A dispute over Anjouan-branded online gambling licences has drawn scrutiny to businesses and individuals linked to the United Kingdom, as Comorian authorities question whether at least some of the licensing activity was authorised. The Guardian reported on 19 October 2026 that UK-linked companies and people had been involved in selling or facilitating the licences. The allegations are not established findings, and the role of one company associated with the Sorsky family is contested.
The case raises two distinct questions: who has been involved in providing the licences, and what authority those licences confer. Reporting by the Guardian and ABC News Australia describes scrutiny of businesses connected to Anjouan-branded licensing, while other reporting documents a dispute between the island-level licensing operation and Comorian authorities over its legal standing. A licence bearing Anjouan’s name does not, by itself, establish permission to accept customers in other countries.
Allegations and the family’s response
The Guardian’s investigation linked the licensing activity to the Sorsky family and company records. But it did not establish that every business connected to the family sold licences. Harold Sorsky said ACS Global Custodian did not sell, issue or provide gaming licences after it was taken over in 2023. The Guardian reported that other providers were involved.
That distinction matters because the available reporting does not resolve which parties were responsible for particular licences. The Guardian describes the wider network and the government’s concerns, but the dossier does not establish criminal conduct by the named individuals or the outcome of any official investigation. The family’s denial concerning ACS’s role should therefore be considered alongside the allegations, not treated as settled by them.
The Guardian also reported that the Comoros government said British citizens had been identified in connection with an unauthorised licensing regime and that international cooperation, including a request for assistance from the UK, was under way. A Treasury spokesperson declined to comment, according to the report. The information available does not show whether the request led to an investigation or any formal finding.
A licensing authority whose status is disputed
The legal standing of the Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority is itself contested. A February 2026 investigation by Le Monde reported that the Central Bank of the Comoros had described the body as “fictitious” and that Comorian authorities disputed the legal basis of Anjouan gambling licences. The authority’s own website, by contrast, presents a gaming-licensing system and a public register. Those competing accounts mean the existence of a register should not be taken as proof that Union of Comoros authorities recognise the licensing regime.
The dispute is not simply about whether an operator can display an Anjouan-branded licence. It is also about whether the body issuing or promoting that licence has recognised authority, and whether the operator is permitted to serve customers where they live. The dossier does not settle the first question. It does, however, include statements and reporting that distinguish an offshore licence from permission to operate in another jurisdiction.
Earlier scrutiny and cross-border rules
ABC News Australia reported in December 2025 on alleged fake Anjouan corporate licences and identified British families, including the Sorskys, as having connections to the licensing business. The report also connected Anjouan Licensing Services to domains promoting a purported gaming board and licence sales. This provides earlier, independent scrutiny of related businesses, but it does not verify every allegation in the Guardian’s later investigation or establish who sold the licences now in question.
Separately, Anjouan Gaming said in a statement reported by gambling-industry outlet SBC News in June 2026 that its licence was not universal authorisation and did not exempt operators from following local law. Le Monde reported that France’s gambling regulator considered online casinos operating from Anjouan to be prohibited in France. Together, those reports illustrate that an Anjouan-branded licence does not automatically authorise gambling services across borders.
The Guardian reported that at least one operator appeared to target British gamblers. That specific claim remains the Guardian’s reporting in the evidence available here; the dossier does not independently verify it. More broadly, the distinction between an offshore licence and local authorisation is central to understanding why the status of Anjouan-branded licences is disputed.
What is established, and what remains open
The reporting establishes that Anjouan-branded licensing has been the subject of scrutiny, that Comorian authorities have challenged the regime’s legal basis, and that British-linked businesses have appeared in investigations of related licensing activity. It does not establish that the Sorsky family itself sold the licences at issue, that the named people committed crimes, or that the authorities’ concerns have led to a concluded case.
For now, the central issue remains a combination of disputed authority and unresolved responsibility. The Guardian’s account describes the latest claims and the reported request for international cooperation; earlier ABC reporting supplies context about related businesses. Neither account, as summarised in the dossier, provides an adjudicated conclusion about the legality of every licence or the conduct of every person connected to the network.