Online gambling Nicaragua - "soft mode"

Online gambling in Nicaragua: lack of tight regulation

Short conclusion (on 09. 10. 2025)

Nicaragua has a detailed base for land-based casinos (Ley 766 and Regulation 06-2015, oversight by the Ministry of Finance/MNSR), but no transparent procedure for issuing local B2C licenses for online gambling. Therefore, the online market de facto lives in a "soft" mode: players use offshore sites, and the state controls primarily financial flows and AML/CFT through UAF via Ley 977.

What the laws say - and what they don't say

There is: a special law for casinos and halls (Ley Nº 766) and its regulations (Decreto Ejecutivo 06-2015). They detail the licensing of physical infrastructure (tables, slots, controls, inspections, sanctions) and enshrine the role of the MNSR/Casino Office as "Autoridad de Aplicación."

No: these texts do not contain a separate public procedure for issuing a local online license to private B2C operators (a separate register, criteria, fees). This explains the offshore access model. The conclusion is also confirmed by industry summaries, which directly indicate the absence of a local online licensing mechanism.

💡 In the professional environment, there are interpretations that for "online" you must first open a physical object of category A and then "expand into the Internet." This is the position of individual consultants, not the published regulatory procedure of the MHCP - treat as a controversial interpretation of practice.

Who controls the sector now

MHCP (Ministry of Finance): curator of gambling after the 2014 reforms; the 06-2015 base is fixed on government resources as a regulation for Ley 766.

UAF (Unidad de Análisis Financiero): according to Ley 977, casinos and related entities are "entities obligated" with KYC/AML responsibilities, risk-based approach and reporting. This is the "hard part" of control that applies to transactions and payments.

Market practice: "soft" regime and offshore

1. Player access. Most of the online game passes through foreign sites: there is no local B2C license for private traders, domain/payment blocking is not systematically described in the law. Profile reviews note: "online is allowed/tolerated, but a local license is not issued" - hence the offshore.

2. Operators. It is difficult for local companies to deploy legal B2C online based on a national license, since the procedure has not been published; the risk of qualifying as an "unlicensed activity" in the ground plane remains. Business practice is to work with an offshore license and carefully solve payments/CUS. (Derivation from Ley 766 norms + industry directories.)

3. De facto supervision. The control loop is shifted towards AML/payments (UAF, Ley 977), and not in the form of a permissive" online model.

Risks and limitations

Consumer rights. Offshore site disputes do not fall under MHCP's direct oversight; protection is defined by the country of the operator's license.

Payment channels. Transactions under UAF compliance supervision; delays/blockages possible with "red flags."

Regulatory "gray areas." The lack of an official online procedure increases uncertainty for local B2C startups and affiliates.

Taxes and deductions: what about online

For the onshore segment, MHCP fees/oversight per Ley 766/Regulation. For private online operators within the country, there is no fixed local base: there is no separate license → there is no direct B2C taxation regime in Nicaragua. (This is a key marker of "softness.")

What to do players and business (practice)

Players:

choose operators with respected foreign licenses (MGA, UKGC, Colombia, onshor-LatAm), check the limits and terms of payments;
keep confirmations of deposits/winnings; observe 18 +. (Otherwise, the offshore operator may refuse to pay.)

Affiliates/Operators:

take into account that the local B2C online license has not been published;
build AML/KYC to Ley 977 standards (including interaction with banks/payment providers);
transparently label geo-targeting and access conditions;
consider "bridge" jurisdictions (Panama/Colombia) for onshore licensing and compliance.

Outlook: What could change

Regional trends (Colombia, Brazil, Peru) show that countries are gradually moving online from the gray zone to the license model. For Nicaragua, the most realistic scenario is to add a separate online B2C block to the current Ley 766/Regulation: registry, server/data requirements, GGR taxation, responsible play, advertising. So far, no official projects of such a reform have been publicly recorded. (Conclusion on the status of regulatory bases and government publications MHCP/UAF.)

Online gambling in Nicaragua exists in a "allowed-by-default" format for the player and without a local B2C license for the private operator. The center of gravity of control is financial compliance (Ley 977/UAF), not an online permissive license. Until the state introduces a full-fledged licensing loop for online, the market will remain soft/offshore, with corresponding risks for consumers and uncertainty for business.

Main sources:

Texts Ley Nº 766 and Decreto 06-2015 (application regulations, MNSR/Casino office as "Autoridad de Aplicación").
MHCP base: reference to regulation 06-2015 as valid.
UAF and Ley 977 (entities obligated; AML/KYC).
Industry summaries of the lack of a local online B2C license and offshore access model.
Local interpretations of "category A physical object → online": private opinion of consultants, not official regulations.

Relevant for October 09, 2025.