WILLEMSTAD – Revelations that gambling licenses were granted despite unresolved questions about company ownership are likely to shift political attention toward not only the Curaçao Gaming Authority, but also the Ministry of Finance after the regulator said the phased implementation of the new system was a policy decision taken under the responsibility of the finance minister.
The disclosure appears in the Curaçao Gaming Authority’s response to questions from investigative journalism platform Follow the Money following its examination of confidential licensing documents.
The “Casino Secrets” investigation was conducted by FTM journalists David Davidson, Sjors Hofstede and Lukas Kotkamp, with reporting in Curaçao by Dick Drayer, in cooperation with cybersecurity researcher Lilith Wittmann and international media partners.
According to FTM, documents from the CGA showed that licenses were granted in cases where questions remained about the ownership and corporate structures of gambling companies.
The regulator did not dispute that finding in its response to FTM.
Instead, the CGA explained that Curaçao’s gambling industry was undergoing a transition following passage of the new legislation in 2024.
Crucially, the regulator said that “under the responsibility of the minister of finance,” a decision was made not to introduce all of the new requirements simultaneously.
Companies were instead given an opportunity to comply with the requirements step by step.
That statement is politically significant because it indicates that the approach criticized in the investigation cannot be viewed exclusively as an operational decision by the CGA.
According to the regulator’s own explanation, the phased implementation occurred under ministerial responsibility.
The CGA told FTM that its guiding principle during the transition was not to immediately refuse a license or terminate existing operations every time a question or uncertainty arose.
That approach is now being challenged by outside experts.
Marcel Pheijffer, professor of forensic accountancy at Nyenrode Business University, examined several licensing assessments for FTM and found that licenses had been issued despite important unanswered questions.
Pheijffer rejected the transition period as sufficient justification, arguing that regulators should resolve critical issues before acting rather than afterward.
The implications become more serious because some unanswered questions concerned the identity of ultimate beneficial owners.
FTM reports that regulators encountered cases in which the source of an owner’s wealth was unclear. In other cases, purported owners appeared to possess too little money to credibly explain their ownership of major gambling businesses.
Those circumstances can raise questions about whether the person listed on paper is the true beneficial owner.
Offshore-finance expert Jan van Koningsveld told FTM that Curaçao’s new legislation requires regulators, as far as possible, to establish the identities, existence and involvement of owners and decision-makers.
He warned that concealed ownership can create money-laundering risks and potentially allow organized crime to influence or own gambling companies.
The cases involving Stake and 1xBet demonstrate why the distinction matters.
FTM reports that CGA officials questioned whether the person declared as Stake’s owner was genuinely its sole owner after identifying major financial transactions involving individuals internationally known as the company's founders. Nevertheless, a license was granted.
In the 1xBet case, CGA assessors reportedly suspected the company had “multiple owners” and requested additional information about relationships with three Russians publicly associated with the company. According to FTM, the requested answers were not received before the license was granted in 2024.
These findings create several questions that now extend beyond the regulator.
What instructions did the Ministry of Finance give the CGA regarding the transition? Which requirements were allowed to be postponed? How long were operators given to comply? Were different standards applied to existing companies and new applicants? And what safeguards were established for cases in which questions concerned beneficial ownership, integrity or the origin of funds?
The document reviewed by Curaçao Chronicle does not provide answers to those questions, and it would be inappropriate to infer them from the leak.
But the CGA’s own response makes the political line of responsibility relevant.
Curaçao’s reform was designed to replace a system that had operated for almost 30 years with limited government supervision. Under the new regime, gambling companies are brought directly under state oversight.
The government therefore faces a different standard from the one that applied under the old master-license structure.
It can no longer argue that questionable licensing practices are principally the responsibility of private master-license holders.
The government is now the regulator.
And according to the Curaçao Gaming Authority itself, the decision to introduce the new requirements gradually was made under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
That makes the Ministry of Finance an unavoidable part of the accountability discussion now emerging from the Casino Secrets investigation.
Source: Follow the Money, “Curaçao’s secretive gambling industry exposed in leak,” by David Davidson, Sjors Hofstede and Lukas Kotkamp, with reporting in Curaçao by Dick Drayer. The investigation was conducted in coordination with Lilith Wittmann and media partners NRK, NDR, Jetzt and SVT.