Anjouan Licensed Casinos

Anjouan, also written Nzwani, is one of the three islands of the Union of the Comoros. It has an autonomous island government inside the Union, which is why some licence lines read "Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of the Comoros" rather than naming the Union alone.

Anjouan Licensing Services Inc. administers the permits, and the ALSI prefix on the licence numbers reads as its initials. It has run the scheme since May 2023 under the island's offshore finance authority, on a legal basis usually cited as the Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 of 2005. The naming is inconsistent, and the inconsistency reaches the licence lines we recorded: Gamdom's names the Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority, Ignition's the Anjouan Gaming Board, Lucky Block's the Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, and Bovada's the Union of the Comoros with no island body at all. Only Bovada's and Ignition's were read on the operator's own site. Gamdom's and Lucky Block's come from third-party reviews, and luckyblock.com did not resolve for us, so that seal was never opened.

One permit covers casino, live casino, sportsbook and virtuals, B2C and B2B together, at around EUR 17,000 to apply and EUR 13,300 to renew, in two to four weeks. Those figures come from a trade guide written by a casino platform vendor. The fullest account of this regulator we could find is written by a company that sells software to its licensees.

Curaçao was the default offshore regime for crypto casinos, resting on a 1993 ordinance and working through four master licences that resold sub-licences. It ended on a published timetable. The Landsverordening op de Kansspelen took force on 24 December 2024 and abolished the master-licence system; the sub-licences issued under it expired at the end of January 2025; transitional seals ran out in October 2025; and from 1 January 2026 a licensee needs real presence on the island. Our Curaçao page sets that reform out in full.

An operator facing it chose between a direct Curaçao licence, which attaches obligations to a named company and now requires substance on the island, and roughly EUR 17,000 for a permit that arrives in weeks from a jurisdiction the accounts we read describe as among the least stringent. Anjouan is now the second most common regime among the operators we track, behind Curaçao: eight against eighteen.

Six of the eight leave a Curaçao trace in our records. Duelbits and Wild.io name both regimes now. Gamdom is described as previously Curaçao-licensed, and its blocklist names Curaçao. Bovada's terms PDF still references Curaçao-eGaming while every HTML page names the Comoros. Ignition's older claim of a 1668/JAZ sub-licence under Lynton Limited is superseded by the Anjouan footer. Lucky Block's old pairing, Entretenimiento Rojo B.V. on 8048/JAZ, still circulates in reviews and looks stale. We can say these operators moved. We can date exactly one of the moves.

That one is Wild.io. Archived copies from March 2026 name Nonce Gaming B.V. under Curaçao 8048/JAZ; by 30 April 2026 the footer is reported to name Stack Gaming Ltd under an Anjouan licence, with no number published anywhere we looked. The March footer pointed at a sub-licence that had already expired. The April one points at a licence with no number. Neither is checkable, and the move reduces the supervision the operator sits under.

Duelbits and Wild.io appear on this page and on the Curaçao one, because each record names both authorities. Both statements are true, and listing either on one page only would make the other wrong.

The cases differ. Wild.io is the migration above. Duelbits looks like a genuine overlap: our record names Curaçao Gaming Authority licence OGL/2024/1507/0838, issued to Liquid Entertainment N.V., and reports a secondary Anjouan licence beside it. Whether that second licence is held sits on the open-questions list attached to that record, so we report it and do not assert it.

An operator holds two for ordinary reasons. A spare permit keeps the site live if one lapses, a group can put different brands under different permits, and the two carry different market lists, so one serves what the other forbids.

None of that is twice the protection. Your account is held by one entity under one licence, and the footer rarely says which. Ask support in writing which company holds it and under which licence, before you deposit.

An Anjouan licence number looks like ALSI-152406043-FI4: the administrator's initials, a digit block, a suffix. Of the eight operators listed here today, four carry one and four do not.

Bovada publishes no licence number anywhere. Its licensing line, repeated on the home page, the terms and the restricted-jurisdictions page, says it is licensed and regulated by the Union of the Comoros and the Central Reserve Authority of Western Sahara, with no number and no validator link beside it; its terms PDF still references Curaçao-eGaming, whose sub-licences expired in January 2025. Ignition's footer names the Anjouan Gaming Board and company registration number 11548, which is a company number, not a licence. Wild.io's Anjouan number is unpublished, and the number Duelbits publishes is its Curaçao one.

Of the four that do carry one, two are printed more than one way across the sources we read: Lucky Block's as ALSI-142311018-FI2 and ALSI-1423 l 1005-FI2, Gamdom's as ALSI-152406043-FI and ALSI-152406043-FI4. Eight operators, two unambiguous numbers between them.

The part that makes the count moot. Curaçao publishes a register at portal.cga.cw, so a claim there can be tested against the regulator rather than the operator's own seal image. We found no working public validator for Anjouan, and the trade guide documenting the regime reports the same: its verification links returned 404. An Anjouan licence claim is, at present, unverifiable by the public. Unverifiable is not false. It does mean the badge is doing no work.

Start with what the licence reportedly forbids. Its excluded markets are Australia, Austria, Comoros, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States and FATF-blacklisted countries.

FortuneJack's published blocklist is exactly those nine territories, Comoros included, and nothing else. Duelbits, Gamdom and Rainbet each block the eight non-Comoros ones inside longer lists of thirty, thirty-seven and thirteen countries; Gamdom's list also names Curaçao, the regime it left.

The other four do not line up. Lucky Block's seventeen-country list names one of the eight, the United States, and leaves out Australia, Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Wild.io's thirty-country list names six and leaves out Austria and Germany. Bovada and Ignition publish no country blocklist at all. Half the operators under this licence publish a list that matches its terms and half do not, and we found nothing above them that would notice.

Bovada and Ignition accept United States players. Bovada's help page names twenty US jurisdictions it will not serve, the District of Columbia among them; Ignition's names five states. The licence they hold reportedly excludes the United States outright. A US player with a held balance there would be asking an authority in the Comoros to intervene in activity its own licence says should not be happening.

Here is the recourse, complete. The operator's complaints desk. A public complaint on a mediation portal such as casino.guru, where participation is voluntary. Public pressure. We found no dispute resolution body for this regime, no register to escalate to and no published complaints procedure, and crypto withdrawals cannot be reversed.

Read the verification deadlines first. Rainbet is reported to run a 72-hour compliance window with a fund-restriction clause attached. One review of Wild.io describes a 28-day clock after which funds are treated as confiscated, unconfirmed in official terms and exactly the clause to check yourself. Every operator here can ask for documents, and none has a policy of never asking.

None of this says these operators do not pay. Bovada has traded since 2011 with no controversy documented in our research, which describes what we found rather than a clean record. The licence does not decide whether an operator behaves well. It decides what exists above it when it does not.