Licenses for online casinos,
betting, skillgaming, lotteries etc.
Full-support for gaming projects
Step into a new era of online gaming regulation with the Liberian Gambling License, a premier offering from the National Lottery Authority (NLA). Designed as a robust alternative to traditional offshore jurisdictions, this license provides global operators with a comprehensive turnkey solution. Through the NLA’s modernized framework, businesses gain more than just a permit—they gain a fully operational corporate foundation in one of Africa’s most promising financial landscapes.
Why Liberia – key benefits
Selecting the right offshore gambling jurisdiction is a strategic decision that affects everything from payment processing for iGaming to the overall reputation of the brand. The Liberia (NLA) framework has been developed to address the specific pain points of modern operators, particularly regarding substance and financial accessibility.
- Integrated Company Setup: The process includes the formation of a local entity, which is a prerequisite for the license application.
- Physical Substance: Provision of a Monrovia registered address helps in satisfying the substance requirements often demanded by modern banks.
- Broad Product Range: A single remote gaming license can often cover multiple iGaming activities, reducing administrative overhead.
- Banking Practicality: The structure is designed to facilitate multi-currency business account openings, subject to the bank’s independent due diligence.
- Efficient Workflow: The regulatory approval workflow is structured to be predictable, provided all documentation is in order.
- AML Alignment: The NLA requires a robust AML compliance program, which increases the credibility of the operator in the eyes of global partners.
- Global operating concept (territorial compliance still applies): the license is often positioned for international-facing use, while the operator remains responsible for geo-blocking and local law compliance in target markets.
- Public verification narrative: operators may benefit from a clearer regulator identity and, where available, public confirmation of licensing status via official channels (availability depends on the regulator’s published data).
- Compliance resourcing (case-by-case): some market materials reference “compliance included” elements (for example, AML officer/manager support for an initial period such as 12 months). Always confirm the exact scope and what is contractually included.
- No Complex Sublicensing: Unlike the legacy Curaçao models, the NLA issues direct licenses, offering more clarity in the operator compliance obligations.
- Cost-Effective Maintenance: Ongoing regulatory fees are typically competitive compared to European tier-1 jurisdictions.
- Expert Support: SB-SB.com ensures that all technical and corporate requirements are met prior to submission to minimize delays.
Best fit for
- International-facing operators with a defined market plan and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction compliance review.
- Projects that can document ownership, management, and source of funds verification early.
- Teams prepared to implement strong KYC and due diligence with monitoring and escalation procedures.
- Operators seeking a practical offshore structure with an incorporated company and address to support partner onboarding.
- Brands aiming to build a compliant operating model before pursuing additional local licenses in target regions.
- Startups transitioning from a prototype or white label arrangement to a more structured licensing footprint.
- Operators that require a documented responsible gaming policy and customer protection controls.
Not ideal for
- Operators seeking “license only” outcomes without real compliance implementation or ongoing governance.
- Projects that cannot evidence transparent ownership, funding sources, or operational control.
- Brands targeting strictly regulated markets where a local license is mandatory for the intended activity.
- High-risk models that rely on anonymous payments or avoid meaningful player verification.
- Operators unwilling to invest in monitoring, record-keeping, reporting, and vendor oversight.
- Teams with unclear product scope, unstable platform stack, or no documented procedures for player disputes and payouts.
- Projects expecting guaranteed banking or guaranteed payment processing outcomes.
Defining “Gaming Activities” Under Liberian Law
To enter the international market lawfully through the National Lottery Authority (NLA), operators must clearly understand what Liberia treats as “Gaming Activities.” In practical terms, this covers any structured game or wagering format where a participant stakes money (or money’s worth) on an outcome influenced by chance, skill, or a mix of both, with the expectation of receiving a prize or payout.
If your platform organizes, enables, administers, or offers these games to users, obtaining an official Liberia Gambling License becomes a required step for compliant global operations.
Scope of Licensed Operations
Liberia’s regulatory approach is intentionally broad and designed to capture modern digital gaming models. Under the current framework, “Gaming Activities” typically extend to:
- Digital and Online Casinos: Coverage for online slots, roulette, blackjack, poker, and other remote casino-style games delivered via web or app-based environments.
- Sports Betting and Totalizators: Wagering services offered online or on mobile, including pre-match and live betting, fixed-odds products, and virtual sports formats.
- Lotteries and Prize Draws: Lottery mechanics such as instant-win products, raffles, bingo, keno, and draw-based games with prize distribution rules.
- Remote Gaming Systems: Any gambling or wagering activity facilitated through internet connectivity, mobile applications, or remote server infrastructure.
