8048/JAZ License? Can someone explain?

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
Looking at this thread I really wonder how this license is working.

8048/JAZ seems to be used by many casinos. However, it seems like they are numbered which means that for example EveryMatrix are using nr 41.

If you only google "8048/JAZ" you will see hundreds of casinos, all of those cannot be expired? :confused:

How are they working?
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Looking at this thread I really wonder how this license is working.

8048/JAZ seems to be used by many casinos. However, it seems like they are numbered which means that for example EveryMatrix are using nr 41.

If you only google "8048/JAZ" you will see hundreds of casinos, all of those cannot be expired? :confused:

How are they working?

I'm in the midst of trying to find this out. Some seem to be expired/suspended - some not.
 

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
Thats odd, seems like a bunch of netent casinos, but also some netnet/wm casinos, and then these enetpoker sites, which most of are really shady places to play.
There seem to be lot of different softwares with the same licence. Hopefully well get to the bottom of this.
 

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
I was reading somewhere that a company could purchase a 'master license' and then sell sub-licenses to others. Could that be the case with these?

EDIT: If you look here xxxhttp://ciga.an/ under members you'll see a couple of the entries have licensing services. I'm wondering if what they sell are sublicenses?
 

mattsgame

Meister Member
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Location
Out Of Town
I was reading somewhere that a company could purchase a 'master license' and then sell sub-licenses to others. Could that be the case with these?

EDIT: If you look here xxxhttp://ciga.an/ under members you'll see a couple of the entries have licensing services. I'm wondering if what they sell are sublicenses?

I think you are correct, I have bought this issue up before HERE Which was about Emu Casino as they were sharing the same license info as Grand Prive ( #5536 /JAZ) and I was told its under a 'master license' or to that effect.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I was reading somewhere that a company could purchase a 'master license' and then sell sub-licenses to others. Could that be the case with these?

EDIT: If you look here xxxhttp://ciga.an/ under members you'll see a couple of the entries have licensing services. I'm wondering if what they sell are sublicenses?

So how the HELL can the licensing authority actually "regulate" this type of structure.

To me, this is the "smoking gun" evidence that there was never the intention to "regulate" anything, just set up a structure where anyone could buy their way into some kind of credibility. Even worse, the licensing authority is so lazy that it allows this master license structure, which means the licensing authority no longer directly controls the operators experienced by the end user, and they are chosen and "vetted" by the master license holder.

This does not even seem to be a white label network, as the operators running off this master license have different softwares and numerous holding companies.

Hardly surprising therefore that operators can turn rogue right under the noses of the regulator and even the master license holder.

Effectively, there is no regulation, no different to the situation in Costa Rica where they get "permission to run an offshore company", rather than an actual "gambling license" with attendant rules and regulations designed to protect customers.

The ONE place where you SHOULD be able to check this out seems to have no record of this suite of operators running under this one license. This only comes to light by using Google and looking for casino websites quoting this license number. Run a Google search on the licensing site itself, and apparently NOONE has been issued with license 8048/JAZ (such a search SHOULD reveal ALL instances of this license in the same way that searching the term "casino" on this forum would bring up tens of thousands of results.

It seems the licensing authority themselves has gone to considerable lengths to cloak the "bigger picture", thus allowing operators to hide behind these questionable licensing arrangements whilst presenting false indications to players that attempt to check up by clicking on the seal on the website.
 

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
I followed the link Chayton provided and added the Master License Number of those I recognize.

Non-Operator Members

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antillephone NV 8048/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.e-commercepark.com
Services Offered: Hosting, Co-location, Data Center Mgmt., Office Rentals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cyberluck NV 1668/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.cyberluck.com
Services Offered: Licensing & Hosting


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e-Management N.V. 5536/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.emanagement-group.com
Services Offered: Company formation and management, legal, secretarial and accounting services

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also found this text on Viaden's page:

Curaçao offers two formats to be licensed:

a) Master licence;
b) Sub-licence.

A master licence licenses the e-gaming company itself, and in addition opens the possibility to sub-license third parties subject to the responsibility and covenants under the master licence.

