She also asked how employees and security guards are trained, whether casinos are required to take photos of visitors, and how those images are compared with identity documents. 

The parliamentary questions were published by the House of Representatives under the title Poor security and oversight on identity fraud at casinos. The answers are expected to provide greater clarity on legal requirements and potential tightening of rules. 

The Ksa announced it will address the three operators featured in the PowNed report, focusing on how they verify that an ID truly belongs to the visitor. What enforcement measures may follow has not yet been disclosed. 

Holland Casino states it awaits any measures or inquiries with confidence. The company does not dispute that the reporter should have been refused entry. The core of its response remains that the error occurred after a more thorough assessment than PowNed showed, though staff ultimately made the wrong choice.