Tether.bet and the Curacao leak - does "Curacao licensed" mean anything now?

sapit222

sapit222

Active member
Messages
53
Reaction score
208
Points
33
Hey guys, Sapit here.

Been going through the Tether.bet reporting since it came out (Democracy for Sale with The Times on 22 Oct, SBC picked it up on the 26th). Splitting what's documented from what's alleged, because most posts I've seen mix the two.

What the records show:
  • - Tether.bet was a crypto betting site run from Montenegro on a Curacao licence. It shut down in August.
  • - In April 2024 the owner on the licence file, Hon Kong Yong, declared a £40k salary and a net worth of about £8m.
  • - As proof of funds he submitted paperwork on a £3.75m Kensington property sale. Land Registry confirms the sale happened in May 2020, but Yong wasn't the seller. The sellers told The Times they'd never heard of him, and the buyer said the same.
  • - His plan was $350k of his own money, the rest from shareholder or third-party loans. The compliance notes say the loans were never evidenced, and still concluded he had sufficient financial resources.
What's alleged or not established:
  • - That the document was forged. No court or regulator has said so.
  • - Any role for George Cottrell. His lawyers say he was only a customer and a friend of the owner.
Where it all came from: Lilith Wittmann's access to the CGA licensing portal, which the CGA itself says ran from December 2025 to September 2026.
Question for the room: after this, does "Curacao licensed" in a footer mean anything to you?

BR, Sapit
 
Tether.bet is one file out of a very large cache. Follow the Money's numbers: roughly 800 owners behind nearly 650 licensed companies, running thousands of sites. The pattern across their reporting matters more than this one case. Licences granted without establishing whether the declared owners were actually the ones in charge, and in some files basic ownership questions left unanswered. 🤔
 
CGA position as of 19 Oct licensing platform replaced, independent technical investigation commissioned, existing licences remain valid.
Have not seen a single revocation tied to the leak. The regulator is protecting the register first. Players come later.
 
ok maybe its obvious for ya all but is a curacao really worthles then? loads of sites i've seen have it at the bottom
 
Not a daft question. For a UK player the answer is simpler than the leak makes it look.
A Curacao licence has never allowed anyone to take bets from customers in GBr. To offer gambling here you need a Gambling Commission licence, whatever else you hold. The Sunday Times reported earlier that Tether.bet took bet payments through UK companies without one, and that is the part UK authorities can actually act on. Bridget Phillipson asked the Commission to look into it in August.

So: check the Commission's public register. If the site isn't on it, the Curacao seal is irrelevant to you.
 
The leaked files themselves haven't been authenticated by the CGA, which has said it won't repeat figures it can't verify. That's a reason for care with the details, not a reason to dismiss them.

What I find harder to explain away is that the officials noted the loans were never evidenced and signed him off anyway. Follow the Money reported the CGA told them it didn't reject applicants with open questions because the industry was moving to the new regime. If that's accurate, it's a process failure whether or not this particular document turns out to be forged.
 
must send this to my bf, half the sites he plays have that curacao logo
 
funny how nobody cared about curacao paperwork until there was a reform link. and democracy for sale isnt exactly a neutral outfit
 
webzcas said:
democracy for sale isnt exactly a neutral outfit
Click to expand...
Who found it doesn't change what the Land Registry shows. And the wider leak was reported by Follow the Money with NDR, NRK and the Guardian, none of which had a UK political angle.

In fairness to your side of it, the reporting itself contains points that cut against the headline: Cottrell's lawyers say he was only a customer, and Democracy for Sale itself says there's no suggestion he took part in the licence application. Both are in the original pieces, they just don't make the headlines.
 
Bitstarz is Curacao too, and that's where most of my play is. Has anyone seen Bitstarz named anywhere in the leak reporting? Not panicking, I'd just rather know before I leave my usual balance there.
 
sapit222 said:
does "Curacao licensed" in a footer mean anything to you?
Click to expand...
If you are asking whether it meant someone checked who owns the casino - after this, no. I used to play JB, they're Curacao too. I never thought the license was the reason they paid me. Track record is what matters, the license just tells you they filled in the forms.
 
Not in anything published so far. The named ones I've seen are Stake and 1xBet entities.

Stake: FTM reported its Curacao company, Medium Rare NV, is officially owned by Mladen Vuckovic. CGA officials questioned whether he was the sole owner, citing loans and payments to entities tied to Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani.

1xBet: Caecus NV was licensed in 2024 with the assessors' questions about multiple owners still unanswered.

FTM said more names would follow, so "not named yet" is all anyone can say.
 
who cares if craven owns stake, everyone already assumes he does 💀 stake pays every time
 
Timmy said:
who cares if craven owns stake, everyone already assumes he does 💀 stake pays every time
Click to expand...
The point isn't whether you know. It's whether the regulator does. Owner checks exist so that someone named and verified is accountable when money goes missing or a site disappears. If the declared owner on file isn't the person actually in control, the regulator has nobody to hold responsible. That doesn't matter while a site pays. It matters a lot the day it stops.
 
1xbet limited me back in 23, never knew who was actually behind it. turns out neither did curacao lol
 
dunover said:
Not a daft question. For a UK player the answer is simpler than the leak makes it look.
A Curacao licence has never allowed anyone to take bets from customers in GBr. To offer gambling here you need a Gambling Commission licence, whatever else you hold. The Sunday Times reported earlier that Tether.bet took bet payments through UK companies without one, and that is the part UK authorities can actually act on. Bridget Phillipson asked the Commission to look into it in August.

So: check the Commission's public register. If the site isn't on it, the Curacao seal is irrelevant to you.
Click to expand...
so for me its just check the ukgc register and ignore the rest. ok got it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top