This is why casinos prefer offshore license

[Questat]

Grosvenor casino fine of £5 million is justifiable for a gambler to have lost such amount of money within that short period shows that the casino doesn't  care about the welfare of gamblers.
Making profit shouldn't be the reason why a casino should not be bothered or choose to neglect the welfare of its customers.

But isn't it too huge a penalty when the gambler only lost £250,000, and according to the report prior to that, the gambler won £260,000, in fact the gambler was even in profit here, so the regulators seem to be kind of unfair since they only see the casino's failure to intervene through its internal controls when they detected a losing pattern. That's why small casinos that don't have strong internal controls would not risk getting a license from these kinds of regulators, as it could kill their business suddenly when mistakes are made.

[Cointxz]

What are your thoughts on this?

Not only fines but also taxes.

Casino that use offshore license saves a lot from their taxes responsibilities and fees by availing a local license of each country. It’s costly and at the same time will be limited operations for them assuming there’s no offshore license like Curacao.

The cons is casino operation is still on gray area that’s why we can’t feel real protection as a player from this license casino.

[viljy]

As far as I understand, this involves a network of regular casinos located in cities. It is impossible to obtain an offshore license for such casinos. These casinos must be licensed by a national regulator. However, the situation with online casinos is completely different. Such casinos can obtain any license they find convenient, because they are not tied to a specific location or jurisdiction. Well, at least that’s how I understand it in a simplified way.

[mak013]

Gambling is a business. They don't care about users; they care about profit. Cheaper licensing, lower taxes, fewer problems with the government. If you don't think about that, your business won't succeed.
I don't like to say it here, but casinos are doing everything right. They maximize profit and don't care that they can ruin someone's life.

Well, gambling companies always want to make profit obviously and when the government doesn't get its taxes or revenue from them due to failed licenses that they refuse to comply to, they punish these offshore platforms with huge fines that would enforce their compliance in the future. So instead of saving profit by going against the required license for operations, the fines would help wipe out the profit these platforms try to save and that's a pound of huge flesh that's ripped from the perceived smartness of these offshore platforms that don't reason the expense gamblers incur nor the addiction problems they face all because the casino platforms want to make huge profit by force.

I think they assess the risks and the profits. If they choose offshore licenses, that means they'd rather pay fines than taxes. Some companies think they can still make enough profit even after taxes, or that operating in a country with low competition would be more profitable. The market is big enough that everyone can find a solution that works for them.

[Botnake]

The reason gambling sites go for offshores licensing is because the offshore license are easy to obtain, they also require small amount of fee that will be paid to obtain the license, and the annual fee is also little.

Not totally true, because if we look at UK Gambling Commission licensing fees (2026), the fees are actually cheap for the new ones.
While on the popular license provider like Anjouan Gaming it ranges from $17k to $20k per year.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-businesses/licences-and-fees/non-remote-1968-act-casino-operating-licence

Fee Category	Annual Gross Gambling Yield	Application Fee
A1	Less than £3 million	£7,212
A2	£3 million to below £36.75 million	£21,635
A3	£36.75 million to below £130 million	£64,904
B1	£130 million to below £455 million	£97,356
B2	£455 million to below £1.6 billion	£146,034
B3	£1.6 billion or greater	£197,145

What you posted is also very true. The countries that give the license do not protect gambers.

It's not that they don't provide protection, but the level of protection is not the same as what the UK Gambling Commission requires.
Also, you're correct that it's much easier to obtain a license from Anjouan compared to the UK.

[Betwrong]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

I remember getting a notification about playing too much when I lost $50 in 10 minutes. "Maybe you need a rest from your gambling.", the notification that appeared on screen  after I clicked Spin-button said. They guy lost £250,000 within just 12 days. I mean, they had to be warning him several times at least, but they didn't do it even once? I don't know about the size of the fine, £5 million, maybe it's too much, but I they deserve to be fined.

[coinrifft]

I remember getting a notification about playing too much when I lost $50 in 10 minutes. "Maybe you need a rest from your gambling.", the notification that appeared on screen  after I clicked Spin-button said. They guy lost £250,000 within just 12 days. I mean, they had to be warning him several times at least, but they didn't do it even once? I don't know about the size of the fine, £5 million, maybe it's too much, but I they deserve to be fined.

With regards to the fine, yeah, maybe it's big, but that's why regulators wanted, to send a sign to everyone who are going to violate this kind of mandatory rule for casinos. I do agree, it's a huge amount of money that someone might have lost in 12 days.

I'm just thinking where did this guy got all the money. In any case, let this be a lesson for us gamblers. Maybe some of us are really working hard in real life and barely surviving. So if we are just going to gamble, then take it easy and have self-control.

[Ashawowo(OS)]

including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here you didn't mention that the player previously won £260k, so they may not necessarily have lost only their capital.

In one case, this resulted in a customer losing significant funds that may or may not have been their own, according to the findings.

