Curacao files are public and searchable. go and look up your casino

Camelott

Camelott

Trusted Gambler
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
124
Points
163
Some of you will remember me going on about checking the operating company rather than the brand. Bottom of the homepage, licence number, search the company name. 90 secs.

You can now do considerably better than that. The Casino Secrets archive went live Wednesday and it's searchable. Forty thousand plus documents out of the Curaçao Gaming Authority's own licensing system. Licence applications, ownership, due diligence, the regulator's own assessments.

Two things before anyone goes in swinging. The archive itself states that appearing in it doesn't imply anything illegal or improper, and that's a real caveat, not a legal fig leaf. And the files came out of a nine month breach of the regulator's portal, which is its own conversation.

I've spent the evening looking up sites I've had money on. Not enjoying it much.
 
He's right and it still isn't the revelation people think it is.
Anyone who has worked anywhere near this industry has known for fifteen years that Curaçao licensing was a rubber stamp. The old master licence model meant four private holders issued sub-licences to anyone with a company and a fee, and the regulator barely saw the paperwork. That's why the LOK reforms happened. What's changed this week isn't the knowledge, it's the evidence.

The genuinely damaging detail is not that the portal was breached. It's that the authority hasn't disputed reports that it granted licences while ownership questions were still open. That's an admission by silence and it's worth more than the documents.
 
is bc game in this? they're on leicesters shirt. my mate supports them and hes been saying for months there's somethin off about that sponsorship
 
They come up in the reporting, yes. The angle there isn't new though — they've been accused before of taking UK customers they shouldn't have been taking.
Brands getting the attention are Stake, 1xBet, Blaze and Qbet. Those are owners of record appearing in the regulator's own files.
 
1xBet. Again.. I said in the review sites thread a fortnight ago that they were caught running pirated slots with the RNG under their own control and that they were still carrying scores on every major listing site. I was told I was overstating it. And now their ownership of record is sitting in a public archive out of the regulator's own database. At what point does the industry stop scoring them out of ten.
 
stake being in a licensing database is not a scandal. every licensed operator is in a licensing database that's what a licensing database is
 
that's true and its not what the reporting says. specific claim is that the operator got a licence in 2025 while the regulator still had unresolved questions about who actually owned it. beneficial ownership unclear, in their own assessment, and they issued anyway
that's not "stake appears in a database". that's "the regulator wrote down that it didn't know and licensed it regardless"
 
Nothing, until the day it costs you everything. That's the whole shape of this risk and it's why people misjudge it.

Think about what verification actually is. You photograph your passport, your bank statement, a utility bill, and you send them to a company. The regulator's own file says it isn't certain who that company belongs to. You're not just betting your balance. You handed over a complete identity package to an entity whose ownership the licensing authority had written a question mark next to.
 
Does nobody want to talk about how this was obtained? She registered using the name of a real person known to the regulator, claimed to represent a company that didn't exist, and helped herself for nine months. I'm glad the information is out. I also can't pretend that's nothing.
 
It's a fair question and it has a partial legal answer as of last Friday.

A Berlin court ruled on the 25th in her favour against the Malta Gaming Authority, which had injuncted her over an earlier breach. The judge treated her characterisations of that regulator as expressions of opinion rather than false statements of fact. She's still barred from accessing their systems.

So a German court has decided she may use and publish what she took, while maintaining she may not take more. That is not the same as deciding the taking was lawful, and anyone reading it as vindication is reading it too broadly.

She's reported the litigation ran to around two thousand pages and cost her fifteen to twenty thousand euro.
 
bill_collins said:
It's a fair question and it has a partial legal answer as of last Friday.

A Berlin court ruled on the 25th in her favour against the Malta Gaming Authority, which had injuncted her over an earlier breach. The judge treated her characterisations of that regulator as expressions of opinion rather than false statements of fact. She's still barred from accessing their systems.

So a German court has decided she may use and publish what she took, while maintaining she may not take more. That is not the same as deciding the taking was lawful, and anyone reading it as vindication is reading it too broadly.

She's reported the litigation ran to around two thousand pages and cost her fifteen to twenty thousand euro.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That's more careful than anything I've read about it elsewhere.
 
I'd put it more bluntly than Bill. A regulator that leaves a licensing portal open for nine months has failed at a task considerably more basic than the one it's charging fees for.

The method is a real question. It's also the smaller one.
 
SVT ran it here on wednesday and my father asked me about it, which has never happened before about gambling
he does not gamble. he watches the news. that is the difference between this and every other story like it
 
ok so i searched the site i use and got a company name i never heard of and a pdf i don't understand. now what
 
Take the company name and search it separately. You're looking for two things.
  1. How many other brands that same company operates. If it's nine sites and you've got accounts at three of them, you don't have three independent providers, you have one counterparty.
  2. Whether the regulator's own assessment flags anything unresolved. That's the bit no listing site has ever had access to.
If the answer to both is boring, that's a good outcome. Boring is what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top