Independent iGaming intelligence
18+ Responsible play
Sherlock.casino
Search
All network cases
SHERLOCK NETWORK FILE

V.Partners

One network. Seven brands. Five gambling operators.

NETWORK VERIFIED7 CURRENT BRANDS5 OPERATOR / OGL STACKSLEGAL TRANSLATION DRIFTLAST CHECKED 25 AUG 2026
AFFILIATE CONTRACTING ENTITYV.Partners LimitedHong Kong · 68960913
CURRENT PUBLIC PORTFOLIO7 CASINO BRANDSREVIEWED MEMBERSHIP EDGES
REGULATED CASINO LAYER5 OPERATOR STACKS5 OGLS · 5 PAYMENT AGENTS
SHERLOCK SCORENOT PUBLISHEDNOT PUBLISHED
V.Partners: one network. Seven brands. Five gambling operators.

Case status: Open
Last checked: 25 August 2026
Current affiliate contracting entity: V.Partners Limited — Hong Kong — 68960913
Current public in-house casino portfolio: 7 brands
Current exact-domain operator stacks represented: 5
Verified service-company edge: Starfish Group → operated by V.Partners Limited
Sherlock Score: Not published — methodology not yet live

01
NETWORK ASSESSMENT

The short version

V.Partners looks simple when you view it as an affiliate programme.

Its current site presents seven casino brands in one portfolio:

Slotoro · FieryPlay · Hit’n’Spin · Verde Casino · ICE Casino · FS Casino · V.Vegas

Then we followed each brand through its current legal documents and exact-domain Curaçao licence.

The portfolio stopped looking like one company.

The seven current brands sit across five separate licensed gambling operators, five current OGL stacks and five disclosed payment-agent companies.

Two brands, Slotoro and Verde, currently sit under Wiraon B.V. Two more, ICE and V.Vegas, sit under WhiteBox B.V. The other three brands each resolve to a different operator: Nixxe B.V., Twicedice B.V. and Intelligent Innovations N.V.

So the strongest current map is not:

V.Partners → owns and operates seven casinos

It is:

V.Partners → affiliate/commercial network for seven current brands
Seven brands → five licensed gambling operator stacks

That distinction matters because V.Partners’ own Affiliate Agreement supports it.

The current agreement identifies V.Partners Limited, Hong Kong registration number 68960913, as the company contracting with affiliates for digital marketing and traffic-acquisition services. But the same contract defines its Brands as brands owned and/or licensed to V.Partners, and its Website definitions and revenue language leave room for separate website owners.

In other words, the contract itself does not require every casino operator, website owner and trademark owner to be the same company as the affiliate network.

The 2026 Vulkan rebrand makes that separation even clearer.

V.Partners coordinated three name changes together:

VulkanVegas → V.Vegas
VulkanSpiele → FieryPlay Casino
VulkanBet → FS Casino

Yet those three current casinos now sit under three different licensed operators: WhiteBox, Nixxe and Intelligent Innovations.

That is a network-level relationship, not a same-operator relationship.

The paperwork around the affiliate company has its own inconsistency too. The current English Affiliate Agreement gives V.Partners Limited’s registered address as Room 1601, Wing On Centre, 111 Connaught Road Central. The current Russian version of the same clause gives Unit 1307A, Two Harbourfront, 22 Tak Fung Street. Both use the same company name and registration number. The contract itself says the English version prevails when the language versions disagree.

A third Two Harbourfront address appears in the Data Protection Policy, but there it is explicitly described as an office, not the registered address: Unit 912, 9/F.

That Unit 912 address leads to another verified entity. Starfish Group says on its own current website that it is operated by V.Partners Limited from that same business address. Starfish sells digital marketing, web development, branding and CRM/sales services. That gives Sherlock a real same-company service edge without pretending we have proved Starfish built or operates the casino platforms.

