Comparison with neighbors (Nicaragua)

Comparison with neighbors (Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama)

Quick total

Nicaragua: formal base for land-based casinos (Ley 766 + Regulation 2015; oversees MNSR/Casino Office). There is no separate transparent B2C online license for private operators; players often go offshore.

Costa Rica: no industry online license and profile regulator; many operators operate through data license/municipal permits, and Costa Rican residents cannot be targeted.

Honduras: offline gambling is legal; online segment without a separate regime (de facto "gray "/offshore).

Panama: Mature model with Junta de Control de Juegos (JCJ) and ofits. online permissions for operators; developed procedures for issuance and supervision.

Regulatory Framework and Regulators

Nicaragua

Base: Ley Nº 766 (2011) + Decree No. 06-2015 (regulations).

Curator: MHCP via Casino and Halls Office (shifting oversight of Ley 884 reform).

Online: There is no separate public procedure for private online operators.

Costa Rica

There is no specialized online regulator and a "classic" gambling license: Data Processing/municipal permits are used; companies usually undertake not to serve residents of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Honduras

Offline settled; online - without special license/procedure; the market is described as "virgin" for online or "white-level" (no framework).

Panama

Regulator: JCJ (under Panama's Finance Ministry).

Online: JCJ issues online permits (contracts/licenses) for sports betting and casino gaming; the assessment and supervision procedure is in place.

Online Segment: Player Status and Access

Jurisdiction	Is there a local B2C online license? Player Access Practice
Nicaragua	No transparent procedure for private traders
Costa Rica	There is no industry online license; Data Processing instead
Honduras	No special mode
Panama	Yes, gives out JCJ

Licensing and operator requirements

Nicaragua: address licensing for land-based casinos/halls; requirements for sites, personnel, video surveillance, reporting; control through MNSR/Casino Office. There are no online procedures for private traders.

Costa Rica: registration of a legal entity + municipal/" data processing" license; there is no specialized gambling regulator, there is no sectoral online license.

Honduras: offline licenses exist; for online - vacuum (no self-licensing).

Panama: formal procedure at JCJ: qualification requirements for capital, ownership transparency, information security/player protection; online permits (betting/casino games) are issued.

Taxes and fiscal practices (in brief)

Nicaragua: MHCP has fiscal control over the offline segment; deductions by prizes/lotteries - separate norms (for players). Online B2C without a local database → taxation of operators is not formalized.

Costa Rica: no industry online license → no special tax on online GGR; corporate taxes and fees - by general regime and at the level of municipalities/data processing services.

Honduras: offline taxes apply; online mode is not registered.

Panama: JCJ has known fees/charges for licenses and supervision; online operators pay under established contracts/regimes. (Confirmed by regulator and profile clarifications.)

Risks and compliance

Nicaragua/Honduras: the main risk is the lack of a local online license → weak consumer protection, difficulties in law enforcement for offshore sites; regulator focus - AML/finmonitoring.

Costa Rica: legal predictability for data processing companies, but residents cannot be served; there is no single gambling surveillance.

Panama: The most "projected" neighboring jurisdiction for online operators: clear procedures, JCJ oversight, player protection compliance requirements.

What it means for Nicaragua

1. Competitive position. Against the backdrop of Panama, Nicaragua looks less formalized online: this reduces investment predictability and complicates the localization of payments/advertising.

2. The Costa Rican model is not analogous. A "data license" is not a gambling license: it does not give the right to legally serve local players; therefore, it is impossible to transfer such a scheme to Nicaragua "as is."

3. The nearest landmark is Panama. If Nicaragua wants to withdraw online from the "gray zone," a course towards a separate chapter for Ley 766 is logical: registration, GGR tax, KYC/AML, player protection, advertising rules - following the example of JCJ.

Difference table (compressed)

Parameter	Nicaragua	Costa Rica	Honduras	Panama
Profile law/regulator	Ley 766 + Regulation; MNSR/Casino Office	No industry online license/regulator	Offline is legalized; online without mode	JCJ (Panama Ministry of Finance)
Online license for private traders	No	No (Data Processing instead of)	No	Yes
Player access	Offshore/Grey Area	Residents of the Kyrgyz Republic are not served	Offshore/" white-level"	Legal. pa-operators
Predictability for the investor	Medium (offline), low (online)	Average (export of services)	Low (online)	High
Main risk	No online procedure	No food supervision; banning residents	Online control vacuum	Cost and compliance burden

Source by line: Nicaragua - Ley 766/Regulation; Costa Rica - Data Processing content and industry position; Honduras - industry reviews/restrictions; Panama - JCJ website and legal clarifications.

References/Sources

Nicaragua: Ley Nº 766 (consol.) , Regulation No. 06-2015 (application), Ley 884 (establishment of a Casino Office under the MHCP).

Costa Rica: industry analytics (Gambling Insider, 2025) and consulting guides on Data Processing/municipal permits (Fast Offshore; Rue).

Honduras: Industry Status Reviews (iGamingToday, 2024; LCB-Restrictions on the absence of a frame).

Panama: JCJ Official Profile (Panama MEF) and Jurassic clarifications on online permissions.

Relevant for October 09, 2025.