The Curaçao Gaming Authority publishes a certificate portal at cert.cga.cw. It is indexed by domain rather than by licence number or brand, which makes it the only Curaçao source that can be queried with what a reader actually has in front of them: the address in the browser bar.
Forty-three of the 100 domains in our library returned a certificate when the register was read on 26 August 2026. This page takes one apart.
What does the certificate actually say?
The document is one sentence of substance wrapped in a header and a footer. In the entry for 7bitcasino.com it certifies that the domain is operated by Scores55 Tech B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao with company number 162990, licensed by the Curaçao Gaming Authority to offer games of chance under licence number OGL/2024/1307/0748, in accordance with the National Ordinance on Games of Chance. It then states that the licence was granted on 16/07/2024 and that its current status is Active.
Six fields, then, and each carries a different weight:
- The domain, which is the query key and the only thing tying the certificate to the site you were looking at.
- The operating company, in a Curaçao corporate form, most often B.V. or N.V.
- The Curaçao company registration number, which is the most reliable key for grouping brands run by one entity.
- The licence number in OGL format: prefix, year, file number, sequence.
- The grant date, in day/month/year.
- The current status, which is the field that changes without notice.
Which ordinance is being cited?
The certificate names the National Ordinance on Games of Chance, given in Dutch as the Landsverordening op de kansspelen, and cites it as P.B. 2024, no. 157. That citation is printed identically on every certificate in the library, active and revoked alike, so it identifies the legal basis of the regime rather than anything specific to the operator.
It is a reference to the law under which the permission was issued, not a statement about any other country’s law.
When were these licences granted?
Every certificate carries a grant date, and the distribution is narrow. Of the 43 certificates read, 28 record a grant date during 2024 and 15 during 2025. None in the library records a grant date before 2024, which reflects the transition of Curaçao licensing to the Authority’s own numbering rather than the age of the businesses involved.
This matters for a reader who assumes a recent grant date means a new operator. It does not. Eleven brands in the library publish a founding year of their own, ranging from 2013 to 2024, and several of those with the earliest founding years hold certificates granted in 2024.
Which field is missing, and why does it matter?
There is no expiry date. Not one certificate in the library prints one, in contrast to the Anjouan register, where every entry carries both an issue date and an expiry date.
The correct way to record this is “not published”. Writing “no expiry” would be an invention, and writing “valid indefinitely” would be worse.
What the absence means in practice is that the status word is the only live field. There is no date after which a reader can tell for themselves that the entry has lapsed, so the entry has to be read again to be current. Every figure on this site therefore carries the date it was read.
Why do two Curaçao sources disagree?
The Authority also publishes a register in document form, and it does not always match the certificate portal for the same operator. Where the two disagree, our library records the certificate portal, for one narrow reason: the portal is indexed by domain, so its entry can be tied to the site a reader is actually looking at, while a name in a list cannot be.
That is a choice about which source is checkable, not a claim that one is correct and the other wrong.
A reader who wants to be thorough should note both, and note that they differ. The disagreement is itself a finding worth recording.
What does a Curaçao company number tell you that the licence number does not?
It groups brands more reliably. Six companies in the library operate more than one domain, and in each case the company number is identical across their certificates while other details vary. Scores55 Tech B.V., number 162990, appears on three domains. Santeda International B.V., number 151296, appears on three. Rabidi N.V., number 151791, appears on three. Moon Technologies B.V., number 152185, and Uno Digital Media B.V., number 157147, appear on two each, as does Ryker B.V., number 154186.
Fifteen domains in the library are therefore run by six companies. The full picture, including the Anjouan side, is on our page about one licence number and many brands.
What does the status field look like when it goes wrong?
The certificate keeps its shape and changes one word. Five brands in the library returned a certificate whose status reads Revoked, three of them on the single number OGL/2023/103/0067 held by Rabidi N.V. The company name, the company number, the ordinance citation and the grant date all still print normally.
Those cases are set out on our page about revoked casino licences.
What can you not conclude when a domain is absent?
Fifty-seven of the hundred domains returned no certificate. That single number covers at least three different situations, and collapsing them into “unlicensed” would be wrong.
- The operator is licensed elsewhere. Thirty-nine of the hundred domains appear in the Anjouan public register instead, described on our page about the Anjouan licence register.
- The operator publishes no number at all. Thirty-two of the hundred are in that position.
- Nothing about the operator could be read. Twenty-one domains in the library returned nothing usable, live or archived, so every field for them is empty by default rather than by finding.
The difference between “we read it and it was not there” and “we could not read anything” is the difference between a fact and a gap. That distinction is the whole subject of our page on what crypto casinos do not publish.