The CGA publishes no restricted-country list in the documents reviewed, so I'd treat curacao gaming license restricted countries as an operator-terms question. For readers looking for their country, the answer depends on whose clause you're reading. Published terms supply different names, categories and conditions, rather than a common answer.
The country answer starts with the named operator
Curacao replaced a 30-year-old licensing system in December 2024, but that change doesn't supply the country list you're looking for. My reading starts with the regulator's own pages and the ordinance. Together, they establish where the search began and why the named operator clauses need separate treatment.
The absence comes from 3 named documents
For the regulator-wide question, the Curacao Gaming Authority publishes an Online Gaming page and a Regulation page. Neither supplies a restricted-country list in the versions saved on 18 September 2026, and the search also covered the LOK ordinance's remote-gambling chapter. That leaves you without a regulator-issued list to apply across the examples on this page. Those separate exclusions don't become an unofficial version of such a list just because they share an issuer. Combining their names would create something none of those sources publishes, even if every name came from an authentic clause.
| Source | Country-list finding | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| CGA Online Gaming page | Not published | Page saved 18 September 2026 |
| CGA Regulation page | Not published | Page saved 18 September 2026 |
| LOK, Chapter 5 | Not published | Articles 5.1–5.19 reviewed |
Until the regulator publishes a common list, I'd keep the answer tied to those named documents. An operator's longer passage can't fill that gap on the regulator's behalf. The distinction matters before any country-by-country comparison begins.
An operator's clause answers only for that operator
A territorial clause can identify residents, refer to people from named countries, or place the condition in local law. Those forms don't ask you exactly the same question, so my concern is what the sentence actually restricts before counting names. These terms come from published documents, rather than tests of account opening or access. A printed restriction establishes the operator's wording on the stated date, without showing how it handled an individual person. This comparison doesn't claim that experience or use a successful website visit as evidence of contractual acceptance.
For the regulator's wider role, the Curacao licence guide supplies the surrounding explanation. Here, each restriction stays with the company that published it. Unless a regulator document establishes a shared rule, I'd resist turning several separate clauses into a licence-wide ban.
The territory law does not supply a country schedule
The governing statute is the LOK, the Landsverordening op de kansspelen, P.B. 2024, no. 157. Its player provisions matter to the territorial question, but they don't produce a list of names. I'd distinguish the ordinance's treatment of players from its separate ground concerning breaches of another country's gambling law.
Chapter 5 addresses players without enumerating territories
Articles 5.1–5.19 contain player-protection and acceptance provisions, including Articles 5.4, 5.8(e) and 5.9(1)(e). The reviewed chapter doesn't expressly list permitted or prohibited player territories, though that doesn't mean it says nothing about accepting players. For you, the practical difference is between a rule about admitting players and a schedule naming their countries. They aren't interchangeable forms of wording when you want to know whether a particular country appears in the law. An operator's country clause can therefore add named exclusions without those names appearing in the chapter searched here.
| Provision | Subject in reviewed text | Country schedule |
|---|---|---|
| Article 5.4 | Player protection | None found in Chapter 5 |
| Article 5.8(e) | Player identification, verification and acceptance | None found in Chapter 5 |
| Article 5.9(1)(e) | Technical measures against prohibited participation | None found in Chapter 5 |
| Article 2.4(1)(j) | Foreign-law breach as a revocation ground | No country enumeration in cited ground |
Without a corresponding statutory list, I'd attribute the names in an operator's terms to that operator. The article references don't justify transferring those names to every other licensee. A different published legal provision would be needed to support that wider claim.
A revocation ground is not a country schedule
The ordinance's revocation grounds, which the licence guide covers, turn on a foreign authority's own decision rather than on any list of countries. Neither tells you which jurisdictions a particular operator names in its contract, so an exclusion clause and a revocation ground answer separate parts of the territorial question.
A country needn't appear in a common schedule for foreign gambling law to matter under this provision. Nor does the provision explain each commercial choice behind a named exclusion. Unless further published material makes that connection, I'd leave those motives unstated and describe only the legal ground given.
The UK's absence from the lists does not establish permission
For a UK reader, the dated wording answers a narrower question than whether an account is permitted. I'd keep the 12 October 2026 finding within that boundary. The following rows record the country-name finding for each successfully rechecked list, before the comparison turns to the clauses' different forms.
