Curaçao leak exposes shocking Stake online casino file 

First came the licence, then the missing explanation. Leaked documents from the Curaçao Gaming Authority show, according to Gambling Insider, that Medium Rare N.V., the operator of Stake.com, received a conditional licence while assessors still had questions about the actual ownership structure. The company was given five weeks to provide clarification. 

On screen, the casino is called Stake. In the Curaçao licensing file, the operator is named Medium Rare N.V. Behind that difference lies the question the regulator had to answer: who actually owns the company, and how does it relate to the well-known founders of the brand? 

According to Gambling Insider, the internal assessment identified Mladen Vuckovic as the sole ultimate beneficial owner and CEO. At the same time, assessors referred to Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani, who are publicly known as the founders of Stake. Their precise role was not specifically explained in the application. 

The founders were known, but their position in the application was not 

According to Gambling Insider’s investigation into Stake’s conditional licence, assessors had questions about the relationship between Medium Rare, Craven, Tehrani and several connected companies. This went beyond the absence of two names: the corporate structure and contractual arrangements also required clarification. 

A founder of a brand does not automatically have to be the owner of every company behind that brand. The difference between the public presentation and the declared owner therefore does not in itself prove that the application was incorrect. According to the reporting, however, the documents do show that the CGA did not yet consider the overall relationship sufficiently clear. 

Five weeks to explain the relationships behind Stake 

Despite those questions, the licence was conditionally granted on 9 June 2025, according to the published timeline. From the date the licence was granted, Medium Rare was given five weeks to explain its relationships with Craven, Tehrani and companies such as Easygo, Primedice, Sweepsteaks, Mebit d.o.o. and Well Done STK. 

The CGA also requested clarification about the arrangements governing the use of the Stake brand, the Stake.com domain and its associated subdomains. The regulator was therefore examining both the company itself and its right to operate the brand and website. These are related, but distinct, elements of a licence application. 

The leak revealed the regulator’s internal assessment 

The documents became public through Casino Secrets, the investigation for which German cybersecurity researcher Lilith Wittmann obtained documents from the CGA portal. Follow the Money and international media partners examined the material. The findings were published on 22 September 2026. 

Gambling Club previously covered the investigation into the Curaçao gambling hack and the disputed licences. The incident brought together two issues: the security of confidential files and the way the regulator assessed applications. In the case of Medium Rare, the second issue becomes particularly concrete: additional information became a condition after the licence had already been granted. 

CGA defends its checks and calls for context 

The CGA says that companies were given the opportunity to meet the requirements step by step during the transition to the renewed licensing system. According to the response to Follow the Money cited by Gambling Insider, a question or uncertainty did not necessarily have to result immediately in the refusal of a licence or the termination of operations. 

In its official response to the data leak of 22 September 2026, the regulator stresses that it followed thorough internal procedures when investigating applicants. The CGA warns against drawing conclusions from individual documents without examining the full application and its broader context. 

The five-week deadline leaves an important question unanswered 

Were the requested answers submitted within those five weeks? The documents reviewed by Gambling Insider do not establish that. They therefore provide no basis for stating that Medium Rare ignored the conditions, or that the ownership questions remain unanswered today. 

The limited finding is nevertheless relevant: according to the documents examined, questions were still outstanding when the conditional licence was granted. To assess how the case was handled afterwards, the additional responses and the regulator’s assessment of them would be needed. That follow-up is precisely what is missing from the published analysis. 

Why this also matters to Belgian readers 

A Curaçao licence does not automatically allow an online casino to serve Belgian players. Belgium has its own local licensing system. Gambling Club previously explained why Stake does not have a Belgian gambling licence. 

This means two separate questions need to be distinguished. Who owns the company behind Stake is an issue arising from the Curaçao file. Where Stake is legally allowed to offer gambling depends on the rules of the country concerned. Our explanation of the difference between legal and illegal operators in Belgium addresses that local licensing issue. 

A brand name does not reveal who is responsible 

For regulators, the structure behind a gambling website matters when they investigate or take action against an operator. A well-known brand name, a company and an ultimate beneficial owner all fulfil different roles. The disclosure of a person’s name also does not automatically make that person liable for the company’s conduct. 

Our reporting on the Qbet fine and the difficulties of international enforcement also shows why the company behind a website deserves attention. That case is unrelated to Stake. In the case of Medium Rare, the next step remains specific: establishing what answers were received after 9 June 2025 and how the CGA assessed them.