Problemi sa kazinima sa licencom Anžuan – nedostatak nadzora i odgovornosti? (strana 2)

Hello, I just want to add that the implementation of LOK, as well as the recent (September) collapse of the Curaçao administrative board, practically means that casinos need to find alternatives. Therefore, the AOFA stands out significantly, although its quality is comparable to that of the entire Curacao system at this time. Same nada.

I'd say, under such circumstances, and since players can see the casino license, I believe they can decide whether it is worth the risk you mentioned or not. Since there are no working alternatives anymore, how could possibly "awarding" zero ratings to casinos just because they are licensed potentially help players? Well, based on our research and data studies, players want to play.

But you are right, it would be cool to have one steady and capable offshore license for all those players who for some reason do not seek casinos licensed in their countries or come from weak or unregulated markets. That's a fantastic point.

Hi, thanks for the explanation — could you clarify something for me?

I understand the general point you’re making, but I’m still a bit confused and want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Are you saying that:

Curaçao’s old system more or less collapsed in September,

LOK isn’t fully operational yet,

and therefore casinos are moving to AOFA/Anjouan even though it offers roughly the same (very limited) level of protection?

I just want to be sure I understand what this means for players in practical terms. Could you explain that part a little more?

Thanks again.

Hello,

Simply put: yes—it has.

I did a brief recap with (ChatGPT) of the events; I hope it helps here:

In late 2025, Curaçao’s long-promised gambling reform (LOK – Landsverordening op de Kansspelen) hit a major bump.

The entire Supervisory Board of the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) resigned in mid-September, leaving the regulator without its top oversight body at the very moment it was supposed to transition to a more transparent and structured regulatory model.

LOK was introduced to replace the old master-licence system, however...

The resignation of the entire Supervisory Board created an obvious governance vacuum.

CGA continued operating — issuing licences, handling compliance, communicating with the public — but without the board that was supposed to oversee and validate its decisions.

At the same time:

responsibility for gambling oversight was shifted from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Justice,

communication from the government was inconsistent, and reform deadlines kept slipping.

The result?

A regulator technically functional, but visibly unstable.

Where AOFA comes in?

While CGA was trying to navigate internal turbulence, AOFA (the Autonomous Online Gaming Association) capitalised on the situation.

Operators and players naturally gravitated towards anyone who seemed more stable, more communicative, and at least somewhat predictable — even if the actual quality of oversight was not significantly different.

AOFA quickly gained relevance because:

CGA looked shaky after the September resignations,

LOK implementation was slower than expected,

and stakeholders were desperate for a sense of order.

The bottom line:

LOK is still a necessary reform, but the execution has been messy.

CGA remains operational, but the loss of its supervisory board undermined confidence.

AOFA grew fast, mostly because it filled the perception gap, not because it is inherently better.

Right now, Curaçao’s landscape is a mix of "work in progress," shifting responsibilities, and organisations trying to prove they can offer structure where the official system still wobbles.

From the player's perspective:

1. Curaçao does not operate a real ADR system

There is no official, structured, or enforceable mechanism for resolving disputes between players and operators.

No mandatory deadlines, no transparent procedures, no published decisions.

It simply doesn’t exist.

2. "Contact the regulator" sounds good, but in practice…

Most of the time, it means:

"We received your message. Beyond that, there isn’t much we can do."

CGA may:

acknowledge the complaint,

forward you back to the operator, or

not respond at all.

It’s not malice — they simply lack the mandate, capacity, and tools to deal with individual disputes, especially with sub-licensed operators.

3. The whole system was built to leave disputes to the casino

Historically, the Curaçao framework was designed so that the relationship between the player and the casino remained strictly private.

The regulator stayed hands-off,

and no alternative dispute resolution was required.

4. The resignation of the entire Supervisory Board made it even weaker

The system was already fragile.

After the September resignations, there is even less oversight and even less authority to intervene in complaint cases.

5. The hard truth

Curaçao is not an effective route for resolving disputes or enforcing payouts. Not now, not historically.

An article from SiGMA: https://sigma.world/news/curacao-pm-control-gaming-body-board-en-masse/

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for guidance on what to do next, as I feel I’ve exhausted the standard routes.

Casino Guru has already reviewed my case and confirmed that repayment was promised by the casino but has not been honoured. The payment processor, Gigadat, has also confirmed in writing that the issue is on the merchant’s side and that they are waiting for merchant instruction before any repayment can occur.

I filed a formal regulatory complaint with the Anjouan Gaming Authority on September 30, 2025. That complaint included written evidence showing that RealSpin admitted deposits were accepted in error after a self exclusion request and confirmed that repayment would be processed. Since filing that complaint, I have received no acknowledgment, update, or resolution from either the operator or the regulator, despite more than thirty days passing, which appears to be contrary to the regulator’s own published complaint handling timelines .

At this point:

• The casino has admitted fault and promised repayment

• The processor has stated it cannot act without merchant instruction

• The regulator has not responded since the complaint was submitted

• Direct communication with the casino has stopped entirely

My question to the community and Casino Guru team is simply this:

What realistic options remain when repayment is acknowledged, the processor is blocked by the merchant, and the regulator is unresponsive?

I am not looking to re argue eligibility or reopen facts that have already been confirmed. I am trying to understand what escalation paths, if any, still make sense at this stage, or whether this situation has effectively reached a dead end despite clear documentation.

Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Good day to you,

I'll get straight to the point here, because I understand this process has been going on for quite some time for you and it probably took its toll. I believe that seeking legal advice from a gambling lawyer is the ultimate way to get another reasonable opinion from the perspective of the law.

As previously explained multiple times, the case has been closed for the casino and for the mediators, and sadly Anjouan is not well-known for resolving issues at all. It's probably better to let go. I can't imagine how tiring it must be.

