Casino sites that accept Trustly in Australia: what the marketing ignores

A search for Trustly-friendly casinos in Australia returns a wall of offshore brands built around one open payments rail. It also returns a fact most of that wall is designed to bury: every one of those brands is offering a product that cannot lawfully be sold to a person physically in Australia, and the regulator with the brief to do something about it has been naming and blocking them for years. The deposits still clear. The licences on the footers are real licences, in Curaçao or Anjouan or Kahnawake. They are not Australian licences, because Australian licences for online casino games do not exist. What follows is both halves of that picture: the offshore brands that keep surfacing on Trustly listings, and the regulatory frame around them in 2026, so a reader can see what is actually on offer before deciding what to do with it.

29 October 2026 · checked against the ACMA register of formal warnings.

The prohibition that runs underneath every Trustly pitch

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, after the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017 tightened it, makes it an offence to provide an online casino game — online pokies, virtual table games, live-dealer casino — to a person physically in Australia. Wagering on sport or racing before the event is a separate category; lotteries and keno sit in a third. For the products a Trustly-friendly casino is actually selling, there is no carve-out, no state-level workaround, and no offshore licence that closes the gap. The Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission — the NTRWC — regulates 52 of Australia’s online bookmakers, including Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes, all licensed in the Territory for tax reasons. The commission has no full-time staff and meets once a month in Darwin. It does not, and cannot, license an online casino game.

The enforcement arm is the ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The regulator investigates complaints, issues formal warnings to named operators and brands, and can direct Australian internet service providers to block illegal sites. By the ACMA’s own running figure, 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites had been blocked since the first blocking request went out in November 2019, with more than 230 unlicensed gambling services having left the Australian market since enforcement was strengthened in 2017. A single round reported in late June 2026 added a further twelve names: 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino.

The economic scale is what gives those warnings their weight. H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 report puts Australian losses to illegal gambling sites at roughly A$3.9 billion a year, with the share of gambling routed through legal channels having fallen from 74% in 2021 to 64%. That is not a niche. It is the single largest block of unregulated gambling spend in the country, and the regulator’s stated reason for publishing its warnings is that the spend is large enough to measure.

A further layer is on its way. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed both houses of Parliament on 19 August 2026 and adds advertising and inducement rules to the existing prohibition. Those provisions commence on 1 January 2027; until that date passes, they are law with a start date rather than law in force. None of that changes the prohibition that already applies to the brands named below.

The individual player is not prosecuted. The IGA targets the provider, not the customer. That is one reason the warnings, blocks and AUSTRAC notices keep accumulating without anyone ending up in a court. It is also the reason this page exists. An Australian player using Trustly at an offshore casino is, by definition, outside the Australian consumer protection regime, outside BetStop, outside any Australian complaints body, and outside any Australian court that might compel a withdrawal if one is refused. The marketing on the brand still uses the word “casino”. The law in this country does not.

Where the rules actually reach a player

BetStop — the National Self-Exclusion Register — went live in August 2023 and binds every Australian-licensed online and phone wagering service. Offshore casino brands are not on it, and joining BetStop does not exclude a person from them. The register is a real tool for the licensed wagering market; it is silent on the offshore casino market, and an exclusion order that names a brand BetStop has never heard of is not enforceable.

The same gap runs through the gambling transaction blocks run by the major banks. Westpac’s gambling block operates at the card-network level: it refuses authorisation on transactions registered under the merchant category code for betting and casino gambling, on eligible personal credit and debit cards. ANZ’s block, activated inside the ANZ app, also blocks gambling transactions routed through a linked digital wallet such as Apple Pay on an eligible card. Once ANZ’s block is on, taking it off again requires a 48-hour waiting period, and the bank itself warns that not all gambling transactions will be blocked and that some non-gambling transactions might be blocked in error. These blocks are real and they are widely used. They are also designed for the licensed market, and they reach offshore sites only to the extent those sites’ acquiring banks happen to share the relevant merchant codes.

For an Australian player who has decided the licensed wagering market is not enough and is weighing an offshore casino, the practical answer on responsible gambling is one institution that does not care where the wager was placed. The National Gambling Helpline is 1800 858 858 — free, 24/7, with chat counselling available at Gambling Help Online. A self-exclusion from BetStop does not extend to offshore sites, but a conversation with the helpline can.

