Best Betting Sites With Crypto in the UK: What a Gambling Commission Licence Costs the Reader, and What Crypto Actually Buys

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

Every betting site that takes a deposit from a customer in Great Britain has to hold a Gambling Commission remote operating licence. That rule was written into the Gambling Act 2005 and tightened by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, and it draws the line on every question that follows in this article: which sites a British reader can use without losing the protections that come with a UK licence, which payments those sites accept, and what crypto buys the bettor who shows up with a wallet rather than a debit card.

The honest finding up front, and the reason the angle here is cost rather than convenience: none of the four operators reviewed below advertises cryptocurrency acceptance on its UK-facing terms. The Commission’s own public register, which is the only test of who is licensed, lists exactly the brands the pages below cover and no others. The crypto sportsbook many search results describe sits on a Curaçao, Anjouan or Costa Rica licence, where the protections a GB licence puts in place — GAMSTOP, the £150 financial vulnerability check, the 10x bonus wagering cap, an approved dispute-resolution route — simply do not exist.

This page is laid out around that tension. The ranking and comparison table come first, because that is the information most readers are looking for. The overview of crypto in betting, the legal frame, and the responsible-gambling architecture follow, each named for what it costs the bettor who reads it. The crypto-and-anonymity section asks what crypto actually buys at a UK-licensed bookmaker, and the answer is straightforward.

Currency stamp: data current as of 26 October 2026, licence claims verified against the Gambling Commission’s public register and each operator’s own UK-facing terms.

The four reviewed bookmakers at a glance

The four names below hold a Gambling Commission remote operating licence for real-event betting and are the set this page ranks. Each carries the brand a reader in Great Britain sees, the licence number and licensee on the Commission’s register, and a one-line read of what that operator’s own terms state about payments — including, where the terms name none for crypto, the fact that they name none.

Two points the table leaves out and a reader has to know to use it:

First, every operator in the table runs under a different licensee. Coral and the rest of the Entain portfolio (Ladbrokes, Betfair, Foxy Bingo, Gala, part of the same Commission records) share LC International Limited as their licence holder, but Coral sits on its own page here because it is the brand a GB bettor actually opens an account with and the welcome offer named on Coral’s own homepage is what reads in the offer section further down.

Second, none of the four advertises crypto support. The brand names and the licence accounts are real — the Commission’s public register confirms them — and the absence of a crypto line in each brand’s payment terms is the honest reading, not a research gap. Where one operator among the four did introduce a crypto route after this article’s snapshot date, the reader checks that operator’s own payments page and the register together before sending funds.

Why the comparison table reads the way it does

A betting site comparison earns its name when it names what each row costs the bettor. On this page the answer is short. The four named brands are the licensed set; the row of cells under “what the operator’s terms state on payments” reads the same way for a reason — at a licensed British bookmaker, crypto is not currently advertised in the terms. That is an editorial finding, not an omission: it is the very point of writing the page around cost rather than convenience.

A comparison that ranked four operators by crypto friendliness would put nothing on top, because the four rank equal at zero. The comparison is there to show the reader that the question is not which of the four is best at crypto, but which set of protections the bettor gets on top of whatever payment method he eventually uses — card, bank transfer, e-wallet, or anything else — at a brand the Commission has licensed. The detailed reviews further down weigh the four on what each does well in its own right: welcome offer clarity, market depth, exchange pricing, mobile execution.

A search for the bare phrase “betting sites with crypto” will return lists full of offshore brands with no British answer. The licensed set has no equivalent list, because at a GB-licensed bookmaker the payment policy is the operator’s own, not a category the Commission’s framework prescribes. Where the licensed operator does not list crypto, the search result’s “crypto sportsbook” is by definition not British-licensed, and that is the gap the rest of this page explains.

What crypto actually means for a betting site

The phrase means different things in three places, and a bettor who treats them as one will misread the offer he sees.

The asset: a digital token recorded on a public, distributed ledger. Bitcoin’s ledger began with the genesis block on 3 January 2009, mined by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto. The total supply is capped at 21 million coins, with the last fraction not expected to be mined until around the year 2140. The ledger is secured by proof-of-work: competing miners look for a block hash below a difficulty target set by the network, and the winner writes the next block. Nobody sits on top of it as a counterparty of last resort; the entry, once confirmed, sits on a chain that no single party can rewrite.

