Soft2Bet’s Gambling Footprint in Europe!

Soft2Bet’s European Gambling Footprint

Soft2Bet’s European gambling footprint should be assessed through licensing records, market access, corporate structures and the consumer safeguards applicable in each jurisdiction. This investigation distinguishes a domain’s presence from proof of lawful operation or wrongdoing. The UK Gambling Commission, the Malta Gaming Authority and Malta Media’s related licensing analysis provide context.

Over the past five years, Soft2Bet has grown from a little-known software supplier into one of the most recognisable names in the European gambling landscape. Its corporate imagery is sleek, its sponsorship deals high-profile and its founder, Uri Poliavich, has cultivated the persona of an innovative fintech and gaming entrepreneur.

The company has received industry awards, participated in international expos and released statements championing compliance, growth and philanthropy.

But behind this polished exterior lies a much more complicated story, one that regulatory authorities across Europe are only beginning to unravel. At the heart of the issue is a recurring pattern: online casinos with ties to Soft2Bet appear to operate in multiple jurisdictions where they lack valid licences, process customer payments through licensed financial intermediaries and (when challenged) either shut down or transfer operations to new entities under similar branding.

It’s a system that has been described, informally, as “use and vanish”: a structure that allows platforms to profit from European customers without long-term exposure to legal enforcement or financial accountability.

The purpose of this article is to unpack the elements of this model, assess the jurisdictions and corporate tactics involved and examine whether the broader gambling ecosystem (including payment providers, award bodies and even regulators) have become unwitting enablers of a system that increasingly appears built for circumvention rather than compliance.

Soft2Bet and the Origins of the Model

Soft2Bet, often marketed as a B2B and B2C operator and software provider, has repeatedly distanced itself from allegations of regulatory avoidance or wrongdoing. According to its public statements and press releases, the company’s mission is to deliver secure, compliant and customer-centric gaming solutions across regulated markets.

But critics argue that Soft2Bet’s operational history tells a different story: one in which multiple subsidiaries, shell companies and rebranded platforms have enabled it to avoid direct accountability while maintaining functional control over casino operations.

The origins of this model can be traced to several early casino brands reportedly launched under companies linked to Soft2Bet, such as Rabidi N.V., Araxio Development N.V. and other Curacao-registered entities.

These firms typically held licences issued by local authorities in Curacao or later Anjouan, yet targeted customers across the EU, often without local authorisation. While technically distinct from Soft2Bet in terms of ownership, these entities were frequently promoted using Soft2Bet’s in-house platform infrastructure and branded design systems.

This hybrid B2B/B2C identity allowed the company to deflect regulatory scrutiny. When a brand was blacklisted by a European regulator (such as the ANJ in France, the DGOJ in Spain or the GGL in Germany) the operating company could claim to be merely a software provider.

In many cases, websites were mirrored under new URLs or simply moved to other domains. Payment processing arrangements, meanwhile, continued largely uninterrupted.

A Short-Lived Case in Ukraine

Although Soft2Bet's more recent activities have attracted attention in EU markets, one of the earliest public interventions came not from Europe, but from Ukraine. In 2020, according to archived records from ANTIKOR and public disclosures from Ukrainian law enforcement, a criminal investigation was launched into the operation of illegal online casinos allegedly connected to Soft2Bet.

The case (filed under criminal reference number 12020100090004981) centred on suspicions that at least 20 unlicensed platforms were being run from Ukrainian premises associated with the company. Images released by the Ukrainian Cyber Police showed raids on the Kyiv office and press releases at the time claimed substantial financial flows were under investigation.

However, within months, the matter appeared to evaporate.

The original webpage detailing the investigation was removed from the official Cyber Police site, although its existence remains traceable via indexed URLs.

This episode is often cited by observers as a formative moment in Soft2Bet’s international strategy. While there is no public evidence of wrongdoing or formal charges against Poliavich or his close associates, the swift dissolution of the Ukrainian case (alongside the disappearance of key evidence) led many to question how a company could so rapidly move from criminal suspicion to international expansion.

