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 at these platforms are not registered in the CRUKS register, lack protection in payout disputes, and run a higher risk of financial fraud. The Ksa therefore recommends only playing at providers with 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 with such a fictitious license operate 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 any involvement in this licensing. These findings underscore why the Anjouan license is classified as a fictitious license: there is no local administrative body that takes responsibility for monitoring fair play or payouts.

The ABC concludes that the system surrounding Anjouan Gaming and the OAFA is completely separate from the official state structures. Players who think they are protected by a government agency will be disappointed. 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 body, as well as those of affiliated companies such as Anjouan Corporate Services, are illegal within the legal order of the Union of the Comoros. This removes the foundation of 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, meaning there is no mechanism whatsoever to recover funds in the event of fraud. The license is purely 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 of the island, but since its reintegration into the Comoros, it lacks any constitutional basis. The Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 already delegated supervision to commercial parties abroad at the time, which further detracts from 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 question of a regulated market, but rather 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-licensed 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 solely 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 may not 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 with these providers. For instance, these casinos are not connected to CRUKS, which means 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 agency such as the Ksa. Players therefore have no right to mediation by the Dutch regulator in the event of disputes over payouts.

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 instrument 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 service provider: Providers are requested to block websites of illegal providers at the DNS level, making the site inaccessible to many users. Payment provider: 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 actively operating in the Dutch market in the long term.

The crucial role of CRUKS with legal providers

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

This creates a dangerous situation for vulnerable players. Without a link to CRUKS, individuals who have registered for a gambling block can still continue playing at these offshore providers, undermining the effectiveness of their self-exclusion. The Kansspelautoriteit emphasizes that playing at non-connected casinos means bypassing an important safety net. For a safe gaming environment, connection to CRUKS is therefore an absolute requirement, 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 have no connection to the Online Gambling Disputes Committee. The Dutch Consumers' Association (Consumentenbond) therefore urgently advises refraining from participating on such sites, because there is no independent body that mediates in disputes. Complaints are often handled by private parties paid by the licensor itself, which creates an inherent conflict of interest.

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

Risks of money laundering and freezing of assets

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

The Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) actively investigates schemes where offshore casinos are used for laundering criminal money. Players risk not only losing their playing funds, but also the blocking of their own payment account by their banking institution. This happens because payment service providers refuse gambling companies without a recognized license, leading to declined deposits and stalled withdrawals. In cases where large sums of money flow through these channels, individual accounts can 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 (Centraal Register Uitsluiting Kansspelen), meaning that players who have excluded themselves 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 with these operators is merely a marketing term, lacking the mandatory frameworks that the Ksa does impose. There are no mandatory affordability checks or real-time monitoring systems that detect problematic play behavior. For players struggling with gambling addiction, an Anjouan casino does not offer a safety net, but rather an uncontrolled environment in which losses escalate quickly without intervention from 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 point 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 when one has ended up at an illegal provider. Because Anjouan casinos do not comply with the Dutch duty of care, calling in external help is often necessary to limit damage.

In addition, general practitioners can refer to specialized addiction care. It is important to realize that playing at unlicensed casinos raises the barrier to seeking help, because these platforms do not share data with care institutions. By choosing legal providers or contacting Loket Kansspel directly, players can make use of an integrated care system set up 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 such as 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 Malta Gaming Authority.

Differences with recognized licenses such as Malta and Curaçao

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) acts as a strict European regulator that requires operators to ensure 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 now strives 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 problems, there is no body that can intervene, whereas with the MGA there is indeed recourse.

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 through privacy-protected services in offshore jurisdictions, which sabotages transparency. In addition, the server location often differs. An IP block by Dutch providers or banks can occur because the IP address does not come from the EU, but from high-risk regions. A direct red flag is the lack 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 the lack of AML (Anti-Money Laundering) compliance, causing transactions to be marked as high-risk by Dutch financial institutions. The reliance on cryptocurrencies and e-wallets without KYC procedures is a typical feature of these shadow platforms.

Examples of operators that switched to Anjouan

Big names have deliberately chosen this weaker jurisdiction after issues elsewhere. Pinnacle moved its operations to Anjouan, after previously operating under the stricter regulations of Curaçao. This shift illustrates how operators look for more flexible regulations when compliance pressure increases. BC.GAME also made the move to Anjouan, a transition 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 safety is not guaranteed by an independent regulator.

About this article - Editorial guidelines

This article about "gambling authority warning anjouan license casinos" was written by Sarah Weber and fact-checked by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content based on changes in regulations, licenses, and bonus terms. All references to licenses, regulators, and legislation link to public sources (the local gambling regulator, the applicable local gambling law).

About the author

8+ years of experience reviewing casinos, 200+ personally tested platforms within the EU and worldwide. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialization: wagering requirements, payout processes, and customer service evaluation.

About the reviewer

More than 12 years of experience in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed providers in 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 like you are losing control of your gaming, please contact the relevant gambling support helpline or use the national exclusion register (the relevant national exclusion register). Set personal deposit and loss limits BEFORE playing with real money. Breaks and cool-down features from the operator are there to keep gaming responsible.

Legal notice

De informatie in dit artikel wordt uitsluitend verstrekt voor redactionele en vergelijkingsdoeleinden en vormt geen juridisch advies. Spelers zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor het naleven van de lokale regelgeving.