Sherlock verdict: V.Partners is best understood as a commercial and acquisition layer over a multi-entity casino portfolio. Its seven current in-house brands do not collapse into one gambling company. The network can coordinate brands, rebrands, affiliate contracts and marketing while the regulated casino layer remains split across five operators. The most important Sherlock rule for this case is therefore simple:

NETWORK ≠ OPERATOR ≠ LICENCE HOLDER ≠ PAYMENT COMPANY ≠ BRAND IP.

03
REGULATED TOPOLOGY

One portfolio. Five licensed operators.

CURRENT IN-HOUSE BRANDS7
LICENSED OPERATORS5
DISTINCT OGL STACKS5
DISTINCT PAYMENT AGENTS5
ONE NETWORK · SEVEN BRANDS · FIVE OPERATOR STACKS

Network membership does not imply common casino operator, licence holder, payment agent or trademark owner.

This is the core of the investigation.

V.Partners brandCurrent operatorExact-domain Curaçao licencePayment company disclosed by brand
SlotoroWiraon B.V. · 146886OGL/2024/686/0183Briantie Limited · HE 385770
Verde CasinoWiraon B.V. · 146886OGL/2024/686/0183Briantie Limited · HE 385770
FieryPlayNixxe B.V. · 147116OGL/2024/1363/0705Kaurum Limited · HE 387933
Hit’n’SpinTwicedice B.V. · 154842OGL/2024/818/0448ICS MANPOWER SOLUTIONS Ltd. · HE 445968
ICE CasinoWhiteBox B.V. · 155412OGL/2024/822/0338T&C Whitebox CY Limited · HE 419583
V.VegasWhiteBox B.V. · 155412OGL/2024/822/0338T&C Whitebox CY Limited · HE 419583
FS CasinoIntelligent Innovations N.V. · 142065OGL/2024/767/0360Verbenaz Limited · HE 385376

Every operator conclusion above is grounded in exact-domain regulator evidence rather than inferred from the V.Partners portfolio page.

So the current topology is:

7 current V.Partners casino brands
↓
5 licensed gambling operators
↓
5 OGL stacks
↓
5 disclosed payment-agent companies

There are two operator clusters inside the portfolio:

Wiraon B.V.
→ Slotoro
→ Verde Casino

WhiteBox B.V.
→ ICE Casino
→ V.Vegas

FieryPlay, Hit’n’Spin and FS Casino each sit on their own operator stack.

That is why a normal “sister casinos” list is not enough.

Two casinos can share V.Partners and still have different operators, licences and payment companies.

Two casinos can share an operator and still require separate evidence before we call them part of the same affiliate network.

Evidence status: CURRENT NETWORK / REGULATED-STACK SEPARATION VERIFIED

04
COORDINATED BRAND MIGRATION

Three rebrands. Three operators. One coordinated launch.

PREDECESSORVulkanVegas
REBRANDED TO
CURRENT BRANDV.Vegas CasinoOPERATED BY WhiteBox B.V.
PREDECESSORVulkanSpiele
REBRANDED TO
CURRENT BRANDFieryPlay CasinoOPERATED BY Nixxe B.V.
PREDECESSORVulkanBet
REBRANDED TO
CURRENT BRANDFS CasinoOPERATED BY Intelligent Innovations N.V.
THREE REBRANDS · THREE CURRENT OPERATORS · ONE NETWORK EVENT

Coordinated rebrand does not create a same-operator edge.

In 2026, V.Partners announced a coordinated update to its Vulkan brands:

VulkanVegas → V.Vegas
VulkanSpiele → FieryPlay Casino
VulkanBet → FS Casino

The announcement describes refreshed names, visual identities, bonus mechanics and engagement features.

Now look at the current regulator layer.

V.Vegas

Operator: WhiteBox B.V.

FieryPlay

Operator: Nixxe B.V.

FS Casino

Operator: Intelligent Innovations N.V.

Three successor brands.

Three licensed operators.

One coordinated network-level rebrand.

That tells us something useful about what the V.Partners relationship can actually mean.

The network can coordinate affiliate migration, brand positioning and commercial rollout across brands that do not share one licensed gambling operator.

