M88 and the unfinished business of regulatory accountability!

A familiar name, a familiar pattern…

When we first examined Mansion’s M88 in our earlier article “M88 and the Fine Art of Regulatory Evasion”, the argument was simple but unsettling. A brand once highly visible through its sponsorship of leading European football clubs and once formally licensed in Gibraltar, had shifted to a new legal environment under Mountain Breeze Limited in Vanuatu. This was not a disappearance from the market but reappearance through a less transparent corporate and regulatory framework.

That earlier analysis raised a straightforward but important question: does surrendering a licence in Europe truly mark the end of oversight or does it simply create the appearance of withdrawal while business continues elsewhere? Two months on, the evidence suggests the latter. M88 has not retreated into obscurity. The site remains live, suppliers are still delivering content and the operators continue to attract players from markets where clear regulatory requirements apply. The more striking feature, however, is not the operator’s persistence but the absence of meaningful intervention from the regulators who claim to safeguard consumers.

From Gibraltar to Vanuatu

Mansion Group’s exit from Gibraltar might, to a casual observer, have looked like a strategic retreat from regulated jurisdictions. A more detailed reading suggests the opposite. What occurred was not the end of operations but rather their continuation under a different name and licence. Mountain Breeze Limited’s authorisation in Vanuatu, licence number IGL25/2013, provides a veneer of legality without providing meaningful consumer protections in Europe.

Vanuatu’s regulatory framework is administratively straightforward, but it is not designed to protect European players. It has limited reach, no practical enforcement in foreign markets and very little transparency when compared with EU regulators. Yet it is sufficient for an operator to claim to be licensed. The reality for consumers is stark.

Dutch users and players in other regulated jurisdictions appear to have access to M88 despite strict requirements that gambling must be licensed by local authorities such as the Kansspelautoriteit. That access is not a minor oversight. It is a structural avoidance of regulation, undermining the entire principle that national frameworks exist to safeguard both players and public policy.

The providers cannot plead ignorance

In our previous article, we highlighted that Playtech, Pragmatic Play and Evolution supply content to M88. Two months later, this remains unchanged. Their slot titles and live dealer games remain prominently displayed and their brand logos are easy to identify on the site. What is more troubling is the silence of these providers. None have publicly distanced themselves from M88’s presence in disputed markets.

Suppliers frequently explain such situations by pointing to multi-layered distribution agreements. They argue that content may be made available through aggregators and that they cannot always control or monitor every deployment. They also emphasise that their contracts contain safeguards and disclaimers.

Yet the basic fact remains that these companies know where their games are played and revenue continues to flow back to them. The claim that such large firms with advanced reporting systems cannot identify or restrict unauthorised distribution strains credibility.

This is why statements on compliance and responsible supply often ring hollow. European regulators hear constant assurances about the importance of integrity, sustainable markets and responsible conduct. But when some of the largest suppliers in the industry allow their content to be showcased on an operator such as M88 without visible consequence, those assurances resemble theatre more than practice.

The selective blindness of regulators

Regulators frequently declare that enforcement is central to their mission. The Dutch Kansspelautoriteit states that only licensed operators may offer gambling to Dutch consumers. The United Kingdom Gambling Commission emphasises that it holds licensees to the highest standards. The Malta Gaming Authority promotes its role as a leading European regulator with responsibility for consumer protection and market integrity.

Yet in the face of M88’s continued availability, all three appear silent.

This is not a question of capacity. Regulators have the tools to monitor web domains, payment providers and advertising. They can see when a brand is visible in their markets and they can track where games are deployed. The difficulty lies in political will. To take enforcement action against a brand such as Mansion, which has had high visibility through Premier League and European football sponsorships, requires the courage to confront influential corporate players.

The current response instead appears to be avoidance. And the longer avoidance continues, the greater the risk it becomes accepted as precedent.

Sponsorships that legitimised, operations that ignored

The visibility of Mansion should not be underestimated. The M88 brand has appeared on the shirts of AC Milan, on La Liga broadcasts and alongside Manchester City, Tottenham Hotspur, Crystal Palace and AFC Bournemouth. These are not minor partnerships in obscure competitions. They are prime advertising opportunities that reached millions of viewers.

That level of prominence created a strong impression of legitimacy. For players in Asia and Europe, seeing the M88 brand next to well-known football clubs was indistinguishable from official endorsement. Regulators could have intervened at this stage, by examining whether the sponsorships were compatible with compliance obligations. They could have questioned whether an operator with clear exposure in restricted jurisdictions should be allowed such visibility.

Instead, the sponsorships went unchallenged, embedding the perception that M88 was legitimate. The outcome of that failure is visible today, as the brand continues to operate across borders without meaningful restrictions.

Corporate wrappers and the illusion of change

Mansion’s departure from Gibraltar was interpreted by some as the end of its European presence. In practice, it was a change of legal wrapper rather than a cessation of business. Mountain Breeze Limited took the name, Vanuatu provided the licence, but the consumer-facing brand remained intact.

This strategy is common in online gambling. Corporate entities are often dissolved, restructured or re-domiciled while the operational reality continues seamlessly. Payment systems, game suppliers and branding remain constant, while only the legal entity behind the scenes shifts. Regulators often treat these legal transitions as conclusions, when in reality they are little more than costume changes. By failing to follow the operational continuity, regulators allow the appearance of compliance to stand in for actual accountability.

The contrasting example of accountability

It is against this backdrop that individuals like Karel Manasco provide a useful contrast. Whatever one’s perspective on his disputes with Gibraltar’s regulators, his record shows that he engaged directly with oversight. He did not attempt to evade scrutiny by shifting operations to opaque jurisdictions. Instead, he challenged decisions openly in European courts, arguing for consistency, transparency and fairness.