The payment: a way to move value between a bettor’s wallet and a betting site’s wallet. On a public chain, the transaction is pseudonymous — a string of letters and numbers stands in for an address — but the chain records every transfer, and forensic analysis routinely untangles addresses to the people behind them. On a privacy chain the trail is shorter, but it is rarely absent. To a betting site, what matters is whether the operator is willing to accept the value, convert it on receipt, settle winnings back to the same or another wallet, and meet whatever anti-money-laundering law it sits under.

The legal label under British law: from 10 January 2020, the FCA became the anti-money-laundering supervisor of UK cryptoasset businesses under the amended Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. The FCA has said it will begin accepting applications for authorisation of cryptoasset firms under a new Financial Services and Markets Act regime on 30 September 2026, with the regime itself due to start on 25 October 2027. Until that regime is live, “FCA-registered” is not the same as “FCA-authorised” for crypto firms, and the transition is not complete at the time of writing.

Those three pictures are not the same, and a crypto sportsbook conflates them on its home page: it sells the asset’s story, accepts the payment under its own house rules, and lives or dies on a regulatory frame that is, in Britain, a work in progress.

The legal frame a GB-licensed bookmaker sits inside

The Gambling Commission’s framework is long, deliberately so, and most of it is irrelevant until the moment it isn’t. The pieces that matter to the reader of this page are short.

The licence itself: an operator whose remote facilities are used in Great Britain needs a Gambling Commission operating licence wherever it is based. Sections 33 and 36 of the Gambling Act 2005 carry the offence, and the 2014 Act closed the previous “whitelist” of tolerated jurisdictions. A Curaçao, Anjouan, Maltese or Gibraltar licence is not a substitute for serving British customers. The Commission’s public register, searchable by business name, trading name, domain or account number, is the test. A searcher can paste a domain into that register and see the licensee in seconds; nothing a brand prints on its home page is a substitute.

The forms of licence the four names here hold differ. Coral and Matchbook hold a remote betting intermediary category as well as the standard remote general betting standard (real events) — they can host peer-to-peer activity beyond the conventional bookmaker model. Swifty Sports and Betway hold the standard remote general betting licence only.

What may and may not be bet on: there is no statutory list. Markets are governed by each licence category, the LCCP and the operator’s own house rules. In-play betting is a licence-condition matter, not a statute-made exemption; it is widely offered but the operator’s controls apply. Esports sit under the same licence as any other event; virtual sports are a different category. Bets on politics, TV shows and novelty markets are offered by GB bookmakers — none is statutorily prohibited.

Player protection: GAMSTOP is mandatory for online operators since 31 March 2020 and every operator in this comparison is enrolled. Self-exclusion runs six months, one year, five years or five years with auto-renewal, and once a minimum period ends the exclusion continues for seven more years unless the customer withdraws it. A financial vulnerability check applies to remote betting when deposits minus withdrawals exceed £150 across a rolling 30 days — public-record checks such as bankruptcy and county court judgments, not an income check and not a credit-reference check. A financial risk assessment, the affordability framework that has driven newspaper headlines, has been announced in a staged plan with no start date set, and the page treats it as announced, staged, with no live date. Deposit limits (RTS 12) sit on the operator’s menu. No state deposit or loss ceiling exists for betting in Britain; limits are the customer’s choice or the operator’s decision on that customer.

Verification before the first deposit: name, address and date of birth are verified before a customer can deposit or place a bet, including when the first bet is a free bet or bonus. “Anonymous” play at a licensed site is not a thing.

Payments: credit cards have been banned for gambling in Great Britain since 14 April 2020 — including credit-card-funded payments through an e-wallet — under LCCP condition 6.1.2. Debit cards and bank-based payments remain. Identity verification before the first deposit kills “no verification” marketing at any licensed operator. There is no British rule for or against cryptocurrency deposits at licensed operators; whether a licensed bookmaker takes crypto is a decision of that operator’s terms, and at the four named in this comparison the terms do not list crypto.

Advertising and bonus rules: the ASA enforces the CAP Code (non-broadcast) and BCAP Code (broadcast). Section 16 restricts marketing’s appeal to under-18s and bars featuring anyone under 25 in gambling advertising, with a narrow exception for marketing placed where a bet can be made directly. From 19 January 2026, the wagering requirement on bonuses is capped at 10x — a £10 bonus at 50x needed £500 of qualifying bets; under the cap, the same £10 bonus needs no more than £100 — and mixed-product promotions that wrap multiple gambling categories into a single offer are banned.