So Sherlock stores two completely different relationship classes:

VulkanVegas → REBRANDED_TO → V.Vegas
VulkanSpiele → REBRANDED_TO → FieryPlay
VulkanBet → REBRANDED_TO → FS Casino

and separately:

V.Vegas → OPERATED_BY → WhiteBox B.V.
FieryPlay → OPERATED_BY → Nixxe B.V.
FS Casino → OPERATED_BY → Intelligent Innovations N.V.

REBRAND COORDINATION ≠ SAME OPERATOR.

05
ROLE SEPARATION

The contract itself says brands can be owned or licensed

BRAND DEFINITIONBrands may be owned and/or licensed to V.Partners.
WEBSITE ROLE STATEAgreement language contemplates owned/licensed/operated Website relationships and separately refers to Website Owner(s).
ROLE-SEPARATION RULE

Affiliate/commercial control does not prove gambling operation, website ownership or universal trademark ownership.

V.Partners English Affiliate Agreement

V.Partners’ own Affiliate Agreement is unusually useful for understanding the graph.

Its definitions describe Brands as brands owned and/or licensed to V.Partners.

Its Website language also allows for websites that are owned, licensed and/or operated within the relevant relationship structure.

And the economic/fraud clauses sometimes distinguish V.Partners from a Website Owner.

Net Revenue can also include deductions for royalties paid to Website owner(s).

That wording does not tell us who owns every casino site.

It tells us something more important:

The contract itself is compatible with a multi-company structure.

A brand can sit inside the V.Partners commercial portfolio without the V.Partners contracting company being the exact-domain casino operator.

That is exactly what the regulator evidence shows across the seven current brands.

07
SAME-COMPANY SERVICE EDGE

Starfish Group: same company, another business surface

SERVICE BUSINESSStarfish Groupstarfish.groupFIRST-PARTY VERIFIED
OPERATED BY
COMPANYV.Partners LimitedHong Kong · 68960913SAME COMPANY
BUSINESS ADDRESSUnit 912, 9/F, Two Harbourfront, 22 Tak Fung Street, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Starfish Group current siteStarfish Group services
OPERATED BY V.PARTNERS LIMITED · VERIFIED FIRST-PARTY

Do not infer Starfish built or operates any casino brand without project-level evidence.

The Unit 912 office address leads to one of the most interesting verified side edges in this investigation.

The current Starfish Group website says:

Starfish Group is operated by V.Partners Limited.

Its business address is:

Unit 912, 9/F, Two Harbourfront, 22 Tak Fung Street, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

That is the same business-office address V.Partners gives in its Data Protection Policy.

Starfish publicly offers:

  • digital and inbound marketing;
  • lead generation;
  • web design and development;
  • UX and e-commerce work;
  • branding and creative services;
  • CRM and sales enablement;
  • mobile and custom web applications.

The verified graph edge is therefore:

Starfish Group
↓ operated by
V.Partners Limited

That is strong evidence of another outward-facing business operated by the same Hong Kong company.

It is not evidence that Starfish built or technically runs any of the seven casino brands.

We would need project-level evidence for that second claim.

08
IP ROLE BOUNDARY

Brand IP: control is not the same as registry ownership

CASINOV.Vegas Casinov.vegasCROSS-CASE EXAMPLE
OPERATED BYWhiteBox B.V.Curaçao · 155412
BRAND IP LICENSED FROMDareos LTDCyprus · HE 372002
CONTRACTUAL IP CONTROL ≠ TRADEMARK OWNERSHIP ≠ CASINO OPERATOR

INCOMPLETE OPEN LEAD

The V.Partners Affiliate Agreement uses broad intellectual-property language.

It controls how affiliates may use brand materials and grants limited, revocable promotional rights.

But the same agreement tells us that Brands can be owned and/or licensed to V.Partners.

That one phrase matters.

It prevents us from taking network-level IP control and silently translating it into:

V.Partners Limited owns every casino trademark.

We do not have evidence for that universal statement.

One existing Sherlock case demonstrates the distinction.

Current V.Vegas documentation identifies Dareos LTD in the brand-IP/licensor role, while the current exact-domain gambling operator is WhiteBox B.V.

