The licence fees that Curaçao's online casinos pay into the state treasury are paid in cryptocurrency, and routed — for some reason — through a payment account in the Czech Republic.
From there, the island's finance minister alleges, some of that money ends up with a Maltese consultancy.
He said so on live radio, called it "very serious," and asked prosecutors to open a case — into the way his own regulator moves money.
Curaçao's gambling reform has surfaced as a scandal more than once. Taken separately, each episode looks like a random glitch; taken together, it is not chance but a logical consequence of how the reform is built: the most ambitious overhaul in the island's regulatory history is stalling, and almost two years in, few people — the government included — would say plainly what it has turned into.
So the point here is not the money dispute itself, or where the money "goes." The point is to go back to Curaçao and look at an island that doesn't quite track what happens in one of the sectors of its own economy — in the middle of a reform meant, at last, to bring that sector under control. The details of the dispute are below; but they are only a symptom.
The reform has a name the entire industry uses: , the Landsverordening op de Kansspelen — the National Ordinance on Games of Chance. It came into force on 24 December 2024. It dismantled a licensing model that had made Curaçao one of the most influential — and most criticised — jurisdictions in online gambling, and replaced it with direct supervision by a new regulator, the ().
The intent was serious: for the first time, the island was taking on the regulation of an industry that had grown for years with almost no oversight.
Reality, as so often, did not match the plan. To understand the gap, you have to start not with the reform, but with the question of whose idea it was.
A Reform on Someone Else's Terms
Curaçao did not choose to reform its gambling sector. It was required to.
The island is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. When the pandemic hit, it needed liquidity support, and that support came from The Hague — with conditions attached.
In late 2020, the Netherlands made clear that further money depended on structural reforms, and one of them was specific: Curaçao had to take the licensing of online gambling out of the ministry's hands and give it to a separate regulator — independent in its operations, but accountable to a responsible ministry.
That condition was written into the — the "country package" of reforms the island accepted in exchange for Dutch financial support — under provisions requiring a system in which an independent supervisor could license operators and revoke the licences of those who broke the rules.
The Landspakket condition
There is a colonial grammar to this that runs underneath the whole story.
Curaçao became an autonomous country in 2010. The Netherlands nonetheless retained substantial influence over its finances — influence a pandemic made concrete.
So the island's flagship act of regulatory self-determination began not of its own will, but as a condition of financial help from The Hague.
That is the first layer of a pattern that repeats at every stage of this story: the thing Curaçao was reforming to control was, from the outset, not fully under its control.
What Was Torn Down, and What Was Built
To see what changed, you have to see what it replaced.
For years, Curaçao licensed online gambling through just four "master licence" holders authorised by the Ministry of Finance.
Those four issued sublicences to thousands of operators worldwide.
The arrangement was commercially successful and internationally notorious. Operators could obtain a sublicence quickly and cheaply, often with a mailbox and little more. Supervision existed largely on paper.
And here is the key distortion that explains much of what follows. Enormous sums pass through the sector (see box), yet only some 40 million guilders a year — around €20–25 million — reach Curaçao's treasury. The reason is the model itself: the state earned not from operators' turnover but from fixed licensing fees, so most of the money in the island's ecosystem simply never touched it. A sector vast in turnover and marginal in budget contribution, yet poisoning the island's relations both with international banks and with its former metropole, remained for decades a "poor relative" — too big to ignore, and too low-yielding to invest in actually seeing.
Vast turnover, invisible contribution
abolished that structure.
Under the new system, operators apply directly to the . They face stricter anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer obligations, revised responsible-gambling rules, and a demand for genuine operational substance on the island.
None of that is cosmetic, and it should not be described as if it were.
By industry estimates, roughly 38 percent of direct applications under the new regime have been rejected — a rate that signals real gatekeeping rather than a rubber stamp.
The reform also created a certified alternative-dispute-resolution channel for player complaints, and a fee structure that routes licensing revenue through government channels rather than private master-licence holders.
The old formula vs the new
But a reform is judged against its own goals, and here the results and the intentions have begun to diverge.
One stated goal was channelling — pulling operators into a regulated space. The stricter the licence became, the more operators did the opposite, migrating toward softer offshore jurisdictions such as , in the Comoros, which now markets itself precisely on lower compliance pressure.
