Cash Centers at the heart of an explosive case
•
5 Aug 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes When the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa), the Dutch gambling regulator, refused to renew Sabofra’s licence, a little-known aspect of Cash Centers was revealed. A request for the publication of documents under the WOO (Wet open overheid) law brought to light some disturbing facts: between 2018 and 2023, Sabofra allegedly facilitated illegal betting via three terminals called Cash Centers. The case also shows an alleged link to money laundering.
What is a Cash Center and why is it illegal?
Cash Centers are physical terminals installed in various shops, allowing customers to purchase cards or vouchers with cash. However, they were also used to create accounts on illegal online gaming platforms. Customers insert cash, and the terminal prints a ticket with login details: players can then place bets online using the funds from the ticket. These sites did not have a licence from the KSA.
Sabofra installed these terminals on several occasions: from 22 February to 1 August 2018, then from 1 to 19 March 2019. As a result, bets totalling approximately €300,615 were recorded; the company received a 20% commission, amounting to tens of thousands of euros. The court considers that Sabofra knew or should reasonably have known that these practices were illegal.
Licence refusal: a harsh verdict
In addition to these offences, the KSA’s decision also mentions another reason for refusal: the misconduct of Sabofra’s managers. One of the directors even fled after damaging a parked car. This behaviour exacerbates the climate of mistrust surrounding the company.
Sabofra contested this. It argued, in particular, that Cash Centers fall under the European Services Directive and not the gaming sector, that the terminals were not gaming machines, and that they were unaware of any illegal use. According to them, the commission charged was merely a processing fee. However, the court did not agree.
The ruling: the authority upheld in its decisions
The Dutch court upheld the Ksa’s position on all points. It found it credible that Sabofra not only facilitated illegal betting, but also potentially money laundering through these operations while profiting from the system. The financial flows observed demonstrate the scale of the operations. The decision emphasised that it was the company’s responsibility to know or verify the risks associated with these terminals.
The WOO request
The applicant WOO was not directly named, but the documents consulted show that a citizen or group was able to consult all the decisions taken by the KSA. Sabofra, for its part, asserts that the texts do not allow their terminals to be considered gaming devices, basing its classification of its terminal on a technical report. The court did not accept this defence, considering that the actual consequences clearly go beyond a simple technical transaction.
Implications for the industry: towards tighter control
This case highlights a blind spot in gaming regulation: offline physical devices that provide access to online gaming. Although the regulator expects to control the sites, these Cash Centers act as a gateway to unregulated platforms, escaping traditional radar. The refusal to grant a licence to Sabofra sends a strong signal: any unauthorised intermediary may be considered an accomplice to illegal operations.
A revealing case
The Cash Centers case shows how physical terminals can become an invisible lever for illegal gambling. Thanks to WOO, a whole range of these practices has been brought to light. Sabofra has lost its licence, its finances and its image. And the entire sector is under scrutiny: how can these pitfalls be prevented? The regulatory authority can now use this precedent to strengthen controls, close loopholes and raise public awareness. This case serves as a reminder that technological innovation does not automatically protect against illegality: it is always better to anticipate than to suffer.