Anjouan's B2B rule: full licence or recognition certificate

The Authority's licensing pages present two categories. A B2C Operator Licence is "issued to operators offering internet gaming services directly to consumers", covering verticals such as online casino, sports betting and poker. A B2B Service Provider Licence is "issued to critical service suppliers providing platform, software, or technical services to licensed B2C operators". One licence is for the brand facing the player; the other is for the companies behind it.

The statute knows no such split. The Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 of 2005 licenses providers of a "computer wagering service" generically, and its only structural variation is section 6(2)(b), which lets the Minister grant an exclusive licence for up to two years. The B2C and B2B labels are administrative categories the administrator applies, not statutory instruments - a distinction that matters when you are told a supplier is "B2B licensed" and want to know precisely what that means.

Here the record thins out. Trade coverage from SiGMA in June 2025, and an Authority announcement that has since been removed from the live site and survives only in the search index, describe a rule taking effect on 1 July 2025: from that date, suppliers to Anjouan-licensed B2C operators must hold either a full B2B licence or a new B2B Licence Recognition Certificate, with a 90-day transition for existing arrangements.

The same reporting puts the recognition certificate at EUR 9,500 a year, framed as a lighter alternative for suppliers already licensed in another jurisdiction. SKY7 could not verify the 1 July 2025 date, the 90-day transition or the EUR 9,500 figure against a live official page as of July 2026. What is verifiable is narrower and still useful: a recognition-letter register exists and is reachable, and it listed 28 certificates on 12 July 2026. Treat the date, the transition and the fee as reported, not settled.

The choice is about your existing authorisation, not your size. A company that supplies the core platform, software or technical services and does not already hold an equivalent supplier licence elsewhere is the natural candidate for the full B2B licence - the direct Anjouan authorisation, priced on the same schedule as a B2C licence and evidenced by its own register entry.

A supplier that already holds a comparable licence in another jurisdiction is, on the reported design, the candidate for the recognition certificate: the lighter route that recognises the home authorisation rather than duplicating it. A B2C operator itself needs neither - it holds the operator licence, and its exposure is different: it must make sure the suppliers it relies on hold one or the other.

If you are acquiring an operator rather than building one - for example the ready-made Anjouan B2C licence SKY7 lists - the same duty transfers with the company: its suppliers still need a B2B licence or a certificate, and that belongs in the diligence.

The main public register held 1,425 licences on 12 July 2026, every one tagged "valid". Of those, 1,234 are B2C, 144 are B2B, 28 are combined "B2B and B2C", and 19 carry a third tag - "B2C, B2B and whitelabeling" - that appears nowhere on the licensing pages. The separate recognition-letter register listed 28 certificates the same day.

Two things follow. First, this is a direct-licence regime: each supplier holds its own licence or certificate, and the "whitelabeling" tag is the only official trace of umbrella structures - there is no published Curacao-style master-and-sub-licence category. Second, the registers are the source of truth, not a supplier's logo or a claim on its website. The counterparty check runs against the register entry itself, which is where verifying an Anjouan gaming licence comes in.

As with the operator licence, the supplier regime leaves gaps. There is no published minimum capital, no local substance or office requirement, and no official processing timeline for a B2B licence or a certificate - the Authority says only that applications are handled in the order received. Circulating "2 to 6 week" figures are agent marketing, not a published service standard.

There is also no official tax page. The "0% gaming tax" pitch is a seller claim, and the Act's own arrangement of sections includes a heading on the collection of income tax on wagers - so the blanket promise sits awkwardly with the statute. One more contradiction worth carrying into diligence: the fee page calls application fees non-refundable, while section 7(3) of the Act provides for a refund less a reasonable administrative charge where an application is refused. Confirm current fees and terms with the Authority before you budget.