Another goal was working supervision. Yet the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, in its mutual-evaluation report — adopted in May and published in July 2025, but based on an on-site visit in June 2024 — found that supervision of the online sector was not yet fully operational: few on-site inspections were carried out, and no administrative fines were issued over the period reviewed. That is an assessment of the state of affairs in 2024; the island's central bank says there has since been progress, but publishes no figures on inspections, investigations or sanctions.
So the honest answer to "is it going as planned?" is: partly. The licensing architecture is real. The supervisory architecture is not yet.
Which raises the question of who, exactly, built the machinery in between.
Who Holds the Machinery
The supervises through systems it did not build itself.
The online licensing portal that sits at the centre of the new regime — the backbone of applications and licence management — was built and is maintained by a private consultancy, , a Malta-registered firm associated with former chief . A separate team, the company says, keeps day-to-day operations running, and the software is to pass to the when the contract ends.
How that arrangement began is one of the open questions the island is now investigating.
The engagement started in 2022 — more than two years before entered into force. Opposition politician , who filed a lengthy criminal complaint over the sector's licensing in late 2024, has asked whether the work was ever put to public tender, who approved the contracts, and under what authority they were concluded. No evidence of a public tender has surfaced.
The characterisation of how entered the process is contested and belongs to those making it: by the account of the financial-intelligence outlet , it was then-finance-minister who introduced to the island as a "Maltese investor." rejects any suggestion of impropriety and defends the reform as legitimate.
Here it is worth being precise about what is established and what is alleged.
That the portal and systems were built by a private foreign contractor is not in dispute — the company states it plainly.
What is disputed is everything the current finance minister has layered on top: that payments to the firm ran through a "secret" account at a Czech payment provider, that operators were told to route crypto payments through it, and that money was "forwarded" to the consultancy. These are the minister's allegations, made publicly in early August 2026, and so far tested by neither an official investigation nor — still less — a court. The 's answer is that the account is a lawful, transparent de-risking measure, not a secret channel — a point taken up below.
Strip the allegations away, and a plainer fact remains underneath, and it is the one that matters for this story:
The regulator's core supervisory infrastructure — the portal, the systems, the licensee data — was designed, built and operated by a private company incorporated in another country.
A sovereign supervisor, running on infrastructure it does not own.
That is the second layer of the pattern.
Why It Is Stalling: The Objective and the Subjective
The reform is behind where its designers hoped it would be. The reasons fall into two distinct groups, and keeping them apart is the whole point.
The first group is objective — structural problems any small jurisdiction attempting this would face.
A regulator was stood up from nothing, and institutional capacity takes years, not months. International banks will not service online gambling, treating the sector as high-risk and worrying about their own correspondent relationships with US banks — which is why licence fees are collected through a foreign payment institution at all, a workaround born of necessity rather than, on its face, of design. And alongside the entire regime runs a separate law never touched — one the regulator has no power over.
That separate law is the island's insolvency regime, the , drafted when Curaçao was a colonial trading post and still applied to modern gambling companies today. It has become the operators' sharpest fear — and it is the subject of its own investigation, linked below. For the purposes of the reform, the point is narrow: it sits outside the 's jurisdiction, and modernised licensing without touching it.
The second group is subjective — but subtler than "the politicians couldn't share power." The administrative decisions themselves were, in fact, sound. Responsibility for the regulator was deliberately moved from Finance to Justice (from August 2025): the reform's focus was shifting from collecting money toward supervision and compliance — which sits closer to Justice. And when the finance minister, , responsible for the movement of public funds, later wanted to examine the payments, he went to the custodian ministry, Justice, as he should: the two of them co-signed the letter to the 's supervisory board demanding an investigation. Two signatures here are not a sign of discord, but an ordinary inter-ministerial procedure.
The failure is not in the decisions, but in what sits beneath them: the island has no transparent picture of its own sector. And that is a legacy of the model itself. As long as the state took fixed licensing fees from gambling rather than a share of turnover, it had no need to see what went on inside the sector — and the apparatus to see it was never built. It shows even in the island's budget, where gambling has no line of its own: licence income is dissolved into a general non-tax category.
Separately — a political blow not directly connected to this: the minister who built , , resigned in October 2025 over a dispute inside the Tax Office, and in 2026 he and his successor, members of the same governing party, fell into a public spat over the reform's finances. The reform lost both its architect and its momentum.
And from that follows a direct consequence. When there is no ready, transparent picture, the only way to get one is to launch an investigation.