A sub-licence - under a master licence - offers the same rights to run an e-gaming business legitimately, but without the possibility of further sub-licensing.
 

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
So how the HELL can the licensing authority actually "regulate" this type of structure.

:thumbsup: Exactly what I wondered. Supposedly whoever holds the Master license is responsible who they give or sell the sub licenses to and would be able to revoke them if someone wasn't behaving as they should. But who is the ultimate regulator?

It would be one thing if say Casino Rewards bought a master license and then did a sub license to all the casinos in their group. That makes sense because all the sub licensees are actually under their control. But to open a website selling subs to every Tom Dick and Harry seems like a very messy accident waiting to happen.

I don't KNOW that's what's happening, I'm just speculating. It seems like the only thing that would explain the multiple sites with the same license #
 

gpitileac

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
malta
Hi everone

The license you see , is from a Company who is offering White label sollution .

That's why you see different casino's with the same license , it means that the casino is from a White label solution . ( meaning they bought their own Casino Skin under the license of the providing company) .



Regards

Gabi
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I followed the link Chayton provided and added the Master License Number of those I recognize.

Non-Operator Members

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antillephone NV 8048/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.e-commercepark.com
Services Offered: Hosting, Co-location, Data Center Mgmt., Office Rentals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cyberluck NV 1668/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.cyberluck.com
Services Offered: Licensing & Hosting


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e-Management N.V. 5536/JAZ
Associated Sites: xxwww.emanagement-group.com
Services Offered: Company formation and management, legal, secretarial and accounting services

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also found this text on Viaden's page:

All very well, but what has this one got to with egaming:confused:

Services Offered: Hosting, Co-location, Data Center Mgmt., Office Rentals

How would the above company skillset translate into the RESPONSIBLE running of a gambling business?

It seems that these are not specifically egaming licenses, but "company" licenses that might be issued to any company, even those having nothing to do with egaming. It seems very much like the structure in Costa Rica where the same licenses can be used by both egaming and non egaming companies alike. This means that egaming is not specifically regulated as an activity, but rather it is the ability to run a company that is regulated, and companies are NOT run with the protection of the customer in mind, but to maximise the return to shareholders. Online gambling needs to be SPECIFICALLY regulated as an activity, and I can't see how this structure can achieve this. Here in the UK for example, each operating company is individually vetted and licensed, and because it is gambling, the policing goes even deeper, looking at the backgrounds of the key individuals within said gambling company, and they have to have what is effectively their own personal clearance to take part in the running of a gambling business. There is no way this additional level of scrutiny is possible under a master license and sub license arrangement.

It also seems that the sub licensees are not even subsidiaries of the master license holder, so the master license holder would have little control over the internal affairs of those it grants sub licenses to.

From the above list, it even appears that master license holders may simply be "mailbox" holders, not knowing much if anything about egaming themselves, and sell, rather than license (with accompanying due diligence), permissions to operate under their master license.
 

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
The license you see , is from a Company who is offering White label sollution .

That's why you see different casino's with the same license , it means that the casino is from a White label solution . ( meaning they bought their own Casino Skin under the license of the providing company) .



Regards

Gabi

In this case, it's not that simple. When it comes to a license in Curacao, a stand alone casino can have a sub license. For example, the stand alone accredited OMNI has a sub license:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


To compare: Your license (Malta), LGA/CL2/166/2003, is a license provided to a gaming solution where you operate on their license. Leo Jackpot are using the exact same license as Lucky Fox and SoftBet.

What is strange is that a White Label solution in Curacao can use a sub license, what control is it then from Curacao gaming? :confused:
 

gpitileac

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
malta
In this case, it's not that simple. When it comes to a license in Curacao, a stand alone casino can have a sub license. For example, the stand alone accredited OMNI has a sub license:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


To compare: Your license (Malta), LGA/CL2/166/2003, is a license provided to a gaming solution where you operate on their license. Leo Jackpot are using the exact same license as Lucky Fox and SoftBet.

What is strange is that a White Label solution in Curacao can use a sub license, what control is it then from Curacao gaming? :confused:

Just to clear out ,

Softbet is the company which these casinos are operating .