Tax: the player pays no tax on betting winnings in Great Britain. General Betting Duty is the operator’s levy on gross profits, currently 15%; from 1 April 2027 a new remote betting rate of 25% kicks in, with remote bets on UK horse racing, on-course pool betting and in-person betting staying at 15%. Spread betting has its own rates (3% financial, 10% other). Until April 2027 the remote rate is 15%, and whether operators pass that rate on through margin is not established.

Offshore, plainly framed: providing gambling facilities in Great Britain without the licence the Act requires is an offence under section 33, aimed at the operator. The customer who merely bets on an unlicensed site has not been prosecuted under that provision in the cases reviewed here, but he loses — by definition, by design, and without recourse — every protection listed above: no GAMSTOP, no Commission complaints route, no approved dispute-resolution body, no British consumer redress if funds are withheld, and none of the bonus or vulnerability-check protections that apply at a GB-licensed operator. Enforcement against offshore operators is practical, not theoretical: cease-and-desist notices, search-engine referrals, registrar and payment-provider work, and a court-order DNS blocking power that the Commission has been granted or is about to receive. The framing is honest: licensed pays for identity checks, deposit-limit obligations, GAMSTOP, the 10x bonus cap and a route to dispute resolution; unlicensed carries none of those.

What responsible gambling looks like at a GB-licensed site

The responsible-gambling architecture at a licensed operator is not a sticker on a homepage; it is a set of licence conditions. The reader who skims only the welcome offer misses most of what he is paying licence fees for.

Identity and age: minimum age 18, verified before the first deposit. Date of birth, address and name are checked; free-bet and bonus stakes count as gambling for this purpose, because the marketing pathway around a free bet has historically been the route past the controls.

Self-exclusion: GAMSTOP. Six months, twelve months, five years, or five years auto-renewing. The exclusion runs across every online operator enrolled in the scheme, betting shops use a separate in-shop service, and withdrawing the exclusion at the end of a fixed term is the customer’s active decision. An operator that lets a self-excluded bettor back in breaches a licence condition.

Financial vulnerability: a check that fires at £150 across a rolling 30 days, run against public-record data — county court judgments, bankruptcy, the registers that anyone can search. It is a starting point, not a destination. The financial risk assessment, the framework colloquially called “affordability checks”, sits alongside it on the LCCP: announced, staged, with no start date, and described here in those words rather than as live.

Deposit limits (RTS 12): the operator must offer a fixed-time-frame gross deposit limit and changes to that regime have applied in phases — from 31 October 2025 initially, with a second phase postponed to 30 September 2026. Whether that second phase is live on the day a reader makes a first deposit is checked in the operator’s deposit menu.

Activity reality checks and product restrictions: session reminders, time-out tools, product-level blocks (casino, slots, sportsbook in isolation, or together). Self-exclusion is the bluntest of those instruments and GAMSTOP is its operator-wide form.

External help: GamCare (which runs the National Gambling Helpline), GambleAware, NHS gambling clinics and Gamblers Anonymous. The licensed operator links to most of these from its safer-gambling page. None of them is a substitution for an operator’s own controls, and a question of “is my gambling still fun?” belongs with them earlier rather than later.

The cost of this architecture is paid by the operator in systems, licensing and the friction it puts on every signup. The benefit is the only thing the comparison further up really ranks on: a reader with a bettor’s question — who broke the rule on my bet, why was my deposit limited, why is the £150 check firing — has a defined route through the Commission’s complaints process and, if the operator’s own response fails, an approved alternative dispute-resolution body. None of that exists on an unlicensed site.

The crypto-and-anonymity question, answered without the marketing

The cluster of search terms around this page — anonymous crypto betting, anonymous crypto sportsbook, crypto sports betting with no ID — converge on one expectation: pay with crypto, get privacy, hold a wallet instead of a passport. On a GB-licensed site those three cannot coexist for a bettor who is actually in Great Britain.

Identity before the first deposit is a Commission requirement. The four operators reviewed here run the standard age-and-ID check, and any reader who asks them to skip it is asking them to break a licence condition. “No verification” is a marketing line that lives exclusively offshore.