The payments scandal takes its place in the story not as its subject, but as the sharpest symptom of that deficit. Whether anyone broke the law — an investigation will show; but something else is already visible, and it needs no verdict: to find out how much went where, the finance minister had to take the matter public and demand an inquiry — because through internal channels no ready answer was to be found. Had there been transparency, no inquiry would have been needed.
The dispute over the numbers confirms it: it goes unresolved not because anyone has proven anything, but because no one has the full picture. Below is the same story step by step, in dry chronology.
The RCL payments dispute
The Reform in a Global Frame
Curaçao is not reforming in a vacuum. Around the world, regulators are simultaneously rewriting the rules of the gambling industry — and that shift runs along two lines at once. The first is consequences: what happens to money lost across a border. The second is infrastructure: who builds and holds the machinery of supervision itself. On both lines, Curaçao turns out to be the one that controls the least.
One Loss, Three Regimes
The first line is clearest in what Europe has just done to a single legal question: if a player loses money on a site without a local licence, can they get it back?
For years the answer was mechanical, and identical across much of the continent: no licence meant a void contract, and a void contract meant a refund. On that assumption an entire loss-recovery industry was built.
Then the answers split apart.
One loss, three regimes
Three jurisdictions, three instruments — a court doctrine, a pending precedent, a licensing condition. The legal fate of the same loss now depends on where the player was sitting.
Curaçao sits in this picture too, but it reaches the operator through a different instrument again: not a court doctrine or a licensing bar, but the colonial insolvency law of 1931, which lets a disputed foreign claim become the basis for bankruptcy proceedings on the island. Where Europe reworks the consequences of a loss through public law, Curaçao's are still delivered by a statute older than the industry it now governs.
And the effect of that difference is migration. As onshore Europe tightens and Curaçao's own legal environment stays unpredictable, operators arbitrage toward jurisdictions where the pressure is lowest.
Supervision for Export
The second line is less visible and more forward-looking. Call it regulatory infrastructure as a service.
The systems that make modern gambling supervision work — the portal, the monitoring platform, the data integration — are increasingly built and operated not by states but by a small circle of private specialists, who then carry the same model across borders. Curaçao's portal was built by a private firm associated with . In 2026 a separate company, , which previously owned, won a 15-year contract to operate the gambling-monitoring system for Armenia — a role Armenia's own government describes as "operator of the regulation" of gambling activity; the firm performs a comparable function in neighbouring Georgia. and the Curaçao contractor are formally separate companies, and their representatives reject any link between them.
What connects the two is not a corporate structure but a person and a model: the same specialist, the same exportable role. Read outside the Curaçao dispute, that is the real signal — as jurisdictions tighten, they outsource regulatory capacity, and the capacity, once built, becomes exportable.
Three Futures
Where this ends is genuinely open. Three trajectories are visible, and Curaçao's own choices decide which one it walks into.
In the first, the reform matures. The stabilises, the systems and data pass into the regulator's own hands as the contract intends, and Curaçao becomes what the reform promised: a credible mid-tier jurisdiction with real supervision.
But maturation carries its own contradiction. The more genuinely operators anchor themselves on the island, the more exposed they become to the 1931 insolvency law the reform left untouched — the risk explored in our investigation into that colonial statute. Success in licensing deepens the exposure to it.
In the second, the reform hollows out. Migration continues, political instability persists, licensees and licence revenue fall, and the reform gradually loses the industry base it depends on.
In the third — the most structurally interesting — the form is nationalised but the substance is not. The holds the licence, the letterhead and the legal authority, while the systems, the data and the expertise remain in private hands and travel to the next jurisdiction that needs them. Curaçao would then operate a regulatory model it does not own.
This is not a verdict that the reform was a facade. It plainly was not — the master-licence system is gone, the gatekeeping is real, the revenue mechanism works. It is a narrower, harder question about ownership and control.
But sovereign supervision requires more than infrastructure of one's own. It requires knowledge of one's own — the ability, at any moment, to see what is happening in one's own sector, through one's own channels. This summer's scandal showed that the island lacks that knowledge as much as it lacks the infrastructure.
Can a jurisdiction build sovereign supervision on infrastructure it does not own and on knowledge it does not have — a reform whose origin was set abroad, whose machinery is privately owned, and whose consequences are written into a law from a colonial past?
The island is running that experiment now. It has not yet been told the result.
A colonial-era bankruptcy decree can strip Curacao of its online-casino operators — and no one fixes it, because no one has ever counted what the island would lose.
Read Investigation