Curacao’s Gaming Control Board (GCB) has issued a statement addressing recent allegations surrounding the island’s gaming licensing system and operator BC.GAME.
The statement comes amid growing scrutiny, highlighted by investigative reports on the controversial bankruptcy of BC.GAME and accusations of corruption within Curacao’s regulatory framework. While the GCB’s response provides clarity on some procedural matters, it leaves several key concerns unanswered, raising doubts about its effectiveness in restoring confidence in the jurisdiction’s gaming industry.
At the heart of the controversy is the claim that the GCB lacks the authority to issue licenses under the National Ordinance on Hazard Games (NOOGH). The GCB categorically refutes this, explaining that its mandate stems from a 2020 directive by Curacao’s Minister of Finance, later amended in 2023. The agency also clarifies that licenses issued under NOOGH are not “provisional,” but full licenses subject to strict conditions.
When the new regulatory framework, known as the National Ordinance for Games of Chance (LOK), comes into force, these licenses will transition into provisional status, allowing operators a one-year grace period to comply with updated requirements. This explanation seeks to dispel accusations of legal irregularities in the licensing process.
To address allegations of lax oversight, the GCB outlines its multi-phase licensing process, which includes due diligence checks, sanction screenings, business plan reviews, and website evaluations. Applicants can track their progress via an online portal designed to ensure transparency.
On the financial side, the GCB asserts that all fees are deposited into an official government account, countering claims of embezzlement. It also emphasizes that license approvals are contingent on receipt of these payments, leaving “no scope for mismanagement.”
These reassurances seem aimed at combating allegations of corruption raised in the criminal complaint filed by Curacao politician Dr. Luigi Faneyte. However, critics may argue that a procedural outline alone does little to address deeper concerns about the integrity of the system.
The GCB acknowledges that operators must comply with the legal requirements of all jurisdictions in which they operate. However, it points out that enforcement of foreign regulations lies with the authorities in those jurisdictions, not the GCB.
This stance sidesteps a major criticism from investigative reports, which highlighted Curacao-licensed operators allegedly targeting unregulated markets. The GCB’s reliance on foreign enforcement may be seen as deflecting responsibility for monitoring its licensees’ activities abroad.
On player disputes, the GCB states that under the forthcoming LOK framework, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) will become mandatory, ensuring greater independence in handling complaints. While this represents a step forward, it does not address the immediate concerns of affected players, such as those involved in the BC.GAME bankruptcy case.
The GCB’s statement briefly touches on the BC.GAME case, noting that the bankruptcy was declared due to a dispute over player payments. It describes the bankruptcy as administrative rather than insolvency-related and confirms that a trustee has been appointed to manage the situation. However, confidentiality obligations prevent the GCB from providing further details, leaving questions about the operator’s regulatory breaches and the GCB’s oversight role unanswered.
While the GCB’s statement attempts to address the accusations, it largely reiterates procedural details without delving into the systemic issues raised in investigative reports. Critics may find its responses overly technical and potentially lacking transparency, particularly regarding allegations of foreign interference, misuse of funds, and regulatory loopholes.
