Hack Reveals the Names Behind Hundreds of (Illegal) Curaçao Gambling Companies 

A licence application is supposed to make clear who owns a gambling company and where its money comes from. Yet questions remained on precisely those points for several major operators, according to leaked documents from the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA). Nevertheless, companies behind brands including Stake and 1xBet were granted licences. 

The documents came into the possession of German cybersecurity researcher Lilith Wittmann, who gained access to the Curaçao regulator’s licensing system in late 2025. Under the name Casino Secrets, Follow the Money (FTM) investigated the documents together with international media partners. The investigation provides a rare glimpse into the companies, individuals and financial information behind hundreds of online gambling websites. Gambling Club has not reviewed the leaked files itself; findings from those files are therefore attributed to FTM throughout this article. 

• A hack of the Curaçao Gaming Authority exposed confidential files relating to 646 gambling companies. 

• The documents reveal who is registered as the owner of companies behind brands including Blaze, Qbet, Stake and 1xBet. 

• In several cases, the regulator questioned whether the individuals listed were also the true beneficial owners. 

• Licences were nevertheless granted while important questions remained unresolved. 

• This article explains why this matters for the supervision of illegal gambling websites in Belgium and the Netherlands. 

A Look Inside 646 Gambling Companies 

According to FTM, Wittmann obtained tens of thousands of confidential documents. These included licence applications, assessments by CGA employees, corporate structures, passports, tax records and financial statements. The files examined concern 646 companies holding a Curaçao licence, which together operate thousands of gambling websites. 

FTM investigated who was listed in the documents as the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO). A name on paper is an important starting point, but it does not always provide a definitive answer as to who actually makes the decisions. That distinction appears to have prompted discussion within the CGA in several licence applications. 

The revelations also affect the Dutch and Belgian markets. A Curaçao licence does not allow an operator to offer online gambling in the Netherlands or Belgium without a local licence. Nevertheless, several Curaçao-based gambling websites have been accessible in those countries or have faced enforcement action from regulators. For those authorities, knowing which individuals stand behind an operator can be important when investigating violations or attempting to enforce sanctions. 

Blaze: Dutch Owner Declared €800 Million in Wealth 

One of the names to emerge from the investigation is Nick van Gorsel. According to the documents reviewed by FTM, the Dutch national is listed alongside American Nicholas Beugg as an owner of Prolific Trade N.V., the Curaçao company behind online casino Blaze.com. 

In a statement submitted as part of his 2024 licence application, Van Gorsel declared personal wealth of €800 million. According to FTM, Beugg declared wealth of €500 million. These are figures that the two men themselves reported to the regulator; they are not estimates independently verified by Gambling Club. Van Gorsel and Beugg did not respond to questions from FTM. 

The significance of the Blaze case therefore goes beyond the size of those amounts. For years, it was difficult for outsiders to determine which individuals were behind international gambling websites and their Curaçao-based companies. The licensing documents show what ownership information was submitted to the regulator. Whether that information provides a complete picture of actual control in every individual case requires further investigation. 

Qbet: One Name in the File, but Questions Remain 

That caveat is particularly relevant in the case of Qbet. According to FTM, Filipina Joanna Tinaco Arenas is listed as the UBO of Novatech Solutions N.V., the Curaçao company behind Qbet. CGA employees, however, raised questions about her exact role and the source of the wealth she declared. 

According to the documents examined, Arenas also worked as a manager at a Philippine company providing services to gambling businesses. The Curaçao regulator questioned whether Qbet might in fact be a brand belonging to that company. Arenas being listed as the UBO therefore does not automatically mean that every question regarding the company’s true ownership has been resolved. According to FTM, Novatech and Qbet did not respond to requests for comment. 

Qbet had already been the subject of a major Dutch enforcement case. In March 2026, the Netherlands Gambling Authority, the Kansspelautoriteit, fined Novatech €24,846,000 because Dutch consumers were able to gamble through Qbet.com and 55Bet.com without a Dutch licence. The regulator described it as the highest fine it had imposed on an illegal operator up to that point. The decision has been challenged. Gambling Club previously reported on the record fine imposed on Qbet and the difficulties involved in collecting penalties from foreign gambling companies. 

The new information may also be relevant to the Dutch Lottery. According to FTM, it announced legal action against Qbet and intends to look not only at the operator itself, but also at other parties and directors involved. A name appearing in a licensing file could provide a starting point for such proceedings. That does not, however, mean that the leaked information will necessarily result in liability or a successful claim. 

