Controversial Dutch gambling millionaire steps out of the shadows: leaked files reveal more 

FTM links Dutchman Nick van Gorsel to gambling site Blaze. Leaked Curaçao files reveal major fortunes and raise questions about supervision. 

According to Follow the Money, a Dutch entrepreneur who is barely known to the general public turns out to be one of the owners behind Blaze. The gambling site grew rapidly in Brazil with famous influencers and footballer Neymar as its public face. Leaked documents from Curaçao now shed light on the people behind the brand and the sums allegedly involved in the business. 

The investigation comes as Brazil implements a far-reaching ban on so-called bets. Two stories therefore come together: the rapid rise of an international gambling company and the question of how governments can protect players from financial and social harm. For Belgian readers, the key issue is the distinction between a well-known casino brand, a foreign licence and local supervision. 

A Dutch name appears behind Neymar 

According to the FTM investigation into the owners behind Blaze, published on 14 October, Nick van Gorsel and his American business partner Nicholas Beugg are the people behind the Curaçao structure of the gambling site. Van Gorsel was born in Bergen op Zoom in 1996. 

FTM bases its reporting on documents from Casino Secrets, the investigation into confidential licensing files from the Curaçao Gaming Authority. The publication offers a different perspective on a brand that was publicly associated mainly with famous faces. 

An important distinction is needed here. A footballer or influencer who promotes a gambling site is not automatically its owner. Conversely, someone with a decisive financial interest may remain hidden behind companies without appearing prominently in advertising. 

At Blaze, Neymar was highly visible. Van Gorsel remained far less well known. According to FTM, the documents provide information precisely about that less visible side: who was listed as the ultimate beneficial owner and how the company was presented to the regulator. 

A large fortune is not the same as company profit 

The financial figures in the investigation are striking. According to FTM, Van Gorsel declared an annual income of €50 million in documents submitted to the Curaçao regulator in 2024. His declared net worth that year was around €800 million. 

These are figures taken from declarations and licensing documents. They must be distinguished from an independently audited estimate of his wealth. FTM notes that payslips are absent and compares the declared income with financial information about the business. 

The company figures also require precision. According to the records examined, Blaze reportedly made hundreds of millions of euros in profit in 2022 and 2023. In addition, the casino’s digital wallets reportedly held nearly €860 million in cryptocurrency in 2023. 

A balance held in crypto wallets is not the same thing as annual profit. Nor is it automatically the private wealth of one owner. These figures describe different things: income, declared assets, company results and digital holdings. With numbers of this scale, making those distinctions is essential to avoid creating a misleading picture. 

Curaçao as the starting point for international growth 

FTM describes how Van Gorsel and Beugg used Curaçao to expand Blaze into the Brazilian market. According to the investigation, the Curaçao company Prolific Trade N.V. plays a central role. 

The trust office Emoore acted as director and service provider. Such firms can, among other things, manage companies, handle administration and assist with licence applications. This places them between the commercial owners and the local corporate structure. 

That arrangement is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. It does, however, show why the brand name on a website is not enough to determine which company is responsible and who its ultimate owners are. 

Gambling Club previously reported on the Curaçao gambling hack and questions surrounding disputed licences. The documents raise issues both about the security of sensitive information and the assessment of licence applications. 

Questions about an earlier US case 

The FTM investigation also discusses an earlier US case involving Nicholas Beugg. According to the publication, he was suspected of possible money laundering activities through cryptocurrency transactions. During a 2017 inspection, almost $600,000 in cash was found. 

According to FTM, the case was closed in 2020 and Beugg got the money back. That outcome is an essential part of the story. An earlier suspicion must not be presented as a conviction, and this information does not prove criminal conduct by Blaze. 

The journalistic question here mainly concerns the checks carried out by the Curaçao regulator. FTM writes that the licensing file referred to a possible case of mistaken identity. Based on public records and court documents, the researchers say it was in fact the same person. 

According to FTM, the CGA did not comment substantively on that individual file because of its confidentiality obligations. The regulator also referred to the transition period for the stricter licensing regime. The researchers’ findings and the regulator’s explanation therefore stand alongside each other. 

Licensing raises broader questions 

The discussion is not limited to Blaze. Gambling Club previously reported on questions surrounding Stake’s Curaçao licence. That separate case focused in part on the relationship between a declared owner, known founders and connected companies. 

