Record Fines and a Fake Executive: What Is Happening Inside Curaçao Casino Networks?

A gambling licence displayed in the footer of a sportsbook or online casino is often treated as a simple sign of legality. Recent cases involving Curaçao-based operators show why that assumption can be misleading. A company may hold a valid Curaçao licence while accepting customers in countries where it has no local authorisation, and the licence does not automatically give players access to the protections available in a regulated domestic market.

The latest disputes range from a €24.846 million record penalty in the Netherlands to an immediate prohibition in Sweden, a British investigation into an apparently fictitious casino executive, and a criminal KYC inquiry conducted by Curaçao’s own prosecutors. The cases do not establish that every Curaçao-licensed operator is unlawful or unsafe. They do, however, expose the gap between holding an offshore licence and being legally authorised, transparent, and accountable in every market an operator enters.

Why a Curaçao Licence Does Not Provide Global Approval

Curaçao licences online gambling conducted in or from the island. They do not replace licences required by the Netherlands, Sweden, Great Britain, or any other regulated jurisdiction. The distinction matters because a website can be technically accessible from a country without being authorised to target customers there.

Curaçao’s current licensing conditions make this boundary explicit. Operators must comply not only with Curaçao law but also with the applicable laws of every jurisdiction in which they offer remote gambling. The rules also require approved domains, segregated player funds, sufficient liquidity to pay winnings, customer identification policies, responsible gambling controls, and complaint procedures. The Curaçao Gaming Authority therefore treats its licence as one layer of regulation—not as permission to disregard local gambling laws abroad.

The central problem is the way the licence is understood by players. A visible seal can create the impression that the entire website, payment structure, and international operation have been approved. In reality, the operator, the exact domain, the target country, and the payment entity may each require separate scrutiny.

Qbet and 55Bet Trigger a Record Dutch Penalty

The strongest recent example concerns Novatech Solutions N.V., the Curaçao company identified as the operator of Qbet and 55Bet. On 10 March 2026, the Netherlands Gambling Authority imposed a €24.846 million fine after investigators found that people in the Netherlands could create accounts, deposit money, and gamble on both sites without a Dutch licence.

The amount was the largest penalty the authority had imposed on an illegal gambling provider. Novatech had already received a binding order in October 2024 requiring it to stop the unlicensed activity. That earlier order was not appealed and became final, while the company filed an objection against the later financial penalty.

The regulator also identified aggravating features. Visible age verification was absent during the investigation, while cryptocurrency and anonymous payment methods were available. The authority did not say that money laundering had been proven. It said those payment options, combined with weak controls, could facilitate money laundering and increased the seriousness of the breach.

The case then expanded beyond regulatory enforcement. In April 2026, state-owned Nederlandse Loterij launched civil proceedings against the businesses and directors behind Qbet. Its claim was designed to reach not only the direct operator but also trust offices, letterbox companies, facilitators, and directors connected to the network. The lottery described Qbet as the largest illegal gambling site operating in the Netherlands, an assessment made by the claimant rather than a separate court ruling.

Sweden Moves Against the Same Operator

One day after the Dutch fine was announced, the Swedish Gambling Authority prohibited Novatech from providing gambling in Sweden without a local licence. The 11 March 2026 decision identified five websites operated by the company: Qbet, MangaCasino, SlotExpress, 55Bet, and 30Bet.

Swedish investigators found that the Swedish country code was preselected when registration began from a Swedish IP address. The brands were also promoted through Swedish-language websites and Swedish-language content creators on video-streaming platforms. Swedish consumers were not prevented from registering and opening accounts.

Novatech was listed in the decision as licensed in Curaçao under OGL/2024/1790/1062. That licence did not alter the Swedish authority’s conclusion: because the operation was directed at Sweden, a Swedish licence was required. The prohibition took immediate effect on consumer-protection grounds.

Together, the Dutch and Swedish cases reveal a repeatable model. The same Curaçao company can operate several brands, use local-language marketing and affiliates to reach specific countries, and remain accessible until each national regulator conducts its own investigation.

