WILLEMSTAD – The Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS) is declining to disclose whether the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) and the Curaçao government received the necessary foreign-exchange authorization for overseas payment accounts used to collect gaming license fees, leaving a key question in the ongoing controversy unresolved.
The issue concerns accounts with Payment Execution in the Czech Republic and a payment arrangement that also allows gaming operators to make certain payments using USDT, a digital token linked to the U.S. dollar. According to information previously provided by the CGA, USDT payments are processed through Coin Gateway and immediately converted into euros, meaning the regulator says it does not hold cryptocurrency itself.
Whether those arrangements were properly authorized has become politically significant following allegations of irregularities surrounding payments in Curaçao's recently reformed online gaming sector.
Finance Minister Charles Cooper previously raised concerns about the Czech account and announced his intention to submit documentation to the Public Prosecutor's Office for possible investigation. Cooper has also questioned whether the government account was opened with the necessary authorization.
Former Finance Minister Javier Silvania has defended the financing structure, arguing that the CGA's supervisory income and money destined for the Treasury are separate payment streams.
The new information from the CBCS, however, does not establish that either politician's position is correct.
The Central Bank will neither confirm nor deny whether the CGA or the Curaçao government applied for or received a foreign-exchange license or exemption for the accounts.
It is also refusing to disclose whether transactions involving the payment arrangements were reported to the Bank or whether the accounts or payment routes have been subject to supervision, investigation or another form of regulatory review.
The CBCS bases its refusal on Article 27 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation of Curaçao and Sint Maarten, which imposes confidentiality requirements concerning information about individual residents and non-residents.
According to the Bank, those confidentiality obligations also cover individual government institutions, accounts, payment routes, service providers, licenses, exemptions, reporting obligations and supervisory measures.
The CBCS did provide an important general clarification.
The fact that a foreign payment service provider is licensed or supervised in another country does not automatically exempt a Curaçao entity using that provider from Curaçao's own foreign-exchange regulations.
Whether authorization is required must instead be determined under Curaçao law and depends on the specific structure of the account, payment route and services involved.
Under the 2024 foreign-exchange regulations, a Curaçao legal entity generally requires a foreign-exchange license to open and maintain a foreign bank account. The CGA is a Curaçao-based foundation operating as an autonomous administrative body under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance.
An important unanswered question is therefore exactly how the Payment Execution arrangement is legally structured.
It could involve an account or IBAN directly belonging to the CGA, but it could also involve a virtual account or an internal ledger within a larger account operated by the foreign payment provider. The CBCS has not disclosed how it legally classifies the arrangement.
The controversy is further complicated by the two separate components of Curaçao's online gaming license fees.
Under the new gaming legislation, an online operator pays €22,960 annually to the CGA to cover regulatory costs and another €24,490 destined for the Curaçao Treasury. The CGA is responsible for collecting its supervisory fees, while collection of the government's portion is legally assigned to the Tax Collector.
The law requires electronic payment but does not itself specify a Czech account, a particular foreign payment service provider or payment using USDT.
The CBCS response consequently leaves two different legal and administrative questions unresolved.
The first is whether the foreign accounts and payment routes complied with Curaçao's foreign-exchange rules. The second is whether the appropriate governmental and administrative authorization existed to open and operate the accounts and control money destined for the Treasury.
Even if the CBCS had issued a foreign-exchange license, that would not by itself demonstrate that the Council of Ministers or other competent authorities had approved opening an account on behalf of the Country of Curaçao.
There is nevertheless a way to provide greater public clarity.
Article 27 allows otherwise confidential information to be disclosed with the written consent of the party concerned. This means the CGA and the government could authorize the CBCS to confirm whether the foreign accounts and payment arrangements were reported, reviewed or approved.
Until either that authorization is given or the underlying licenses and government decisions are made public, there is no public evidence establishing whether the CBCS approved the payment structure — but neither does the Central Bank's silence establish that foreign-exchange rules were violated.
The unresolved issue is expected to be relevant to the independent investigation announced into the CGA's agreements and payment arrangements, particularly questions about who opened the accounts, who controlled them and which authorities approved their use.