What should I check before signing up to an online casino? Check the regulator's licence record against the certificate, then read payout conditions, complaint routes and inactivity fees. The CGA's register page links 4 PDF overviews under one validity disclaimer. A footer badge doesn't complete those checks.
Matching paperwork doesn't promise payment.
This site earns a commission on casino links; ratings and rankings aren't for sale. Sources checked October 2026.
The answer in full
Deciding what to check before joining an online casino starts with documents you can actually compare. My first pass takes about 10 minutes as a reading allowance, not a deadline for resolving doubts. The useful result is either enough information to consider the decision further or a specific reason to leave the deposit unmade.
The register check now starts with a PDF
The register page at the Curaçao Gaming Authority provides the published licence overviews. Open the relevant PDF, search for the licence number and legal company name, and record its update date alongside the result. The former searchable portal at portal.cga.cw redirects away, so instructions that send you there to search are out of date.
The register page's Certificates overview lists test laboratories and alternative dispute resolution organisations under Article 5.17 of the LOK, not casino certificates. A casino's certificate of operation is reached from the seal on its own site.
In its announcement of 7 October 2026, the CGA permanently discontinued the portal following an unauthorised-access incident. The authority said this didn't affect existing licences, operators' obligations or its regulatory duties. Its PDF disclaimer says the overviews “do not guarantee the current validity of the licenses”, so a matching entry establishes what that document records.
The announcement also warned that the existing digital seal would be affected. As of the research date, 15 October, no replacement mechanism had been published in the research record, despite further information being targeted for 9 October. That finding doesn't establish a complete publication history. For now, I'd use the dated documents and revisit the method when the CGA publishes a replacement.
| The check | The document to read | What a bad answer looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Licence entry | CGA licence overview and its disclaimer | Footer image offered without a regulator record |
| Agreement between records | Certificate and corresponding register row | Different status labels and printed licence term left unexplained |
| Getting paid | Identity, withdrawal and applicable bonus terms | Payout conditions missing from the decision |
| Complaint route | Operator complaints procedure and named ADR | Internal support described as independent adjudication |
| Idle balance costs | Dormancy and account-fee terms | Inactivity deductions overlooked |
The remaining checks follow the money through the account
After finding the licence entry, compare it with the certificate that names the website. In this guide's wording, the certificate connects a domain, operator and licence as displayed when checked. Alongside it, the register provides another record to compare, but finding the same licence number doesn't settle differences in the other fields.
Then read what happens when money leaves, when a complaint remains unresolved and when the account sits unused. This checklist for evaluating online casinos treats each separately, because my concern is whether the terms answer your question, however many reassuring statements the page contains.
A payout clause can reserve time for identity checks or limit particular winnings. A complaints clause can lead back to the company itself, while an inactivity clause can reduce money without further betting. Until those conditions are understood, I'd regard the document search as unfinished, however familiar the brand looks.
What to check before joining an online casino when records differ
The closest comparison in this research involves a licence number that matches across 2 official records while other details disagree. This is where I'd spend most of the reading time. A shared identifier makes the difference worth examining, but doesn't establish which document describes the present position or why the records diverge.
The same licence carries different status labels and dates
Rolletto's certificate names Santeda International B.V. and CGA licence OGL/2024/1798/1048. The certificate as it read on 15 October 2026 gives company number 151296 and status Active. In the register updated on 14 October 2026, the row names the same company and number, but prints Assessment in progress and a term that ended on 24 December 2025. Fetching that register on 15 October didn't change its separate update date.
| Field | Certificate of operation | OGL register |
|---|---|---|
| Record date | Checked 15 October 2026 | Updated 14 October 2026 |
| Licence | OGL/2024/1798/1048 | OGL/2024/1798/1048 |
| Company | Santeda International B.V. | Santeda International B.V. |
| Company number | 151296 | 151296 |
| Licence dates | Granted 14/08/2024 | 24-Jun-25 to 24-Dec-25 |
| Status | Active | Assessment in progress |
Neither record explains the disagreement, and the register doesn't define Assessment in progress or say what the printed expiry means for a licence carrying that status. Calling it a refusal, an approval or permission to continue would add a conclusion absent from this evidence. Both are the regulator's own records, agreeing on the licence holder but differing on its standing.