However, if you wish to push forward, the only thing I can think of is the lawyer.

Thank you for your response and for being direct.

I understand the limitations of mediation and the challenges with enforcement through Anjouan. That said, this amount is significant, and I am not in a position to simply move on from it.

I would also note that the casino continues to actively respond to other complaints publicly, while remaining completely silent with me since September 2, despite having previously confirmed in writing that repayment would be processed. That selective engagement is difficult to reconcile with the position that the matter is fully closed from Casino Guru’s perspective.

I appreciate the time you have spent reviewing the case and your honesty regarding the available options. I will consider next steps carefully.

Thank you for your time.

You are welcome.

Let me use this opportunity to share more about Anjouan and the practice of this license—summarized by ChatGPT:

Why doesn’t the Anjouan regulator respond to player complaints?

Casinos licensed under the Anjouan Gaming License are required to have their own internal complaint-handling process.

However, the regulator itself does not act as a dispute resolution authority and does not investigate individual player complaints.

In practice, this means:

The regulator does not communicate directly with players about specific disputes

It does not issue decisions, enforce payouts, or arbitrate conflicts

Contacting the regulator directly usually does not result in a personal reply

What does "ADR" mean under an Anjouan license?

Anjouan-licensed casinos are required to offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) after the casino’s internal complaint process (usually after 30 days).

Important to understand:

The regulator does not provide or operate an ADR service

There is no official list of approved ADR providers

The ADR process is typically defined by the casino itself

The regulator does not actively supervise or enforce ADR outcomes

As a result, ADR under this license is often procedural rather than enforceable.

This is why players often do not receive direct responses from the regulator, and why dispute escalation under this license has limited practical effect.

Thus, there is no applicable pressure. 🙁

Thank you for the explanation.

I would like to clarify one important point: this matter is not a dispute about gameplay, rules, or outcomes, and it is not an ADR request.

The issue is the non-execution of a repayment that was already acknowledged and communicated by the operator.

I am not seeking arbitration or a regulatory decision. I am seeking completion of an unfulfilled payment that the operator itself confirmed would be processed.

My focus remains on execution of that acknowledged payment.

I was assessing the situation with the regulatory body.

Thus, in your situation, there have been only those options:

The claim is resolved though the ADR (Casino Guru for example)—done, not possible

The claim is resolved by the casino—done. changed the opinion, no way

The claim is resolved by applicable law

From what I learned, you may only ask the lawyer for legal advice. Perhaps only to hear that this is over. No institution or authority will order the casino to process the refund, because the refund logic was questioned.

The casino acknowledged the payment but later rejected it as a solution after the complaint was rejected. I believe you are the only person who still considers the matter open.

From the executive perspective: No payment will go through when its motivation/meaning is no longer valid.

Radka,

Your assessment is based on several incorrect assumptions and conflates dispute resolution with non-execution of an acknowledged payment. I need to correct the record.

First, this matter is not a dispute about entitlement, gameplay, or refund logic. That stage ended when the operator explicitly acknowledged acceptance of deposits in error and confirmed that corrective action, including repayment, would be processed. Once that acknowledgment was made, the issue ceased to be a dispute and became an execution failure.

Second, your assertion that "the claim is resolved by the casino" is factually inaccurate. A claim is not resolved simply because an operator later decides it would prefer not to execute what it already acknowledged. Resolution requires execution or an explicit withdrawal of the acknowledgment, neither of which occurred. Silence and non-performance do not constitute resolution.

Third, the statement that "the casino acknowledged the payment but later rejected it as a solution" is unsupported. There has been no written revocation, no explanation, and no notice that the repayment acknowledgment was invalidated. In any compliance, payments, or legal context, an acknowledgment cannot be retroactively nullified without communication. Silence is not withdrawal.

Fourth, ADR is irrelevant at this stage. ADR applies when parties dispute liability. Here, liability was already accepted by the operator. This is not an arbitration matter; it is an unfulfilled payment obligation. Framing this as ADR or regulatory escalation misunderstands the nature of the issue entirely.

Finally, the claim that "no payment will go through when its motivation is no longer valid" is not a legal or operational principle. Payments are executed based on commitments, not shifting internal opinions. If an operator wishes to withdraw a commitment, it must do so explicitly and on record. That has not happened.

To be clear:

This matter remains open because the acknowledged repayment has not been executed and has not been formally withdrawn. That is not a subjective view. It is a factual one.

I am not seeking advice on whether I should "accept that this is over." I am documenting non-performance of an acknowledged action. Those are not the same thing, and treating them as such is incorrect

Well, I understand your position, but I can’t agree with your conclusion.

A different interpretation does not automatically make the situation unresolved in practice. From the perspective of mediation and enforcement, this case has already reached its end.

Throughout the discussion, the stated goal has shifted several times, from seeking advice to sharing updates to documenting non-performance. Despite the different framing, the underlying situation has not changed.

At this point, there is no mechanism available that could lead to a different outcome. Repeating the same arguments does not create a new path.

The operator has stopped communicating and has not provided further clarification regarding the refund. That lack of response, while frustrating, does not make the situation solvable or open.

For that reason, there is nothing further that can realistically change here.

With that in mind, this is my final response on this matter.

Hello,

I’m dealing with a similar situation.

My repayment has been outstanding since August, when 1xBet acknowledged that deposits were accepted in error and confirmed that corrective action, including repayment, would be applied.

I have used live chat and followed all instructions provided. I was asked to submit documents, which I did on January 2, after being contacted by complaints@1xpartner.com.

This is not a verification issue. The matter concerns execution of an acknowledged corrective action, and it remains unresolved due to lack of follow-up and non-response.

If you’ve experienced something similar or have any advice on what actually helped move things forward, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you.