That case is not evidence against Blaze. The similarity lies in the regulatory question: what information must be clear before a licence is granted, and what additional answers may still be provided afterwards? 

For players, the corporate structure usually remains invisible. They see the game, an advertising campaign or a payment option. When problems arise, however, it suddenly becomes important to know which company holds the money and which regulator it must answer to. 

Complaints and damages claims are not court rulings 

According to FTM, more than 43,000 complaints about Blaze had been registered on the consumer platform Reclame Aqui by October. The publication describes, among other things, complaints about account balances and gambling winnings that were allegedly not paid out. 

Such a number of complaints demonstrates dissatisfaction, but it is not the same as a total of proven violations. Each complaint may involve different facts and circumstances. The distinction between a report, a legal claim and a final judgment therefore remains important. 

FTM also writes that the Brazilian public prosecutor’s office sought around 380 million reais in damages from Blaze in July, converted by the publication to approximately €65 million. The investigation also mentions a separate claim of around €20 million against Blaze and influencer Virginia Fonseca. 

According to prosecutors, that case concerned, among other things, advertising during the World Cup and reaching minors. These are allegations and claimed amounts. The investigation provided does not show that these sums have already been definitively awarded by a court. 

Influencers make advertising personal 

Blaze’s appeal was built partly through famous personalities. In addition to Neymar, FTM also mentions Felipe Neto and Jon Vlogs. An endorsement from someone with millions of followers can quickly make a gambling brand recognisable. 

That visibility says nothing, however, about a player’s chances of winning or how a withdrawal will be handled. A livestream, sporting reputation or large follower base is no substitute for independent supervision of an operator. 

The debate about influencer marketing had already been underway in Brazil for some time. In 2025, Gambling Club wrote about proposals to tackle illegal gambling advertising and influencer promotion more strictly. That article described proposals at the time and should not be read as a complete statement of the law currently in force. 

FTM also links Van Gorsel and Beugg to the Curaçao structure behind Jonbet. According to the researchers, influencer Jon Vlogs is not listed as the ultimate beneficial owner in the documents examined. Here too, the public-facing representative is not automatically the same person as the declared owner. 

Brazil intervenes with a ban on bets 

Brazil’s Ministry of Finance confirms that measure 1.394/2026 of 25 September bans the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting. The measure covers sports betting and online casino games, including where foreign operators target people in Brazil. 

The ban does not include all other legally permitted forms of lottery. It also provides for a transition period for winding down activities and refunding player balances. Describing the situation as “all gambling disappeared immediately” would therefore be too broad. 

The official Brazilian explanation of the bets ban and the repayment of balances lists several implementation dates. Among other things, no new funds could be deposited, while websites and apps were to become unavailable from 6 October according to the schedule. 

For Blaze, this changes the market in which the company grew. How the business handles its obligations and how the political and legal dispute develops cannot be inferred from the older financial documents. 

What does this mean for Belgian players? 

The Brazilian ban does not change Belgian gambling rules. Nor does a Curaçao licence automatically give an operator permission to serve Belgian players. Local authorisation is what matters. 

Our explanation of the difference between legal and illegal casino operators in Belgium addresses that distinction. An internationally known brand and a foreign licence answer a different question from whether a website is allowed to operate here. 

The Belgian blacklist of illegal gambling websites also provides context. However, the absence of a name from a blacklist should not be treated as independent proof of a valid licence. Check the authorisation and the exact domain. 

Above all, the Blaze story shows how large the gap can be between the visible brand and the structure behind it. For a player disputing a payout, what matters is not only who appears in the advertising, but also who enters into the contract and which authority supervises that company. 

Blaze denies allegations, owners provide little explanation 

FTM reports that Blaze has previously denied accusations of wrongdoing. For the new investigation, a spokesperson declined to comment on corporate structures, ownership rights and private information. Emoore cited confidentiality. 

According to FTM, Van Gorsel did not answer the substantive questions. His response included the statement: “We do not answer questions.” A lack of answers is not evidence that all allegations are correct, but it leaves several issues raised by the investigation unresolved. 

The publication therefore presents a series of matters that must be assessed separately: the declared owners, financial statements, licensing supervision, player complaints and ongoing claims. Together, they provide a far more concrete picture of the company behind the advertising. Any liability arising from those issues is ultimately a matter for the competent authorities and courts.