An International Gambling Licence from Georgia: What It Is, and What It Is Not

Operators often ask for a Georgian licence to serve players abroad. Here is what Georgia actually issues, how the domestic and outward-facing routes differ, what banks and payment providers will ask for, the compliance obligations that follow, and how Georgia compares with Curacao, Malta and the Isle of Man.

Beka Shakulashvili · Founder & Managing Partner August 9, 2026 14 min read

A recurring request from iGaming founders is an "international licence" from Georgia - a permit issued in Tbilisi that lets an operator serve players anywhere. It is worth being precise about what Georgia issues, because the honest answer changes the whole plan, and hearing it early is cheaper than hearing it after a platform build.

A licence gives an operator a regulated home. Market access is decided where the player is.

Georgia issues permits under its own Law on Organizing Lotteries, Games of Chance and Prizes. A permit authorises the permitted activity under Georgian law. It does not, by itself, make an operator lawful in a player's own country - no licence anywhere does that.

Two different questions

Separate the licensing question from the market-access question, because operators routinely merge them and then build the wrong structure.

Licensing: which authority authorises the operator to organise gambling, and under whose supervision does the operator sit?
Market access: in each country where players are located, is it lawful for a foreign-licensed operator to accept those players? That is decided by the player's country, not by the licensing country.

Every serious jurisdiction works this way. A Malta licence does not entitle an operator to take bets in a country that reserves gambling to a state monopoly; a Curacao licence does not either. What a licence does is give the operator a regulated home, a supervisory relationship, audited systems, and something a bank or payment provider can underwrite.

What the Georgian permit actually is

There is no separate "international" or "offshore" gambling licence in Georgian law. What exists is the permit regime under the Law on Organizing Lotteries, Games of Chance and Prizes, issued and supervised by the Revenue Service. An operator serving players abroad from a Georgian company holds the same category of permit as a domestic operator, plus the systemic-electronic permit where play is remote. The value of that permit outward is not a passport to foreign markets; it is the regulated home, the audited systems and the supervisory relationship that banks and suppliers can diligence.

Law of Georgia on the Organisation of Lotteries, Games of Chance and Other Prize Games· Permits for the organisation of gambling activity

The organisation of games of chance and prize games requires a permit issued by the competent authority; the permit authorises the permitted activity under the conditions attached to it and does not extend to activity outside the scope for which it was granted.

Stated in outline. The permit categories, fees and conditions are set by that Law and by subordinate acts and have changed repeatedly. Critically, no Georgian permit confers a right to accept players in another country - that remains a question for each target market's own law.

Why operators look at Georgia

A functioning permit regime with a single, identifiable regulator in the Revenue Service.
Company formation that is genuinely fast, and a corporate income tax that is payable only on distributed profit.
Real banking and payment infrastructure in the region, rather than a purely paper jurisdiction.
A location that is practical for teams operating across Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East.
Costs that sit below the top European regimes while the regulator remains a real supervisor rather than a rubber stamp.

What it will not do

It will not legalise play from a jurisdiction that prohibits or reserves online gambling.
It will not remove the need for local licences in regulated markets that require them.
It will not satisfy a payment provider on its own; providers run their own risk assessment on the operator, the markets and the game mix.
It will not survive a structure where the real owners are hidden. Georgian permit review looks for identifiable beneficial owners.

How Georgia compares

A fair comparison, in outline, of what operators actually weigh:

Jurisdiction	Credibility with banks	Cost	Lead time	Substance expected
Malta	Highest in Europe	Highest	Longest	Significant local substance
Isle of Man / Gibraltar	High	High	Long	Substantial
Georgia	Workable, diligenceable	Competitive	Medium	Real company, identifiable owners
Curacao	Falling, regime reforming	Low to medium	Medium	Limited, rising
Small regimes	Weakest	Lowest	Shortest	Minimal

How the common licensing routes compare on what operators actually weigh.

