An Anjouan gaming licence is an offshore authorization issued through a framework that identifies the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of the Comoros. It should be evaluated with more caution than a licence from a mature local market. The existence of a searchable record can verify what the issuing system claims; it does not establish that the casino is lawful in the player’s country or that local courts and regulators recognize the licence.
The jurisdiction has expanded rapidly and publishes B2C and B2B records, complaint policies and enforcement pages. At the same time, the authority’s constitutional and institutional basis has been publicly disputed. A responsible review must present both facts rather than treating the seal as either automatic proof or meaningless decoration.
The official framework describes B2C and B2B licences
The Anjouan Gaming website states that B2C licences cover operators offering gambling directly to players, while B2B licences cover platforms and critical suppliers. Its public register lists company name, status, licence number, issue and expiry dates and registered domains.
The official Anjouan Gaming licence register should be opened independently rather than through a casino footer. Search the exact domain, legal company and licence number.
| Record field | What it can verify | What it cannot verify alone |
|---|---|---|
| Legal company | Name used by the issuing registry | Beneficial ownership or financial strength |
| B2C status | Claimed permission to serve players | Legality in the player’s country |
| Registered domains | Connection between licence and website | Every mirror or redirected domain |
| Expiry date | Current registry term | Quality of ongoing supervision |
| Seal | Interactive validation when genuine | Withdrawal reliability or game fairness by itself |
Domain matching is essential
A valid company record does not cover every brand owned by a group. The exact domain should appear in the registry or interactive certificate. Hyphens, alternate extensions and mirror domains can lead to an unrelated site.
The validation page can also list excluded territories. A player located in an excluded market may have no access to the complaint process even if the website accepted registration.
Save the registry result and terms at the time of deposit because domains and status can change.
The stated legal basis comes from 2005 legislation
The authority describes its framework as based on the Anjouan Computer Gaming Licensing Act 2005 and related offshore-finance laws. It states that Anjouan Licensing Services Inc. administers licences on behalf of the Anjouan Gaming Board and Anjouan Offshore Financial Authority.
This institutional chain is less straightforward than a national statutory regulator. Players should distinguish the private administrator, the claimed authority and the central institutions of the Union of the Comoros.
A licence article should not claim broad international recognition merely because the issuer publishes a legal opinion or because Comoros belongs to an international organization.
The institutional basis has been challenged
The Central Bank of the Comoros has published warnings about offshore financial entities claiming licences from Anjouan and Mohéli. Its official regulatory-text page describes illegal development of non-bank offshore offices claiming island-issued banking or financial authorization.
Those banking warnings do not decide every gaming question, but they demonstrate that claims involving an “Offshore Financial Authority” require independent scrutiny. Investigative reporting in 2025–26 also questioned the practical and legal status of Anjouan gaming licensing.
This uncertainty is materially different from a minor enforcement dispute inside an established national regulator.
A licence does not authorize local market access
The Anjouan authority itself states that licensees remain responsible for laws in the countries they target. A B2C record cannot replace a UK, Ontario, Swedish or Australian licence.
Players should check the local regulator first. If the casino is not authorized locally, consumer protections such as centralized self-exclusion, local ADR, payment blocking and advertising rules may not apply.
Technical access through a VPN or mirror domain does not create legal permission or complaint rights.
Complaint handling is operator-first and ADR-based
The authority’s published complaint policy states that it does not adjudicate individual player disputes. Players must complain to the operator and, if unresolved after the stated period, may use an approved ADR provider.
The current policy gives 30 calendar days for the operator response and shorter submission windows for some game disputes. It also excludes complaints from restricted territories. The official complaint policy should be checked because these rules can change.
An ADR requirement is stronger than no process, but the independence, funding, enforceability and track record of each approved provider should be verified separately.
Responsible-gambling tools are operator-specific
Published standards require self-exclusion, deposit, wager, loss and session limits. The authority does not operate a centralized self-exclusion register comparable with Sweden’s Spelpaus or Ontario’s BetGuard.
A player who excludes from one Anjouan-licensed casino should not assume that the exclusion applies to other brands or operators.
Test whether limits take effect immediately, whether increases require a cooling-off period and whether the operator stops marketing after exclusion.
Player-fund protection needs direct evidence
A licence record does not show how much cash the operator holds or whether customer balances are segregated from operating funds. Read the casino’s terms for fund custody, insolvency treatment and withdrawal limits.
Large balances create counterparty risk, particularly when the operator accepts cryptocurrency and has no locally enforceable presence for the player.
A test withdrawal can confirm current processing, but it cannot prove future solvency or establish legal protection.
Supplier licences do not validate the casino operator
A B2B licence can cover a studio, platform or aggregator. It does not prove that a player-facing domain has a B2C licence.
Casino footers may display a supplier’s certificate beside an operator claim. Verify each role separately:
- who contracts with the player;
- who holds the balance;
- who supplies the game;
- which exact domain is registered;
- which entity handles complaints.
A valid supplier record cannot cure an unlicensed or mismatched operator.
Rapid licence growth requires interpretation
The public register contains a very large number of licences relative to the size and administrative capacity of the jurisdiction. Volume is not proof of weak supervision, but it raises reasonable questions about due-diligence depth, ongoing monitoring and enforcement resources.
Look for published suspensions, revocations, audited statistics and detailed decisions rather than relying on the number of licences issued.
An empty suspended-licence page does not prove that every operator is compliant; it can also reflect limited publication or enforcement history.
A practical verification standard
- Search the exact domain in the official register.
- Confirm B2C status, company, issue date and expiry.
- Open the interactive seal on the issuer’s domain.
- Check excluded territories.
- Verify local authorization independently.
- Read the operator’s withdrawal, fund and complaint terms.
- Identify the approved ADR provider before depositing.
- Keep balances small enough to tolerate enforcement failure.
An Anjouan licence provides more information than an anonymous “international licence” claim. It does not provide the same legal certainty, local access rights or demonstrated supervisory depth as mature domestic regimes. The appropriate conclusion is cautious verification, not automatic acceptance or blanket dismissal.
Related GambleRoad guides explain casino licence verification, unregulated casino risks and differences between regulators.