Is Mostbet licensed and safe in Great Britain?

We checked the UK Gambling Commission’s own register and the Curaçao Gaming Authority’s licence registry, and re-ran both at the end of August 2026 — the Commission register on the 29th, the Curaçao registry on the 27th. Mostbet holds a Curaçao licence recorded as under assessment, and holds no Great Britain licence at all.

What the UK register shows

We did not rely on the Commission’s site search. We downloaded the register itself, so the check is reproducible by anyone:

• Register of business accounts, 2,653 records
• Register of trading names, 2,436 records
• Register of licensed domains, 2,243 records

The copy we used was downloaded on 29 August 2026. The Commission republishes daily, so the totals move by a handful of records from one day to the next. The result below has not moved at all across every check we have run since 16 August.

Why a nil result can be trusted here

A brand can be absent from one file and still be licensed, because licences are held by legal entities rather than brands. We tested the method against a licensee we knew to be present: searching bet365 returns nothing in the businesses file, but three matches in trading names and two in domains — the licences sit with Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC and Hillside (UK Sports) ENC.

So the method does find brands filed under a parent company. Mostbet returns nothing in any of the three files.

What the Curaçao register shows

Mostbet does hold a licence, and it is not the one shown in most affiliate material. The Curaçao Gaming Authority publishes its registry as a dated PDF. We used the edition of 27 August 2026, the most recent one published. It lists 661 licences, and Mostbet’s holder is entry 338:

The expiry date in the registry has already passed

The registry has a column headed Expires. For this entry it reads 23 March 2026, five months before the edition we are quoting. The status beside it still reads assessment in progress.

We are careful about what that does and does not prove. The Authority marks entries as Expired when it means it: 31 of the 661 carry that status. This one does not. So the accurate statement is narrow, and it is this: the end date shown against the licence has passed while the Authority still records the licence as under assessment. We are not telling you the licence has expired, because the register does not say that.

How common is this status?

Common enough that it should not be read as a black mark on one operator, and not so common that it means nothing. These counts are from the 20 August edition: we re-read Bizbon’s own entry in the 27 August one, but did not re-derive the whole composition from it, so the table keeps the date it was actually counted on.

The blank rows are mostly licences granted more recently, under the newer CGA/2025/… numbering, with expiry dates still ahead of them. Assessment in progress attaches to the older OGL/2024/… batch that Bizbon N.V. belongs to. It describes a licence the regulator has not finished reviewing. That is a different thing from a licence it has cleared, and it is what we report.

Five months, five editions, no movement

We have now read this entry in five separate editions of the registry, and it has not changed once:

Only the position moves, as licences above it are added and removed. The licence number, the holder, both dates and the status are identical in all four.

The register is not neglected, so a still entry means something

An obvious objection to all of this is that the file might simply be out of date, and the status left over from a review that finished long ago. The register itself answers that. Between the 14 August edition and the 20 August one, six days apart, two more licences were moved to revoked, taking that count from 46 to 48. Someone is working through this file and changing statuses when the facts change.

Which means the flat line on this entry is not an artefact of a forgotten spreadsheet. It is the recorded state of the licence: issued last September, an end date that passed in March, and an assessment the Authority has not closed.

What the operator says about the same licence

Until 20 August we could only say that affiliate material describes this licence as active, because the operator’s own site would not open for us. It opens now, and its footer says this, word for word:

mostbet.com is owned and operated by Bizbon N.V., a company registered and established under the Law of Curaçao, registration number 141081, registered address: Dr. M.J. Hugenholtzweg 25, Unit 11, Willemstad, Curaçao.

mostbet.com is licensed and regulated by the Curaçao Gaming Control Board (license OGL/2024/597/0249).

Two things follow, and they are worth separating.

First, the identification now agrees on both sides. The licence number in the operator’s footer is character-for-character the number we found in the registry, and the company registration number matches too. There is no ambiguity left about which licence is being discussed.

Second, the descriptions do not agree. The operator says licensed and regulated. The Authority’s own register, for that exact number, says assessment in progress, with an end date that passed in March. Both statements are about the same licence. We publish the register’s wording, because the register is the body that issues it.

The registered address is also new information: the operator gives Dr. M.J. Hugenholtzweg 25 in Willemstad. Secondary sources we had seen previously gave a different address, Kaya Alonso de Ojeda 13-A. We have not confirmed either against a company register, so we quote the operator’s own version and label it as its own claim.

The 8048/JAZ number is out of date

Older Mostbet material — and the original design of this site — cites Curaçao eGaming licence 8048/JAZ. That belongs to the licensing regime Curaçao operated before 2024. It does not match the current registry entry, and we do not publish it as a current fact.