Keep the fields separate when requesting an explanation. Ask how the printed term relates to Assessment in progress, what establishes present licence standing, and which dated regulator document supports the answer. A reply repeating Active doesn't address the register's status and printed expiry, and the PDF's later-looking layout wouldn't establish that the certificate is wrong.
Agreement matters because you need to know whose terms you're accepting, but matching records don't prove that an individual payout will arrive. Pending a documented explanation, I'd stop at the unresolved comparison and leave both records intact.
The reading order ends at the first unresolved condition
First, find the regulator's record and retain its date and disclaimer. Next, compare the licence number, legal entity, company number, licence dates and status against the certificate. Then read the identity and withdrawal clauses, including any separate ceiling on bonus-derived winnings. After that, locate the complaint procedure and finally the inactivity charge.
Those variables answer different questions, so a clear payout clause can't repair a licensing discrepancy. Nor can a matching certificate supply a missing independent complaint contact. My decision framework treats an unresolved material point as a reason to pause, without turning that pause into an accusation against the operator.
Before applying the framework to yourself, read the restricted-country list and any other country or payment restrictions. Omission from a restricted-territory clause doesn't establish permission to serve your country or actual registration availability. Zizobet, Cosmobet and Velobet also reserve the right to refuse customers beyond their listed exclusions, while Betmac publishes a different prohibited-country clause. For the wider context, the licence guide explains the documents, while the payment guides concern the separate route your money takes.
The reading allowance ends when a question needs an answer from elsewhere. I'd keep the enquiry open until that answer addresses the actual missing fact, even if the rest of the paperwork agrees.
What to look for in an online casino depends on your starting point
A first deposit, a conflicting certificate and an existing balance call for different immediate actions. The examples below apply the same checks without rating a casino. My view is that a useful framework changes what you do next, including when the result is to spend nothing or stop playing altogether.
A first deposit can wait for the withdrawal terms
For a first deposit, what to check before joining an online casino includes the withdrawal terms, even after finding the legal company and corresponding licence record. The next useful question is what information is needed to sign up and what additional evidence the operator can request before paying. An account form doesn't describe the whole relationship, and successful registration doesn't settle the payout conditions.
Examine the identity clause alongside the withdrawal route and any promotion you've considered. A bonus adds another reason to examine what a bonus turnover costs and what remains withdrawable afterwards. Missing terms aren't a reason to make a small deposit just to discover them.
Set a pre-set session budget using only money you can afford to lose. Completing these checks doesn't increase that amount or create an obligation to play. At that stage, my unanswered withdrawal questions would keep the money outside the account.
A conflicting record calls for an explanation before funding
On finding the Rolletto records compared above while considering an account, save the certificate and the PDF row together, with their dates visible. The practical question concerns the fields that differ, not which page looks more official. Both belong to the regulator's published material, and neither explains the other.
Request a written answer that addresses the status difference and the register's printed licence term. If the reply simply sends the same seal again, the underlying questions remain. Another brand displaying that licence wouldn't, by itself, resolve the disagreement either.
Waiting for an answer doesn't require keeping a gambling session open or moving to another casino. There is no need to increase your budget because you've invested time in research. Until the records can be reconciled through supporting evidence, I'd make no deposit and wouldn't label either document wrong.
An existing balance needs an exit decision when play stops
For an account holding money you no longer intend to gamble, open its inactivity terms before assuming that leaving it alone preserves the balance. Check what starts the dormancy clock, how the charge is calculated and how to request the remaining money. The operator examples below use different triggers and fee bases.
Stopping play doesn't require placing another bet to keep an account active. Request the available balance through the stated withdrawal process and retain the response. If you also want closure or self-exclusion, make that request explicit rather than assuming inactivity achieves it.
An unresolved withdrawal isn't a reason to replenish the account or gamble the balance while waiting. My next action would be to pursue the outstanding request and stop further spending, unless a documented answer changes what action is needed.
What this looks like at a Curaçao casino
The clauses checked show why the wording deserves more attention than the badge. Each casino appears here as an example of a condition, with the same evidential standard for partners and other operators. For my reading, the useful distinction is what a clause permits and what it leaves unanswered about an actual account.