SoftBet is the company where i work , Softbet is a white laber solution provider , which means ( lucky fox casino , and many many many more casinos have theyr skin& license from , those casinos , are different companies , which they just contracted us SoftBet LTD , to provide them a Casino Skin White label solution ) .

LeoJackpot and CbmSport are the casino's of Softbet & Fen Play ( same company ) The license mentioned is Ours the company License and the other casino's are entitled to use that license based on a contract .


Our Company is Based in Malta , under the LGA authorities .



PS. If you have any other questions please let me know .

Regards


Gabi
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
How the regulator can effectively police these white labels under a single licence is beyond me....but then after the Purple Lounge and GRA threads my expectations on regulators are not that high I'm afraid.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Just to clear out ,

Softbet is the company which these casinos are operating .

SoftBet is the company where i work , Softbet is a white laber solution provider , which means ( lucky fox casino , and many many many more casinos have theyr skin& license from , those casinos , are different companies , which they just contracted us SoftBet LTD , to provide them a Casino Skin White label solution ) .

LeoJackpot and CbmSport are the casino's of Softbet & Fen Play ( same company ) The license mentioned is Ours the company License and the other casino's are entitled to use that license based on a contract .


Our Company is Based in Malta , under the LGA authorities .



PS. If you have any other questions please let me know .

Regards


Gabi

Perhaps you can clarify Jetset's question.

YOU (as in your company) are licensed by the LGA. You provide your white label solution under contract to third party companies, who are allowed to use YOUR license. What is REALLY hard to understand is how the LGA can police these other companies that use your license. Normally, in such a business arrangement, the policing is done by the parties involved, with the major party often wielding the most power. This model does not suit egaming as on top of policing a contract agreement, there is a need to regulate the relationship between the player and the company directly supplying them with the gambling service, including ensuring that player's funds are not stolen or misused as happened in the Purple Lounge case.

Should one of these third party companies operating under your license vanish with players' money, you can be sure that it is YOUR company that we will be collectively holding responsible, you being the actual holder of the license, which comes with a legal requirement to ring fence players' funds from operating funds. This puts quite a big responsibility on your company, a responsibility that SHOULD be bourn by the LGA, rather than a private company.
 

gpitileac

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
malta
Perhaps you can clarify Jetset's question.

YOU (as in your company) are licensed by the LGA. You provide your white label solution under contract to third party companies, who are allowed to use YOUR license. What is REALLY hard to understand is how the LGA can police these other companies that use your license. Normally, in such a business arrangement, the policing is done by the parties involved, with the major party often wielding the most power. This model does not suit egaming as on top of policing a contract agreement, there is a need to regulate the relationship between the player and the company directly supplying them with the gambling service, including ensuring that player's funds are not stolen or misused as happened in the Purple Lounge case.

Should one of these third party companies operating under your license vanish with players' money, you can be sure that it is YOUR company that we will be collectively holding responsible, you being the actual holder of the license, which comes with a legal requirement to ring fence players' funds from operating funds. This puts quite a big responsibility on your company, a responsibility that SHOULD be bourn by the LGA, rather than a private company.

It's more complicated than it looks :) . You could document about white label solution .

The company who is offering the white label solution , takes care of everything , support , Technical , deposits , withdrawals etc. Each Skin has a different bank account , where the money are ending up when a player makes a deposit on one of the skins . So , There is no way that the company who bought the casino skin can steal or misuse the funds , because the providing company of the skins takes care of the funds .

if it was a unsure thing , i think nobody would have trust this kind of business . Nobody can steal or misuse the funds if they have a white label solution .


I hope i brought a little light in these aspect .

Regards

Gabi
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
It's more complicated than it looks :) . You could document about white label solution .

The company who is offering the white label solution , takes care of everything , support , Technical , deposits , withdrawals etc. Each Skin has a different bank account , where the money are ending up when a player makes a deposit on one of the skins . So , There is no way that the company who bought the casino skin can steal or misuse the funds , because the providing company of the skins takes care of the funds .

if it was a unsure thing , i think nobody would have trust this kind of business . Nobody can steal or misuse the funds if they have a white label solution .