Anonymity on the chain is less absolute than the search terms suggest. Bitcoin’s ledger is public; analysis routinely untangles addresses and on-ramps. Privacy chains shorten the trail, they do not erase it. The Commission’s own framing of cryptoasset gambling names anonymity, price volatility and a history of hacking and theft as the three risks the operator is asked to assess. The regulator is not calling the asset “anonymous” in the way the marketing does.

Price volatility is the second cost. Where the operator settles the original deposit in crypto and returns winnings in the same asset, the bettor’s pound-stake is exposed to a market that has historically moved 5%, 10%, even more in a day. A bookmaker that converts to fiat on receipt and pays fiat winnings removes the volatility problem from the bettor and puts it on the operator’s books, and an operator that has decided against the conversion is one that has decided against that risk.

Hacking and theft sit, in the Commission’s framing, with the operator’s own controls — custody, hot-wallet exposure, segregation. From the bettor’s perspective the question becomes: what is the route to a refund if the wallet on the other side is breached, and what consumer protection applies. At a GB-licensed operator the answer is the Commission complaints process and an approved ADR; at an offshore site the answer is the operator’s word and the wallet’s cold-storage policy.

The bettor who ends up at an offshore crypto sportsbook has paid a different currency for the convenience: GBP-denominated odds may not exist, the deal may be in USDT with a tether peg that the operator hopes the bettor does not probe, AML is the operator’s discretion, the bonus may carry a rollover the licensed-set 10x cap prohibits, and the route on a dispute is whatever the site’s small print states, often including an overseas arbitration clause the bettor will never invoke.

The honest finding, stated plainly: in Great Britain, “anonymous crypto betting” and “a Gambling Commission licence” exclude each other. The reader who wants both will need to choose which one he can do without.

Swifty Sports

Swifty Sports holds Gambling Commission account 58957 under Swifty Global (UK) Ltd, in the remote general betting standard (real events) category. The site lists Best Odds Guaranteed on racing, Cash Out across markets including horse racing and football, daily price boosts, live streaming, in-play betting, and — at the time of writing — a Bet Builder feature flagged as coming soon.

Where it sits in this comparison: the newest brand of the four on the Commission’s public records reviewed here, narrower market coverage than the long-tenured operators, and a sharper mobile-first product line, given that the App Store listing flags horse-racing streaming and acca construction as the centre of gravity. On the fee-and-promotion side the operator publishes daily price boosts with maximum-stake limits, a familiar format at licensed bookmakers but with a more compact catalogue.

What it costs the bettor: a smaller market menu means a market the bettor wants — a niche league, a player prop, an each-way extra — may not be there on a given day. Cash Out at a mobile-led brand typically carries a wider spread than the equivalent on a high-volume exchange, because the operator’s risk-management has less wholesale flow to lean on. The Bet Builder “coming soon” flag means that, until the feature ships, same-game-multi construction the reader expects of a 2026 product is not available on the platform.

The headline verdict: Swifty Sports is the pick for a reader who wants a UK-licensed bookmaker with a mobile app at the centre of the experience and racing Best Odds Guaranteed as the anchor offer, and is willing to give up market depth and a same-game builder to get it. A reader whose betting list runs to ten leagues and twenty player props every Saturday will feel the catalogue thin before kick-off.

Coral

Coral sits on Gambling Commission account 54743 under LC International Limited, the same licensee that runs the wider Entain portfolio of which Coral is the brand a GB bettor actually opens. The licence categories include remote general betting standard (real events) and remote betting intermediary, which gives the brand room for exchange-style activity under the same licence.

The headline promotional figure on Coral’s own UK sports betting home page at the time of writing is a “Get £40 in Free Bets when you bet £20” welcome path for new GB customers who opt in. The terms: deposit and a sports bet of £20 or more at minimum odds of 2.0 (1/1 in fractional form), £40 in free bets issued within 7 days of the qualifying bet settling, and the free bets themselves expiring 7 days after issue. Minimum odds 2.0 is the threshold below which the qualifying bet does not count; the reader who backs a 1.5 shot to clear the qualifier has not qualified for the free-bet credit.

Where it sits in this comparison: the long-established GB brand of the four, the strongest product line on the regular multiple markets (football, horse racing, greyhounds), a price-boost feed running daily, and each-way insurance on selected racing festivals. Coral does not advertise crypto among its accepted payment methods.