The bank blocks have one further wrinkle that matters. Under the IGA’s 2023 amendments, Australian-licensed online wagering services cannot accept payment by credit card or other credit-related products. That restriction is targeted at the licensed market; it is also the reason credit-funded digital wallet deposits are constrained, since a credit-funded Apple Pay or Google Pay tap at a licensed wagering site falls under the same ban. For offshore sites, the bank blocks do most of the work the credit card ban does at home, and the bank blocks are player-led rather than operator-led. The boundary a player sets at their own bank is the boundary that holds.

How Trustly moves money when it gets to the settlement

Trustly itself was founded in Stockholm in 2008, originally under the name Glue Finance, by Carl Wilson, Joel Jakobsson and Lukas Gratte. It holds payment institution authorisations from Sweden’s Financial Supervisory Authority — Finansinspektionen — for the EU/EEA and from the UK Financial Conduct Authority. The rail touches around 12,000 banks and roughly 650 million consumers, with 9,000-some companies on its books including PayPal, DraftKings and eBay. Trustly reported 2023 revenue of about $265 million (2.68 billion SEK) on $58 billion of processed transaction volume, with around 1,000 staff. Nordic Capital bought a 70% stake for about $800 million in 2018 and stayed on the cap table through the planned Nasdaq Stockholm listing that valued the business at around $11 billion in 2021. Trustly’s “Pay N Play” product — launched in 2016 to streamline account-to-account flows for gaming operators — was supported by more than 200 gaming brands by 2022.

None of that brings it into Australia as a domestic payment rail. Trustly’s own gaming page is addressed to the US market, branded “Pay by Bank for Gaming”. In Australia, the equivalent bank-to-bank instant transfer runs on PayID and Osko, both part of the New Payments Platform that became publicly accessible on 13 February 2018 and is owned by New Payments Platform Australia Ltd, a non-profit whose 13 shareholders include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the major banks. Participants must keep the platform’s monthly outages below two minutes. With Osko, a bank transfer between participating Australian banks arrives in under a minute, 24/7 including weekends, whether addressed to a BSB and account number or to a PayID. PayID is live at over 100 Australian financial institutions, with more than 25 million PayID identifiers registered as of April 2025.

For the player at an offshore casino, the practical difference between “Trustly” and “PayID/Osko” is mostly whose KYC box gets ticked. A PayID transfer shows the recipient’s account name before the payment is sent, which Australian Payments Plus itself flags as a check a scam site will not appreciate: being asked to send money to a PayID on an illegal gambling site, it warns, almost certainly means a scam site. A Trustly deposit at an offshore casino routes through a European payment institution to an overseas merchant account; the receiving bank is rarely Australian, and the merchant category code may not be the betting-and-casino one Westpac and ANZ are looking for. That is the appeal of Trustly to a player whose card is blocked at the merchant code: the rail sits outside the banks’ usual tripwire. It is also the reason the laws covering credit cards as payment for licensed wagering do not reach it. Since 11 June 2024, licensed Australian wagering services have not been allowed to take credit cards, credit-related products or digital currency — a restriction that extends in practice to credit-funded digital wallets, and an offence carrying penalties up to $247,500 for operators who breach it. A Trustly deposit is, structurally, a debit on the player’s bank account rather than a credit card transaction. That is why the prohibition does not catch it, and why a card block does not always catch it either.

On settlement, a Trustly withdrawal at an offshore casino is not the same product as a Trustly deposit. A deposit is a push from the player’s bank to the operator’s merchant account; it clears when the merchant account accepts it. A withdrawal is a pull from the operator’s bank back to the player’s, and it has to clear the casino’s own internal checks first. The casino’s compliance team decides when a withdrawal is queued, and only then does Trustly’s rail move the money. The fastest legitimate Trustly withdrawals at the better-run offshore brands are quoted in hours; the slowest are quoted in days and depend on the player’s documents clearing the casino’s KYC. That distinction — between Trustly-as-rail and the casino’s own decision to release funds — is the one the marketing pages do not draw. A player who has waited three days for a payout has not waited three days on Trustly; they have waited three days on a casino.

On fees, Trustly itself does not charge consumers for a standard deposit or withdrawal. Any fee on the player side is set by the casino. Offshore Trustly-friendly brands are not uniform on that point, and an Australian player has no domestic consumer law to fall back on if a fee is charged in a way the marketing copy did not describe.