A Casino Network Fronted by an Apparently Fictitious Executive

The most striking allegations emerged from a joint investigation by The Guardian and Investigate Europe into MyStake and a wider group of apparently connected brands, including Goldenbet, Velobet, and Rolletto. The sites were linked to Santeda International, a Curaçao company that did not hold the Gambling Commission licence required to serve customers in Great Britain.

At the centre of MyStake’s public image was a supposed executive named Andres Markou. He appeared in promotional material, interviews, award photographs, and images suggesting a meeting with Brazilian footballer Ronaldinho. The investigation concluded that the photographs were highly likely to have been generated or manipulated with artificial intelligence. A source close to Ronaldinho said the reported meeting had not taken place, while Markou’s name could not be found in corporate filings connected to Santeda.

The reporting did not produce a court judgment declaring Markou fictitious. The evidence nevertheless raised an obvious accountability problem: a customer-facing casino brand appeared to use a non-verifiable executive persona while the real corporate relationships extended across Curaçao, Cyprus, Malta, Switzerland, Germany, and Georgia.

The same investigation found that at least eight apparently connected casino brands attracted an average of 2.3 million monthly unique visitors from the UK between November 2025 and January 2026. Accessibility alone does not prove deliberate targeting, but the brands’ prominence on UK-focused affiliate pages became a central part of the case.

Self-Excluded Players Become a Commercial Audience

The British controversy is not limited to corporate opacity. MyStake, Goldenbet, and related brands appeared prominently on affiliate websites advertising casinos that were “not on GamStop”. GamStop allows people to exclude themselves from gambling websites licensed in Great Britain. Licensed online operators are required to participate, but overseas sites without a British licence sit outside that shared barrier.

Affiliate pages can therefore convert a player-protection measure into an acquisition channel. A person searching for a way around self-exclusion is shown lists of offshore casinos and redirected in return for a fee or a share of revenue. Santeda denied targeting self-excluded gamblers and said safer gambling tools were available, but the visibility of its brands on these pages led politicians and campaigners to question who benefits most from the “not on GamStop” market.

The model is particularly important because it changes the player profile. These sites are not merely competing for ordinary customers seeking a different bonus or cryptocurrency option. They may also receive traffic from people who have already identified their own gambling as harmful and taken formal steps to stop.

Easy Deposits, Delayed Withdrawals, and KYC Questions

One player account included in the Guardian investigation illustrated another recurring concern. A British woman identified as Margaret said she deposited about £29,000 with Goldenbet after registering with GamStop. She reported winning £15,000 and withdrawing approximately £6,000 before the remaining withdrawal was delayed and additional identity documents were requested. She later gambled the balance and lost it.

This is an individual account, not proof of a standard practice across the whole network. It nevertheless highlights a question that matters to players: why can substantial deposits be accepted before identity checks become an obstacle at withdrawal?

KYC checks are not inherently suspicious. They are a central requirement for preventing fraud, money laundering, underage gambling, and the use of another person’s payment details. The risk emerges when verification is inconsistent, delayed until a customer requests winnings, or applied through unclear terms that allow the operator to hold funds for an extended period.

Mirror Domains and Corporate Layers Complicate Enforcement

The player normally sees a single brand. Regulators and courts may find a much more complicated structure behind it. A gambling network can involve several distinct entities:

• The licensed operator registered in Curaçao.
• One or more consumer brands operating through separate domains.
• Payment companies registered in another jurisdiction and displayed under unfamiliar merchant names.
• Software and platform providers that may supply the technical infrastructure without controlling the gambling business.
• Affiliate companies and content creators paid to direct customers toward the sites.
• Mirror or replacement domains used when a website is blocked, removed from search results, or placed under regulatory pressure.

This separation is not automatically improper. International gambling groups commonly use different companies for technology, payments, marketing, and licensing. The difficulty arises when those layers make it unclear who controls player funds, who is responsible for a disputed withdrawal, or which entity should comply with a national prohibition.