The significance of this approach is often overlooked. By contesting decisions rather than bypassing them, Manasco highlighted the principle that rules must be applied consistently and that regulatory authority cannot simply be sidestepped.

Where Mansion opted for withdrawal into a jurisdiction of convenience, Manasco demonstrated that accountability can be demanded and defended within the system itself. That is the difference between those who view regulation as a framework to be respected and those who see it as an obstacle to be avoided.

Enforcement as a matter of will

The current gap in enforcement is not the result of inadequate funding or lack of expertise. Dutch regulators have demonstrated that they can impose significant fines on other offshore operators. The UK has imposed sanctions on suppliers who failed to control their distribution channels. Malta frequently promotes its tightening of supervisory powers.

Yet despite this track record, M88 continues to operate without apparent disruption, showcasing games from leading suppliers and targeting players in Europe.

The lesson for operators is clear. If a brand can exit Gibraltar, relocate under Vanuatu and still reach players in the Netherlands or other jurisdictions without serious consequence, then the deterrent value of regulation is undermined. Rules are only as effective as the willingness to enforce them. At present, the willingness appears absent.

The reputational risk to suppliers

There are also consequences for the suppliers themselves. Companies like Playtech, Pragmatic Play and Evolution invest heavily in their reputations. They stress sustainability, compliance and corporate responsibility in public forums. They cultivate partnerships with regulators and emphasise their commitment to licensed markets.

Yet their presence on platforms like M88 undermines that message.

Reputational damage is not limited to consumer perception. Institutional investors, financial institutions and compliance departments are increasingly aware of the risks associated with grey and black markets. The continued willingness of suppliers to allow their content to be deployed in these contexts raises legitimate concerns about their priorities. It suggests that short-term commercial opportunity may still outweigh long-term reputational integrity.

Why this matters for consumers

The risks are not theoretical. For players, the consequences are direct. A site licensed in Vanuatu provides no effective recourse for European consumers. Dispute resolution is inaccessible, financial protections are minimal and local regulators have no authority to enforce outcomes. Consumers are left without meaningful protection, even when they are engaging with products supplied by firms that otherwise claim reputability.

The central problem is the gap between perception and reality. Players often assume that a well-known brand, visible suppliers and a history of sponsorships equate to safety. In the case of M88, that assumption is misplaced. The brand’s history of regulatory avoidance and its reliance on a jurisdiction with minimal oversight leave players vulnerable.

Moving forward

The European regulatory environment cannot afford selective blindness. If authorities wish to maintain credibility, they must address legacy operators with the same rigour applied to new applicants. That means not only pursuing operators like M88 but also scrutinising suppliers who facilitate their continued presence. It requires challenging the use of corporate wrappers that obscure continuity of operations.

Above all, it requires recognising that consumer protection cannot be outsourced to jurisdictions that lack effective regulatory power.

If regulators fail to act, the outcome is predictable. Operators will continue to shift licences when convenient, suppliers will continue to benefit financially from markets outside formal approval, regulators will continue to issue statements without enforcement and consumers will remain exposed. The longer this cycle persists, the harder it will become to restore trust in regulatory frameworks.

Our Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Mansion’s M88 is more than just another offshore operator. It is a case study in how companies can exploit gaps in regulatory frameworks, how suppliers can enable them and how regulators can fail to respond. The combination creates an environment where formal rules exist but practical accountability is absent.

Figures like Karel Manasco demonstrate that accountability is not beyond reach. It requires openness to legal challenge, willingness to contest decisions and commitment to transparency. The contrast with Mansion’s reliance on Vanuatu speaks clearly. Until regulators demonstrate the will to enforce, the lesson for the industry remains that compliance is optional and continuity is achievable through corporate rewrapping.

For our earlier analysis, see “M88 and the Fine Art of Regulatory Evasion”.

FAQs

What is Mansion M88?
Mansion M88 is an online gambling operator previously licensed in Gibraltar, now operating under a Vanuatu licence via Mountain Breeze Limited.

Why did Mansion M88 leave Gibraltar?
The company shifted jurisdictions to Vanuatu, which offers minimal regulatory oversight, rather than fully exiting the market.

Is M88 legally allowed to operate in Europe?
No, M88 operates in Europe without local licences, making its operations outside European regulatory authority.

Which regulators are involved?
The UK Gambling Commission, Dutch Kansspelautoriteit, and Malta Gaming Authority all have oversight roles but have not taken visible enforcement action against M88.

Which game providers supply M88?
Playtech, Pragmatic Play, and Evolution continue to provide games to M88 despite regulatory concerns.

What risks do players face using M88?
Players lack consumer protections, dispute resolution, and financial safeguards when using a Vanuatu-licensed platform.

How do sponsorships affect M88’s image?
High-profile football sponsorships created a perception of legitimacy, misleading consumers about regulatory compliance.

Can game suppliers be held accountable?
Yes, suppliers can face reputational and financial consequences for supporting operators in unregulated jurisdictions.

What is the main regulatory issue with M88?
Operators exploit gaps in oversight, using corporate rewrapping to continue operations without enforcement consequences.

How can regulatory credibility be restored?
Authorities must enforce existing laws, scrutinise suppliers, and address corporate wrappers to protect consumers effectively.

Legal Disclaimer

This article has been produced by Malta Media for journalistic and informational purposes only. It is based on publicly available sources, including licensing disclosures, corporate filings and operator terms at the time of writing.

No allegation of unlawful conduct is made against any company, regulator or individual mentioned. References are included solely to highlight regulatory, compliance and structural matters of public interest.

This publication does not constitute legal, financial or compliance advice. Malta Media accepts no liability for reliance on its contents. All views expressed are those of the authors and may be subject to change.