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

scale is worth stating plainly because the coverage keeps mixing the figures up
archive that went public holds over 40k documents. the wider investigation analysed 84k documents and more than 2 terabytes covering around 800 people. licensing database itself held roughly 8200 casino domains when the access was closed. so the public archive is a subset of what the journalists saw, and what the journalists saw is a subset of what was in there
 
that's the one thing i wanted from it and that's exactly what i got. outfit that took mine is three brands. i knew about one
 
looked up both of mine expecting to be sick and got nothing at all. one isn't in there and the other is one company, one brand, nothing flagged
feels strange to post that when everyone else is finding horrors but presumably thats most of them
 
Yeah threads like this fill up with the bad finds because those are the ones worth typing out. Boring is normal outcome well it stops looking normal when only the disasters get posted.
 
right so what's the actual use of this going forward. the archive is up now but its a snapshot innit
in a year the ownership will have moved and nobody will be leaking it again. unless the hole is still there which it isn't
 
that's the honest limitation and nobody wants to say it. its a photograph of one regulator in one period. it doesn't tell you about malta or anjouan or the isle of man, and it goes stale
what it does permanently is change what you can ask for. once players have seen what a regulator holds, "we don't disclose beneficial ownership" stops sounding like policy and starts sounding like a choice
 
And the archive was knocked offline within hours of going up. The domain registry pulled it before Cloudflare could even act. It came back on a different domain the same day. Ask yourself who makes a call like that inside a few hours.
 
Or a registry received a complaint about a site publishing eight hundred people's due diligence files and acted on it without knowing the context. That's the duller explanation and it fits the same facts.
I don't know which it was and neither do you.
 
the bit that stays with me is the 800 people. some of them will be ordinary company directors who've done nothing at all and their due diligence file is now on a website anyone can search. thats a real cost even if the reporting is right about everything else
 
right but heres what i don't get. leicester are a premier league club with lawyers and compliance people and whatever else. did nobody there run the same search before putting it on the shirt
 
They'd have run a search. It would have returned a Curaçao licence in good standing, because that is exactly what the register said.
That's the actual scandal in one sentence. The paperwork was correct. The paperwork was also worthless. Nobody outside the regulator could tell the difference until Wednesday.
 
Which is precisely what I have been arguing about accreditation and rating sites for a year and been treated as a crank for.
 
That's the single most useful thing anyone will get out of this week, and it's why I'd rather people searched than argued about the hacker.
Spreading money across four brands you believe are independent is not diversification. If that company has a bad quarter, all four freeze together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top