So the graph can contain all of these at the same time:

V.Vegas → affiliate network → V.Partners
V.Vegas → gambling operator → WhiteBox B.V.
V.Vegas → brand-IP/licensing role → Dareos LTD

There is no contradiction once the relationship types are kept separate.

BRAND IP ≠ AFFILIATE NETWORK ≠ GAMBLING OPERATOR.

A full primary-registry trademark map across all seven current brands remains open.

09
PROGRAMME LINEAGE

The 2016 programme story still has a corporate gap

VERIFIED HISTORICAL WORDINGV.Partners current archives use acquisition wording for Vulkan.Bet in English/Ukrainian and direct-advertiser wording in Russian; the legal transaction mechanism is unresolved.

V.Partners publicly dates its affiliate programme to 2016.

The current footer says:

V.Partners Affiliate Program 2016–2026

The current news archive also preserves an old entry titled:

V.Partners Affiliate Program Launched

And current V.Partners material celebrates ten years of programme history.

That is enough for Sherlock to state:

V.Partners publicly claims programme lineage from 2016.

It is not enough to reconstruct the entire corporate chain.

We have not yet captured the primary historical Hong Kong registry and contracting documents needed to prove:

  • who the directors/shareholders were at each point;
  • whether the current V.Partners Limited entity was the contractual party from day one;
  • whether there was an earlier company or contractual migration.

So the timeline and the corporate identity stay separate.

PROGRAMME LINEAGE: VERIFIED FIRST-PARTY
FULL CORPORATE CONTINUITY SINCE 2016: UNRESOLVED

10
HISTORICAL WORDING

“V.Partners acquires Vulkan.Bet” is not enough to prove an acquisition

VERIFIED FIRST PARTY LINEAGEV.Partners currently dates its affiliate-programme lineage to 2016; full legal-entity continuity since 2016 remains unresolved.

There is a strange historical wording split in V.Partners’ own archive.

The English/Ukrainian archive contains an item titled:

V.Partners acquires Vulkan.Bet

The Russian archive describes the corresponding relationship as:

V.Partners прямой рекламодатель Vulkan.Bet

which means V.Partners was the direct advertiser for Vulkan.Bet.

Those descriptions are not legally equivalent.

And neither archive entry, by itself, proves whether an actual acquisition meant:

  • buying shares in an operator;
  • buying the brand/IP;
  • acquiring an affiliate contract;
  • becoming the exclusive/direct advertiser;
  • or another commercial arrangement.

So we do not create a corporate ACQUIRED edge from the headline alone.

Sherlock’s status is:

HISTORICAL ACQUISITION WORDING · TRANSACTION MECHANISM UNVERIFIED

11
AFFILIATE CONTRACT AUTOPSY

Affiliate Contract Autopsy: where discretion sits

01Fraud/non-compliance findings can affect Qualified Customer status
02Relevant conversions or commission can be rejected, reduced, cancelled or withheld under the contract
03V.Partners says it is under no obligation to provide affiliates evidence/proof of detected fraud
04Unagreed-GEO commission can fall under V.Partners discretion
PUBLIC CONTRACT FORMULA5%PUBLIC CONTRACT FORMULA NOT PRIVATE CPA RATE
BROAD COMMERCIAL ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION · PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

Only reviewed public contract terms are shown. Private account-specific commercial terms are excluded.

V.Partners English Affiliate Agreement

This is a Network Case, so the contract between V.Partners and its traffic partners matters.

The current agreement gives V.Partners meaningful discretion around fraud and customer qualification.

Among the clauses Sherlock would read carefully:

Fraud / qualification

The agreement allows fraud or non-compliance findings to affect whether a referred player qualifies for commission.

Evidence to the affiliate

The contract says V.Partners is not obliged to provide the affiliate evidence or proof of detected fraud.

Commission consequences

Under the contract, relevant conversions/commission can be rejected, reduced, cancelled or withheld when the specified rules are triggered.

Unagreed GEOs

Commission for traffic from a GEO that was not agreed can fall under V.Partners’ discretion.

