Anjouan license: why the Kansspelautoriteit labels this license as fictitious and illegal

The Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) views casinos with an Anjouan license as illegal providers on the Dutch market. These licenses come from private parties without a recognized government mandate. They have no legal value within the Union of the Comoros or in the Netherlands. Players on these platforms are not listed in the CRUKS register, lack protection in payout conflicts, and run a higher risk of financial fraud. The Ksa therefore recommends only playing with providers holding a valid Dutch license.

The fictitious nature of the Anjouan license and OAFA

The warning from the Kansspelautoriteit about Anjouan license casinos is due to the lack of legal coverage for these offshore licenses. An Anjouan license is not granted by a sovereign state or a recognized regulator, but by a private organization under the name OAFA (Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority). This means that players are left without any form of protection when disputes arise. Because the Central Bank of the Comoros explicitly labels this setup as invalid, providers operating under such a fictitious license do so in a legal vacuum that is classified as illegal by international regulators.

ABC investigation: no real regulator on Anjouan

A thorough investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) shows that the so-called regulator on the island of Anjouan does not actually exist according to local authorities. The report reveals that the licenses are issued by a network linked to individuals in the United Kingdom and Canada, while officials on Anjouan itself deny being involved in this licensing process. These findings underline why the Anjouan license is classified as a fictitious license: there is no local administrative body taking responsibility for auditing fair play or payouts.

The ABC concludes that the system around Anjouan Gaming and the OAFA is completely separate from official state structures. Players who think they are protected by a government agency will find themselves deceived. The ‘regulator’ is a private setup without democratic legitimacy or enforcement powers. This makes any activity under this banner potentially illegal, as there is no valid national supervision.

Position of the Central Bank of the Comoros

The Central Bank of the Comoros has stated in clear terms that the OAFA is not a recognized government body and that the licenses it issues have no banking or legal value. In an official statement, it was confirmed that the activities of this entity, as well as those of affiliated companies such as Anjouan Corporate Services, are illegal within the legal system of the Union of the Comoros. This removes the foundation for the claim that an Anjouan license offers any form of financial security.

For Dutch players, this means that transactions to casinos with a fictitious license carry a high risk, as banks often block this jurisdiction due to a lack of AML compliance. The Central Bank of the Comoros does not recognize Anjouan Gaming as a regulator, which means there is no mechanism whatsoever to recover funds in the event of fraud. The license is merely a commercial product without a state guarantee.

The role of Anjouan Gaming and the 2005 law

Anjouan Gaming bases its right to issue licenses on the Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007, legislation dating back to 2005. This law was signed during a brief period of autonomous status for the island, but has lacked any constitutional basis since the re-integration into the Comoros. The Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 already delegated supervision to commercial parties abroad at the time, which further undermines the credibility of the Anjouan license.

Because this legislation is not recognized by the central government, the fictitious license remains a legally worthless document. Anjouan Gaming therefore operates outside the framework of the current legal structure of the Comoros, leading to the conclusion that their services are illegal from the perspective of the national legislator. For the player, there is therefore no regulated market, but an uncontrolled zone where the Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 merely serves as a marketing tool.

The position of the Kansspelautoriteit and Dutch legislation

The stance of the Kansspelautoriteit regarding Anjouan license casinos is unequivocal: a license from this jurisdiction offers no legal protection whatsoever in the Netherlands. Only providers with a Ksa license operate legally under the Remote Gambling Act. Casinos that exclusively refer to Anjouan illegally target Dutch players, fall outside the CRUKS system, and evade essential consumer supervision.

Is an Anjouan casino legal in the Netherlands?

No, a casino with only an Anjouan license is not allowed to actively target Dutch players. Under the Remote Gambling Act, offering online gambling without a specific Dutch license is a punishable offense. The Kansspelautoriteit states that foreign certificates, such as those from Curaçao or Anjouan, do not grant access to the Dutch market.

For players, this means they cannot make use of legal protection measures at these providers. For instance, these casinos are not connected to CRUKS, meaning self-exclusion is not guaranteed and deposit limits are often lacking. Although Anjouan Gaming applies internal rules for responsible gaming, these have not been externally audited by an independent government body such as the Ksa. Consequently, in the event of disputes regarding payouts, players have no right to mediation by the Dutch regulator.

