Personal liability for trustees and directors in the gambling sector!

The Curaçao model under legal pressure

For many years, Curaçao offered a seemingly consequence-free environment for directors, trustees and legal representatives who allowed online gambling operators to run platforms with minimal oversight. Formal titles were often granted by fiduciary providers with no real involvement in operational management. That landscape has changed.

In 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court delivered a ruling that has transformed how accountability is assessed within the gambling industry. Trustees and directors who operate in or through Curaçao must now understand that they are no longer shielded by distance or corporate formality. Where companies fail, those behind the façade may be held personally liable.

This article outlines the specific risks now faced by individuals accepting formal positions in gambling companies. It is especially relevant to directors, company secretaries and trustees acting on behalf of Curaçao entities. It also includes guidance for affected players on how to bring claims against those individuals where companies collapse, with or without a gambling licence.

Understanding the ruling: the Dutch Supreme Court and Cyberluck NV

In December 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a decision that makes Curaçao master licence holders legally liable for the misconduct of their sub-licensees. The case centred on a Turkish player who won 620,000 lira (approximately €16,910) at an online casino operated by Trigonon Group NV. Trigonon held a sub-licence from Cyberluck Curaçao NV, one of the island’s historical master licence holders.

When the player’s winnings were not paid and the account was shut down, the claim was assigned to the Stichting ter Behartiging van Gedupeerden door Online Kansspelen (SBGOK) – a Dutch foundation led by journalist and gambling reform advocate Nardy Cramm. The foundation brought a legal claim against both Trigonon and Cyberluck.

The Supreme Court ultimately confirmed that Cyberluck bore responsibility for the failure of its sublicensee to pay the player’s winnings. It dismissed arguments that the master licence holders were not accountable, stating clearly that Cyberluck had “let it get out of hand.” This ruling has significant implications for directors and trustees alike.

Why this matters to directors and trustees

While the judgment focused on the relationship between Cyberluck and its sublicensee, the legal reasoning applies more broadly to those in a position of oversight, including individual directors and trustees. Courts are now more willing to look past the licence structure and instead ask: Who had a duty to intervene and who failed to do so?

• Trustees of Curaçao companies offering gambling services
• Directors of holding companies or payment processors linked to gambling
• Company secretaries or legal representatives who sign filings, manage bank accounts or approve business deals
• Nominee directors or external professionals who lend their name to companies without meaningful control

Personal liability in case of bankruptcy or misconduct

When a gambling company fails, either due to insolvency or regulatory intervention, players, creditors and regulators may pursue civil or criminal actions. The fact that a company is bankrupt does not remove the prospect of accountability.

Under Dutch law and similar European frameworks, individuals may be held personally liable if they:

• Failed to exercise reasonable supervision over the business
• Permitted unlawful conduct to continue
• Acted negligently, dishonestly or in breach of their fiduciary duties
• Allowed the company to operate when it was no longer financially viable

In particular, if directors were aware that player funds were being misused or that winnings were not being paid, but failed to act, they may be held responsible for the losses.

This extends not only to direct actors, but also to those who played a passive role while receiving fees or compensation for their services.

Examples of risk exposure for trustees and directors

Example 1: unpaid winnings and passive oversight

A trustee based in Curaçao is appointed director of a company offering online slots and sports betting. Over a three-month period, multiple players complain that they have not received payouts. The trustee is aware of the issues but believes they are “not responsible” as the operations are run from abroad. The company later collapses and the trustees are named in civil claims filed by players for breach of duty and negligent mismanagement.

Example 2: bankrupt operator and silent director

An EU-based gambling operator registered under a Curaçao licence becomes insolvent. The players attempt to recover unpaid balances, but the company is dissolved with no assets. A former director is shown to have signed multiple company documents and maintained access to banking arrangements. The director is then sued personally under Dutch and local law and becomes subject to freezing orders and maybe even travel restrictions.

A company registered in Willemstad is linked to unauthorised betting in restricted markets. The trustee, who signed off on the company’s tax declarations and approved the onboarding of payment processors, is summoned by Dutch authorities to explain their role. They are placed under investigation for enabling unlicensed gambling activity and failing to file suspicious transaction reports.

Can players sue trustees and directors? Yes.

Players who suffer financial loss because an online casino fails to pay winnings or misuses their account funds may have recourse not only against the company but also against the individuals behind it.