Revenue Share Admin Fee

The public agreement defines a 5% Admin Fee on each deposit/payment for the Revenue Share calculation.

That 5% is a public contractual formula.

It is not a private CPA rate.

Sherlock does not publish private CPA offers, RevShare overrides, account-specific caps, manager negotiations or confidential publisher terms.

Our conclusion is limited to the contract itself:

BROAD COMMERCIAL ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION · PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

That does not prove the clauses are abused in practice.

12
ADJACENT NETWORK EDGES

Edges outside the seven: where the graph can easily go wrong

OUTSIDE CURRENT 7PUBLISHER SIDE CONFIRMED PUBLICLY SUPPORTED
GG.BET Casino
DIRECT PROGRAMMEGG.BET AffiliatesNETWORK EVIDENCE CLASSCOMMERCIAL GROUP INFRASTRUCTURE

Do not render as an eighth current V.Partners in-house brand.

OUTSIDE CURRENT 7SUPPORTED
Awintura Casino
DIRECT PROGRAMMEAFFinturoNETWORK EVIDENCE CLASSPLATFORM INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION

Do not render as a current V.Partners in-house brand or direct V.Partners programme.

OUTSIDE CURRENT 7UNRESOLVED NETWORK EDGE
Maggico Casino
NETWORK EVIDENCE CLASSCURRENT PORTFOLIO MEMBERSHIP NOT ESTABLISHED

Same Wiraon operator as Slotoro/Verde does not establish same network.

SAME OPERATOR ≠ SAME NETWORK

Adjacent evidence classes remain outside the reviewed current in-house portfolio.

Once you investigate the V.Partners ecosystem, several nearby brands appear.

They must not all be thrown into one portfolio list.

GG.BET

GG.BET’s current direct affiliate programme is GG.BET Affiliates.

Sherlock separately has a broader V.Partners commercial/infrastructure relationship for GG.BET.

So:

GG.BET → GG.BET Affiliates
direct programme

and separately:

GG.BET / GG.BET Affiliates → V.Partners
broader commercial/infrastructure relationship

We do not call GG.BET the eighth current V.Partners in-house casino.

Awintura

Awintura currently links its own Affiliate Program directly to AFFinturo.

Sherlock keeps a separate supported V.Partners platform/infrastructure association.

Again:

AFFinturo = direct current programme
V.Partners = different evidence layer

Awintura is not added to the seven-brand in-house list.

Maggico

Maggico is currently operated by Wiraon B.V., the same company behind Slotoro and Verde.

But same operator is not the same thing as same affiliate network.

We did not establish a current V.Partners portfolio edge for Maggico in this pass.

SAME OPERATOR ≠ SAME NETWORK.

This is one of the most important safeguards in the whole Sherlock Graph.

13
LICENCE BOUNDARY

Regulatory boundary: V.Partners is not one casino licence

EXACT-DOMAIN OPERATORS5SEPARATELY NAMED COMPANIES
EXACT-DOMAIN LICENCES5DISTINCT OGL STACKS
DIRECT NETWORK-COMPANY ENFORCEMENT SEARCHnot found in reviewed passNOT FOUND ≠ DOES NOT EXIST
NETWORK PORTFOLIO ≠ ONE CASINO LICENCE

Do not convert a reviewed absence into a universal statement that no regulator action or licence exists anywhere.

V.Partners publicly says its brands are licensed in Curaçao.

That statement becomes more useful when we check each current brand independently.

The current exact-domain certificates resolve the seven V.Partners brands to:

Wiraon B.V.
Nixxe B.V.
Twicedice B.V.
WhiteBox B.V.
Intelligent Innovations N.V.

There is no basis in those seven certificates to render one universal:

V.Partners Limited → LICENSED_OPERATOR_OF → all seven casinos

The regulator layer is distributed.

That does not let us make the opposite universal claim that V.Partners Limited has no gambling licence anywhere in the world.

We only report what the reviewed exact-domain evidence establishes.

Sherlock also did not capture a regulator enforcement decision directed specifically at V.Partners Limited in this pass.