Malta

Highest credibility

Highest cost and longest lead time

Georgia

Middle position

Real regulator, real substance, competitive cost

Small regimes

Fastest and cheapest

Weakest acceptance by banks and suppliers

Malta: the strongest reputational position in Europe, deepest compliance obligations, highest cost and longest lead time. Chosen when the target markets and payment partners demand it.
Isle of Man and Gibraltar: high credibility, strong banking acceptance, substantial substance requirements and cost.
Curacao: historically the cheapest and fastest route, now reformed toward a stricter regime; banking acceptance has become harder rather than easier.
Anjouan and comparable small regimes: fast and inexpensive, weakest acceptance among banks, payment providers and game suppliers.
Georgia: a middle position - a real regulator, real corporate substance, competitive cost, and a jurisdiction that a compliance officer can diligence, while offering nothing like Malta's automatic market credibility.

What the money side will ask for

In practice, the licence is the beginning of the work. Banks, payment service providers and game aggregators will each run their own file. Expect to produce:

The permit itself, and evidence of good standing with the regulator.
Corporate documents, ownership chart and UBO identification, plus source of funds and source of wealth.
The AML/CFT programme, the responsible-gaming policy, and the identity of the officers responsible for each.
Geo-blocking configuration showing which jurisdictions are excluded, and how.
Game supplier agreements and certification of the gaming system.
Historic volumes, chargeback data and, where available, audited financials.

Geo-blocking is where operators are caught. Publishing terms that exclude a market while continuing to accept its traffic is treated by regulators and payment providers as an aggravating factor, not a defence. Configure it, test it, and keep the logs.

Continuing obligations after the licence

A Georgian permit is supervised on a continuing basis, and market access has to be maintained rather than assumed. As a rule an outward-facing operator carries three parallel obligations that never stop while it trades: Georgian supervisory reporting and permit-fee instalments; AML/CFT monitoring and suspicious-transaction reporting under the Georgian regime; and the market-by-market compliance that keeps excluded jurisdictions genuinely excluded. Treating any of these as a one-off filing is how operators lose banking relationships.

Worked example

Reasoning backwards from the market, not forwards from the licence

An operator wants to serve players in three named markets, and asks whether a Georgian permit "covers" them.

1Reverse the question: a Georgian permit authorises operation from Georgia's perspective. Each target market applies its own law to operators serving its residents - a Georgian permit changes nothing about that.
2Market one prohibits unlicensed foreign operators and enforces actively: serving it means enforcement risk no Georgian document mitigates.
3Market two has no local licensing regime and tolerates offshore supply: the Georgian permit, geo-controls and AML file become the operative compliance story.
4Market three requires a local licence but grants them: the honest route is applying there, with the Georgian company as the operating vehicle if the structure supports it.
5The portfolio answer: serve two of the three now, on documented advice, and treat the first as closed until it licenses foreign operators.

"Does the licence cover the market?" is the wrong question, and answering it honestly market by market is what separates an operation that banks will touch from one they will not.

Illustrative. Market positions change; written local advice per target market is the standard, not the exception.

A realistic route

Worked example

The operator who bought a licence to satisfy a payment provider

An operator is told by a prospective payment provider that it needs 'a licence' and treats the Georgian permit as the box to tick.

1The provider's actual requirement was a licence covering the markets the operator intended to serve, which the Georgian permit does not do.
2The permit is obtained, at real cost, and the provider declines anyway because the target markets remain unlicensed.
3The operator now holds a supervised permit with continuing obligations, and still has no payment route.
4The question that should have been asked first - which markets, and what does each require - would have cost one email.

A licence is not a generic credential. Ask the counterparty which jurisdictions its requirement refers to before buying anything, because 'a licence' and 'the right licence' differ by the entire cost of the exercise.

Illustrative. Payment providers set their own licensing requirements, which vary by provider and by market.

Define the target markets first, honestly, then work backwards to the licence that supports them.
Take written advice on the two or three largest target markets before choosing the licensing jurisdiction.
Incorporate in Georgia and build the compliance and technical file to the standard a supervisor expects.
Apply for the correct permit category, including the systemic-electronic element where online play is intended.
Run the banking and payment workstream in parallel - it is usually the longest pole, not the licence.
Keep the file current. Supervision is continuous, and so is reporting.

How Trustlex approaches it

We take gambling engagements only where the plan is coherent: identifiable owners, evidenced funds, a defined market strategy and a willingness to build real compliance. The first deliverable is a written route with a fee split between government charges and professional work. Where we think a licence is unlikely to be granted, or unlikely to be bankable, we say so before an invoice is issued.