Curaçao’s regulator and its failure to act!

Regulatory oversight in Curaçao’s online gambling sector has long been under scrutiny. The establishment of the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK) was presented as a turning point, designed to bring transparency, reliability and international credibility. Yet the latest additions to the Authority’s website, including a new enforcement register and a reinstated whitelist, raise uncomfortable questions. Instead of providing reassurance, the evidence reveals structural weaknesses and communication failures that call into doubt whether the CGA can fulfil its mandate.

The enforcement register and its late arrival

Only in mid-September 2025 did the CGA quietly publish an “Enforcement Register” on its website. There was no public announcement, no LinkedIn update and no notice in the dedicated “Public Warnings” or news sections of the CGA website. The absence of communication undermines the very purpose of an enforcement tool: to alert players, suppliers and payment providers when a licensee has been suspended or revoked. Unlike regulators in Sweden or the Netherlands, the CGA provides little explanation of its actions and no proactive warnings to stakeholders.

For what the CGA and Aideen Shortt have time!

Shortly after publication of the NEXT.io article by Zak Thomas-Akoo on 12 September 2025, commentary from Aideen Shortt suggested that the report was inaccurate. The claim was that the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) had not deleted names from its licensing records but had instead introduced a separate “Enforcement Register” alongside the main licence register.

While correct in noting the new register, this intervention once again highlights the lack of clarity in CGA communications. A regulator that communicates primarily through reactive corrections, rather than clear and proactive public announcements, leaves room for precisely the kind of misunderstanding that arose here.

Certificates without substance

Another newly introduced section is the certificate register, listing two recognised testing laboratories: Quinel Limited and BMM Spain Testlabs. Both entities are internationally accredited but have no operational presence in Curaçao (like now suggested for the license holders). Their inclusion underscores a recurring pattern. Rather than developing a local compliance infrastructure, the CGA continues to outsource core regulatory functions without transparency about selection, oversight or reporting obligations.

Suspensions   and   revocations   after    companies   were dissolved

The most striking issue lies in the CGA enforcement data itself. Several companies had their licences suspended or revoked months after being formally dissolved at the Curaçao Commercial Registry.

• BetByte V. – Revoked 12 September 2025; struck off 16 April 2025.
• QG Bet V. – Revoked 12 September 2025; struck off 11 April 2025.
• Green Run V. – Revoked 12 September 2025; dissolved 7 January 2025.
• Silkwave Tech V. – Revoked 27 June 2025; dissolved 21 March 2025.

These cases show delays of five to eight months between corporate dissolution and regulatory enforcement. A functioning supervisory framework would include automated checks with the company registry to prevent such anomalies. Instead, operators technically ceased to exist long before the CGA acted, leaving a gap where websites continued trading under the appearance of legitimacy.

Live platforms despite suspension

The case of AstroBet N.V. is emblematic. Its licence was suspended on 27 June 2025, yet its site, xsino.io, still displayed a valid-looking green seal linked to an official certification page. As of 16 September 2025, the certificate described the company as “under review.” To any player or supplier, this suggests the platform remains approved. The absence of clear and timely updates risks misleading consumers and partners.

Similarly, NGX N.V. was suspended on 27 June 2025, but its website remained live well into today’s check, promoting its “all-in-one platform” and listing partnerships with major Brazilian federations. If those federations were unaware of the suspension, it illustrates the practical consequence of the CGA’s silence: third parties continue to associate with operators that are no longer compliant.

A pattern of delayed oversight

These delays cannot be dismissed as isolated. They indicate systemic flaws in how the CGA monitors corporate and licensing data. By comparison, European regulators typically issue immediate notices when a licence is suspended or revoked, often including press releases and database updates. Curaçao’s enforcement appears reactive, slow and disconnected from other government systems.

The existence of a “Public Warnings” page on the CGA website makes the silence even more notable. The infrastructure for communication is there but not used. Without transparent enforcement, players, suppliers and financial institutions are left exposed.

The consequences for industry stakeholders

The lack of clear enforcement carries significant risks.

• Players may continue depositing funds with operators that no longer have legal
• Suppliers and software providers may inadvertently support unlicensed
• Payment processors could face liability for facilitating transactions to suspended or dissolved companies.

These are not abstract concerns. In regulated markets, financial institutions rely on regulatory lists to conduct due diligence. If Curaçao’s enforcement register is incomplete or out of sync, it undermines compliance checks worldwide.