That means not found in this review, not does not exist.

14
AFFILIATE DISPUTE RECORD

Affiliate disputes: allegations, responses and the contract

HISTORICAL DISPUTED ACCOUNT LEVEL RECORDSAnti-fraud and FTD qualification decisions have generated public affiliate disputes; reviewed threads also contain V.Partners responses and claimed private supporting evidence.

Do not generalize account-level disputes into systematic non-payment or fraud claims.

AffiliateGuardDog rejected-FTD disputeAffiliateGuardDog CPA/FTD dispute

Historical public AffiliateGuardDog threads show disputes around rejected FTDs, CPA qualification and fraud classifications.

In the cases Sherlock reviewed, affiliates complained about rejection or insufficient initial explanation.

V.Partners representatives also responded publicly and said fraud reports, IP information or supporting evidence had been supplied privately in those individual disputes.

Those threads are useful because the current contract now clearly tells us where the discretion sits.

But they remain disputed account-level records.

They do not prove:

V.Partners systematically refuses to pay affiliates.

They also do not prove every affiliate rejection was correct.

The defensible conclusion is narrower:

Fraud and FTD qualification decisions have produced public affiliate disputes, and the current contract gives V.Partners broad disclosed discretion in this area.

Evidence status: DISPUTED THIRD-PARTY CASES + VERIFIED CURRENT CONTRACT

15
THREE SHERLOCK FLAGS

Three things Sherlock would flag

1. One portfolio is not one regulated company

Seven current V.Partners casino brands resolve to five exact-domain operator/licence stacks.

Status: verified

2. Three synchronized rebrands cross three different operators

V.Vegas, FieryPlay and FS were coordinated together by V.Partners but are currently operated by WhiteBox, Nixxe and Intelligent Innovations respectively.

Status: verified

3. The current Affiliate Agreement disagrees with itself across languages

English and Russian clause 1.1 identify the same V.Partners Limited and registration number but publish different registered addresses. The contract says English prevails.

Status: verified current document drift

16
UNRESOLVED EVIDENCE

What we could not confirm

A network investigation becomes misleading very quickly if missing corporate evidence is filled with guesses.

We still do not have primary evidence for:

  • V.Partners Limited’s full current Hong Kong director/shareholder/UBO record;
  • the complete historical legal-entity chain behind the programme since 2016;
  • the exact transaction behind the archive phrase “V.Partners acquires Vulkan.Bet”;
  • a primary trademark-registry map for every one of the seven current casino brands;
  • the exact contractual/technical relationship between V.Partners, GG.BET Affiliates and AFFinturo;
  • proof that Starfish Group built, operates or services any particular V.Partners casino;
  • a complete set of every current V.Partners-associated casino outside the seven public in-house brands;
  • a regulator enforcement decision specifically against V.Partners Limited in the reviewed search pass.

These are open leads, not conclusions.

17
NETWORK CONCLUSION

Sherlock conclusion

V.Partners is exactly the kind of entity the Sherlock Graph needs a separate Network type for.

If we treated it as a casino owner, we would destroy the evidence structure.

The current public portfolio has seven casino brands.

But those seven brands currently resolve to five gambling operators, five OGL stacks and five payment-agent companies.

V.Partners Limited itself is clearly visible in another role: it signs the affiliate agreement in Hong Kong, controls the V.Partners website/data relationship, coordinates commercial brand activity, and directly operates the separate Starfish Group service business.

Its own contract also tells us that portfolio brands may be owned or licensed rather than universally owned by the network company.

Then the 2026 rebrand provides the cleanest demonstration of all:

VulkanVegas → V.Vegas → WhiteBox B.V.
VulkanSpiele → FieryPlay → Nixxe B.V.
VulkanBet → FS Casino → Intelligent Innovations N.V.

One coordinated commercial event.

Three different regulated operators.

That is the architecture Sherlock should show.

