Two registers, four countries
Nine documents name a country for the company. In three it is not the country that issued the licence
An offshore gaming licence is a statement about a company, made in one country, checkable in that country's register. Reading the ten sets of documents on this site produced four countries in the chain — the authority, the company, the payment agent and, twice, the court — and India is not among them, because in India there is no register in which the fourth kind of entry could exist.
What would an Indian licence have to be?
Start with the thing that does not exist, because everything else on this page is measured against it.
A licence, in the sense this site uses the word, is an entry in a register kept by the authority that issued it, containing a number, the name of the company that holds it and a status. That is the whole of it. When the number can be looked up and the name matches, a claim has been checked; when it cannot, nothing has been checked.
India has no such register for this category. The Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025 places online money gaming among the prohibited activities, and a prohibited category is not accompanied by a list of approved holders. The structure of the Act — its three categories, its scope and its penalties — is set out on what the law says.
So the difference between an offshore licence and an Indian one is not a difference of strictness. One is an entry that can be opened; the other is an entry that has nowhere to sit.
What is an offshore licence a statement about?
About a company, on a date, in one country's records.
Six of the ten operators here carry Curacao numbers and four carry Anjouan ones; the numbers themselves, the two registers and the row that needed a second reading are on what a licence number proves. What that page does not do is follow the company past the register entry, and that is where the rest of this article goes.
A register entry names a company. It does not name a brand, and this is the single most useful thing to know about the category. Across the wider library of a hundred operators read for this network, 68 publish a licence number, but those 68 numbers reduce to 53 distinct strings: nine numbers carry 24 brands between them. One Anjouan registration, ALSI-202508056-FI2, appears under five separate trading names. Five brands in that library hold numbers whose register status is recorded as revoked, and three of those five share a single number.
The brand is the sign over the door. The number belongs to whoever rents the building.
How many countries appear in one operator's documents?
Nine of the ten state where the company itself is registered. In seven of those nine it is the same country as the authority that issued the licence: Rocketpot, Bitcasino.io, Metaspins, Shuffle and Wild.io are Curacao companies with Curacao licences; Empire.io and Rainbet are Anjouan companies with Anjouan licences. For Wild.io and Metaspins the company jurisdiction is written on the certificate rather than on the site — the Curacao entries record Nonce Gaming B.V. as a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao with company number 161858, and Metaspins N.V. as one with company number 160102.
In the other two it is not the same country, and both name the same place.
Wild Fortune's terms state that the site is owned and operated by Metlait SRL, a company registered under the laws of Costa Rica with registration number 3-102-911867 and an address in Cartago — while its gaming licence, ALSI-202509073-FI2, is an Anjouan entry. DuckDice names Zentari Limitada, registration number 9845000OAF4456CVB467, registered in San José, Costa Rica, against an Anjouan licence.
Then a third country appears, and it is the one that touches the money. Bitcasino.io's documents name a payment agent, mProcessing Solutions Ltd, at Menandrou 4, Nicosia, Cyprus, registration number HE 373261. DuckDice names its payment agent as Defraya Ltd, Strovolos, Nicosia, Cyprus, registration number HE 408759.
One brand, one authority, one company jurisdiction and one payment jurisdiction, and no requirement anywhere that the four be the same.
Which court is named, and by whom?
This is the shortest section on the page, because there is almost nothing to report.
Of the nine documents we could read, two name the law that governs the agreement. Metaspins states that any agreement and any relationship under its terms is governed by the laws of Costa Rica only, and that any dispute is referred to the Courts of Costa Rica. Shuffle states that its terms are governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of Curacao.
Seven name none that we could find.
Metaspins is worth reading twice. Its certificate records a Curacao company, Metaspins N.V., company number 160102; its terms name Costa Rican law and the Courts of Costa Rica. The authority that could act on a licence complaint and the court named in the contract sit in two different countries, and that arrangement is written down by the operator itself.
Which company a player is actually contracting with, and why the brand name is the wrong answer, is on who the company is.
Why does the number on the site differ from the number in the register?
At two of the ten, it does.
Wild Fortune prints 0000064, which matches the format of neither register, while the Anjouan public register carries ALSI-202509073-FI2 against Metlait SRL.
Two more sites sit outside that count, and the reason is worth setting out. Wild.io's own pages print ALSI-202504044-FI2, and the Anjouan public register carries that number against Stack Gaming Ltd., valid from 21 April 2025 to 20 April 2027. The Curacao register holds a second entry for the same site: OGL/2024/210/0198, granted on 14 April 2025 to Nonce Gaming B.V., company number 161858, status active. Metaspins has the same shape: its pages print ALSI-202606048-FI2, which the Anjouan register carries against 3-102-959384 SRL, valid from 30 June 2026 to 29 June 2027, while the Curacao certificate reads OGL/2024/1063/0437, granted 4 October 2024 to Metaspins N.V., company number 160102, status active. Two registers, two companies, one site, and both numbers are found where they should be — which is a different case from a number that appears nowhere.
The second of the two is the most instructive. Bitcasino.io's help pages give OGL/2023/111/0069, which is the number we verified. Its AML policy, which carries its own date of 24 November 2022, gives “Gaming License Number: 1668/JAZ” and names the supervisory body as the Curacao Gaming Control Board rather than the Curacao Gaming Authority.
That string, 1668/JAZ, is not unique to Bitcasino.io. It is also the number Rocketpot's terms print for Danneskjold Ventures B.V., where it is introduced as a registration number rather than a licence number. Two unrelated brands, two unrelated companies, one string, in documents read on the same day.
None of that is presented here as wrongdoing. Old documents keep old numbers, and a policy page updated in 2022 is a policy page updated in 2022. It is presented as the reason the rule on this site is what it is: the register decides, and what the site prints about itself is a separate reading with its own date.
What does none of this settle?
The count of countries, the count of mismatched numbers and the two named courts describe how these companies are arranged. They say nothing about India, and they are not capable of saying anything about India.
A Curacao certificate is issued under the law of Curacao. An Anjouan entry is issued under the law of Anjouan. Neither authority holds a register in which an Indian entry could be created, and neither is asked to. The Act of 2025 is a separate document, read separately, and set out on its own page.
Nor does an operator's own restricted-country list help here. India appears in none of the nine lists we read, and that absence belongs to those commercial documents alone — the point is worked through on restricted countries.
What was read is recorded with its number and its date; what was not read is recorded as not read. That rule, and its declared limits, are on how we read the terms.