Apple Pay sits in a related corner. Apple does not charge consumers for using Apple Pay in stores, online or in apps; any surcharge reflects the merchant’s own card-processing costs, not Apple’s. Apple also states that transaction limits and PIN requirements for Apple Pay purchases are set by the card issuer or the merchant, not by Apple. By the end of 2025, Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay collectively accounted for around 45% of all card payments in Australia by number, so the average Australian punter is using a digital wallet whether they realise it or not. The point that matters for an Australian player considering an offshore casino is that ANZ’s gambling block covers digital-wallet transactions on an eligible card, not just the underlying physical card. A digital-wallet deposit routed to a betting-and-casino acquirer can still trip the same block.

American Express sits further out. Amex was established in 1850 as a freight-forwarding company and launched its first charge card on 1 October 1958; unlike Visa or Mastercard’s four-party network, it runs as a three-party scheme that issues cards and processes transactions itself. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s July 2025 review proposes removing surcharges only on eftpos, Mastercard and Visa transactions, explicitly leaving American Express outside the scope of the proposed surcharge ban. For offshore casino deposits the relevance is narrow: credit-funded Amex charges are, like other credit-funded routes, blocked from licensed Australian wagering. For an offshore casino, an Amex deposit may be offered but is at the operator’s discretion and at the issuer’s discretion.

The plain consequence of the picture above is that an Australian player who puts a Trustly deposit through to an offshore casino is using a legitimate European payment rail to fund an illegal product under Australian law, with no domestic protection on the way in and none on the way out. The deposit is not the boundary that matters; the product is.

The eleven brands the ACMA has formally named

The list that follows is not a ranking and not a recommendation. Each brand appears because the ACMA has issued a formal warning over it, naming the operator behind it, for offering prohibited interactive gambling services to Australians. The licences those operators display on their footers are real licences — Curaçao, Anjouan, Kahnawake — and they are not Australian licences, because Australian licences for online casino games do not exist.

The brand-by-brand picture in landscape

The Trustly-availability column is honest in the same way the rest of the page is. Where a brand has been independently listed by payment-industry sources as accepting Trustly, that is what the column says; where the only sources for a brand’s payment menu are the brand’s own marketing pages and affiliate marketing, those are not used to fill a fact-shaped cell, and the cell is left empty.

RocketPlay — the warning that did not stick

Pulsup Ltd received a formal warning from the ACMA in March 2026 over Rocketplay.com.au — the regulator’s public notice running in the standard format: cease providing prohibited interactive gambling services to customers in Australia, with the option of court enforcement if it does not. The same brand had been caught up in the May 2022 warning to Dama N.V. that covered six Dama brands including Rocketplay. The brand surfaces on Trustly-accepting casino lists elsewhere on the web; the ACMA’s position on the brand is the part that is independently documented. The fact that one parent operator has been told about one brand and then the same brand appears under a different corporate name tells the reader something specific. It is not the rigour of the offshore licensing regime that limits how many times a brand re-appears; it is the ACMA’s own publication cycle. Rocketplay is the test case for what happens when a warning does not stick.

Level Up Casino — one warning, six brands

Dama N.V.’s May 2022 warning named six brands: Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos. The same operator was warned again in March 2025 over Woo Casino and in May 2025 over Spirit Casino, with the ACMA’s notice format unchanged. Level Up appears on payment-industry listings among Trustly-accepting casinos; that is what the listings say, and the listings do not appear to have been contested by the operator. The wider Dama constellation is what matters here. A warning to Dama N.V. is not a warning to one site — it is a warning to a corporate parent whose brands share a back office, a payment stack and a compliance team. The Trustly deposit that clears at one Dama brand clears at the same rail as five others.

Woo Casino — the first Dama contact in three years

Dama N.V. received the March 2025 warning over Woo Casino — the first Dama-named brand since the 2022 round, and the operator’s first formal contact with the ACMA in three years. The pattern fits the regulator’s usual cadence: a warning, a quiet period, then a fresh brand under the same corporate parent. The interesting question Woo raises is the one the ACMA’s notice does not answer — what changed between 2022 and 2025 to put a new Dama brand on the regulator’s list. The most likely reading is that the brand was either relaunched under fresh marketing or was running quietly enough in 2022 to miss the regulator’s first pass. Neither reading puts the brand on the right side of the prohibition.

