ING avoids liability claim after €71,000 fraud 

A consumer who lost more than €71,000 in a scam involving fake gambling websites sought compensation from ING. Despite an alert triggered by its fraud detection system, the bank was cleared of liability by the Dutch financial disputes committee. 

Why ING will not compensate the victim 

The amount is substantial: €71,181.81. This is the financial loss a consumer claims to have suffered after making several bank transfers intended, according to him, for online gambling platforms. 

Believing he was carrying out ordinary transactions on gambling websites, the consumer had allegedly fallen victim to a scam. When he discovered what had happened, he decided to hold his bank, ING, responsible, arguing that it had failed to take the necessary measures to protect his money. The bank’s monitoring system had detected a suspicious transaction but had not permanently prevented further transfers. 

However, in a decision reported on October 26, 2026, by specialist news outlet CasinoNieuws, the Disputes Committee of the Dutch Financial Services Complaints Institute (Kifid) rejected his compensation claim. According to the committee, there was no evidence establishing that the bank knew its customer was being scammed at the time of the transactions. 

A €3,000 transfer triggered a fraud alert 

One of the key events in the case dates back to October 27, 2025. On that day, ING’s fraud detection system flagged a €3,000 payment to Kryptonim, a cryptocurrency platform. The transaction resulted in the consumer’s bank account being blocked. 

The bank then sought to understand the nature of the transaction. According to the facts acknowledged by both parties, the customer explained that these were ordinary gambling-related transactions. 

At that time, Kryptonim had not been identified as a fraudulent platform either. ING therefore decided to unblock the account, allowing the consumer to continue making payments. 

Why the bank was not held responsible 

Both the consumer and ING acknowledged that the transfers had been voluntarily authorised by the customer himself. Under these circumstances, the bank was generally required to execute the payment instructions it received. 

The committee pointed out that banks are not subject to a general obligation to monitor every transaction for potential fraud. Such a requirement could interfere with the automatic processing of payments and undermine the functioning of the banking system, on which a large part of economic activity depends. ING was therefore not required to systematically verify the identities of the individuals or companies behind every recipient account. 

The situation could, however, have been different if the bank had possessed serious indications of fraud. Unusual transactions or particularly suspicious circumstances may justify intervention. However, it must first be established that the bank was actually aware of the danger. 

In this case, the committee found no evidence that ING knew its customer was being scammed. The mere fact that fraud was discovered after the payments does not prove that the bank should have identified it beforehand. 

Unblocking the account was at the heart of the dispute 

According to the complainant, he had only requested that his account be unblocked so he could pay for essential everyday expenses. ING disputed this version of events. 

The committee found that the consumer had provided no evidence to support his claims. 

This lack of evidence weighed in the assessment of the case, particularly because both parties acknowledged that the customer had described the flagged transactions as ordinary gambling-related payments. In the absence of information showing that the bank knew the true nature of the transactions, the committee concluded that ING had not breached its duty of care. 

A second compensation claim was also rejected 

The consumer was not only seeking reimbursement of his financial losses. He also requested compensation for emotional distress, accusing ING’s customer service department of failing to provide adequate assistance. 

This claim was also unsuccessful. 

The committee explained that compensation for non-material damage can only be awarded when certain conditions are met. However, the complainant failed to demonstrate that his situation satisfied those criteria. The documents submitted did not provide sufficient evidence either. 

A similar precedent involving €33,500 

This decision is not an isolated case in disputes between gamblers and their banks in the Netherlands. 

In August 2026, the same committee had already ruled out ABN AMRO’s liability in a case involving €33,500 in losses incurred at BetSixty, an illegal online casino. The complainant also argued that the bank should have intervened to prevent the transactions. 

The committee adopted similar reasoning: the bank had not breached its duty of care and was not required to systematically monitor customer payments to detect potential fraud. 

These two decisions highlight the limits of banks’ liability when transfers have been directly authorised by consumers.