Enforcement: blocks and fines for providers

Enforcement against illegal online gambling is intensively carried out by the Kansspelautoriteit in close cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Security. If an operator without a Ksa license nevertheless serves Dutch customers, the authority can take drastic measures.

A commonly used tool is the imposition of an incremental penalty payment. This financial sanction increases as long as the violation continues, which prompts operators to block Dutch IP addresses. In addition, the Ksa works with technical partners to make access more difficult: Internet providers: Providers are asked to block websites of illegal operators at the DNS level, making the site inaccessible to many users. Payment providers: Financial institutions and services such as iDEAL and Trustly refuse transactions to unlicensed casinos.

This combination of legal pressure and technical blocks makes it increasingly difficult for Anjouan casinos to remain active on the Dutch market in the long term.

The crucial role of CRUKS for legal providers

The Central Register for Exclusion from Gambling (CRUKS) is a fundamental part of Dutch player protection. Legal providers are required to check whether a player is listed in this register prior to registration. However, Anjouan casinos are not connected to this system.

This creates a dangerous situation for vulnerable players. Without a link to CRUKS, individuals who have registered for a gambling exclusion can still continue to play at these offshore providers, undermining the effectiveness of their self-exclusion. The Kansspelautoriteit emphasizes that playing at non-affiliated casinos means bypassing an important safety net. Therefore, connection to CRUKS is an absolute requirement for a safe gaming environment—something an Anjouan license cannot guarantee.

Concrete risks for Dutch players

The warning from the Kansspelautoriteit is based on the lack of legal enforceability for Dutch consumers. Players at these providers fall outside the protection of the Remote Gambling Act, meaning that payouts are not guaranteed and disputes cannot be settled through Dutch courts.

Lack of consumer protection and right to complain

When an Anjouan casino refuses to pay out, players are powerless. Unlike legal providers, these platforms are not affiliated with the Online Gambling Disputes Committee (Geschillencommissie Online Kansspelen). The Consumentenbond therefore strongly advises against participating on such sites, as there is no independent body to mediate in conflicts. Complaints are often handled by private parties paid by the licensor itself, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

Furthermore, the Terms and Conditions of these operators are often vague or one-sided. Tests show that key restrictions, such as maximum monthly withdrawal limits, are sometimes only visible after registration. A white-label operator can change these terms without prior notice, leaving players unexpectedly faced with high administrative fees or delayed verifications that serve as an excuse for non-payment. The Advertising Code Committee (Reclamecode Commissie) has no jurisdiction over these foreign entities, allowing misleading advertisements to go unpunished.

Risks of money laundering and freezing of funds

Transactions with Anjouan casinos carry serious financial risks. Because these platforms often operate without strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) protocols, Dutch banks flag transactions to these entities as high-risk. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) regularly warns against illegal financial services where consumer accounts may be frozen due to suspicion of money laundering.

The Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) actively investigates structures where offshore casinos are used for laundering criminal funds. Players risk not only losing their gaming balance but also having their own bank account blocked by their financial institution. This happens because payment service providers reject gambling companies without a recognized license, resulting in declined deposits and stuck withdrawals. In cases where large sums of money flow through these channels, individual accounts may be temporarily blocked for further investigation by the FIOD, leading to significant personal inconvenience and administrative burdens for the individual concerned.

Missing safeguards against gambling addiction

Anjouan licenses do not offer adequate protection against gambling addiction. These casinos are not connected to Cruks (Central Register for Exclusion from Gambling), meaning that players who have self-excluded in the Netherlands can still access these platforms. Although some sites claim to offer deposit limits, these are not externally audited and are often easy to bypass.

Research shows that responsible gaming is merely a marketing term for these operators, lacking the mandatory frameworks imposed by the Ksa. There are no mandatory affordability checks or real-time monitoring systems that flag problematic gaming behavior. For players struggling with gambling addiction, an Anjouan casino does not offer a safety net, but rather an uncontrolled environment where losses can quickly escalate without the intervention of support agencies.