Payout conditions and inactivity fees need separate readings
Zizobet, Cosmobet and Velobet publish the same sentence in their terms. “The Company reserves the right to check Your identity prior to processing payouts and to hold withdrawals for the time needed to check Your identity.” This establishes a reserved power to hold a withdrawal, without stating a completion time in that sentence.
| Casino | The clause | What it means | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zizobet | “prior to processing payouts” | Identity checks can precede payment | General terms, identity clause |
| Cosmobet | “ten (10) times the amount of the qualifying deposit” | Withdrawal cap on deposit-bonus winnings | General terms, deposit-bonus winnings clause |
| Velobet | “hold withdrawals for the time needed to check Your identity” | Withdrawal held during identity checks | General terms, identity clause |
| Betmac | “any bonus and bonus wins will be forfeited” | Consequence of withdrawing the deposit under this clause | Bonus terms, deposit-withdrawal clause |
Cosmobet's terms cap winnings generated from deposit bonuses at 10x the qualifying deposit. That ceiling isn't a wagering multiple and doesn't describe ordinary cash winnings. Betmac's bonus terms allow deposit withdrawal at any time, with forfeiture of the bonus and bonus wins, so read each clause within its stated scope.
For unused money, Cosmobet reserves a monthly fee of 5% after 365 consecutive days without login or logout activity, capped at €20 per month. Its base is the balance recorded on the date inactivity was determined, which the terms call the Initial Dormant Balance. Betmac instead reserves €10 monthly after at least 12 months without recorded activity. Neither clause proves a particular deduction occurred.
| Term | Cosmobet | Betmac |
|---|---|---|
| Inactivity threshold | 365 consecutive days | At least 12 months |
| Activity described | Login or logout | Recorded activity |
| Monthly charge reserved | 5% of Initial Dormant Balance, capped at €20 monthly | €10, or equivalent in account currency |
| Source clause | Dormant accounts | Inactive accounts and account management fee |
Betmac also describes recovering the remaining funds by logging in and requesting withdrawal, though that doesn't promise a payout deadline. Until the applicable terms establish otherwise, I'd treat an idle balance as money still exposed to the account's conditions.
A complaints inbox leaves the independent route to establish
Follow the operator's stated complaint procedure and retain the correspondence. Zizobet names complaints@zizobet.com, Cosmobet names complaints@cosmobet.com, and Betmac names support@betmac.com. Cosmobet says complaints are “handled in the support department and escalated in the organization of the Company”. Every complaints channel in the clause fragment stays within the operator, and none names independent ADR.
Keep that finding within its scope, because the fragment doesn't prove no external route exists elsewhere. The LOK requires post-reform licensees to offer free, independent dispute resolution, so request the provider and procedure. IBAS applies only where the operator names it. A statutory duty doesn't supply a missing contact.
The CGA's own page says it “does not handle individual complaints against gaming providers” and “is not a civil court”. It cannot order compensation or issue judgments, but still requests complaints at complaints@cga.cw because reports can indicate breaches and patterns can prompt supervision. Send relevant evidence, while keeping that purpose distinct from obtaining an individual remedy.
A Commission licensee must provide a free ADR route, with unresolved complaints eligible after 8 weeks under the cited guidance. These clauses don't identify an equivalent independent route. The Commission route doesn't cover these Curaçao operators, and GAMSTOP covers sites licensed in Great Britain, so those UK protections are absent here. The dispute route is weaker and outside UK jurisdiction. Establish the actual provider before relying on it.
Common mistakes
These errors give a real document more authority than its wording supports. Each appears in the research as a specific mismatch between an assumption and a dated record. My concern is the decision that follows, especially when a reader treats an unanswered point as settled and sends money before checking it.
A badge is mistaken for the completed check
Save the page that opens from the badge, including its address and the date you visited. If the destination fails, record that result and request the relevant regulator document in writing. Don't fill the gap with a remembered result from another visit. Until that document is available, I'd leave this part of the enquiry open.