What it costs the bettor: a £40-in-free-bets headline in exchange for a £20 at min-odds-2.0 qualifier produces an effective return that depends on where the free bets land — the value of a free bet whose stake is not returned with a win is the stake multiplied by the price-minus-one over the price, multiplied by the market’s payout share, a number that on a typical football match lands well under the £40 headline figure. The 7-day free-bet expiry means the bettor who sits on it loses it. Opt-in required, so the reader who skips the toggle on the promotional page has waived the offer before placing the qualifying bet.

The headline verdict: Coral is the pick for a GB bettor who wants the long-established licensed-brand experience, a strong each-way and racing offering, and a £40-in-free-bets welcome at a £20 qualifier he can plan for. A reader whose strategy means placing a £20 bet at minimum odds 2.0 will not be that reader; the value of the offer sits well below the £40 number once the free-bet’s stake-not-returned arithmetic is applied, and the deadline means a delay between qualifying and betting forfeits the credit.

Betway

Betway holds Gambling Commission account 39372 under Betway Limited, with a single licence category — remote general betting standard (real events). The platform’s UK presence carries the wider Betway brand’s depth of market — football, racing, a typical mid-tier tennis, basketball and esports offering — and its app is described on its own App Store listing as a live-betting-centred experience.

The welcome offer the operator’s UK-facing terms publish is £40 in free-bet tokens, four tokens of £10 each, credited on settlement of a first bet of at least £10 at minimum odds of 2.0 (1/1), with a 7-day expiry on each token, and debit-card deposits only. The deposit-method rule is the line that matters more than the headline: a customer funding a first deposit by bank transfer or e-wallet is not eligible to claim the welcome path, and the operator’s own terms say so.

Where it sits in this comparison: a middle ground between Coral’s established GB footprint and Matchbook’s exchange model — a conventional bookmaker with a mid-to-upper-tier market depth and a free-bet welcome that breaks into four £10 tokens rather than two.

What it costs the bettor: the four-£10-tokens structure is a different shape from a £40-in-one-tranche welcome, and the cost depends on how the reader uses them. A bettor who uses each £10 on a high-priced single gets the most stake-not-returned arithmetic per token; a bettor who rolls them into a low-priced accumulator gets less. The debit-card rule on the qualifying deposit means a reader who prefers to fund a bank account from a wallet will have switched rails to claim the welcome, and switching rails to claim a free bet the house itself prices back is a transfer of value from the bettor to the operator’s margin. The 7-day expiry on each token means a delay forfeit; there is no rollover for any single token onto the next.

The headline verdict: Betway is the pick for a GB bettor who funds a debit card, bets a £10 qualifier at min-odds-2.0, and wants to spread the £40 welcome across four separate bets rather than commit it to one. A bettor who prefers bank transfer or e-wallet on the first deposit should not switch rails to claim the welcome, because the value is negative once the routing and the free-bet’s stake-not-paid-back arithmetic are netted.

Matchbook

Matchbook holds Gambling Commission account 39504 under Triplebet Limited, in the remote general betting standard (real events) and remote betting intermediary categories. The latter is the licence a betting exchange runs on, and Matchbook’s whole product is peer-to-peer: back and lay on the same event, with the operator’s commission taking a small per cent of net winnings on each market rather than a margin baked into every price.

The Triplebet acquisition of the Betdaq brand is the corporate background — Betdaq continues as a separate brand, and existing Betdaq accounts will not be transferred to Matchbook. A reader who held a Betdaq account retains it on the platform he opened it on; transfer has not happened and is not announced for those accounts.

On payments, Matchbook’s UK-facing site funds and settles primarily through bank transfer and the listed cards; cryptocurrency is not listed among the accepted methods.

Where it sits in this comparison: a different product from the other three. Coral, Betway and Swifty Sports are bookmakers: they take the other side of the bettor’s wager and quote a price with their own margin inside it. Matchbook is an exchange: it matches bettors against each other and earns commission on net winnings. The bettor experience differs in three places: tighter prices on mainstream markets because the exchange’s commission sits on top of a smaller in-built margin; the ability to lay (bet on something not happening) as well as back; and liquidity that varies by event — strong on Premier League football and major racing, thinner on smaller leagues.