Where we check from, and what the operator serves

The correction matters because the operator answers differently depending on where the request comes from. Two of our own machines, same minute, same request:

On 16 and 17 August, the Latvian connection got HTTP 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons from the same address. So the operator’s gate moved twice in five days for one unchanged visitor.

What this supports is narrow: mostbet.com decides what to serve based on where you are, and that decision changes over time. What it does not support is any claim about access from Britain, in either direction. Until we can check from a British connection, that line stays blank rather than guessed.

The full dated record of those requests, from both vantage points, is on why Mostbet is not working.

The operator’s contract also excludes British citizens

The rest of this page is about what the two regulators record. This paragraph is about what Mostbet itself writes. Its General Terms name the citizenships it does not accept, and the United Kingdom is among them. The clause is about citizenship, not residence, and the same section refuses deposits made through cards or banks in prohibited territories.

So the licensing position and the operator’s own contract point the same way from opposite ends: the Commission has no record of a licence that would let this operator serve Great Britain, and the operator says British citizens should not be here. Neither statement is ours; both are quoted from the sources.

What you do with that is your decision, and we have no way to affect it either way. What it changes is the timing of the risk, which is set out with the rest of the payment terms on payments: the citizenship question does not come up when money goes in, it comes up at the verification that has to happen before money comes out.

What this means if something goes wrong

Licensing is not paperwork. It decides what happens on the day a withdrawal is refused or an account is closed with a balance in it.

• No Commission complaints route. The Commission handles complaints about its licensees. It has no jurisdiction over an operator it has not licensed.
• No UK alternative dispute resolution. Licensed operators must belong to an approved ADR scheme that can rule on disputes. That protection does not extend here.
• GAMSTOP does not apply. National self-exclusion binds Commission licensees. A self-excluded person can still open an account with an operator outside the scheme — the blocks that do reach an unlicensed site are a bank gambling block and device blocking software.
• No deposit-protection statement. Licensees must tell customers how customer funds are held and what happens if the company fails. No such rating exists here.

Common questions

Does Mostbet have a UKGC licence?

No. Neither the Mostbet brand, the Bizbon N.V. company, nor the mostbet.com domain appears anywhere in the Gambling Commission’s downloadable register, checked on 29 August 2026 across all three files.

Is the Curaçao licence valid?

The register does not say valid. It says “assessment in progress”, and it shows an expiry date of 23 March 2026 that has already passed. The Authority marks other entries “Expired” and has not marked this one, so the accurate statement is narrow: the end date has gone by while the review remains open.

Is Mostbet blocked in the UK?

We cannot tell you, and nobody checking from outside Britain can. The operator answers differently depending on where the request comes from: on 21 August it served the full site to our connection in Latvia and an empty response to our server in the United States, and two days later it refused Latvia as well. We have no vantage point inside Great Britain.

Is Mostbet on GAMSTOP?

No. GAMSTOP binds operators licensed by the Gambling Commission, and this one is not licensed by it. A self-excluded person is not stopped by GAMSTOP from opening an account here.

Who owns Mostbet?

Bizbon N.V., company registration 141081, registered in Curaçao. Both the register and the operator’s own footer agree on the name and the number. The footer gives the address as Dr. M.J. Hugenholtzweg 25, Unit 11, Willemstad; secondary sources we had seen previously gave a different one, and we have confirmed neither against a company register.

Our conclusion

Verified: the Curaçao licence exists, is held by Bizbon N.V., and has been recorded as under assessment in every registry edition we have read since May. Verified: no Great Britain licence, on a register we downloaded and checked ourselves, most recently on 21 August. Observed: the operator names that same licence in its own footer and calls itself licensed and regulated. Unknown, and stated as unknown: what any of this looks like from a connection inside Great Britain.

On that evidence we do not classify Mostbet as licensed for Great Britain, and we publish no recommendation to register or deposit. If you are in Great Britain and want a licensed operator, the Commission’s public register lists every one of them.

This page is the register evidence on its own. Our full review sets it beside the access checks, the App Store result and the operator’s own contract; the methodology explains why a nil result here is published as a finding rather than as silence, and what control had to pass before we trusted it.

For the wider picture, we counted the whole register on 29 August 2026: 373 of its 2,243 licensed domains are white labels, where the company on the website is not the company holding the licence, and 807 more are marked inactive. Mostbet’s absence turns out to be the normal condition of an entire category of offshore brands rather than a peculiarity of this one.