I think it's a good move to only raise the stakes on those who can actually afford it.
You want to gamble (away) ? Go ahead, after approval of a reasonable income that can sustain your habbits. Fair enough.
It's in dutch, but what it comes down to was this: an employee of a house service managed to "slip" through millions over time because she was head of the administration, and was able to fraudulent send money to her own or her daughters account(s) to sustain her gambling addiction.
If above check would be in place, there was no way that she was able to sustain such bets or let alone fund her habbit like that with just a regular income in monthly basis.
I mean someone making on avg a 3000 a month cant sustain doing 10k deposits a month to a casino. It would be either savings or heritage of some orders, and still should be questioned in my opinion.
This women ran a caring agency for people who needed true care. Her business was subsidized for millions and she managed to take quite alot of money (in the millions) over time to play in a landbased casino. When the casino took her apart, in a private conversation she spoken that she had acces to way more money if needed. At that point Holland casino did the right thing: they banned her from all places in Holland pretty much, on where she still managed to take or book a trip to Vegas, and spend over 30 grand in just a few days.
Once accountant figured out she took awefully alot of loans and private bookings to herself, this came up to a staggering 1.2 million on which all involved party's demand to pay that back. She bankrupt now, and she is facing legal consequences now for this case.
If a proper cheque was done upfront, this woud'nt have happend. At least detected in a far more early stage then after the 1.2 million of damage done due to her gambling addiction.