None of the 6 rechecked lists names the UK
Zizobet, Cosmobet, Velobet and Rolletto are the selected brands of Santeda International B.V. Rolletto's terms came from the mirror domain rolletto1.cc, while its certificate names Rolletto.com. Betmac, operated by Sefiarray B.V., likewise supplied terms at the mirror domain betmac3.com, while its certificate names betmac.com.
Jackbit, operated by Data Link Digital B.V., completes the October group. The 12 October recheck found no UK entry in any of these 6 lists. Each selected territorial passage also matches its 18 September wording, without establishing that every part of those terms remained unchanged.
| Brand | UK named in selected list | UK acceptance established by absence |
|---|---|---|
| Zizobet | No | No |
| Cosmobet | No | No |
| Velobet | No | No |
| Rolletto | No | No |
| Betmac | No | No |
| Jackbit | No | No |
For this finding, I'd keep the separate brand rows even where wording matches. They identify which published clauses support the answer. Another brand under the same regulator doesn't join that finding without its own dated text.
A missing name leaves the acceptance question unanswered
An exclusion list tells you whom its wording excludes, but silence about a country doesn't promise every resident an account. Differences in the activities and people described also matter to the answer you can draw from a passage. My reading therefore stops before turning an omitted name into a positive statement of eligibility.
For example, a restriction on opening an account and a restriction on placing bets concern different acts. Treating either as a general statement that a country is accepted would discard that detail. A search for curacao gaming license restricted countries doesn't remove the need to preserve the scope of the answer.
Your country can be absent from a named list while the surrounding sentence still contains a condition worth reading. That isn't a reason to invent an extra exclusion, either. Until affirmative wording supports a broader answer, I'd record the missing name without giving it the force of permission.
Categories and blocked requests can distort the answer
Counts look simple until a clause mixes named places with broader groups. The October comparison also includes an unsuccessful request, which needs a different reading from an exclusion sentence. I'd keep the counting unit and the reason for any missing wording visible, so neither becomes a stronger claim than the documents support.
Names and categories cannot share an undifferentiated total
Santeda names 9 jurisdictions individually, followed by 2 categories covering U.S.A dependencies and FATF black listed countries. Betmac and Jackbit each publish their own, in different forms. Those figures count separately printed entries, rather than measuring how many people each restriction covers.
An entry can be a territory, as Betmac's references to Guam and Puerto Rico show. Counting only sovereign countries would answer a different question from the one the passage presents. Its China, Korea and United States grouping phrases don't add coded entries of their own.
| Clause | Individually named entries | Broader categories | Readable terms date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Santeda's 4 brands | 9 | 2, unexpanded | 12 October 2026 |
| Betmac | 37 coded entries | Coded group members counted individually | 12 October 2026 |
| Jackbit | 7 | None in selected clause | 12 October 2026 |
| Donbet | Not published | Local-law condition | 18 September 2026 |
| Donbet October wording | Not verified | Not verified | HTTP 403 on 12 October 2026 |
Expanding Santeda's FATF category would require a separate dated source and a basis for applying it. Its dependencies category likewise doesn't enumerate members. Until that detail exists, I'd leave both groups unexpanded rather than manufacture an exact total of affected territories.
A failed request does not establish a geographic ban
Donbet's terms request on 12 October 2026 returned HTTP 403, so its October wording is Not verified. That blocked request cannot establish a geographic ban, because it supplies no clause identifying a prohibited location. It also doesn't establish whether the September passage disappeared or remained unchanged.
Not verified means the relevant wording couldn't be confirmed, while Not published records an absence in documents available to read. Here, the regulator's searched-for list and Donbet's missing country enumeration take the latter label, while Donbet's October access failure takes the former. The separate licence verification guide covers reading licence records. For this territory comparison, my limit is the wording available from the operator itself. Until readable October terms resolve the gap, I'd retain Donbet's older clause with its September date and draw no geographic conclusion from the error.
Curacao casino restricted countries differ in these named clauses
These curacao casino restricted countries clauses show both repeated wording and substantial differences. Santeda's brands use an identical passage, while Betmac, Jackbit and Donbet supply other forms. I'd compare the named places alongside the person and activity each sentence addresses, because a count alone can't express those differences.
