Skip to content
Beste Crypto Casino's

Written and checked by Marnix OosterhuisEditor

The Anjouan licence and the country list that does not match it

Three operators in the overview carry a licence from the Anjouan Gaming Board. The standard terms of that licence name the Netherlands as a prohibited jurisdiction. Their own country lists do not. Both stand that way in the sources.

De reiger-registerhouder van dichtbij, de figuur van deze site

What the operators put on paper themselves: the name they trade under, the licence they cite, the cap that applies to a withdrawal and the amount above which they ask for documents. Behind every figure stands the clause it comes from. An empty field means the operator publishes nothing about it or that we could not read it — it is not a zero and not an ‘unlimited’. None of the ten appears in the licence register of the Kansspelautoriteit, the Dutch gambling regulator.

Vaveour partner
Operating company
TechOptions Group B.V.
Licence
Curaçao no number
Withdrawal cap
from 50.000 USDT in instalments art. 8.8
Documents from
case by case
Bitcasino.io
Operating company
Moon Technologies B.V.
Licence
Curaçao Gaming Authority
Withdrawal cap
1.000.000 USDT per week art. 6.10
Documents from
2.500 EUR
Empire.io
Operating company
Pixel Entertainment Limited
Licence
Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
2.000 USDT
Bitsler
Operating company
Oyine N.V.
Licence
Curaçao Gaming Authority
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
not published
Cloudbet
Operating company
Halcyon Super Holdings B.V.
Licence
Curaçao Gaming Authority
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
not published
CoinCasino
Operating company
Igloo Ventures SRL
Licence
Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
Withdrawal cap
500.000 EUR per month art. 9.6
Documents from
not published
Rakebit
Operating company
Nile King Media Ltd
Licence
Anjouan Gaming Board licence excludes NL
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
not published
Primedice
Operating company
Antillephone
Licence
Government of Curaçao
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
not published
Stake
Operating company
Medium Rare N.V.
Licence
Curaçao Gaming Authority
Withdrawal cap
not published
Documents from
not published
BetPlays
Operating company
not published
Licence
not published
Withdrawal cap
5.000 EUR per week art. 6.11
Documents from
not published

Three numbers that look alike

Empire.io, CoinCasino and Rakebit all three cite a licence from the Anjouan Gaming Board. The numbers are ALSI-132405042-FI3 for Empire.io, ALSI-142311005-FI2 for CoinCasino and ALSI-202602030-FI2 for Rakebit. For all three the status is recorded as valid, and for all three we found the number through that body's public licence register.

The companies behind them differ: Pixel Entertainment Limited at Empire.io, Igloo Ventures SRL at CoinCasino and Nile King Media Ltd at Rakebit. Rakebit is the youngest of the three; our data records 2024 as its starting year. For the other two no starting year is recorded, and here that means what it means everywhere on this site: not read, not zero.

So far this is a dull inventory. The reason these three have a page of their own is below.

The contradiction

The standard terms attached to an Anjouan licence name the Netherlands as a prohibited jurisdiction. That is to say: the licensor does not permit the licence holder to offer its service to players in the Netherlands.

At the same time the own country lists of Empire.io, CoinCasino and Rakebit do not name the Netherlands among the countries they exclude. In the sources we have read from these three, the Netherlands therefore does not appear on their list of restrictions.

Both facts come from the documents and not from an interpretation. They are moreover about different things: the first about what the licence holder is allowed to do by its licensor, the second about who the operator accepts in practice. Formally, then, they do not contradict each other the way two figures would. Practically they contradict each other very much indeed, and the player sits precisely in the middle.

This site does not decide who is right. We put the two side by side, and in the table the licence column of these three therefore carries a note. Anyone who points at it sees the explanation.

Why that difference costs money

Suppose a payout does not come through and the operator itself is not answering. The next step is then the licensor: the body that issued the licence and that can say something about it. That is the whole reason a licence number is useful — it points to an address.

For these three operators that address is the Anjouan Gaming Board. And that is the body whose standard terms say the player should not have been there. What a complaint is worth in that situation, this site does not know, because this site has not filed that complaint and does not invent the answer. What is certain is that a complaint to a body that designates the complainant's country as a prohibited jurisdiction starts from a different position than a complaint that does not have that problem.

That is no cause for panic and it is not a prediction either. It is a fact you want to have before a deposit, and not after.

What else these three publish

The licence is not the only thing that differs. Of the three, one names a cap on withdrawals that we were able to read: CoinCasino names half a million euros per month in article 9.6. At Empire.io and Rakebit there is nothing in that field — which means we have not read it.

With document checks it runs the other way. Empire.io is the only one of the three that names an amount: article 5.4 states a limit of 2,000 USDT. That is a threshold, and a threshold is something you can lay next to practice afterwards. CoinCasino describes instead an assessment at its own discretion, in articles 5.2 and 9.3. At Rakebit we did find such a discretion clause but could not establish a clause number, and then that field stays empty rather than our inventing a number to go with it.

A difference in direction: in our data CoinCasino has no sportsbook, Empire.io and Rakebit do. Rakebit additionally names fifteen coins, among them BTC, ETH, SOL, LTC, USDT and USDC. For Empire.io and CoinCasino no number of coins is recorded. That, too, is an empty field and not a zero.

What is not in this field

There is also a column that stays empty for these three, and that emptiness means here what it means everywhere on this site: not read.

We were unable to establish a payout period for any of the three — not in days, not in hours, not in minutes. So nowhere does it say that Empire.io, CoinCasino or Rakebit would be fast or slow. Anyone who comes across such figures elsewhere might do well to ask where they come from: from a clause with a clause number, from an actual payout with a date alongside it, or from an earlier comparison site that also had it from hearsay.

The same applies to the starting year and to the question of which law the agreement is judged under. Rakebit has 2024 recorded as its starting year; for Empire.io and CoinCasino there is nothing. About the choice of law in their terms this site makes no statement, because we have not read that clause for all three. What can be said about that question is set out under the applicable law.

Compare the paper, not the flag

A great deal of energy goes online into the question of which offshore licence is "better": Curaçao or Anjouan. That question is largely unanswerable and usually not the question you ought to be asking either.

The useful question is narrower. Is there a number? Does that number appear in the register of the body that issues the licence, or only on the operator's own page? And does the licence itself say anything about your country? For these three operators the answer to the first two questions is yes, and to the third question: yes, and the answer is not to your liking.

For the four operators with a Curaçao OGL number the third question lies differently; what is known about their paper is set out under the Curaçao licence. And for the two operators without any number at all there is nothing whatsoever to say about licence conditions; that is set out under without a licence number.

What holds for all ten, whichever flag is on the paper: none of them appears in the licence register of the Kansspelautoriteit, and none of them therefore falls under the Dutch obligations towards players.

Voorwaarden van Primedice met de vergunningsvermelding in het openingsartikel
Het openingsartikel noemt Slicemedia B.V., hoofdkantoor Fransche Bloemweg 4 op Curaçao, en beroept zich op „gaming license 8048/JAZ issued to Antillephone". De vergunning staat er dus op naam van Antillephone, niet op naam van Primedice zelf.
Exploitatiecertificaat van de Curaçao Gaming Authority voor stake.com
Stake.com wordt volgens het register geëxploiteerd door Medium Rare N.V., nummer 145353, onder vergunning OGL/2024/1451/0918, verleend op 09-06-2025, status „Active".