BC.Game licence status, and how to check any casino's

The Anjouan Gaming Board runs a validation endpoint that takes a domain and returns the record for it. For the subject of this site the address is https://verification.anjouangamingboard.org/validate?domain=bc.game, and the whole method is contained in that URL: change the domain, get another record.

The response identifies the operator as Twocent Technology Limited, a company incorporated in Belize with registration number 000041939, at Sea Urchin Street, San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize. The licence is ALSI-202410011-FI1, issued under the Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 of 2005 and administered by Anjouan Licensing Services Inc.. The status returned on 2026-08-27 was VALID.

The same response carries the part most readers never see. It states the jurisdictions in which the licence is not valid and to which it does not extend: Australia, Comoros, France, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA. It then adds All FATF-blacklisted countries; Sanctioned jurisdictions; Any territory deemed excluded by the Anjouan Offshore Financial Authority.

That last paragraph is a licence condition, written by the authority that issued the licence. It is not this site's characterisation of anything, and it is the single most useful fact the endpoint gives up, because it is the boundary of the instrument rather than a description of a website's behaviour.

BC.Game's own pages agree with the register. Its licences page and its AML page both name Twocent Technology Limited, both quote registration 000041939, and both cite licence ALSI-202410011-FI1. When an operator's self-description and the authority's record match on company, number and status, the seal has done its job.

Before the Anjouan licence, BC.Game operated under a Curaçao instrument: OGL/2023/118/0060, issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority. Searched against the authority's certificate register at https://cert.cga.cw/ on 2026-08-26, that number returns a status of Revoked.

Revoked is not the same as expired. An expired licence simply ran out; a revoked one was withdrawn. Either way the record persists in the register, which is why checking for a predecessor is worth doing as a matter of routine rather than only when something looks wrong.

The practical consequence is a dating test for other sources. Any page still describing BC.Game as a Curaçao-licensed operator was written before the change, or copied from something that was, and has not been checked since. That single fact separates pages that verify from pages that recycle, and it costs one lookup.

Note also the two registers that operate for Curaçao licences. The certificate register at cert.cga.cw is the one that returns a status against a number, and it is the one used here.

The method transfers without modification. Find the seal in the operator's footer, read the number it prints, and resolve it at the issuing authority rather than at the operator's own page.

Two register addresses cover almost the whole set. Anjouan licences resolve through the validation endpoint above, by substituting the domain, and the board also publishes a register at https://anjouangaming.com/public-register/license-register/. Curaçao Gaming Authority certificates resolve at https://cert.cga.cw/, which is where a number such as OGL/2024/1507/0838 returns a status.

Sixteen of the forty ranked brands cite an Anjouan licence. Seventeen cite the Curaçao Gaming Authority directly. Four more cite older Curaçao-family wording — Curacao, Curaçao eGaming, Government of Curaçao and Antillephone N.V. — which is a signal in itself, because a brand describing its regulator in pre-reform terms has not revisited its footer recently. One brand, Sportbet.one, cites M.I.S.A. with number G20190045.

• Open the operator's footer and copy the licence number exactly, including the prefix.
• Resolve it at the authority's own register, not at any link that stays on the operator's domain.
• Read the status word the register returns, and record the date you read it.
• Read the excluded-territory or condition text in the same response, which is where the licence's actual boundary sits.
• Search the register for any earlier number the brand used, and check whether it comes back revoked.

Six of the forty ranked brands print a licence number whose link goes no further than their own pages: Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one and Bitdreams. In each case the number is there, the authority is named, and the link resolves to the brand's own homepage or terms page rather than to a register.

This is not an accusation. A self-hosted seal can sit above a perfectly good licence, and several of these numbers are of a form that appears in registers. But it does mean the check stops one step early: what has been confirmed is that the operator says it holds the licence, which is where the enquiry started. Those six are also the six brands whose status column below reads that no status was shown, alongside the two that name nothing.

The distinction is worth keeping sharp because it is the most common way a licence claim goes unexamined. A badge that links to itself is a badge, not a verification.

Two of the forty ranked brands — Nitrobetting and BetPlays — name no licensing authority, print no number, and offer no register link. There is nothing to resolve, and no boundary to read.

Across the wider library the figure is four rather than two. The library holds forty-three non-subject records; the three held back from the ranked set for head-to-head pages of their own include two, Thrill and Roobet, that likewise carry no licence record. That is why the whole-library count and the ranked count differ, and the two numbers should never be swapped for one another.

For a brand with no named authority, everything this page describes is unavailable. There is no excluded-territory schedule to read, no status word to record, and no predecessor to search for. That absence is itself the finding, and it is the reason those brands score nothing on the licence portion of this site's ranking.

A valid licence establishes that an authority has issued an instrument to a company and that the instrument was live on the day it was read. It does not establish that an operator pays out, resolves disputes fairly, or applies its own terms consistently. Those are questions about conduct, and a register does not answer them.

Nor does the status word have a shelf life. Every status on this page was read on a stated date, and a licence can change between that date and the day you read this. The remedy is the URL rather than the summary: the endpoint is the same one we used, and it will tell you what is true when you ask it.

Finally, the register only knows about the entity named on the licence. Where an operator runs several brands under separate instruments, each has to be checked on its own, and a valid record for one says nothing about another.