Courts across Europe, including the Netherlands, Malta, Spain and Germany, have recognised the following principles:

• Trustees and directors are expected to exercise real oversight, not simply act as a rubber stamp
• If they had knowledge of illegal or unethical conduct and failed to act, they may be personally liable
• Bankruptcy of the company does not shield individuals from responsibility

Where company funds are no longer recoverable, legal action can be directed toward:

• Trustees who approved or facilitated illegal business practices
• Directors who failed to ensure proper player fund segregation
• Signatories of payment instructions or banking agreements
• Legal representatives who actively or passively endorsed harmful conduct

This liability may arise even in the absence of a formal employment contract or profit-sharing arrangement. Courts will examine the factual role played by the individual, the financial benefits received and the degree of control or awareness involved.

Recommendation: use SBGOK to pursue legal claims

Players who are unable to recover their winnings due to non-payment, insolvency or licence revocation are strongly advised to contact the Stichting ter Behartiging van Gedupeerden door Online Kansspelen (SBGOK). SBGOK has an established track record of successfully pursuing compensation on behalf of affected players. Led by Nardy Cramm, the foundation works with experienced legal teams in the Netherlands and across the EU to:

• Collect and consolidate claims from multiple victims
• Identify and pursue directors and trustees responsible for the misconduct
• Obtain court orders for compensation and asset seizure
• Pressure regulators and banks to disclose financial flows

By assigning their claim to the foundation, players avoid costly litigation and benefit from consolidated legal pressure against those responsible.

Players may contact SBGOK via the website https://www.sbgok.org to initiate the process.

Warning to trustees and directors

If you are a trustee, nominee director or legal representative of a company involved in online gambling, particularly under a Curaçao structure, your personal exposure may be far greater than you realise.

Even if you have never logged into the platform or handled player funds, the following questions are now legally relevant:

• Did you approve bank accounts or payment arrangements?
• Did you receive fees while the company engaged in harmful conduct?
• Were you aware of complaints or misconduct but failed to report or resign?

In the eyes of European courts, the failure to act can be just as serious as active wrongdoing.

Now that courts have confirmed liability for Curaçao master licence holders and those linked to them, the risk to individuals is real and rising. Trustees and directors who accept appointments without ensuring strict compliance may face asset seizures, travel restrictions, reputational damage and litigation across multiple jurisdictions.

Closing recommendation

Do not accept or maintain a position in any gambling-related entity unless you have:

• Full access to accurate financial records
• Legal authority to intervene where necessary
• A clear understanding of player fund flows
• Professional indemnity coverage
• A documented exit strategy if red flags arise

Those who fail to take these precautions may ultimately be forced to answer not just to regulators, but to courts and victims alike.

Whistleblower invitation

Have you received a court ruling or signed a settlement agreement against an online casino? Malta Media is gathering evidence of unpaid winnings and other operator failures. Please share copies of verdicts, settlement terms or related correspondence, in strict confidence though our whistleblower form: https://malta-media.com/whistleblower/. Your documents can bolster collective claims, protect other players and help regulators pursue non-compliant operators. We safeguard sources and never disclose identities without written consent.

FAQs

What did the Dutch Supreme Court rule in 2024 regarding Curaçao?
It ruled that Curaçao master licence holders can be held legally responsible for their sublicensees’ misconduct, even in cases of non-payment to players.

Can trustees and directors be held personally liable in the gambling sector?
Yes. If they fail to supervise, act negligently, or allow misconduct, they can face civil or criminal liability—even if the company goes bankrupt.

Who does this ruling affect most?
It impacts trustees, nominee directors, legal representatives, and others with formal roles in Curaçao-based gambling companies.

Does liability apply only to direct management personnel?
No. Courts can hold even passive trustees or nominee directors responsible if they received fees while enabling harmful or unlawful conduct.

What happens if a company goes bankrupt?
Bankruptcy does not eliminate personal liability. Directors and trustees may still be sued for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.

What should trustees and directors in Curaçao do to stay protected?
They must ensure access to financial data, maintain compliance, hold intervention authority, and have indemnity insurance and an exit strategy.

Can players sue individual directors or trustees?
Yes. If player funds are misused or winnings go unpaid, claims may be filed against individuals behind the gambling platform, not just the company.

What is SBGOK and how can it help affected players?
SBGOK is a Dutch foundation that consolidates legal claims for players, enabling compensation from liable trustees and directors through court action.

Are whistleblowers encouraged to share information?
Yes. Malta Media collects court rulings, settlements, and other documents in confidence to support player claims and help regulators act.

What key red flags should trustees look out for?
Unpaid winnings, unsegregated player funds, lack of financial visibility, or player complaints are all serious warning signs of potential legal risk.