France Tightens Rules on Fraud and Withheld Winnings

French authorities have introduced tougher requirements for gambling operators when dealing with suspected fraud and withheld winnings.

Read more NFL

The new guidance raises the evidential threshold, meaning operators must now provide stronger proof before accusing players of fraudulent activity or refusing to pay out winnings. 

The comprehensive framework, published by the Autorité Nationale des Jeux on Monday, applies to all online gambling offerings, including competitive activities, online lotteries, and physical distribution networks that require player account creation.

The regulator clarified that the guide does not create new obligations but supplements existing regulations, leaving operators to assess each situation individually.

ANJ outlines five fraud categories

The French regulator also set out a clear definition of fraud, describing it as the use of methods that allow someone to claim rights or advantages they would not normally be entitled to. 

From this definition, the guide identifies five main categories. Identity fraud covers falsified documents, false declarations, stolen accounts through hacking, account sharing, and the creation of multiple accounts. 

Payment fraud refers to using another person’s card to fund play or altering bank details to redirect winnings. Abusive chargebacks are also flagged, where players deliberately reverse payments after gambling activity. 

Game‑related fraud is given particular attention in poker. Practices such as chip dumping, soft play, team strategies, and sharing information are banned, alongside the use of automated bots designed to give players an unfair edge. 

The final category, money dumping, involves disguised transfers between accounts, often used to lend funds or move stolen money.

Regulator mandates evidence gathering, cites court previous backing 

The ANJ underlined that suspicion alone cannot justify blocking a payout. Operators must now collect convincing proof before withholding winnings, with each case judged individually. 

Read more NRL

Silence from a player may add weight to doubts, but it cannot stand as proof on its own. To guide operators, the regulator reviewed past court rulings and highlighted the types of evidence judges have accepted. 

The guide outlined the kinds of material and “converging indicators” (faisceaux d’indices) that French courts have relied on in litigation, including device logs, connection timings, and IP addresses. 

Court decisions show fraud evidence requires patterns like dramatic activity changes, multiple accounts using identical IP addresses, and account holders unable to recall major bets. However, courts have also ruled against operators when evidence was insufficient, such as when simultaneous bets could be explained by multiple browser tabs.

ANJ cited a key case where the Paris Court of Appeal upheld Betclic’s account closure for a player whose account shared IP addresses and terminals with others, placing numerous identical bets within remarkably short timeframes. Another case saw the Nice tribunal order redistribution of fraudulently obtained poker winnings to other participants.

Fresh rules for funds handling and penalties

The rules also spell out how funds should be handled when fraud is detected. Accounts linked to fraudulent activity must be closed, even if some transactions were legitimate, provided intent is proven. 

Where identity fraud blocks verification of banking details, operators must hold funds in reserve. In cases of hacked accounts, fraudulent transfers must be cancelled, and money returned once the rightful owner confirms control.  

If an operator’s own failure contributed to the breach, compensation is required. 

Poker tournaments are treated separately. Winnings obtained through collusion or other fraudulent play must be redistributed fairly among the other participants. Any remaining balance should go back to the account holder, unless those funds are themselves tainted.

Operators may include penalty clauses in contracts, but consumer protection rules prohibit penalties that are clearly excessive. Breaches and amounts must be specified in detail, with strict limits placed on percentage‑based penalties. If repeated complaints arise, the authority reserves the right to inspect operator practices.

Read more AFL