Problems beyond Curaçaos borders

Curaçao has positioned itself as an international licensing hub. The CGA has sought recognition by presenting itself at conferences and engaging with consultants such as Aideen Shortt. Yet credibility depends on robust enforcement. International observers, from European regulators to financial crime bodies, evaluate not only whether licences are issued but how failures are managed.

If companies can operate for months after dissolution without public warnings, Curaçao risks being seen as a jurisdiction where regulatory standards exist only on paper.

The communication gap and Aideen Shortt’s role

In earlier reporting, attention was drawn to the role of Aideen Shortt, who has advised the CGA and acted as a communications link between the Authority and external stakeholders.

Yet the very absence of communication on enforcement decisions undermines that role. Stakeholders have repeatedly noted that updates appear sporadically, often only after external pressure or media coverage.

For someone tasked with improving Curaçao’s reputation, the lack of visible communication around enforcement suggests either limited influence or misplaced priorities. Transparency is not served by private briefings to industry figures while the public remains uninformed.

Lessons from other regulators

Comparisons are instructive. The Swedish Spelinspektionen and the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit publish detailed, real-time updates when licences are suspended or revoked. They issue public warnings, name unlicensed operators and actively work with providers to restrict access. These practices protect consumers and reinforce the authority of the regulator.

The CGA, by contrast, maintains a static news page with outdated content. Without consistent updates, the Enforcement Register becomes a passive PDF archive rather than a preventive tool.

Broader context of Curaçao’s reform

The introduction of the LOK was meant to replace the outdated master licence system. The CGA was presented as a new authority capable of meeting international standards. Yet the evidence from the Enforcement Register shows continuity rather than change. Delayed actions, absent communication and reliance on external consultants mirror the weaknesses of the old regime.

For Curaçao to achieve recognition, reforms must go beyond publishing registers. They require proactive supervision, timely enforcement and transparent reporting.

Aideen Shortt and the question of accountability

The ongoing involvement of Aideen Shortt highlights the blurred line between consultancy and regulatory responsibility. As a communications advisor, she is associated with the CGA’s external image. Yet repeated failures in public communication raise questions about accountability. Is the lack of updates a deliberate policy, a resource constraint or simply mismanagement? Without clarity, stakeholders are left to speculate. What is clear is that communication is not aligned with international best practice.

Final reflections

The publication of an Enforcement Register was a necessary step, but its execution exposes more flaws than strengths. Revoking licences of dissolved companies months too late, failing to update seals in real time and neglecting to issue public warnings all point to an enforcement framework that is neither efficient nor transparent.

For a regulator tasked with safeguarding integrity, this is not merely an administrative oversight. It is a structural weakness that undermines trust across the global gambling industry. Unless addressed, Curaçao will continue to face criticism, not just from journalists and consultants, but from international regulators and financial watchdogs whose cooperation it increasingly depends upon.

FAQs

What is the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA)?
The CGA is the regulatory body created under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK) to oversee Curaçao’s online gambling sector.

Why was the Enforcement Register introduced?
The Enforcement Register was created to list suspended or revoked licences, but its late and poorly communicated launch has raised concerns.

What communication issues has the CGA faced?
The CGA rarely issues public updates or warnings, instead relying on quiet website updates, leaving stakeholders uninformed.

Why are suspended operators still active online?
Delayed updates and weak enforcement allow suspended operators to continue displaying valid-looking seals and maintain live websites.

How do European regulators handle enforcement differently?
Regulators in Sweden and the Netherlands issue immediate public warnings, press releases, and detailed notices to ensure transparency.

Why is the CGA’s reliance on external labs criticized?
Although accredited, the listed labs have no local presence, highlighting Curaçao’s continued outsourcing of compliance without transparency.

What risks do enforcement delays create?
Players, suppliers, and payment providers may unknowingly engage with non-compliant operators, exposing them to financial and legal risks.

What role does Aideen Shortt play in this controversy?
Aideen Shortt advises the CGA on communications, but critics argue that enforcement failures show a lack of transparency under her involvement.

How does this affect Curaçao’s global reputation?
Weak enforcement undermines Curaçao’s credibility with international regulators, financial institutions, and the wider gambling industry.

What reforms are needed to improve the CGA?
Curaçao must adopt proactive supervision, real-time updates, and transparent communication to align with international regulatory standards.