I hope i brought a little light in these aspect .

Regards

Gabi

This is the exception, not the rule.

Some time ago, Joyland Casino walked off with over 2 million dollars (Canadian) from a Playtech progressive payout. Another Playtech casino stole the ENTIRE amount of a network progressive payout. When Joyland was taken over by William Hill, they were pressured into investigating what the former owners had done with the money, but they could find nothing. It was stolen, then hidden from the accounts.

Both casinos had something in common. They were white label solutions from Paragon International Customer Care based in the Philippines. This company itself turns out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Playtech itself, a company listed in London (although at the time Paragon was still being run by one of the original founders and owners of Playtech, but with Playtech having options to buy up Paragon at a later date, which they did).

One would think this arrangement would guarantee players funds, but it didn't.

Rival have a similar white label structure, yet their skins continually go bust, often in a devious manner that leaves players having to guess what is going on.

In both these arrangements, when pressed, both Playtech and Rival claim they don't have the money, and refer players to the owners of the skins, who of course have vanished. Rival did once say that they would take care of players when skins went under, but in practice this has turned out to mean very little.

Now we have Betport, a skin vanishing from a white label network and taking players' money with them.


Now of course, your company has an LGA license, so this guarantees that players' funds are safe as this is a requirement for having one of their licenses. Players of your skins won't be going Purple with frustration when one of your skins goes under will they:rolleyes:


You can see that players do NOT trust the white label system any more than they trust many of these offshore regulators. What players want are solid operators that can stand up to the pressure on their own. White labels are seen as grossly underfunded operators who have to rely on being propped up by a white label solutions provider in order to prevent them from collapsing in the first week. Many of these solutions providers don't give a damn about the players, caring only for the revenue stream they can get from the skins.

Indeed, in a poker skin case, a dispute between the network provider and one of it's skins was resolved by the network putting the skin out of business, and it confiscating funds to cover it's own view of the contract agreement at the expense of players because it ended up leaving too little remaining to refund players' balances as the skin shut down. The PLAYERS should have been looked after first, and if the provider lost money, that was their fault for not spotting that they were getting shafted by the skin earlier.

One this IS now quite clear. Since your company controls the bank accounts that hold players' funds, it is your company that is responsible for players' balances should a skin go bust, and we won't forget that.
 

gpitileac

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
malta
This is the exception, not the rule.

Some time ago, Joyland Casino walked off with over 2 million dollars (Canadian) from a Playtech progressive payout. Another Playtech casino stole the ENTIRE amount of a network progressive payout. When Joyland was taken over by William Hill, they were pressured into investigating what the former owners had done with the money, but they could find nothing. It was stolen, then hidden from the accounts.

Both casinos had something in common. They were white label solutions from Paragon International Customer Care based in the Philippines. This company itself turns out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Playtech itself, a company listed in London (although at the time Paragon was still being run by one of the original founders and owners of Playtech, but with Playtech having options to buy up Paragon at a later date, which they did).

One would think this arrangement would guarantee players funds, but it didn't.

Rival have a similar white label structure, yet their skins continually go bust, often in a devious manner that leaves players having to guess what is going on.

In both these arrangements, when pressed, both Playtech and Rival claim they don't have the money, and refer players to the owners of the skins, who of course have vanished. Rival did once say that they would take care of players when skins went under, but in practice this has turned out to mean very little.

Now we have Betport, a skin vanishing from a white label network and taking players' money with them.


Now of course, your company has an LGA license, so this guarantees that players' funds are safe as this is a requirement for having one of their licenses. Players of your skins won't be going Purple with frustration when one of your skins goes under will they:rolleyes:


You can see that players do NOT trust the white label system any more than they trust many of these offshore regulators. What players want are solid operators that can stand up to the pressure on their own. White labels are seen as grossly underfunded operators who have to rely on being propped up by a white label solutions provider in order to prevent them from collapsing in the first week. Many of these solutions providers don't give a damn about the players, caring only for the revenue stream they can get from the skins.