Santeda repeats its exclusions and discretion across 4 brands
The October terms for Zizobet, Cosmobet, Velobet and Rolletto publish Santeda's territorial clause identically, including its final reservation. Their sentence bars registration and use of services by residence, rather than referring solely to nationality, a passport or a payment method. Santeda's named places are Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Lithuania, Netherlands, Georgia, Saba, St Maarten and U.S.A. The categories remain separate from those names in the table below. Its final sentence reserves the right to refuse customers from other countries at its discretion, so the enumeration doesn't limit refusals.
| Clause | Person or condition addressed | Activity addressed | Discretion sentence follows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Santeda's 4 brands | Residents of named jurisdictions and categories | Registration and use of services | Yes, all 4 copies |
| Betmac | Players from named countries | Opening accounts or placing real-money bets | No, in selected passage |
| Jackbit | Residents or access from named territory | Website access | Not assessed here |
| Donbet, September | Countries where online gambling is lawful | Player's responsibility before betting | Not assessed here |
For you, the repeated text establishes a match across the named brands, rather than an assumption based on shared ownership. My preference is to retain the reservation beside that match. Unless revised terms remove it, I'd read the named exclusions and the reserved discretion together.
Betmac's coded entries overlap only partly with Santeda's names
Betmac's Restricted Player Groups passage bars players from the listed countries from opening accounts or placing real-money bets. The wording checked on 12 October uses codes beside the entries, retained below. My comparison keeps those codes attached to Betmac rather than presenting them as part of Santeda's text.
Curacao, the Netherlands and the United States appear in both passages, alongside differently expressed references to US dependencies or territories. France illustrates a difference because Betmac prints it and Santeda's selected clause doesn't. Lithuania gives the reverse example between those passages, while also appearing in Jackbit's list.
In the matrix, a dash means the name isn't individually printed in that selected clause. It doesn't establish acceptance or rule out coverage by a broader category. Country names retain the operators' wording, with U.S.A shown under United States for comparison.
| Jurisdiction or category | Santeda's 4 brands | Betmac entry code | Jackbit |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Samoa | — | AS | — |
| Aruba | Named | — | — |
| Australia | — | AU | — |
| Austria | — | AT | — |
| Belarus | — | BY | Named |
| Belgium | — | BE | — |
| Bonaire | Named | — | — |
| Burma | — | MM | — |
| China | — | CN | — |
| Curacao | Named | CW | — |
| Cyprus | — | CY | — |
| Czech Republic | — | CZ | — |
| France | — | FR | — |
| Georgia | Named | — | Named |
| Germany | — | DE | — |
| Guam | — | GU | — |
| Hong Kong | — | HK | — |
| Iran | — | IR | — |
| Iraq | — | IQ | — |
| Japan | — | JP | — |
| Laos | — | LA | — |
| Latvia | — | — | Named |
| Libya | — | LY | — |
| Lithuania | Named | — | Named |
| Macau | — | MO | — |
| Malaysia | — | MY | — |
| Moldova | — | — | Named |
| Netherlands | Named | NL | — |
| Nigeria | — | NG | — |
| North Korea | — | KP | — |
| Northern Mariana Islands | — | MP | — |
| Portugal | — | PT | — |
| Puerto Rico | — | PR | — |
| Russia | — | — | Named |
| Saba | Named | — | — |
| Slovakia | — | SK | — |
| Somalia | — | SO | — |
| Spain | — | ES | — |
| St Maarten | Named | — | — |
| Sudan | — | SD | — |
| Sweden | — | SE | — |
| Syria | — | SY | — |
| Thailand | — | TH | — |
| Ukraine | — | — | Named |
| United States | Named as U.S.A | US | — |
| US Minor Outlying Islands | — | UM | — |
| US Virgin Islands | — | VI | — |
| U.S.A dependencies | Category | Named territories above | — |
| FATF black listed countries | Category | — | — |
Australia and Austria occupy separate Betmac rows with separate codes, and neither name appears individually in the other columns. Aruba and Bonaire, by contrast, appear individually in Santeda's wording alone. Reading those examples together shows why Betmac's passage can't be described simply as Santeda's exclusions with additions.
Neither overlap nor difference explains why the operators chose their wording. Betmac's selected passage also doesn't settle what discretion appears elsewhere in its terms. Until a wider claim has its own support, I'd keep this comparison confined to the passages shown.