Current affiliate contracting entity → V.Partners Limited
Current public in-house portfolio → 7 casino brands
Current regulated casino layer → 5 operator/OGL stacks
Verified same-company service edge → Starfish Group
Wider ecosystem → GG.BET and Awintura kept as separate infrastructure classifications, not extra in-house brands

Sherlock status: NETWORK VERIFIED · 7-BRAND PORTFOLIO VERIFIED · 5-OPERATOR TOPOLOGY VERIFIED · TRIPLE REBRAND MAPPED · LEGAL TRANSLATION DRIFT VERIFIED · CORPORATE/UBO CHAIN STILL OPEN

18
SOURCE LEDGER

Evidence used for this case

Primary evidence includes the current V.Partners homepage, Affiliate Agreement in English and Russian, Data Protection Policy, V.Partners news and rebrand materials, Starfish Group first-party disclosures, exact-domain Curaçao Gaming Authority certificates for all seven current portfolio brands, and the individual casino Terms used to verify payment roles.

Sherlock also uses its already-reviewed V.Vegas, GG.BET, Awintura and Maggico case records for cross-case relationship boundaries. Historical AffiliateGuardDog threads are used only as disputed affiliate-account evidence, never as verified operator facts.

Every external evidence destination must render nofollow; internal Sherlock case links remain followed.

Network first-party8 RECORDS
N01
network first party

V.Partners current homepage / Our Brands

v.partners

SUPPORTS

The current public V.Partners portfolio contains Slotoro, FieryPlay, Hit’n’Spin, Verde Casino, ICE Casino, FS Casino and V.Vegas.

V.Partners currently dates its affiliate-programme lineage to 2016; full legal-entity continuity since 2016 remains unresolved.

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

N02
network first party legal

V.Partners English Affiliate Agreement

v.partners

SUPPORTS

The current English V.Partners Affiliate Agreement contracts through V.Partners Limited, Hong Kong registration 68960913.

Current English and Russian Affiliate Agreement clause 1.1 give different registered addresses for V.Partners Limited 68960913; the Agreement states English prevails.

The current Affiliate Agreement gives V.Partners broad disclosed discretion around fraud/qualification enforcement and states it is not obliged to provide affiliates proof of detected fraud.

CONTRACTING ENTITY · VERIFIED

N03
network first party legal

V.Partners Russian Affiliate Agreement

v.partners

SUPPORTS

Current English and Russian Affiliate Agreement clause 1.1 give different registered addresses for V.Partners Limited 68960913; the Agreement states English prevails.

N04
network first party legal

V.Partners Data Protection Policy

v.partners

N05
network first party social

V.Partners company profile

linkedin.com

SUPPORTS

The current public V.Partners portfolio contains Slotoro, FieryPlay, Hit’n’Spin, Verde Casino, ICE Casino, FS Casino and V.Vegas.

V.Partners currently dates its affiliate-programme lineage to 2016; full legal-entity continuity since 2016 remains unresolved.

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

AFFILIATE PROGRAM FOR · VERIFIED

N06
network first party social

V.Partners Vulkan brands rebrand announcement

linkedin.com

SUPPORTS

V.Partners coordinated VulkanVegas to V.Vegas, VulkanSpiele to FieryPlay and VulkanBet to FS Casino; the three successors currently sit under three different licensed operators.

REBRANDED FROM · VERIFIED

REBRANDED FROM · VERIFIED

REBRANDED FROM · VERIFIED

N07
network first party history

V.Partners current news archive

v.partners

SUPPORTS

V.Partners currently dates its affiliate-programme lineage to 2016; full legal-entity continuity since 2016 remains unresolved.

V.Partners current archives use acquisition wording for Vulkan.Bet in English/Ukrainian and direct-advertiser wording in Russian; the legal transaction mechanism is unresolved.

N08
network first party history

V.Partners Russian news archive

v.partners

SUPPORTS

V.Partners current archives use acquisition wording for Vulkan.Bet in English/Ukrainian and direct-advertiser wording in Russian; the legal transaction mechanism is unresolved.