This too

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts is that the regulator is right by fining them, they didn't act in line with regulations they're acting under and such lose ends towards gamblers is very normal for casinos, they care more about their income and less about how it affect their players.

Now I might want to ask
- Will the fine in any way be used to compensate the victims of their shortcomings?
If NO, then the regulators are not better than the casinos, only looking for ways to fill their purse and justice isn't served properly.

[ZeroVinsonN]

People can claim that casino are preying on them all they want but the truth they keep avoiding is that signing up with a casino is a personal choice, if you are willing to gamble then you should be willing to lose money, a person can't be careless enough to lose over $200k in gambling and then blame the casino for it, i understand why the regulators do the things they do but sometimes people should be held accountable for their own actions and maybe the world will be a better place.
I have personally never seen a casino that would force a person to deposit money onto their site, with most casinos you can even close your account if you want to, but once someone gets careless everyone wants to blame the casino, we should blame the gamblers too, I don't blame the casino when I lose money to it.

Blaming the casino when you are not being forced to deposit on their site is absolutely something that makes someone look irresponsible. We all know that gambling involves more losses than wins, so gamblers don't need to go the extra mile in gambling because it is very simple to understand that nothing else can put you ahead of the casino.

They are there for business, and the game has already been programmed for them to benefit more than the gamblers, so why can't we follow due process and do something that wouldn't affect us negatively, instead of blaming the casino all the time?

It's human nature, when something goes wrong we start looking for anyone else to blame but ourselves, it's like how smoke packets have 'smokers are liable to die young' written on it but people still smoke (this is not the problem) but when something actually happens and it gets found out that smoking was responsible most people blame the company for producing it's product but if the smoker had keep their smoking in moderation or abstained completely then they wouldn't have gotten sick.
It's the same with gamblers, they go overboard and when they end up in debt they start to blame the casinos rather than take accountability for what they did to themselves even when gambling was a personal choice. I gamble, and whenever I lose I make sure to not blame anyone else and I also make sure to not gamble with more than I can afford to lose.

[Bluedrem]

Every company or organization wants to avoid liability as much as possible. So casino sites will not want to operate their casino site within additional rules and regulations. When they get licenses for their casino from different organizations, they will be more liable.
User safety or as you mentioned here that a gambler lost a lot of money and the casino site did not take any action regarding his safety, so he was fined five million but if this casino site was not liable to that organization, he would not have had to pay this fine. By observing all the issues, casino sites stay away from those organizations in order to avoid all these liabilities.

[Renampun]

The reason why offshore casinos tend to choose cheaper licenses is because they're not as strict and it's easier for them to obtain them.. It's different if it's a land-based casino; they can't avoid using cheap licenses since their focus is on the gambling industry in that country. So, whether they like it or not, they have to follow the regulations in that country, and if the casino does something under the table, they have to face the consequences of their actions to continue operating.. That's why casinos operating under stricter regulators are more careful in their operations, because the regulators will ensure that the casino doesn't do anything detrimental to gamblers in their operations.

[asriloni]

If the casino was proven the guilty, then it's normal when they impose a saction to them. The problem is that casino tend to choose offshore license due to the less restriction. Look at that after Curacao tightening its regulation, then so many casino decide to leave, and go to get a new license with less control over their service.

The sanction by regulators are not something they're worrying, they try to get a license that let them to do whatever they want. So i think that case has weak correlation with why casinos prefer to use offshore license.

[TopTort777]

I do not think it is to evade responsibility towards gamblers why casino prefer offshore licenses.  Countries with strict gambling regulations can also make these casinos with an offshore license to bear responsibility on gamblers.

The reason why casinos prefer offshore licenses is that they are cheaper and are more flexible, like if the casino wanted to offer their services in different countries, and said to have lower maintenance and taxes like renewal fee when the casino is servicing multiple countries.

That is what I also wanted to post. Not always casino of business go offshore because they want to have cheap license, pay less taxes or have more room for escape plan. Business go offshore also to be able to provide services to those, where such service is restricted. I like how this is used on cruise ships. You cant gamble while you are docked in port, because gambling is illegal in that country or license maybe needed. But as soon as you go to open waters, you are free to gamble. They go offshore to be able to provide service for more people.

[Coyster]

Now I might want to ask
- Will the fine in any way be used to compensate the victims of their shortcomings?
If NO, then the regulators are not better than the casinos, only looking for ways to fill their purse and justice isn't served properly.

The fine isn't only for breaching safer gambling compliance rules, but also AML failures. Mind you that the commission found multiple cases of failure to intervene when a gambler was showing signs of unsafe gambling, so it is not just one exclusive case.

That said, it is the commission's rules that was breached, not the players rights. These players lost fair and square, they were neither scammed nor cheated by the casinos. The casino's only fault is not interacting with the players, since they were showing worrying signs. Fines go to the commission as it should, and the players should receive no compensation whatever.