Common Product Setups
- Single brand casino plus sportsbook with one wallet, one account, and unified KYC flow.
- Multi-brand network where compliance and risk are centralized while front-ends are segmented by region or audience.
- Casino-led launch followed by staged rollout of sportsbook and lottery or draw-based modules.
- Crypto-enabled cashier options supported by strengthened risk controls and transaction monitoring (where applicable).
- Sportsbook-first proposition with a curated casino layer for cross-sell and retention.
- Lottery and draw products for emerging markets paired with strict player verification, payout checks, and fraud controls.
- B2B or hybrid structure where the operator provides content distribution, platform services, or risk management (subject to licensed scope).
- Affiliate-driven acquisition with formal affiliate policies, monitoring, and enforceable compliance rules.
How about discussing the Liberia Gambling License with our experts?
Types of licenses and typical categories
In practice, licensing discussions often separate business models into “operator” activity (B2C and hybrid) and “supplier/service provider” activity (B2B and technical vendors). The exact categorization depends on the approved scope and how the platform stack is structured.
Operator-type scope (typical)
- Online casino and sportsbook operations (single brand or multi-brand groups).
- Lottery and draw-based offerings, including instant-win mechanics.
- Hybrid models with affiliates, multiple PSPs, and multi-market acquisition.
Supplier / service-provider scope (typical)
- Game content distribution, aggregation, and platform services (scope-dependent).
- RNG / platform tooling, player account management, and operational services.
- Compliance tooling providers (KYC, fraud, analytics, monitoring) and technical support services.
Step-by-step licensing process
The exact regulatory approval workflow can vary depending on scope and risk profile, but the following steps reflect a common operator journey from pre-check to issuance. The aim is to reduce preventable delays by aligning documents, ownership narrative, and operational controls before formal submission.
- Initial eligibility assessment: confirm the intended product scope, target markets, and licensing strategy (subject to local laws) and identify any high-risk elements early. This stage commonly includes completion of an initial intake questionnaire or “Intake Form” to align the requested scope with the regulator’s application workflow.
- Ownership and control mapping: prepare an ownership chart, UBO declarations, director details, and role allocation for key persons.
- Funding narrative pack: assemble source of funds verification documents and a written explanation of capital origin and expected operational flows.
- Company setup: proceed with gaming company registration in Liberia and set up the Monrovia registered address documentation used in filings.
- Policy drafting: finalize AML/CFT, KYC, responsible gaming, complaints, and data protection policies tailored to the platform and markets.
- Platform and vendor due diligence: gather vendor contracts, system descriptions, and evidence of controls (KYC, monitoring, fraud, payouts).
- Application assembly: compile the full licensing application process package and ensure internal consistency across all statements and forms.
- Regulator submission: submit via the official NLA portal and respond to follow-up questions and document requests. Where the portal provides tracking, the applicant can typically monitor status updates and upload additional documents upon request.
- Review and clarifications: address regulator feedback, provide additional evidence, and refine policies where required.
- Pre-issuance readiness: confirm operational procedures, internal controls, and record-keeping are live before launch.
- Issuance and onboarding: upon approval, implement the approved scope, set up reporting routines, and proceed with banking and payments onboarding as needed.
Liberia Gambling License Factsheet
Below is a table with indicative data on the key parameters of the Liberia (National Lottery Authority – NLA) license, including processing times, fees, and primary cost drivers:
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| License processing time | 6-12+ weeks (indicative; depends on document completeness and due diligence depth) |
| Application & Due Diligence fees | Available on request (Fee structure depends on license scope, number of stakeholders, and complexity of the ownership chain) |
| Annual/Ongoing costs | Depends on the compliance framework needed for the business model and product scope |
| Product Scope | Casino, Sportsbook, and Lottery-style offerings |
| Payment Methods | Supports cards, bank transfers, and crypto rails (risk profile affects costs) |
| Corporate Substance | Required; includes administration arrangements and local corporate presence |
| Banking & PSP Support | Application support for onboarding with multiple partners and payment service providers |
| Technical Requirements | May require audits, penetration testing, or independent technical assessments |
| AML/KYC requirements | Mandatory AML compliance program and enhanced due diligence (EDD) where triggered |
Key Cost Drivers
Total expenditure and timelines are influenced by the following factors:
- Due Diligence Complexity: The number of UBOs, directors, and the presence of holding companies or trusts.
- Compliance Maturity: Whether the operator is establishing a new AML build or utilizing an established program.
- Vendor Stack: The number of game suppliers, aggregators, and third-party KYC/compliance tools integrated.
