Dutch Gaming Authority’s Trend Analysis of Match Fixing December 2022
The Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) has been set up within the Gaming Authority, a reporting center for signals of possible match-fixing in games of chance. An analysis of the reports made (pdf, 74 kB) has been made for the period from 1 October 2021 to 18 December 2022.
Trend analysis match fixing December 2022
One of the goals of the Betting and Gaming Act (Wok) is to combat gambling-related gambling match fixing at licensed providers of sports betting. The Gaming Authority has no legal task in detecting match-fixing but checks whether providers with a license to do enough to prevent match-fixing. Within the Gaming Authority, the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) established a hotline for signals of possible match-fixing in games of chance.
Sports betting providers must inform the SBIU of facts or circumstances that indicate match-fixing. Those facts or circumstances are not allowed traceable to persons because providers have a duty of confidentiality on grounds of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (Wwft). Traceable information must be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit under the Wwft (FIU-Netherlands).
In this trend analysis, the SBIU provides an overview of the reports of possible match-fixing that it received in the period from October 1, 2021 to December 18, 2022.
Number of sports betting providers
There are currently 11 providers of online sports betting. 9 are between October 2021 – March 2022 and went live. The last 2 went live in July and November 2022.
A total of 5 providers have reported possible match-fixing to the SBIU.
Number of reports from providers about possible match-fixing
The SBIU has received a total of 40 reports of possible match-fixing. 83% of these reports were received in the period April – June 2022.
Two categories can be distinguished:
1. There are 12 reports of unusual betting patterns.
2. There are 28 reports involving deployment by persons involved in that game and/or competition.
These 2 categories are discussed in more detail below.
Unusual betting pattern
The 12 reports come from all 5 providers. It matters in all cases of foreign competitions. The sports reported are football (8), tennis (2), table tennis (1), and snooker (1).
Those involved in a match and/or competition
The 28 reports come from 2 of the aforementioned 5 providers. Hereby reports, with the exception of 1 report, it concerns the Dutch Soccer competition. The persons involved play in the Eredivisie (6), Eerste Divisie (19) and Second Division (2). Some people place bets on competitions that they themselves participate in participate, some only on matches from their league. There are also combinations where bets are made on both their own match and competition. In most cases, it works for low stakes or for combination bets.1 Placing a stakeholder on his own match and/or competition is a signal of possible match-fixing but does not have to be ultimately not to be match-fixing.
Because the SBIU does not receive any traceable information, it does not know who a relevant person is a person involved. The personal information goes to FIU-the Netherlands, which analyzes whether there are sufficient grounds to declare the transaction suspicious. If a transaction is suspiciously declared, it will be shared with the investigation. This is possible in consultation with the Public Prosecution Service decided to share this information with the sports association. If there is not enough land is to declare a transaction suspicious, the report remains an unusual transaction.
In addition to reports from providers, the Ksa also receives other signals about possible match-fixing. The Ksa has 4 signals about offering prohibited bets rated. Two gambling companies have been approached for offering bets on the number of yellow cards. According to the Wok, this is prohibited because such bets are prone to match-fixing. The other 2 signals were not a prohibited bet.
In addition, the SBIU received a signal from a licensed foreign provider about an unusual betting pattern on a Dutch football match. This is not covered supervision of the SBIU. Finally, the SBIU received the signal that providers were not affiliated with an international partnership. This is required by law. After investigation proved the signal to be unjustified.
The SBIU can still reduce the risk of gambling-related match-fixing among licensed providers not estimated. It should be borne in mind that the online gambling market only has been open for more than a year and therefore there is no comparison material for, for example, the indicated numbers. In addition, non-gambling-related match-fixing may or may not occur gambling-related match-fixing takes place at unlicensed and/or foreign providers.
Definitive conclusions about the risk of gambling-related match fixing are therefore not yet available possible. The SBIU continues to monitor the signals.
See the original article: An analysis of the reports made (pdf, 74 kB) (in Dutch)
SOURCE: KansspelautoriteitTags: Ksa, Betting and Gaming Act (Wok), Kansspelautoriteit