The Legal Loophole in Malta

Among the most concerning structural elements surrounding Soft2Bet’s operations is its use of Maltese corporate registrations and legal protections. Several of the group’s white-label companies and associated service providers maintain registered offices in Malta and Soft2Bet itself has advertised its presence on the island through its public communications.

Why Malta? On paper, the country is a regulated EU member with a robust gambling authority (the MGA) and access to financial services regulated by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA).

However, it also possesses a unique legal provision (Bill 55 of 2023) that allows its courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments concerning gambling operators licensed or registered on the island.

This means that a player who wins a case in, say, a German or Austrian court against a Malta-registered operator may find that their judgment is essentially unenforceable in Malta. The law has come under scrutiny by German and Austrian consumer lawyers, especially as more and more gamblers file claims against foreign operators who, despite lacking local licences, continue to offer services into their home markets.

Soft2Bet, through its Maltese ties, is believed to have benefited from this legal firewall. In several cases reported to consumer protection lawyers, plaintiffs obtained enforcement orders or garnishment orders (“Pfändungsbeschluss”) only to be told that Maltese courts would not assist with enforcement.

In effect, this creates a legal vacuum: companies registered in Malta can offer services across the EU, but shield themselves from cross-border liability, provided they carefully segment their operational footprint.

Payment Providers: The Hidden Link

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Soft2Bet ecosystem is how its allegedly unauthorised operations continue to access mainstream financial infrastructure. A close review of casino platforms tied to Soft2Bet or its affiliates (including brands like Campobet, Betinia, Wazamba and Boomerang) reveals that many of them continue to offer payment options through widely regulated European and international financial services.

These include: AstroPay, Trustly, Klarna, VISA, Mastercard, paysafecard, Skrill, NETELLER, MiFinity, ecoPayz and even services like MuchBetter, Interac and Boleto. Some sites also list crypto-related gateways, including BitcoinCash and Ethereum payment plugins, often linked to offshore exchanges or unregulated wallets.

This raises serious questions about the role of payment service providers (PSPs) in screening clients and monitoring high-risk activity. EU regulations, especially those enforced under the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) and overseen by the European Banking Authority (EBA), require enhanced due diligence when onboarding or servicing companies involved in gambling.

These rules apply even more stringently when transactions cross borders or originate from unlicensed environments.

While none of the payment providers have been accused of misconduct, industry observers have repeatedly asked how these services continue to function on platforms that are blacklisted in major EU markets. The most likely answer is a lack of regulatory harmonisation: because each EU state maintains its own licensing regime, a company blocked in France may still be considered operational in Malta or Cyprus, creating enough ambiguity for PSPs to process payments without triggering internal red flags.

But legal ambiguity does not equal compliance. Financial institutions operating under EU and UK jurisdiction are still expected to monitor the activities of their clients and to conduct periodic reviews. The fact that a payment service appears on a site accessible in multiple banned jurisdictions (without a local licence) should, in theory, warrant a review or suspension.

Yet in practice, many of these services continue to appear on Soft2Bet-linked platforms months after official blacklisting.

Platform Multiplication and Operational Recycling

One of the hallmarks of the Soft2Bet model is the rapid creation, rebranding and closure of online casinos under different names but with near-identical software architecture, visual identity and payment mechanics. Investigative journalists and regulatory analysts have noted that many sites linked to Soft2Bet share the same user interface, loyalty mechanics, bonus triggers and even customer service scripts.

These similarities suggest that while the brand names differ, the back-end operations remain under unified control or direction.

This operational recycling allows Soft2Bet to distance itself from any specific casino brand once regulatory pressure builds. Take, for instance the case of Wazamba, perhaps the most publicised of the group’s brands. Wazamba was operated by Rabidi N.V. and Araxio Development N.V., both companies registered in Curacao. When complaints mounted and legal claims were filed, the operators allegedly drained funds from the platform, shut down the company accounts and declared bankruptcy.

Regulatory filings and litigation documents show that European courts issued payment orders to these entities, but creditors were unable to collect.