Active is made to answer every status question
Write each disputed field into the enquiry as a separate question, and attach the relevant document beside it. Check whether the reply answers every question rather than merely acknowledging your message. Keep unanswered items visible instead of closing the enquiry after a reassuring response. Until each answer has supporting evidence, I'd keep the account unfunded.
A brand is treated as the licence's only website
The Rolletto certificate and an older Zizobet certificate connect different domains to the same operator and licence. The Zizobet certificate copy dates from 11 September 2026, so it supports that historical comparison rather than a current certificate claim. A familiar licence number doesn't establish exclusive coverage of a brand, so I'd seek each address's own documented connection.
A regulatory report is treated as a decided dispute
Keep separate references for the operator complaint, any ADR referral and the regulatory report. When a reply arrives, record who sent it, what question it answers and whether it asks for further evidence. An acknowledgement belongs in the correspondence file. Leave the complaint open until the applicable procedure produces a substantive answer to the claim.
No further bets is mistaken for no further deductions
Dormancy clauses can authorise deductions even when you place no bets. Across these examples, a percentage of an identified balance and a fixed currency charge aren't interchangeable calculations. Check the trigger and base before leaving money unused. Unless the applicable terms establish that no charge applies, I'd request the remaining withdrawable funds when I no longer intend to play.
How to use this
My own order begins with the licence check because a mismatch there changes the rest of the enquiry. Only after recording the operator and comparing the documents would I examine payment conditions, complaints and dormancy. That order answers what to look for in an online casino without turning the result into a rating.
The document trail matters more than a reassuring reply
A reply is useful when it identifies the applicable clause or regulator record and answers the particular question. General reassurance doesn't resolve a difference in licence standing, nor does a statement about customer service identify independent ADR. My stopping point is a material answer that remains unsupported after asking for its source.
A search for a reputable UK online casino can also lead you to documents about a different licensing framework. Identify the issuer and the legal entity before drawing conclusions from the wording. Learning how to evaluate the safety and fairness of an online casino requires evidence beyond this initial document screen. These records don't establish game-level fairness or an individual withdrawal outcome.
Pending supporting material that addresses the actual question, I'd retain the reply as correspondence rather than treat it as proof.
A written funds rule needs evidence that it operates
The LOK's player-funds provisions explain why the next question is where protection stops. Article 5.7 requires relevant licensees to join a guarantee fund through premiums. Article 5.8(g), translated from Dutch, allows the CGA to impose conditions concerning the separation and reservation of players' balances, or their insurance (the Dutch text's 'verzekering', which English versions render as safeguarding), and their payment. Neither provision documents an operator's actual arrangements.
My reading therefore leaves implementation, compliance and recoverable amounts unestablished by these documents. A company citing the law hasn't supplied evidence that a particular balance can be recovered. Ask what arrangement applies, what evidence supports it and what limits remain.
Understanding what to check before joining an online casino can end with a decision to go no further. Unless supporting documents resolve the material gaps, I'd keep the deposit unmade and avoid treating time spent researching as a reason to commit money.
How this guide was put together
This guide draws on CGA documents, operator terms, the LOK, Commission guidance and GAMSTOP's coverage statement, checked on 15 October 2026. The register update is dated 14 October 2026, while the worked certificate was checked on 15 October 2026. The order of checks is my editorial framework. The records don't explain the status difference or printed expiry, define the assessment label's legal effect, or verify fund operation and recoverable amounts. Operator clauses establish published conditions rather than account outcomes. Until further evidence resolves those limits, I'd keep the findings bounded to these dated documents.
Responsible gambling
Completing a document check can create confidence without changing what gambling can cost you. We encourage you to keep that distinction clear, and this guide is for adults aged 18+ only. Your pre-set session budget needs to fit money you can afford to lose, with essential spending protected.
Time spent checking doesn't oblige you to deposit
You don't owe a casino a deposit because you've registered, read its terms or spent time asking questions. Use available deposit and session limits, and consider a bank gambling block if you need help controlling spending. Don't add money to pursue losses or keep playing because a withdrawal remains unresolved.
Support can come before another document check
If gambling feels difficult to control, GamCare offers support. We would put stopping and seeking help ahead of further casino research whenever gambling affects your finances or wellbeing.