- Support Scope: Level of internal vs. outsourced compliance staffing and reporting.
Comparison of the old and new licensing systems
| Key parameter | Legacy land-based licenses (previous model) | New - International Integrated License (IIGL) |
|---|---|---|
| What is licensed | On-site casinos, betting pools, and brick-and-mortar gaming venues. | Remote operations: online casinos, sportsbook products, lotteries, and platform-based gaming services. |
| Regulatory basis | Built around older frameworks (for example, rules similar to “Gaming Regulation 001”) and tied to strict location and premises requirements. | A dedicated, modern regime created for digital delivery and online business models. |
| Banking and payments | Primarily cash and conventional offline settlement; online payment rails are limited or difficult to implement. | Corporate multi-currency banking with SWIFT details and broader international payment functionality. |
| Market reach | Generally oriented toward the domestic audience and players located within the jurisdiction. | International positioning with the ability to serve multiple regions where gambling activity is legally permitted. |
| AML/CFT expectations | Low or inconsistent oversight, especially for online transaction flows. | Higher compliance bar: dedicated AML function, recurring reporting, and the possibility of independent reviews or audits (+). |
| Time to process | Longer timelines influenced by renewal cycles and manual review procedures. | Streamlined processing, commonly completed within up to 30 business days. |
| Credibility for partners | Mostly relevant for local activity and local counterparties. | Structured to support a clear compliance narrative for international B2B partners, PSPs, and service providers. |
Want to explore the Liberia Gaming License?
Comparison: Liberia (NLA) vs Curaçao vs Anjouan (Old vs New systems)
| Criteria | Liberia (NLA) | Curaçao (Old system) | Curaçao (New system - LOK) | Anjouan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory framework | ||||
| Regulator | Regulator: National Lottery Authority of Liberia (NLA) via official portal. | Regulator model: historically connected to master license holders with variable oversight structures. | Regulator: more centralized oversight with direct licensing expectations (implementation may evolve). | Regulator: typically presented as a single offshore regulator model for remote gaming. |
| Licensing model | Licensing model: structured application and approval; scope based on submission. | Licensing model: legacy master license and sub-licensing arrangements were common. | Licensing model: direct licensing framework with enhanced due diligence and ongoing obligations. | Licensing model: often packaged as an all-in-one authorization for international-facing operations. |
| Sovereign status | Yes | Yes | Yes | No (Dependency) |
| Timeline and costs | ||||
| Typical timeline (indicative) | 20 business days (often several weeks to a few months, case-by-case). | Varied (historically could be faster in some setups, but depended on provider). | 3-6 months (may be longer than legacy pathways due to enhanced checks, case-by-case). | 2-3 months (often positioned as fast, but depends on due diligence). |
| Typical initial cost (indicative) | ~ EUR 50,000 | Varied (depended on master license holder and service package). | EUR 80,000+ | EUR 25,000 - 30,000 |
| Fee transparency | Fee transparency: depends on scope and due diligence; confirm on request. | Fee transparency: depended on master license holder and service package. | Fee transparency: typically more standardized under a central framework, but confirm officially. | Fee transparency: often packaged; confirm scope, inclusions, and ongoing costs case-by-case. |
| Substance and compliance | ||||
| Substance requirements | Substance requirements: includes Liberian company and Monrovia address; substance expectations vary. | Substance requirements: historically varied; some operators had minimal local footprint. | Substance requirements: generally expected to be more defined with governance and compliance staffing. | Substance requirements: typically lighter on local footprint, depending on provider model. |
| Fit and proper depth | Fit and proper depth: KYC, background checks, and source of funds focus are common. | Fit and proper depth: varied by provider and sublicense arrangements. | Fit and proper depth: typically enhanced due diligence and structured reviews. | Fit and proper depth: generally includes KYC and beneficial ownership checks, case-by-case. |
| AML expectations | AML expectations: documented AML compliance program and MLRO role are key. | AML expectations: historically uneven across providers; counterparties often applied their own standards. | AML expectations: generally stronger expectations with monitoring and reporting routines. | AML expectations: policies required; real-world depth often tested by banks and PSPs. |
| Ongoing obligations | Ongoing obligations: monitoring, record-keeping, reporting routines, and responsible gaming controls. | Ongoing obligations: often depended on provider policies and counterparties rather than uniform supervision. | Ongoing obligations: generally more explicit ongoing requirements and supervisory interaction. | Ongoing obligations: typically includes renewals and compliance upkeep; depth tested by partners. |
| Banking and payments | ||||
| Immediate banking | Yes | No (case-by-case; not part of the regime by default) | No | No |