The Qbet lawsuit is significant for precisely that reason. Nederlandse Loterij is attempting to move beyond the visible website and pursue the companies and individuals alleged to facilitate its continued operation. Whether that approach succeeds will be important for other regulated markets facing offshore networks that can replace a domain more quickly than a regulator can complete an enforcement case.

Curaçao Prosecutors Identify KYC Failures at Home

The pressure has not come exclusively from foreign regulators. In July 2025, Curaçao’s Public Prosecutor’s Office announced settlements with 12 legal entities following a criminal investigation known as Operation Nebraska.

Investigators examined 17 gambling websites and found grounds to suspect that players had been allowed to open accounts and deposit funds without identity verification in situations where verification was legally required. Eleven entities paid a total of XCG 360,000. A twelfth settlement was cancelled after the company failed to pay, and prosecutors said that entity would be summoned to court.

The operators were not named. All accepted the settlement terms without admitting the facts or criminal liability. Those limitations prevent the case from being attached to any particular brand without further evidence.

Even with those qualifications, the investigation was a major development. Prosecutors described it as the first time Curaçao’s online gambling sector had been held accountable under the island’s client-identification legislation. It also confirmed that weak KYC was not merely an accusation made by foreign regulators or dissatisfied customers; it had become a domestic criminal-enforcement issue.

The New Curaçao System Raises the Formal Standard

Curaçao has begun replacing the old master-licence and sub-licence structure with direct supervision under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance, known as the LOK. The law took effect on 24 December 2024, while indefinite-term licence conditions became effective in December 2025.

The new framework addresses several weaknesses associated with the old system. Current requirements include:

• Verification of ultimate beneficial owners, directors, and other key people.
• Approval of the specific domains operated under the licence.
• Separate protection of player deposits and winnings.
• Policies covering KYC, AML, responsible gambling, complaints, and account closure.
• Compliance with the laws of every jurisdiction in which gambling is offered.
• A dynamic CGA seal linked to the authorised domain and its certificate.

These rules are materially stronger than the reputation associated with Curaçao’s previous sub-licensing model. They also make it easier to distinguish an approved domain from a copied logo or an outdated certificate. The CGA now states that old orange sub-licence seals are no longer valid and must not be displayed unless a licence has been formally issued.

Regulation on paper, however, is only the first stage. The credibility of the reform will depend on enforcement against operators that breach foreign-market rules, fail to protect player funds, conceal ownership, or use the Curaçao seal on unauthorised domains.

What the Cases Mean for Players

The recent scandals do not support the claim that every Curaçao-licensed casino or sportsbook is illegal. They show that the licence answers only part of the question. A player may still be using a website that lacks permission in their own country, sits outside a national self-exclusion system, or leaves disputes to be handled through a foreign company and court.

Four details now matter more than the licence logo alone:

• The exact legal operator and domain: the company named in the terms should match the current CGA certificate for that specific website.
• Local authorisation: a Curaçao licence does not replace the licence required in a regulated domestic market.
• Withdrawal and verification rules: the terms should explain when KYC can be requested, how long withdrawals may take, and when winnings can be withheld.
• The dispute route: players should be able to identify the complaint process, the alternative dispute-resolution provider, and the court or regulator with jurisdiction.

The Qbet case demonstrates how a Curaçao-licensed operator can face a record penalty, an immediate foreign prohibition, and civil proceedings within weeks. The Santeda investigation shows how a polished casino network can be fronted by an apparently fictitious executive while reaching millions of visitors through affiliates. Operation Nebraska shows that Curaçao itself has identified failures in basic customer verification.

The connecting issue is not the island’s licence by itself. It is the use of that licence as a broad promise of legality and security when the real operation may cross several countries, companies, payment routes, and marketing networks. For players, the decisive question is no longer whether a site displays a Curaçao seal, but what that seal actually covers—and who remains accountable when something goes wrong.