Help and support for gambling problems

For players who notice that their gambling behavior is becoming problematic, or who have fallen victim to fraudulent practices by illegal providers, professional help is available. In the Netherlands, Loket Kansspel is the central hub for free, independent advice and support.

Loket Kansspel and professional guidance

They can help restore control over gaming behavior and advise on the steps that can be taken if one has ended up at an illegal provider. Because Anjouan casinos do not comply with the Dutch duty of care, seeking external help is often necessary to limit damage.

Additionally, general practitioners can refer patients to specialized addiction care. It is important to realize that playing at unlicensed casinos raises the threshold for receiving help, as these platforms do not share data with healthcare organizations. By choosing legal providers or contacting Loket Kansspel directly, players can make use of an integrated care system designed to prevent and treat gambling addiction.

How do you recognize an illegal Anjouan casino?

A warning from the Kansspelautoriteit is based on the lack of legal enforceability and supervision. Players can recognize these platforms by the absence of Dutch payment methods like iDEAL, the use of obscure hosting locations, and the explicit mention of a registration with Anjouan Gaming instead of a recognized license from the Ksa or the Malta Gaming Authority.

Differences from recognized licenses like Malta and Curaçao

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) acts as a strict European regulator that obliges operators to maintain transparency, fair play, and solid player protection within the EU. Unlike the MGA, an Anjouan license offers no guarantee whatsoever; it is merely a private registration without a government mandate. Even Curaçao, historically a popular offshore jurisdiction, has recently tightened its regulations to improve integrity and distance itself from less reliable alternatives. While Curaçao is now striving for more credibility, Anjouan remains a legal vacuum where hardly any rules apply and no internationally recognized supervision exists. For a player, this means that in the event of payout issues, there is no body to intervene, whereas recourse does exist with the MGA.

Technical signals: DNS, IP, and payment methods

Technical forensic analysis often reveals the true nature of these operators. A check of the Domain Name System (DNS) frequently shows that domains are registered via privacy-protecting services in offshore jurisdictions, which actively sabotages transparency. Additionally, the server location often differs; an IP block by Dutch providers or banks can occur because the IP address does not originate from the EU, but from high-risk regions. A direct red flag is the absence of local payment options. Legal providers integrate Trustly and iDEAL for secure, direct bank transfers in accordance with Dutch legislation. Anjouan casinos do not offer these methods due to a lack of AML compliance (Anti-Money Laundering), causing transactions to be flagged as high-risk by Dutch financial institutions. The reliance on cryptocurrencies and e-wallets without KYC procedures is a typical characteristic of these shadow platforms.

Examples of operators that switched to Anjouan

Major names have consciously chosen this weaker jurisdiction after experiencing issues elsewhere. Pinnacle moved its operations to Anjouan after previously operating under the stricter regulations of Curaçao. This shift illustrates how operators seek more lenient regulations when compliance pressure increases. BC.GAME also made the switch to Anjouan, a move that followed after the gambling company faced licensing issues in Curaçao. These cases show that an Anjouan license is often used by entities that lost their license elsewhere or are under pressure, and therefore have something to hide. Players must realize that with such operators, despite their popularity, financial security is not guaranteed by an independent regulator.

About This Article - Editorial Standards

This article on "gambling authority warning anjouan license casinos" was written by Sarah Weber and factually reviewed by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content for changes in regulation, licensing and bonus terms. All references to licences, regulators and statutes link to public sources (the local gambling regulator, the applicable local gambling statute).

About the Author

8+ years reviewing casinos, 200+ personally tested platforms across the EU and globally. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialty: wagering requirements, withdrawal workflows, customer-support evaluation.

About the Reviewer

12+ years in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed operators across multiple regulated markets. PhD in Economic Mathematics. Focus areas: bonus mathematics, wagering analysis, and player-protection systems.

Responsible Gambling

Gambling can be addictive. If you feel you are losing control of your play, please reach out to the relevant problem-gambling helpline or use the national self-exclusion register (the relevant national self-exclusion register). Set personal deposit and loss limits BEFORE you play with real money. Operator pauses and cooldown tools exist to keep play sustainable.

Legal Notice

The information in this article is provided for editorial and comparison purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Players are responsible for compliance with local regulations.