In brief. "Offshore licence" is not one thing. There are perhaps a dozen jurisdictions issuing gambling licences to operators serving international customers, and they vary widely in supervision, complaint handling and consumer protection. This chapter walks through the ones a British player is most likely to see on an offshore casino's footer.
§ 02.1 · Curaçao
Curaçao (CGB / CGA)
By volume, the single largest source of offshore online-casino licences worldwide. The system operated for two decades on a master/sub-licence model: four "master" licensees sub-licensed hundreds of operators, with the ultimate regulatory relationship being with the master rather than with Curaçao itself. Player complaints under this model were, frankly, dismal.
In September 2024, the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK) came into force. Direct licensing by the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) replaced the master/sub structure. New applicants must demonstrate substance in Curaçao, submit to enhanced AML and player-protection standards, and are subject to CGA supervision including a complaints portal. Existing sub-licensed operators have a transition window to migrate.
The reform is real and, in our view, positive. It is also gradual. As of late 2026, the practical experience of a British player complaining against a Curaçao-licensed site remains slow and outcome-uncertain, though there is more of a route than there was.
§ 02.2 · Anjouan
Anjouan (Union of the Comoros)
Anjouan is one of the three islands of the Comoros. Its Offshore Gaming Board has issued gambling licences since 2005 but only became prominent in the online-casino market from around 2023 as newer operators — particularly crypto-first brands — moved to it. The licence is quick to obtain and inexpensive. Ongoing supervision is minimal, and there is no meaningful player-side complaint route.
The prevalence of Anjouan-licensed sites in the current UK-facing offshore market is high. British players seeing an Anjouan licence should understand they are at the far end of the regulator-support spectrum: for practical purposes, disputes are between the player and the operator directly.
§ 02.3 · Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Not a gambling licence in the usual sense. Costa Rica issues a general "data processing" registration to companies operating online, and gambling operators headquartered there rely on this rather than any gambling-specific authorisation. There is no gambling regulator in Costa Rica. A "Costa Rica licensed" claim on an offshore casino should be read as "Costa Rica registered" — the company exists there, and that is the end of the regulatory relationship.
§ 02.4 · Kahnawake
Kahnawake (Mohawk Territory, Canada)
One of the longer-standing offshore online gambling licensors, active since the late 1990s. Fewer licensees, generally more established brands, and a comparatively strong complaint-handling reputation via the Kahnawake Gaming Commission's own dispute process. Not perfect — the commission ultimately relies on the operator's cooperation — but materially better than Curaçao or Anjouan in the average case.
§ 02.5 · Malta and the Isle of Man
Malta and the Isle of Man
Both are EU-standard (Malta) or EU-aligned (Isle of Man) regulators. Malta's MGA and the Isle of Man's Gambling Supervision Commission both operate serious licensing regimes with real supervision, complaint processes and enforcement track records. Operators licensed by either that also hold a UKGC licence are, by definition, UK-facing and integrated with GamStop. Those licensed by MGA or GSC that do not hold a UK licence are, strictly, not permitted to accept British customers under UK law — some do anyway, some do not.
§ 02.6 · The rest
Smaller and rarer licences
You may occasionally see: Gibraltar (all Gibraltar-licensed operators serving GB also require a UKGC licence, so a "Gibraltar-only" claim is unusual); Antigua and Barbuda; Alderney; Panama; and a handful of newer entrants. In each case the questions are the same: does the regulator operate a real complaints portal, has it published enforcement actions, and does it require operators to hold player funds segregated from operational funds?
§ 02.7 · A quick reference table
Regulator comparison at a glance
| Regulator | Complaints route | Practical effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| UK Gambling Commission | Approved ADR + Commission | Strong (but UKGC-only) |
| Malta Gaming Authority | Player Support Unit | Strong |
| Isle of Man GSC | Complaints portal | Strong |
| Kahnawake Gaming Commission | KGC dispute process | Moderate |
| Curaçao (CGA, post-2024) | CGA portal | Improving, still slow |
| Anjouan Offshore Gaming Board | Nominal only | Very weak |
| Costa Rica (registration) | None | None |
For how these routes interact with card-scheme chargebacks and other non-regulator options, see the disputes chapter. For how they connect to the KYC and source-of-funds requests you may encounter, see KYC and verification.
Frequently asked
Common questions from British readers
Yes, it is a real gambling licence — but from a jurisdiction whose supervisory and dispute-resolution standards are lighter than the UKGC's. The 2024 reform (moving from a master/sub-licence model to direct licensing by the Curaçao Gaming Authority) has genuinely raised the floor, but the practical effect on player disputes remains modest so far.
You can report it, and the Commission does keep a public list of enforcement actions and disruption work with payment providers. But it cannot handle your individual complaint against a non-licensee — its remit is over its own licensees. The offshore regulator's own complaints route is the only regulator-side option.
In our reading, the Malta Gaming Authority remains the strongest genuinely offshore-from-UK regulator, followed by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission and Kahnawake. Curaçao under the CGA reform is improving. Anjouan and Costa Rica are effectively no help to a player in dispute.