Indeed, in a poker skin case, a dispute between the network provider and one of it's skins was resolved by the network putting the skin out of business, and it confiscating funds to cover it's own view of the contract agreement at the expense of players because it ended up leaving too little remaining to refund players' balances as the skin shut down. The PLAYERS should have been looked after first, and if the provider lost money, that was their fault for not spotting that they were getting shafted by the skin earlier.

One this IS now quite clear. Since your company controls the bank accounts that hold players' funds, it is your company that is responsible for players' balances should a skin go bust, and we won't forget that.



As we are a big company , casino operator , white label solution etc. I understand you , and as a player you can never have to many guarantees , you can never know what a casino or even a big operator has in mind .

LeoJackpot and Cbmspot where made on stable ground and for a long term . ( it's not advertise , players have the right to chose ) .

My idea was that i don't know every company's policy regarding offering white label solutions , but i know that in our case , the process is a little longer , you have to prove many things , you don't give white label solution to everyone . You must know a background of a company , a proven record of different stuffs . It's not that easy to receive a white label solution .

But Again , you can never know what will happen .

Regards
Gabi
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
The company who is offering the white label solution , takes care of everything , support , Technical , deposits , withdrawals etc. Each Skin has a different bank account , where the money are ending up when a player makes a deposit on one of the skins . So , There is no way that the company who bought the casino skin can steal or misuse the funds , because the providing company of the skins takes care of the funds .


Are you implying that white labels are a big joke? That they are owned by the software providers (directly or indirectly via 3rd parties)?

Careful here, some lawyers might send letters to Bryan requesting to delete the thread.
 

gpitileac

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
malta
Are you implying that white labels are a big joke? That they are owned by the software providers (directly or indirectly via 3rd parties)?

Careful here, some lawyers might send letters to Bryan requesting to delete the thread.

Where did i said that? Please show me and i will correct my self .

The quote copied by you , i forgot to mention that the support and other issues can be handled by the white label providing company only at the request of the beneficiary . My mistake

White label solutions are one of the good things on Igaming market , allowing players to have multiple casino choices , not being forced to play on the ones having the monopoly .


If you read carefully the posts/comments , you will see that there where some explanations to one of the questions .

White label casinos and the operators who are offering white label solutions are two different things , i didn't sayd that the software provider ownes them indirectly via 3rd parties . A company can get a white label solution , and at it's request can receive support or other things that they need , (only if they request that ) --i forgot to mention this in the previous post---. The providing company of the WL solution has no action on that casino , they do not own indirectly that casino skin . The casino skin is owned by the company that requested the white label solution .

I see that the thread is leading to different topics and the discussion is misunderstood by others , creating hypothesis and assuming the wrong things .



Ps. If my posts made are misunderstood and not clear , making people assume different things , Admins can please Delete my posts/thread .
I was just trying to clear up the issue raised by this threat regarding the licenses .


AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE , ALL THE INFO'S REGARDING HOW A WHITE LABEL SOLUTION WORKS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET , I DON'T THINK I AM ALLOWED TO POST A DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN HAVE AN EXAMPLE WHAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED WHEN YOU PURCHASE A WHITE LABEL SOLUTION .

The internet is free , the informations are there , feel free to use them :) .


Regards

Gabi
 

Temperance Fox

New Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Location
Nowhere
Clearness, first of all

I found this 3ead very very important.
If the casino knows everything about me (even eyes' colours or how much I pay of electricity,my IP number and so on), in many cases player doesn't know anything behind "the backstage" of the site.
And this could be a way to protect against the dishonesty always lurking where circulates money, expecially in on line gaming.
E.g I really love the UK Gambling Commission and their guide lines.

"If you have a complaint about the way a gambling business is being run or
about a gambling transaction, that is, disagree with an operator about
whether you won, or how much you have been paid, you should follow the
process below.

All licence holders must have a clear policy on dealing with complaints,
including disputes. This policy must include the process to follow in
raising a dispute and should be readily available to you in writing:



· Disputes can be expressed orally or in writing and may occur in
person, over the telephone, by letter, by email, or via online support.

· Complain, to the licence holder concerned providing as much
detail as possible. Ideally, you should keep a full record of the dispute.

· The licence holder should investigate the dispute, escalating as
necessary, following their internal complaints procedure and informing you
of the outcome.

