There is a Future Play Ltd registered in the UK. Companies House has a "D T Merry" as the only active company representative" Look them up if you like, very easy with Google. I can't be 100% sure it is the same company though. Perhaps @mulven knows.
Unfortunately all I know is that the company registered in the UK is unrelated and installs playgrounds.
They seem to be a single standalone site and aren't on the anjouan register and also have no tangible relation to any GCB applicant or Anjouan licence holder that I can see. I sometimes search specific sections of terms and conditions to find related sites that don't share the same company however they seem to have pulled their terms pages from dama sites and possibly elsewhere (24casino.net was what I checked, pretty much identical for most parts).
Casino Guru is not a curated list of casinos.
Casino Guru should not be used to find good sites.
Even when the site is actually a good one, the reviews are prone to being astroturfed and the index ratings can be inconsistent and arbitrary (an objectively really good site having a 7.9 whilst a pretty decent site has a 9.5-9.8 based on who knows what or probably a good affiliate relationship). The main thing I look at when using CG is the complaints section as you can see quickly what kind of precedent there is.
Their approach is to get every possible site they can find listed with information and an affiliate link set up. It's only use to me is whilst researching as it can give a quick indication of whether a site is really bad. They'll argue that listing every site allows the player to see which ones are bad and which are good and whilst there is some merit to that approach (and it has saved me plenty of time whilst doing research), it does still provide a path to arriving on these sites especially if the user is not paying attention. I think they only prevent clickthrough if the rating is REALLY bad (like below 3.0 or something).
The biggest weakness of the "everything" approach is unknown/new sites just get a "fresh" rating that is usually 5.5-7.5 based on a few variables as there are no reviews/complaints. I really don't think an unlicenced site should be getting a rating that high as it should be a very large demerit. The base rating should be more like 3.5 if there is no licence! That's the case here. Fresh site, no reviews, no complaints. To the average joe it looks "okay" based on the rating.
When I did my Anjouan Register sweep, a lot of sites were not on CG or any platform but many sites were still found there. Most of these had no reviews, no complaints, no discussion and as a result a middling rating. Other than the CG page these sites often had absolutely no footprint and could be just as bad as this scam site with the only difference being these ones have a crappy stamp licence.
When there are no complaints and no reviews, consensus and precedent cannot be seen and a medium rating combined with a blue colour do not encourage the player to exercise caution.
There is an active discussion tab and reviews/complaints are starting to appear so the rating - which is updated weekly - will start to drop, although it should never have started out that high. CG often put a bright red "this casino has no licence" warning so its very neglectful to not have had one on this site.