What a licence number proves and what it does not

Six Curacao, four Anjouan

Four entries of the Curacao Gaming Authority have their status recorded as active in the register. Bitcasino.io’s number is OGL/2023/111/0069. Metaspins is OGL/2024/1063/0437. Shuffle is OGL/2024/1337/0628. Wild.io is OGL/2024/210/0198. The format is easy to recognise: OGL, then the year, then two more numbers.

The fifth Curacao name is Rocketpot, and its number looks different — 1668/JAZ. This is the style of the older system, when licences were issued as sub-licences under a master licence. The number exists, so it is recorded in the table; but we did not read its current status in the register, so the status cell is blank. This is not a claim against it — it only says that we did not make that check.

The Anjouan Gaming Board has four entries, and all four are recorded as valid: Wild Fortune’s ALSI-202509073-FI2, DuckDice’s ALSI-202509013-FI1, Empire.io’s ALSI-132405042-FI3 and Rainbet’s ALSI-152406029-FI2. Here too the format is worth stating — ALSI, then digits, then FI and a digit — because any “Anjouan number” outside that format deserves suspicion at first glance.

The tenth name is Vave, and its row took two readings to fill. On 25 August 2026 its own pages stated a jurisdiction — Curacao — and carried no number anywhere, so the cell was written as “Curaçao, no number”. On 2 September 2026 the Curacao register was searched again, this time by domain rather than by brand, and the entry was there: OGL/2024/1676/0905, held by Latcas B.V., issued 19 May 2025, status active. That is the sixth Curacao number on this site and the fifth active entry. A row that took two readings carries both dates in crypto casinos in India and their licence rows.

That week is the whole subject of this page. An empty number cell never meant there was no licence — it meant the licence could not be looked up, and the second reading is what turned one into the other. Vave is also the paying partner of this site, the one name its earnings are tied to, and its row carried the worst licence cell in the table for a week because that is what the first reading produced. The correction runs in the partner’s favour, which is precisely why it is written out here with both dates rather than quietly overwritten.

Two registers, two different methods

On the Curacao side the check is made from the certificate page: every active licence has its own page, showing the operator’s name, the company and the status. That is why the word “active” could be written for five Curacao entries on this site — it was read from the page, not from the operator’s own site.

On the Anjouan side there is a public licence register in which entries are listed. The method is the same: the number the operator states is looked up in the register.

One thing is common to both places, and it should be written plainly. A name being in a register means only that the authority holds an entry. It is not proof of the quality of the service, not a guarantee that money will arrive, and no assurance of an outcome in any dispute. It is checkability alone — which is better than nothing, but nothing more than that.

An entry also names a company rather than a brand, and the two are not interchangeable. That is why the registered names behind these ten rows sit in a cell of their own instead of being folded into this one.

What this means in the Indian context

Now the point that puts this whole page in its place.

None of these licences authorises anything in India. A Curacao licence is issued under the law of Curacao and carries its meaning that far; an Anjouan licence under the law of Anjouan. In India, online money gaming is prohibited by the Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025, and that prohibition is not lifted by an entry in some foreign register.

So a licence number has one use on this site: checking whether what an operator says about itself is recorded somewhere outside. It is not the answer to “who is valid for India”, because that question cannot even be asked here — there is no Indian register in which the answer could sit. The full detail of this point is on what the law says.

The restricted-country list is a separate document

Alongside the licence there is another document that people often take to be part of it: the operator’s own list of restricted countries. We read that list for nine operators and found India named in none of them. Vave’s list we could not read.

This fact has to be kept in its place. That list is a commercial policy — the company decides which countries it does not want accounts from, usually on the basis of its licence conditions, its payment partners or its risk assessment. That list makes no statement about the law of India and cannot change it either. A company’s silence is not a permission.

One more thing, which shows up often in this category: the standard conditions of a licence and the operator’s own list are not always the same. They are two different documents, they change at different times, and sometimes what is written in one is not in the other. That is why they sit in two separate cells on this site, and are not merged into one.

What false claims look like

Since there is only one way to check, the shapes taken by claims that avoid checking are also few in number.

The commonest shape is the name of an authority with no number — a sentence like “licensed in Curacao” with no number beside it. The second shape is a number that does not match its format: new Curacao entries begin with OGL and Anjouan ones with ALSI, so any “number” that looks different from these is worth a look at first glance.

The third shape is the most misleading — a claim that names a system that does not exist at all. In the Indian context, the claim of an “Indian licence” is exactly that: it cannot be checked, not because the register is hard to reach, but because the register does not exist.

What we did not read

For the sake of transparency, it should also be written down what is not on this page — and, because a reading is only as good as the reader, who did it.

We did not read the renewal date of any licence. We did not look at whether any complaint against an operator is on file with an authority. We did not read Rocketpot’s current status. Vave’s licence number came from the Curacao register on 2 September 2026, not from the operator’s own pages, where it was still absent on 25 August; we hold no quotation from any document published under that number, and we did not read Vave’s country list either. The clauses of its terms that were read are recorded with their numbers on identity verification and withdrawal limits.

None of these absences is counted for or against any operator. What was read is recorded with its clause number; what was not read is recorded as “we did not read this”. The full detail of that rule is on how we read the terms.

A register entry is one of the few things a reader can check from outside, without an account. Which other checks are possible from outside and which are not is collected on is it safe.

What a licence of this kind records in the first place, and why three of the numbers printed on operators’ own sites differ from the register entry, is set out in an offshore licence against an Indian one.