[Achalugo BTC]

It's human nature, when something goes wrong we start looking for anyone else to blame but ourselves, it's like how smoke packets have 'smokers are liable to die young' written on it but people still smoke (this is not the problem) but when something actually happens and it gets found out that smoking was responsible most people blame the company for producing it's product but if the smoker had keep their smoking in moderation or abstained completely then they wouldn't have gotten sick.
It's the same with gamblers, they go overboard and when they end up in debt they start to blame the casinos rather than take accountability for what they did to themselves even when gambling was a personal choice. I gamble, and whenever I lose I make sure to not blame anyone else and I also make sure to not gamble with more than I can afford to lose.

Exactly, people need to understand how important it is to keep everything in moderation. That will prevent them from ignoring warnings about the dangers of excessively gambling, even though they know it could ruin them.  As in the example you gave, if smokers take responsibility for their choices, they won't blame others, instead they will do the right thing. The same applies to gambling. If gamblers stick to the right rules, they will make choices that will help them enjoy the game as a form of entertainment.

[Moreno233]

As far as I understand, this involves a network of regular casinos located in cities. It is impossible to obtain an offshore license for such casinos. These casinos must be licensed by a national regulator. However, the situation with online casinos is completely different. Such casinos can obtain any license they find convenient, because they are not tied to a specific location or jurisdiction. Well, at least that’s how I understand it in a simplified way.

You are obviously confirming what the topic says that casinos will prefer to be licensed offshore so they will not be in a situation of being fined. Like you said, this type of stringent measure is mostly possible in locally regulated casinos with office in the country. Perhaps this also will serve as advantage to the players as they feel some form of protection from their country regulators but it also has its challenges  such as mandatory KYC requirements.

[Botnake]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

I remember getting a notification about playing too much when I lost $50 in 10 minutes. "Maybe you need a rest from your gambling.", the notification that appeared on screen  after I clicked Spin-button said. They guy lost £250,000 within just 12 days. I mean, they had to be warning him several times at least, but they didn't do it even once? I don't know about the size of the fine, £5 million, maybe it's too much, but I they deserve to be fined.

If there are rules that they failed to follow then they deserve that fine. The penalty is quite big but the regulators would know whether the casino deserves such a fine. I think the casino operator's net worth is at least £100 million, so even with that fine they can still continue operating.

About how its computed, you can find it in this report,

https://www.rank.com/rns/2026-aug-final-results/

A regulatory settlement proposal to the Gambling Commission, that included a proposed payment of £5.0m in lieu of a financial penalty, followed receipt of preliminary findings from the Gambling Commission in the course of its review of the operating licence held by Grosvenor Casinos Limited. This was calculated with reference to the licensee’s gross gambling yield during the reviewed period (1 November 2024 to 1 May 2025) in accordance with the Gambling Commission’s updated statement of principles for determining a payment in lieu of a financial penalty which came into effect on 10 October 2025.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Whether a casino obtained their license from an offshore strict regulators or not,  they will still have to obtain permission to operate in the countries they want and if the country they are operating in have strict regulations against casino and gambling platforms and also strict rules against customers protection, they can still sanction a casino and make them pay fine if the casino if found guilty of any crime, unless it's an illegal casino that customers use VPN to access, meaning the customer will have to deal with the issue their self.

[Orpichukwu]

Whether a casino obtained their license from an offshore strict regulators or not,  they will still have to obtain permission to operate in the countries they want and if the country they are operating in have strict regulations against casino and gambling platforms and also strict rules against customers protection, they can still sanction a casino and make them pay fine if the casino if found guilty of any crime, unless it's an illegal casino that customers use VPN to access, meaning the customer will have to deal with the issue their self.

When they say a casino is offshore, it means they are licenced elsewhere, but they also provide services where they don’t have permission to operate. They won’t be offshore if they are under any regulatory body in that country, which is where some casinos stand. They are offering service nationwide, even in places where they should not legally be operating. But in a working country, if the country can prove the casino is offering service to its people, they have the right to take legal action against that casino and can still win against them.

[m2017]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

The casino "takes" money from gamblers, and the regulator "takes" money from the casino. So, that’s who the main beneficiary is.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

So, the gambler couldn't control his own actions due to greed, yet it’s the casino that ends up being at fault?   £5 million? These fines look like robbery. In my view, this is a strange rule. Is the casino supposed to "babysit" its clients at the expense of its own profits? How exactly is this rule supposed to be implemented? Should the casino, at some point, politely "kick out" the client?

If the regulator is so concerned about social responsibility, why allow casinos to operate at all? Is it for the sake of taxes? Or the revenue from license fees and fines? The talk about "social responsibility" reeks of hypocrisy. Furthermore, any money the regulator receives from casinos (whether through taxes or fines) is essentially money lost by gamblers. One could argue that this money (sometimes borrowed, sometimes representing a person’s last remaining funds, or even linked to criminal activity) is money shed with the tears of gamblers after their losses.

What are your thoughts on this?

I wrote about this above.