· If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask the licence holder
to refer the dispute to their appointed independent third party for
investigation.


· The independent third party should then contact you in the course
of their investigation.

So that your dispute is handled as quickly as possible, you should always
follow the licence holder’s complaints procedure in the first instance."

But if a casino says the number license is confidential ??? Is it a sign of honesty, or the proof that something 's going wrong? And if it so, how much believeble could be that casino in other things? I mean, if I lie or hide big things, probably I do the same with others.Simply cause it's my way to be.

Apologize for my very poor english.
 

SoftSwiss

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Location
Minsk
Hi all, let us chip in our 0.02 BTC.

SoftSwiss is a provider of online casino software. Majority of our customers ask for Bitcoin casinos these days but a lot also want the regular money play as well. So we searched for jurisdictions with optimal cost and procedure and found Curacao.

Now their legislation was drafted quite a while ago and may be not fully on par with recent developments. However, the company providing sub-licenses of their 8048/JAZ Master License does take respectable effort to grant licenses only after thorough review procedure and due diligence. First of all, they require examination of software that casino will run on and certificate from test lab. Further, they require full information about the Ultimate Beneficiary Owner of the casino like police report, utility bill, bank statement et.c. before they agree to issue sub-license. After that, they require applicant to install a server at their collocation facility. This server has to be an integral part of the casino set up (typically containing player database) that Master licensor can plug off disabling casino operation. So they have the certain amount of control over their sub-licensees.

This CEO is very reputable among operators, in business since 1993 and holder of the Master License since 1996. There another Master Licensor company (easily found on the Internet) offering Curacao sub-licenses without even need to register a Curacao company. Apparently, they do not have any plug to pull in case operator starts behaving shady even if authorities inquire about their sub-licensee.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Hi all, let us chip in our 0.02 BTC.

SoftSwiss is a provider of online casino software. Majority of our customers ask for Bitcoin casinos these days but a lot also want the regular money play as well. So we searched for jurisdictions with optimal cost and procedure and found Curacao.

Now their legislation was drafted quite a while ago and may be not fully on par with recent developments. However, the company providing sub-licenses of their 8048/JAZ Master License does take respectable effort to grant licenses only after thorough review procedure and due diligence. First of all, they require examination of software that casino will run on and certificate from test lab. Further, they require full information about the Ultimate Beneficiary Owner of the casino like police report, utility bill, bank statement et.c. before they agree to issue sub-license. After that, they require applicant to install a server at their collocation facility. This server has to be an integral part of the casino set up (typically containing player database) that Master licensor can plug off disabling casino operation. So they have the certain amount of control over their sub-licensees.

This CEO is very reputable among operators, in business since 1993 and holder of the Master License since 1996. There another Master Licensor company (easily found on the Internet) offering Curacao sub-licenses without even need to register a Curacao company. Apparently, they do not have any plug to pull in case operator starts behaving shady even if authorities inquire about their sub-licensee.

This is the problem. This is kept secret from players. They have no means to verify that the master license holder has done any due diligence.

The fact that the authorities in Curacao even permit the latter company to operate shows that there is no policing of this setup by the authorities. It may be cheap for operators, but it offers next to zero protection to players.

There is no way for players to verify your statement that the holder of the master license 8048/JAZ is one of the "good guys" rather than a company like the latter example.

How exactly would a player go about pursuing a complaint against an operator using a sub license of the latter company in the above example?

What about operators like "Liberty Slots" who refuse to reveal where they are licensed, despite a common view among their affiliates who list their jurisdiction as "Netherlands Antiles", which merely seems to be Curacao under it's former status as a Dutch province. If it's true, it means that they are probably using a sub license of the latter type of company, who would be happy to turn a blind eye to their insistence that the license be kept secret, and given that they don't even need to form a Curacao company, would make pursuing a complaint virtually impossible.

So far, Liberty Slots do not have a record of screwing players, but the arrangement means that they could just vanish overnight with players' funds, and there would be nothing that could be done about it.

For players, there is no real difference between the arrangements at Curacao and playing at an unlicensed site.
 
Top