The restricted-territory list, read at nine houses
The only fact about Croatia an operator publishes itself
We read the restricted-territory list at 9 of the 10 operators in the table, and Croatia is absent from all of them. At the tenth we did not open that list, so no claim about it is made here.
| Casino | Licence | Company | Threshold for checks | Open |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vave | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Latcas B.V. | at discretion | Open |
| Vave pays for the single link that leaves this site, and that is the whole of our commercial relationship with it. Its sportsbook and its casino sit on one account, so the same money covers both without a second stake — uncommon among operators that advertise themselves as crypto casinos. We read the licence number ourselves on 2 September 2026 in the Curaçao Gaming Authority register: OGL/2024/1676/0905, held by Latcas B.V., issued 19 May 2025, status active. | ||||
| Rocketpot | Curacao | Danneskjold Ventures B.V. | US$2,500 | Read |
| Bitcasino.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Moon Technologies B.V. | 2,500 EUR | Read |
| Wild Fortune | Anjouan Gaming Board | Metlait SRL | at discretion | Read |
| DuckDice | Anjouan Gaming Board | Zentari Limitada | at discretion | Read |
| Empire.io | Anjouan Gaming Board | Pixel Entertainment Limited | 2,000 USDT | Read |
| Metaspins | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 3-102-959384 SRL | at discretion | Read |
| Rainbet | Anjouan Gaming Board | RBGAMING N.V. | at discretion | Read |
| Shuffle | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Natural Nine B.V. | at discretion | Read |
| Wild.io | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Stack Gaming Ltd. | at discretion | Read |
A document in which the country is not the main subject
About a Croatian reader an operator publishes one single thing, and it sits not in a statute but in its own terms. It is called the restricted-territory list.
That is an enumeration of countries from which the house will not take players. It arises from a decision of the house and its licence issuer, changes without notice and is published nowhere as a register.
That is also why it is the only fact about Croatia that can be read in those documents at all.
Croatian law says nothing about it. The Gaming Act governs who may organise a game in Croatia, not whom a foreign operator may accept; the two have no shared provision in either direction.
Nine lists read and one blank field
We read the terms of ten operators on 26 August 2026. At nine of them a restricted-territory list exists and we read it in full. Croatia is absent from all of them.
At the tenth, the brand Vave, we did not open that list. Its row therefore says the fact is not published, which means “we did not read it”, not that no list exists or that it is empty. The same rule applies to every blank field on these pages, as set out in reading documents.
Beside each of the nine lists we also recorded the address of the document it stands in, because the list changes and our check is tied to a date.
At one of those nine houses, the brand Empire.io, we reached the document through an archived version, because the original was not available at the time of reading. The finding is therefore tied to that version and was recorded as such.
Nine confirmations and one blank field
The finding in the previous section is worth writing down the way we keep it in the data, because the difference between two markers carries the whole meaning.
At nine houses Croatia carries a marker meaning “the operator states this itself”, and beside it the address of the document in which the statement stands. This is a statement by the house, not a licence and not a confirmation from any authority.
At the tenth, the brand Vave, the marker means “we did not check”. There is no document address beside it, because we did not open one.
Two markers, then, describe two different states: the first is somebody else’s statement that we read, the second a hole in our check. Neither of them is a guarantee, and that is the distinction lists of this kind usually blur by leaving a blank field looking like the absence of an obstacle.
Where that list sits and how to find it
The section is most often headed Restricted Territories or Prohibited Jurisdictions and sits in the terms of use, sometimes in an annex at the end of the document.
Three cautions apply when searching, and we needed each of them in practice.
Search for both forms. A country is written in these lists both as Croatia and as the two-letter code HR. Searching for one form misses half the cases.
Check the annexes. The list is sometimes pulled out of the main text into a separate appendix or a separate policy, so a search of the front page of the terms misses it.
Write down the date. The list is not a register and has no version you could cite, so the date of reading is the only thing that makes your check verifiable.
Five countries named in the Anjouan licence terms
Alongside a house’s own list there is a second source of restrictions, and the two do not coincide.
The standard terms of the licence issued by the Anjouan Gaming Board expressly name Austria, Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands as prohibited jurisdictions, citing the state monopolies there. Croatia is not among those five.
Four operators in our table work under an Anjouan licence. For a reader in those five countries that means a conflict between two documents, because the house’s own list does not mention those countries while the licence it works under prohibits them. For a Croatian reader no such conflict arises here. What an entry in the issuer’s register confirms is set out on the page about foreign licences.
Which four houses work under that licence
The conflict between two documents in the previous section is not theoretical, so the rows it concerns are worth naming.
The Anjouan licence in our table is held by Wild Fortune, DuckDice, Empire.io and Rainbet. At all four we read the house’s own restricted-territory list, and Croatia is absent from it.
For a Croatian reader that means the two documents agree. For a reader in Austria, Germany, France, Spain or the Netherlands they would not agree, because the standard terms of that licence name those countries while the houses’ own lists do not mention them.
The remaining five licensed houses work under the Curaçao system, and we did not read the issuer’s terms for them, so we have no claim about a conflict of this kind there. What a register entry shows at all is set out on the page about foreign licences.
Four things absence from the list does not mean
Here is why this fact is easily read as more than it is.
No promise that an account will be opened. The list describes the house’s policy towards countries, not any individual application for an account.
No statement about whether a site is reachable. Whether an address can be opened from Croatia is not visible from the terms, and we did not measure it and claim nothing about it.
Nothing permanent about it. The list changes by decision of the house, without notice to anyone who once read it. That is why a date of reading sits beside each of the nine rows.
Nothing resembling a Croatian approval. That is granted, under article 35, paragraph 2, only to a company already holding the right to a casino on premises, which the page about who holds an approval covers.
The clauses that decide about money sit elsewhere in the same document: the threshold for papers on the page about identity checks and the upper limit on the page about payout limits.