Offshore
Comoros (Mwali / Mohéli) licence.
Mohéli Offshore Authority
Not recommended as a primary online-casino licence until issuer and market-access legality verified.
This framework is materially unsettled right now. Read the honest read below before committing a timeline to it.
What the regulator asks for
Year one cost
Unverified supplier quote; confirm legal issuer and statutory schedule
Published commercial quotes are not a substitute for official Comorian/Mwali gaming legislation and a verifiable regulator fee schedule. Verify issuer competence, operator identity, tax treatment and lawful target markets.
Timeline
Unverified supplier estimate
Independent Comorian government legal authority, authorised signatory, applicable legislation and official fee schedule for Mwali/Mohéli remote gambling are not yet verified. Third-party 4-8 week claims are not reliable licence timing evidence.
Gaming tax
No independently confirmed zero gaming tax. Obtain applicable Comorian corporate and gaming law, genuine issuing authority and licence-fee evidence before modelling operations.
Marketing climate
Light local rules.
The market
Mwali/Mohéli remote gaming licences are marketed through various commercial providers, but a reliable independent public legislative source confirming the issuing body, fee schedule and relevant gaming powers is not established. Treat this as an unresolved licence-authenticity and banking due-diligence question.
How the application runs
Licensing runs through the Mohéli Offshore Authority, and the application itself is light-touch and fast, which is the point of the framework. The real bottleneck is not the licence. It is securing payment and banking infrastructure that will accept a Mohéli-licensed operator, because recognition of the framework outside its own jurisdiction is limited. Treat the licence as the easy part and the banking and PSP onboarding as the work that determines whether you can actually operate.
Ongoing compliance
The published responsible-gambling and AML framework is limited, and that is itself the operating risk. With little formal structure to lean on, an operator serving any market that scrutinises licensing has to self-impose tier-1-equivalent KYC, AML and responsible-gambling controls regardless of what the framework formally requires. The absence of a mature published framework does not remove the obligations that destination markets impose.
What you can and cannot say
Local marketing rules are light. The binding constraints are the destination-market rules wherever players actually are, which apply regardless of where the licence is issued. A light home framework does not change advertising, bonus and responsible-gambling messaging obligations in the markets being served.
The honest read
What it means for your plan
A cheap quoted gaming certificate is not evidence of enforceable authorisation. Do not select Mwali on price or speed without official legal verification and destination-market acceptance.
For operators planning next steps
From a licence comparison to an operator launch plan
Fees and requirements alone do not establish eligibility or readiness. Confirm current regulatory conditions with the authority and then plan product, payments and implementation.
Get 3 actions
Weighing up Comoros (Mwali / Mohéli)?
One sentence is enough. I read these myself and reply with three actions you can take.