| Banking friendliness | Banking friendliness: case-by-case; strong documentation improves onboarding outcomes. | Banking friendliness: case-by-case; outcomes depended on structure and market exposure. | Banking friendliness: may benefit from stronger compliance narratives, still case-by-case. | Banking friendliness: case-by-case; often depends on markets, payments, and AML maturity. |
| SWIFT / multi-currency practicality | SWIFT / multi-currency practicality: often a goal via banking or EMI pathways, subject to due diligence. | SWIFT / multi-currency practicality: available in some structures, but not uniform and never guaranteed. | SWIFT / multi-currency practicality: may be supported where partner onboarding accepts the framework, case-by-case. | SWIFT / multi-currency practicality: depends on onboarding pathway and risk appetite, case-by-case. |
| Business scope and market acceptance | ||||
| Permitted activities scope | Permitted activities scope: may include casino, sportsbook, lottery, and other remote gaming verticals. | Permitted activities scope: historically broad under legacy constructs, but scope interpretations varied. | Permitted activities scope: expected to be defined by license category and approved scope. | Permitted activities scope: often broad as an offshore package, subject to approved scope. |
| PSP acceptance | PSP acceptance: depends on PSP policies, markets, and compliance posture (case-by-case). | PSP acceptance: varied; some PSPs were cautious due to sublicense opacity. | PSP acceptance: may improve with central oversight, but remains case-by-case. | PSP acceptance: case-by-case; often depends on markets and risk controls. |
| Public register / verification | Public register / verification: portal-based verification may be available depending on issuance data. | Public register / verification: often depended on master license holder context. | Public register / verification: typically emphasized more in centralized systems, subject to official availability. | Public register / verification: varies; verification methods can differ by regime. |
| Crypto-friendly | High | Medium (varied by partner policies) | Medium | High |
| Perception and risk | ||||
| Perceived credibility | Perceived credibility: varies by partner; clearer regulator identity can help, case-by-case. | Perceived credibility: varies widely by sublicense structure and partner risk appetite. | Perceived credibility: often perceived as improving due to reform goals and central oversight. | Perceived credibility: can be acceptable for certain profiles, but partner acceptance varies case-by-case. |
| Global reputation | Emerging / Strong | Mixed / Declining | Improving direction (reform-driven), still scrutinized | Low |
| Risk notes | Risk notes: ensure clear market compliance, affiliate control, and strong AML implementation. | Risk notes: variability in oversight and partner perception required careful structuring. | Risk notes: higher compliance demands may require more staffing and process maturity. | Risk notes: partner acceptance varies; use conservative claims and robust compliance. |
Assessing an applicant’s suitability (fit and proper)
In practice, licensing decisions for remote gaming frameworks are driven by the consistency of the ownership narrative, financial transparency, and the ability to operate a controlled environment for players. While exact evaluation criteria depend on scope, operators should be prepared for suitability checks across corporate, financial, and technical dimensions.
- Ownership transparency: clear UBO identification, control mapping, and role allocation for key persons.
- Financial capacity and source of funds: documented capital origin, expected flows, and explanation of the operating model.
- Management competence: relevant experience, governance setup, and internal accountability for compliance.
- Data accuracy: consistency across forms, policies, and declarations (inconsistencies often trigger delays).
- Reputation screening: background checks, sanctions/PEP screening, and adverse media review where applicable.
- Technical infrastructure: platform security, access controls, logging, payout controls, and vendor governance.
Need more information about the Gambling License in Liberia?
Ongoing compliance (AML/CFT, reporting)
Licensing is the start, not the finish. Ongoing compliance should be treated as a living system: policies must be implemented, monitored, and improved based on real operational data. Operators should maintain a documented AML compliance program, run periodic risk assessments, and ensure that staff and vendors follow the documented procedures.
Core operator compliance obligations typically include monitoring and record-keeping, reporting where required, responding to regulator queries, and maintaining a culture of responsible gaming. Operators should also maintain a vendor oversight program because many key functions (platform, games, KYC, payments) are outsourced. Even when vendors provide tooling, accountability stays with the operator.
Ongoing obligations checklist
- Maintain updated AML/CFT policy and risk assessment and review them periodically.
- Operate a working KYC and due diligence process, including enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring.
- Ensure the MLRO / AML officer has authority, independence, and clear escalation pathways.
- Monitor transactions and gameplay for suspicious behavior, fraud, and abuse patterns.
- Keep records of KYC files, transactions, game logs, and customer communications in a retrievable format.
- Implement sanctions and PEP screening with appropriate frequency and documented outcomes.
