WILLEMSTAD – The ongoing debate surrounding Maltese consultant Mario Galea and Random Consulting Limited has raised new questions about who was responsible for carrying out and controlling key supervisory activities in Curaçao’s online gaming sector during the transition to the new regulatory system.
The discussion began after Minister of Finance Charles Cooper stated that approximately ANG 8.3 million per year had been allocated for work performed by Galea’s company. Random Consulting has disputed that figure and stated that it received approximately €3.4 million in total since 2022 for supporting the modernization of Curaçao’s online gaming framework.
The company has said it assisted with the implementation of the new gaming legislation, licensing processes, compliance, supervision and enforcement-related activities.
However, the company’s statements do not clarify exactly which tasks it performed, under what mandate those activities took place, or what specific results were delivered in exchange for the payments.
The key question is whether Random Consulting provided technical and organizational support to the regulator or whether any public supervisory responsibilities were effectively carried out by a private company.
Legal distinction
That distinction is important from a legal perspective. During the legislative process for the Landsverordening op de Kansspelen (LOK), the Council of Advice warned that transferring supervisory and enforcement powers to a private entity requires a clear legal basis.
A private company may assist the Curaçao Gaming Authority with expertise, technology or administrative support. However, public authority functions cannot simply be transferred without legal authorization.
This raises several unanswered questions: Who assessed license applications? Who decided which companies required inspections? Who investigated possible violations? Who advised or decided on enforcement measures?
It is also unclear how the government monitored the performance of the external party involved in helping establish the new supervisory system.
The CFATF findings provide additional context because, at the time of the assessment, the supervisory framework for online gaming was still being developed.
Need for transparency
The intensified cooperation between the CBCS, CGA and FIU may address some of the weaknesses identified by the CFATF. However, the Central Bank’s announcement does not provide measurable results from that cooperation.
No figures were provided regarding the number of inspections, investigations, suspicious transactions, fines or other enforcement actions.
As a result, the debate has shifted from whether institutions are cooperating to whether the supervisory system can demonstrate that it is functioning effectively.
To answer that question, greater transparency is needed regarding contracts, mandates, payment flows, responsibilities, inspections and enforcement decisions.
The central issue remains: during the period when Curaçao’s formal gaming supervision was still being developed, who was actually performing supervisory tasks, who had decision-making authority and who ensured that the process was lawful and effective?