Jackbit names territories while Donbet refers to local law
Jackbit's October terms at jack.com name Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia and Moldova. Other published versions of its terms carry a different enumeration, so the domain a clause came from is part of the finding. Its restriction covers the specified residents or access from the specified territory, preserving both parts of the operator's sentence. That distinction matters if you're comparing the text with Santeda's residence wording, though it doesn't settle an individual travel scenario.
Belarus connects Jackbit's named list with Betmac's, while Latvia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine appear individually only in Jackbit's column. A smaller count therefore doesn't make Jackbit's passage a subset of Betmac's larger list, even before their different subjects are considered. On that basis, I'd preserve those additional names rather than describing the shorter passage as merely a reduced version of the longer one.
Donbet, operated by GTW B.V., takes a different approach in its terms saved on 18 September 2026. Its clause accepts players only where online gambling is lawful and assigns checking the relevant laws to the player. There isn't an enumerated country list in that passage to add to the matrix, and its local-law condition can't become a blank column implying unrestricted access. Nor can Jackbit's named entries stand in for the countries Donbet leaves unspecified. Unless a later readable clause supplies names, I'd preserve these distinct forms instead of forcing both into the same list.
How to use the territory comparison without widening its claims
Reading across every country at once can hide the sentence relevant to your own question. My approach to curacao licence country restrictions starts with the named operator, then the person and activity described. The useful outcome is an accurate reading of that clause, including any unresolved category, rather than a verdict on the casino.
The operator's column comes before a wider country claim
For a particular country, I'd first find its row and then read only the column for the operator in question. A mark elsewhere answers for another passage, so the row isn't a reason to combine every operator's restrictions. Next comes the subject of the sentence and the action it restricts. If you're asking about residence, a reference to opening an account doesn't replace the wording about who may do so. The person, place and activity need to remain connected when the answer is shortened.
This order also keeps a country comparison from becoming a comparison of list lengths alone. Longer text can contain grouping language as well as more separate names. Until the clause resolves the point you're asking about, I'd keep the answer at that level instead of treating length as a measure of certainty.
An unspecified condition is a stopping point
After the literal country match, I'd read any category and reservation attached to the same sentence. A category requires its own meaning, and a reservation can qualify what the enumeration tells you. Neither disappears because a search within the page returns no individual country name.
Where the clause instead refers to local law, the comparison has reached the limit of a country-name table. You can't derive the missing legal answer by borrowing names from another operator. That would change the source of the restriction while making the result look more precise.
The final note I'd keep is a sentence about what the selected terms say, including what remains unresolved. That answers the curacao gaming license restricted countries query without turning it into an account-opening decision. Until additional wording answers the outstanding point, I'd leave that point open rather than fill it with an assumption about acceptance.
Responsible gambling takes priority over country-list differences
Country wording doesn't make gambling suitable for you or reduce the money you can lose. We treat the comparison as information, with no invitation to open an account. Gambling is for adults aged 18 and over, and a licence or an omitted country name isn't a reason to deposit.
A decision to stop still matters
A Curacao licence isn't a Gambling Commission licence. You don't receive Commission protections, its complaints route or GamStop coverage through that licence. We explain that distinction in the separate Curacao and UKGC comparison. If you're self-excluded, don't use differences between country clauses to seek another account.
Your reason for stopping still matters. A different list doesn't change the effect gambling has had on you or the purpose of your decision to stop. We wouldn't use a comparison of territorial terms to reopen that decision.
There isn't an account to choose here. If you arrived looking for a way to continue after self-exclusion, leave the operator comparison and seek support with that urge. We put your decision to stop ahead of completing this reading.
Support does not depend on resolving a licence question
If gambling is harming you, stop and seek support. You can contact GamCare about your own gambling or concerns for someone else. We wouldn't let an unanswered territory question delay that step. You don't need to finish comparing terms before asking for help.
Country terms can't answer a concern about losses. If that is what brought you here, pause the comparison and describe what is happening when you seek support. We don't need a conclusion about an operator before taking your concern seriously.
Asking for help doesn't require perfect wording. You can explain the gambling concern in your own words without first naming an article, a licence or a contractual restriction. Our position is to make room for that conversation, rather than another account.
