WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance of Curaçao has ordered the removal of multi-million euro asset seizures imposed in a dispute involving claims against online casinos, ruling that the underlying claims were insufficiently substantiated.
The case centers on a long-running conflict between former business partners involved in pursuing legal claims against online gambling operators on behalf of players seeking refunds.
According to the ruling, the parties had collaborated since 2014. One party was responsible for bringing in clients and handling administrative preparation, while the other — a Curaçao attorney — managed the legal proceedings.
The profits were allegedly to be shared equally, although the court noted that the arrangements were never formally documented in writing.
In 2019, the parties also established a foundation intended to hold and manage player claims. However, the ruling states that payments and revenues frequently flowed through private and company bank accounts because the foundation reportedly lacked its own bank account.
The court found that the relationship gradually deteriorated due to disagreements over the quality of files, methods used to approach clients and disputes over proceeds linked to a bitcoin-related claim.
In 2021, the attorney decided to stop placing all new cases within the joint arrangement. His former associate later argued that this violated what he claimed were exclusive agreements between the parties.
The former partner subsequently launched legal proceedings in March 2026, claiming entitlement to millions of euros in lost profits. The lawsuit referenced amounts ranging from €4 million to more than €8 million.
As part of the case, conservatory seizures were placed on bank accounts, third-party trust accounts, real estate holdings and accounts connected to the attorney’s law office and the foundation involved.
The court ultimately concluded that the claims appeared “unlikely” and therefore did not justify maintaining the seizures.
According to the ruling, there was insufficient evidence proving the existence of an exclusive partnership agreement. The court also pointed to earlier communications indicating that both parties had conducted activities outside the alleged cooperation arrangement.
In addition, the judge provisionally ruled that the attorney was permitted to terminate the collaboration because no agreements existed regarding duration, exclusivity or termination conditions.
The court further stated that the multi-million euro damages claim lacked adequate substantiation, noting that it remained unclear how the claimed amounts had been calculated.
The judge also rejected arguments that the attorney had unlawfully continued using a protected “business idea” related to casino claims. According to the ruling, the attorney simply continued practicing law for clients who approached him independently.
The court ordered that the asset seizures be lifted within two days, subject to financial penalties if not complied with. A separate request seeking access to financial administration and payment records was also denied because a separate substantive lawsuit on those issues is already pending.