- Maintain a responsible gaming policy and operate player protection tools (limits, time-outs, self-exclusion).
- Manage complaints and disputes with clear SLAs, evidence capture, and escalation rules.
- Oversee affiliates and marketing: compliant messaging, restricted country rules, and brand safety checks.
- Run vendor oversight: contract governance, incident reporting, and performance monitoring.
- Review payment risk metrics (chargebacks, refunds, failed withdrawals) and adjust controls accordingly.
- Ensure territorial restrictions are enforced and activity remains subject to local laws in target markets.
Common compliance mistakes
- Using generic policies that do not match the real product scope or payment mix.
- Weak source of funds verification on higher-risk customers and high-velocity accounts.
- Inconsistent KYC standards between deposit methods (for example, lower checks for alternative payments).
- Over-reliance on vendors without internal oversight and documented decision-making.
- Allowing affiliates to market into restricted jurisdictions or use misleading claims.
- Poor record-keeping that prevents reconstruction of customer journeys and transactional history.
- Late or unclear escalation of suspicious activity and inadequate internal reporting trails.
- Weak payout controls and inadequate review of unusual withdrawal patterns.
- Incomplete implementation of responsible gaming tools or no monitoring of player risk indicators.
- Unclear handling of chargebacks, refunds, and bonus abuse cases.
- Failure to keep corporate documents and registers updated when ownership or management changes.
- Launching new markets or payment methods without updating risk assessment and controls.
Official Sources & Primary Legislation (Liberia)
Primary Acts & Core Regulations
- National Lottery Authority Act (2014) – referenced in Supreme Court filing/decision materials – court document that cites the Act establishing the NLA and related provisions.
- GIABA/FATF Mutual Evaluation Report – Liberia (2023) – authoritative compliance report that cites the NLA Act and references “Gaming Regulation 001” provisions used for licensing/fit-and-proper controls.
- Liberia National Risk Assessment (NRA) Report (FIA) – includes gaming sector references – FIA report that references the NLA framework and “Gaming Regulation 001” in the context of AML/CFT risks and controls.
Liberia National Lottery Authority (NLA) – official licensing portal
- Liberia Gaming License Portal (NLA) – official gateway – official portal to submit, track, and manage gaming license applications.
- Governance & Mandate (NLA) – outlines NLA mandate and high-level licensing/compliance approach on the official portal.
Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) – AML/CFT supervision context
Regulator mapping: FIA – Regulators and Supervisors (includes NLA) – official FIA page listing NLA as the gaming-sector supervisor/regulator.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Liberia Gambling License
Is online gambling legal in Liberia and recognized internationally?
Yes. Online gambling is fully regulated under the National Lottery Authority Act of 2014. The license is internationally recognized for operations in non-prohibited jurisdictions.
What is the estimated Liberia gambling license cost?
The all-inclusive turnkey package starts at approximately €50,000, covering company setup, license fees, and bank account opening.
How long does it take to obtain the license?
Liberia is one of the fastest jurisdictions globally, with a typical processing time of just 20 business days.
Can I use a Liberia casino license for a Crypto Casino?
Yes, the Liberian framework allows for the integration of cryptocurrency payments, provided the operator implements standard AML/KYC procedures.
Does Liberia offer banking for gaming companies?
Yes. Unlike many offshore jurisdictions, a Liberian license includes the opening of a local B2B SWIFT account for USD and EUR transactions.
Discover other Gambling Licenses
Get in touch with us
Roman Baranovskyi
Senior lawyer
Valeriia Kozel
Customer manager
Customer reviews
iGaming
Company and Logo Registration, Consulting
Thanks to the support we received, our company was officially registered in a very short time, we now have a complete brand identity with a professional logo, and we gained clear guidance on the next steps for compliance and licensing - everything was done faster than expected and with a genuinely positive, attentive approach.
Manager, Tianorix
iGaming
White Label Licensing, Payment Systems, Expansion
We've been working with SBSB on our licensing and payments structure for a new iGaming venture. Their team combines deep legal expertise with a clear, responsive approach – even when challenges arise. I especially appreciate their understanding of the fintech and crypto space.
They’ve been reliable, pragmatic, and solutions-oriented throughout our process. Highly recommended for anyone looking to build something serious in gaming, crypto, or international banking.
Ari
iGaming
Legal Opinion, Market Entry, Business Registration, Structuring, Tax Optimization, Payment Systems
Very happy with these guys! They always help you when you need, bringing their expertise, dedication and being very responsible. They've done the full service for us starting from consultancy, then the set up and execution. We fully recommend this company! Separate kudos to Roman!
DaddySkins