Instead of a public scandal or regulatory intervention, the brand was simply replaced by another with a similar design, user experience and promotional scheme. Players previously targeted by Wazamba were redirected, through affiliate networks and re-marketing algorithms, to new platforms such as Boomerang, Betinia or Campobet.

Each operated under a fresh name, often with a new Curacao or Anjouan licence and often through similarly opaque nominee structures.

This tactic (while arguably legal in form) is deeply problematic in practice. It allows companies to maintain market presence without continuity of liability. No clear chain of responsibility can be established across the platforms. And because these entities are registered offshore, regulators in the EU face major jurisdictional hurdles when attempting to enforce decisions or trace funds.

Advertising, Awards and the Veneer of Legitimacy

One of the more ironic elements of Soft2Bet’s public positioning is the number of prestigious industry awards it has received over the years. Despite mounting concerns about unlicensed operations, brands associated with Soft2Bet or powered by its technology continue to be shortlisted (or even win) at iGaming awards ceremonies across Europe.

These include nominations at events like the SBC Awards, the EGR B2B Awards and others organised by industry media. On at least one occasion, Soft2Bet’s founder Uri Poliavich was featured in a corporate video shared by Focus Gaming News, portraying him as a forward-thinking executive leading with values of inclusivity and corporate responsibility.

Yet this image sharply contrasts with the reality described by whistleblowers and former employees. Malta Media has received several confidential messages alleging poor internal labour practices, including unannounced terminations, coercive working hours and the use of HR structures designed to avoid basic employment protections.

While these claims are still under review and have not been independently verified, their tone and consistency suggest an internal culture that diverges significantly from the brand’s polished public image.

And then there is the issue of third-party endorsements. Payment providers, industry publishers and corporate partners who lend credibility to Soft2Bet by promoting their innovations or inviting them to award ceremonies rarely clarify the full risk context. These forms of indirect endorsement allow Soft2Bet to operate in grey-market jurisdictions while showcasing positive PR to licensing authorities and business partners.

It is worth noting that Soft2Bet and its executives have not been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in any jurisdiction as of this writing. However, the contrast between how the company presents itself and how it is perceived by regulators, players and former staff creates an unsettling disconnect that deserves scrutiny.

Jurisdictional Engineering and Offshore Resilience

The concept of jurisdictional engineering is not new in the world of online gambling. For years, companies have used complex structures involving entities in Malta, Curacao, the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus and, more recently, the Comoros and Anjouan islands.

What sets Soft2Bet apart is the level of sophistication and the speed with which these transitions occur.

Entities tied to Soft2Bet frequently appear, dissolve or shift operations within months. The ownership trails lead through multi-layered holding companies and nominee directors, often based in Cypriot business centres or registered via agents in Malta. Some platforms appear to be technically operated by third parties, but carry the same platform DNA that has become associated with Soft2Bet’s portfolio.

In some cases, even the supposed separation between B2B and B2C roles is unclear. Soft2Bet markets itself as a platform provider, yet also advertises “its own” brands on its corporate website and sales materials. This dual identity complicates efforts to assess liability. If a casino breaches a player’s rights in France, for instance, is Soft2Bet responsible as the platform provider or is the liability restricted to a third-party shell company registered in Curacao?

The law remains unclear on this issue, especially when operators straddle multiple jurisdictions. Some regulators, like the GGL in Germany or the ANJ in France, have begun to push for more uniform definitions, but enforcement is still patchy. And as long as operators like Soft2Bet can exploit the gaps between regulatory systems, the “use and vanish” model will remain viable.

Financial Gains and Asset Protection

Despite the controversies, Soft2Bet appears to have generated substantial financial success in recent years. According to statements published on its own website and marketing materials, the group reported a consolidated EBITDA of over €66 million in 2023, with forecasts suggesting a doubling of that figure in 2024. Founder Uri Poliavich is reported to have received dividends of approximately €57 million, with investments in real estate across Cyprus, Prague and Sofia and luxury vehicles valued at over €1.3 million.