Stake: Regulator Questioned Who Was Actually in Control 

The documents relating to Stake also raise questions. Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani are publicly known as the founders of the crypto casino. According to FTM, however, Curaçao licensing records list Mladen Vuckovic as the owner of Medium Rare N.V., the company behind Stake. Vuckovic was already known as a director of the company. 

According to the investigation, CGA employees questioned whether Vuckovic was the sole owner. They observed payments and loans from Medium Rare to companies and individuals that could be linked to Craven and Tehrani, even though neither man was named as an owner in the application. That provides a reason to investigate the ownership structure further, but the transactions alone do not prove that the stated ownership information was incorrect. 

Despite the unresolved questions, Medium Rare was granted a licence. Professor of forensic accounting Marcel Pheijffer, who reviewed licensing recommendations at FTM’s request, criticised that decision because of the uncertainty surrounding ownership. According to FTM, neither Vuckovic nor the trust company involved responded to questions. 

For Belgian readers, Stake has another significance: a Curaçao licence does not make the website legal in Belgium. Gambling Club previously explained why Stake does not hold a Belgian licence. The question of who owns the company and the question of which countries it is legally allowed to operate in are separate issues. 

Questions Also Remained About 1xBet 

In the case of 1xBet, the researchers again identified a difference between names that are publicly associated with the company and the information contained in the Curaçao file. According to FTM, Ukrainian Ihor Hniedash is listed as both director and owner of Caecus N.V., the Curaçao company behind the gambling website. 

Public reporting has long linked 1xBet to three Russian businessmen. According to FTM, CGA employees therefore wanted more information about a possible business relationship between Hniedash and the three men. They suspected that there might be multiple owners. According to the investigation, those questions had not yet been resolved when the company received its licence. A suspicion expressed in an internal report does not constitute proof that the declared ownership information was incorrect. 

The reason these questions matter is connected to the purpose of a licence. A regulator must be able not only to verify a company name, but also to assess who finances and controls the business. When uncertainty remains on those points, it becomes more difficult to assess risks and to hold the appropriate individuals accountable. 

Why Were Licences Granted Anyway? 

According to FTM, CGA assessors identified shortcomings in several of the applications examined, yet still regularly recommended granting a licence. In some cases, this happened on the condition that a company would provide additional information later. According to the investigative platform, that information often never followed. The files therefore raise a fundamental question: how much uncertainty about an owner can remain while an operator is already allowed to operate under a licence? 

Speaking to FTM, the Curaçao Gaming Authority does not deny that licences were issued while questions regarding corporate structures or owners remained unresolved. The regulator points to the transition to a new regulatory framework for an industry that has operated on the island for decades. According to the CGA, it chose to allow companies to comply with the new requirements gradually rather than immediately refusing a licence or terminating existing operations whenever an uncertainty arose. 

That explanation clarifies the approach taken, but it does not eliminate the questions raised by the researchers and experts consulted. When a licence is granted before a file is fully clarified, much depends on follow-up questions and ongoing supervision. If answers are not provided, uncertainty remains about who actually stands behind a gambling company. 

What Does This Mean for Belgium and the Netherlands? 

A Curaçao licence is an internationally visible document, but it does not give operators permission to serve players in every country. National regulators decide for themselves which operators may access their markets. The Dutch sanction against Qbet illustrates that holding a foreign licence does not remove an operator’s obligation to comply with Dutch gambling rules. 

At the same time, enforcement against international gambling websites is complicated when companies operate through multiple corporate entities, countries and domain names. Gambling Club previously described how Lalabet continued operating under another name after facing legal pressure. That is a separate case from Casino Secrets, but it illustrates why regulators look beyond the name displayed at the top of a website. 

Imposing a fine is also only one part of enforcement. Collecting penalties from foreign parties can be difficult, as Gambling Club previously explained in an article about record fines and the limited success in actually collecting them. Information about directors, owners and associated companies can help authorities conduct more targeted investigations, but the leaked names alone do not prove liability in any specific case. 

Above all, the investigation into the Curaçao documents reveals what information the regulator had available when assessing licence applications. FTM based its reporting on documents obtained by Wittmann in December 2025; any subsequent changes in ownership or additional information submitted after that date fall outside the scope of those files. The question now facing the CGA is what has been done since then to resolve outstanding doubts about the companies’ true beneficial owners.