The Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) has denied any knowledge of an active investigation into it by island prosecutors.
The CGA has formally requested clarification from the Curaçao government after reports suggested the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) was conducting a criminal investigation into the gaming regulator.
As first covered by local newspaper Antilliaans Dagblad and later by NEXT.io, the Cft – the body charged with supervising the finances of Curaçao and other Caribbean counties within the Kingdom of the Netherlands – highlighted the existence of such an investigation in letter published late November.
The Cft’s letter read: “Cft understands that the Public Prosecution Service is conducting an investigation into the CGA. The CGA is responsible for implementing the LOK. The Cft is closely monitoring developments and will discuss these matters with the relevant officials.”
The CGA said it was unaware of any such investigation and has since written a letter to Minister of Justice Shalten Hato to demand clarification, describing developments as an “unexpected and negative surprise.”
A spokesperson from the Curaçao Public Prosecutor’s Office told NEXT.io it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation into the CGA.
Curaçao regulator says clarity important to safeguard trust
The CGA further stressed that certainty is important to safeguard trust in both its own integrity and that of the broader gaming sector, arguing that ambiguity threatens to undermine its ability to regulate and damages Curaçao’s international reputation.
Separately, the Curaçao government has also responded to the Cft, suggesting its conduct has threatened to cause financial and reputational damage to the country, in a letter attributed to minister of finance Charles Cooper and covered by the Curaçao Chronicle.
The letter states the Cft’s comments regarding the investigation could risk spooking investors and gaming operators which contribute to the island’s budget.
The Cft should have immediately sought clarification via the proper channels before going public, wrote Cooper.
Cooper concluded by stating the incident was “a serious breach of boundaries” by the Cft between financial supervision and criminal jurisdiction.