Critics argue that this wealth cannot be fully explained by Soft2Bet’s legal B2B operations alone. Given the vast number of blacklisted sites tied to Soft2Bet’s software and branding (over 140 across at least seven EU countries) the suggestion is that a significant portion of these profits may stem from unauthorised activity.

It’s important to stress that Poliavich, as an individual, has not been prosecuted in connection with any of these allegations. Nor have Maltese or Cypriot authorities launched public enforcement actions. But as whistleblower accounts, investigative reports and regulatory statements continue to surface, the question remains: how is such a structure allowed to flourish in a supposedly regulated market?

(to be continued…)

 

While the financial, regulatory and structural elements surrounding Soft2Bet have now been covered extensively in media reports, industry investigations and public documents, there is an emerging area of concern that Malta Media believes warrants far closer scrutiny. Beyond the offshore layers and profit margins, what remains largely underreported are the working conditions of those employed within this ecosystem. We are referring specifically to the human dimension of the corporate machine: the individuals who develop, support, service and maintain these gambling operations, often behind the scenes and without a voice.

Following the publication of our recent articles, Malta Media has received a number of confidential submissions via our whistleblower portal from individuals who claim to have either worked directly for Soft2Bet or for closely associated companies. These messages, while still under verification, have raised potential red flags regarding treatment of staff, excessive workloads, abrupt terminations and possible violations of fair employment standards. Though we are proceeding cautiously and without presumption, the volume and tone of these accounts have prompted us to begin focusing more intently on the labour dimension of this story.

In particular, we are interested in whether any practices may fall within the wider legal definitions of labour exploitation, psychological coercion or even modern slavery, especially where international relocation, deceptive recruitment or economic dependency may have been involved. We are also interested in whether any outsourcing or shell company arrangements may have obscured responsibilities or protections for those affected.

We therefore encourage all former or current employees, contractors or related workers with credible experience in this regard to contact us securely and confidentially. We are committed to ensuring the integrity of our reporting and we are especially concerned with ensuring that those affected by potential labour rights violations have a safe and serious platform to be heard.

FAQs

What is Soft2Bet and what services does it provide?
Soft2Bet is a gambling software supplier and operator providing both B2B and B2C online casino platforms across various European and international markets.

Why is Soft2Bet under regulatory scrutiny?
Soft2Bet faces scrutiny because many online casinos linked to it operate in jurisdictions without valid licenses, using complex corporate structures to avoid accountability.

What is the “use and vanish” model attributed to Soft2Bet?
It refers to a pattern where Soft2Bet-linked casinos quickly launch, profit, then shut down or rebrand to new entities, avoiding long-term regulatory enforcement and financial liability.

How does Soft2Bet use Maltese legal provisions to its advantage?
Soft2Bet leverages Malta’s Bill 55 of 2023, which allows Maltese courts to refuse enforcement of foreign gambling judgments, effectively shielding it from cross-border legal actions.

Are Soft2Bet casinos licensed in Europe?
Many Soft2Bet-linked casinos operate under licenses from offshore jurisdictions like Curacao or Anjouan but often lack valid local licenses in the European countries they serve.

How do payment providers fit into the Soft2Bet ecosystem?
Despite blacklisting in some markets, Soft2Bet platforms continue to process payments via major providers like VISA, Trustly, and Skrill, raising questions about financial due diligence and regulation.

Has Soft2Bet faced any criminal charges?
To date, neither Soft2Bet nor its founder Uri Poliavich have been formally charged with criminal wrongdoing, though investigations and regulatory challenges have occurred.

What is the significance of Soft2Bet’s sponsorships and awards?
Soft2Bet’s industry awards and sponsorships help build a positive public image, though critics argue these may mask underlying regulatory and ethical concerns.

How does Soft2Bet handle regulatory pressure on its brands?
When faced with regulatory challenges, Soft2Bet reportedly shuts down or rebrands affected casinos under new entities while continuing similar operations.

What are the potential risks for players using Soft2Bet-linked casinos?
Players may face issues like lack of legal recourse, withdrawal problems, and reduced consumer protections due to the operators’ offshore registrations and complex corporate structures.