What it costs the bettor: the commission rate is the new fee the bettor pays in place of margin. A reader who places 200 bets a month at an average commission of 2% on net winnings is parting with whatever 2% of his net winnings amounts to in that period; on a flat winner month this is modest, on a low-return month it is materially smaller in absolute terms. Liquidity gaps mean a reader who fancies a 25/1 shot on a Tuesday-night Conference match may not find a match at that price within the event’s start time, and unmatched bets are voided. The Betdaq history is a corporate footnote for most readers, but a reader with a long-standing Betdaq account has not been migrated and is looking at two separate platforms.

The headline verdict: Matchbook is the pick for a GB bettor who prices shop across more than one bookmaker already, has a lay strategy or wants one, and is comfortable with commission-instead-of-margin pricing on mainstream markets. A reader whose list leans on smaller-market liquidity — lower leagues, niche sports, props — will find more matches at a conventional bookmaker and pay a wider spread to do so.

What the four operators reviewed here don’t offer — and why that conclusion sits where it does

The four operators reviewed in this article do not advertise cryptocurrency acceptance on their UK-facing terms at the time of writing. That is not a research gap. Every search of each brand’s payment terms at the time of writing returned card, bank transfer and the standard set of regulated e-wallets; none returned a cryptoasset, a token, a chain, a wallet or a converter. The Commission’s public register is up to date for the licence position, and a crypto rail added since this article’s snapshot date will appear on the operator’s own payments page first.

A reader who wants a crypto sportsbook in Great Britain has, today, two routes. The first is to pick an operator outside this comparison on the strength of the offer; that operator is by definition not on this page’s list, and where it is unlicensed the reader should expect every protection discussed above to be absent. The second is to wait: the FCA’s FSMA-based crypto authorisation regime opens applications on 30 September 2026 and goes live on 25 October 2027, and a licensed British bookmaker that pairs a cryptoasset deposit with the LCCP’s controls is the market the new regime is intended to enable.

Either route is the reader’s choice. The page’s job here is to name the two and what each costs.

Frequently asked questions

Can you bet against crypto?

Yes — at betting exchanges. The licensed UK set includes exchanges such as Matchbook, where a bettor can lay (bet that something does not happen) as well as back (bet that it does). Lay bets are priced and matched peer-to-peer, with the operator taking a commission on net winnings rather than a margin inside every price. The “against crypto” framing is loose; what exchanges provide is the ability to take the other side of someone else’s back bet at an agreed price, and crypto is a separate question.

Can you lose on crypto betting?

Yes. The price volatility of the asset, the margin baked into every bookmaker price and the spread between back and lay at an exchange are three independent sources of loss, and any one of them can move against the bettor. The Commission’s own risk framing of digital currencies puts volatility, anonymity and a history of hacking and theft on the same list. The bettor who treats the asset as a hedge against losing ignores the arithmetic; the bettor who treats it as a deposit method at a licensed site has verified the operator lists it before sending funds.

Can you use crypto in betting shops?

No. The UK betting shop model is funded and settled at the counter through cash and card. Online self-exclusion through GAMSTOP does not cover betting shops, which run their own in-shop self-exclusion service; the shop counter does not run on a cryptoasset rail and no operator in the licensed GB set lists crypto for in-shop use. An online crypto route that ends at a betting shop does not exist under British regulation.

What does a player lose by betting on a site without a Gambling Commission licence?

The set of protections the licence obliges: GAMSTOP self-exclusion, the £150 rolling-30-days financial vulnerability check, the announced-but-not-yet-live financial risk assessment, the 10x bonus wagering cap effective from 19 January 2026, the credit card ban since 14 April 2020, identity verification before the first deposit, a Commission complaints route, an approved alternative dispute-resolution body, and a real chance of funds being returned if the operator withholds them. Outside the licensed set the bettor has whatever the operator’s small print states, often a route via an overseas arbitration clause that is not invoked in practice. Funds held by an unlicensed operator that stops paying are, on the record, hard to recover.

How can it be checked that a bookmaker holds a Gambling Commission licence?

The Commission’s public register is the only test. The bettor searches by business name, trading name, domain or licence account number, and the result shows the licence categories, the licensee and the dates the licence has been in force. The register is not a marketing page; the date the entry was last refreshed is on the result. If the brand the bettor is checking does not appear at all, the brand is not licensed by the Commission.

Content created by the «Accumulator» team