Service-company first-party2 RECORDS
N09
service first party

Starfish Group current site

starfish.group

SUPPORTS

Current Starfish Group pages state that Starfish Group is operated by V.Partners Limited.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

N10
service first party

Starfish Group services

starfish.group

SUPPORTS

Current Starfish Group pages state that Starfish Group is operated by V.Partners Limited.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

Regulator evidence7 RECORDS
N11
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — Slotoro

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N12
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — Verde Casino

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N13
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — FieryPlay

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

V.Partners coordinated VulkanVegas to V.Vegas, VulkanSpiele to FieryPlay and VulkanBet to FS Casino; the three successors currently sit under three different licensed operators.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N14
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — Hit’n’Spin

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N15
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — ICE Casino

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N16
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — V.Vegas

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

V.Partners coordinated VulkanVegas to V.Vegas, VulkanSpiele to FieryPlay and VulkanBet to FS Casino; the three successors currently sit under three different licensed operators.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

N17
regulator

CGA exact-domain certificate — FS Casino

cert.cga.cw

SUPPORTS

The seven current V.Partners brands resolve to five licensed exact-domain Curaçao operator/OGL stacks.

V.Partners coordinated VulkanVegas to V.Vegas, VulkanSpiele to FieryPlay and VulkanBet to FS Casino; the three successors currently sit under three different licensed operators.

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

LICENSED UNDER · VERIFIED

Casino legal evidence7 RECORDS
N18
casino first party legal

Slotoro current Terms

slotoro.bet

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

N19
casino first party legal

Verde current Terms

verdecasino.com

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

N20
casino first party legal

FieryPlay current Terms

fieryplay.com

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

N21
casino first party legal

Hit’n’Spin current Terms

hitnspin.com

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

N22
casino first party legal

ICE Casino first-party Terms document

icecasino.com

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

N23
casino first party legal

V.Vegas current Terms

v.vegas

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

BRAND IP LICENSED FROM · VERIFIED-CURRENT-DOCUMENT-DISCLOSURE

N24
casino first party legal

FS Casino current Terms

fs.casino

SUPPORTS

OPERATED BY · VERIFIED

PAYMENTS MANAGED BY · VERIFIED

Disputed affiliate records2 RECORDS
N25
affiliate dispute

AffiliateGuardDog rejected-FTD dispute

affiliateguarddog.com

N26
affiliate dispute

AffiliateGuardDog CPA/FTD dispute

affiliateguarddog.com

Reviewed Sherlock cross-cases4 RECORDS
N27
sherlock internal

Sherlock V.Vegas case

sherlock.casino

SUPPORTS

BRAND IP LICENSED FROM · VERIFIED-CURRENT-DOCUMENT-DISCLOSURE

N28
sherlock internal

Sherlock GG.BET case

sherlock.casino

SUPPORTS

COMMERCIAL GROUP INFRASTRUCTURE · PUBLISHER-SIDE-CONFIRMED-PUBLICLY-SUPPORTED

N29
sherlock internal

Sherlock Awintura case

sherlock.casino

SUPPORTS

PLATFORM INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION · SUPPORTED

N30
sherlock internal

Sherlock Maggico case

sherlock.casino

SHERLOCK GRAPH · REVIEWED EDGES

Connected investigations

Published files connected by reviewed structured relationships. A link reveals evidence already in the graph; it does not create a new relationship.

Casino

ICE Casino

icecasino.com
INCOMING · LATER AFFILIATE PROGRAMverified current cross case
Open connected file
View 4 additional reviewed connections
Network

AFFinturo

affinturo.com
SHARED OFFICE AND PLATFORM ASSOCIATIONsupported high
Open connected file
Casino

Awintura Casino

awintura.com
INCOMING · GROUP INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATIONsupported
Open connected file
Casino

Awintura Casino

awintura.com
INCOMING · PLATFORM INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATIONsupported
Open connected file
Casino

GG.BET Casino

gg.bet
INCOMING · COMMERCIAL GROUP INFRASTRUCTUREpublisher side confirmed publicly supported
Open connected file
ENTITY INDEXAll networksREAD NEXTEditorial policyNETWORK FILEBack to the top