Spirit Casino — same operator, fresh brand

Dama N.V., May 2025 — the second Dama warning of that year, four months after the Woo Casino warning. The pattern matches Spirit’s positioning as a younger brand in the Dama portfolio: not present on the 2022 list, present in 2025 once the ACMA’s monitoring pass picked it up. Spirit is not a different kind of Trustly-accepting casino; it is a fresh brand on the same payment stack as the 2022 list. A reader who has read past Rocketplay, Level Up and Woo Casino has read past Spirit Casino.

National Casino — a second operator on the regulator’s list

Consolutetish S.R.L. was the operator named in the July 2025 warning that covered National Casino and, separately, Bizzo Casino. National Casino surfaces on payment-industry listings among Trustly-accepting casinos in Australia; the listings exist, and that is what they say. The point that distinguishes National Casino from earlier entries is the operator’s name. Consolutetish is not the same corporate parent as Dama N.V.; the ACMA has now formally warned two distinct offshore holding companies, and the resulting brand portfolio — Dama on one side, Consolutetish on the other — is the slice of the offshore market the regulator has decided to spend its warnings on.

Bizzo Casino — two warnings, two operators

The July 2025 warning to Consolutetish S.R.L. was the second time Bizzo Casino has been the subject of a formal ACMA action — the first was the 2022 warning to TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V., the previous operator on the brand’s letterhead. Two warnings, three years apart, two different named operators behind the same casino name. A repeat offender under a renamed operator is the unusual shape of the ACMA’s record, and Bizzo Casino is the cleanest example. A reader weighing brand reputation should weigh this record before any individual Trustly deposit is sized.

Ignition Casino — a single-operator warning

Bamboo Media received the July 2025 warning, with Ignition Casino the only brand named in the regulator’s notice. The brand has a longer offshore history under different operators in other markets; the Australian-facing version surfaces as a Trustly-accepting casino in some listings, although the regulator’s record on this brand is shorter than its record on the Dama and Consolutetish portfolios. Ignition is named once, by a single operator the ACMA has otherwise been quiet about, which is a thinner evidentiary base than the Dama or Consolutetish portfolios. It is still, on the regulator’s own notice, a prohibited interactive gambling service in Australia.

Instant Casino — the operator name that is one warning wide

EOD Code SRL was named in the February 2025 warning over Instant Casino. The brand surfaces on payment-industry listings among Trustly-accepting casinos, with Trustly listed alongside other methods. The distinguishing fact here is the operator’s name appearing once, for one brand, with a clear payment-method footprint. Instant Casino is a smaller target than the Dama or Consolutetish portfolios, and the ACMA’s choice to name the operator at all is the regulator’s note that the brand has crossed the regulator’s threshold even if the parent group has not.

Jackbit — two brands in one notice

Ryker B.V. received the April 2026 warning over Jackbit and CasinOK together, in a single notice. Ryker is a fresh name in the ACMA’s published record, and Jackbit is its best-known brand. A warning that covers two brands at once is unusual — most notices name one operator per brand — and it tells the reader that the regulator’s investigators have tied both brands to the same corporate and compliance footprint. Trustly support on the brand is not separately verified; the regulator’s record is the part that stands.

Casino Intense — a regulator-and-listings combination

Sterplay Holding Ltd was the operator named in the April 2025 warning over Casino Intense. The brand surfaces on payment-industry listings — AUSTRAC, industry trade press and major-bank fraud registers have referenced it under various names over the years. The combination of a regulator’s notice and a presence on industry listings that is not always flattering puts Casino Intense in the part of the offshore market an Australian player has the most reason to read about before depositing.

Sky Crown — one Hollycorn brand, named once

Hollycorn N.V. is the operator named in the September 2022 formal warning that covered Sky Crown and Blue Leo together. Hollycorn’s brand portfolio runs into the dozens across offshore markets; Sky Crown is the one the ACMA has chosen to publish. An Australian reader does not need to read the operator’s entire portfolio to see what the regulator’s notice says about Sky Crown. The brand is named; the warning is published; the prohibition applies.

What the picture looks like for a punter in 2026

The numbers do the work here, and they are worth slowing down on. The ACMA’s first blocking request went out in November 2019. By late June 2026, 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites had been blocked over the intervening period — a running total across every round of blocking since. Spread across roughly 79 months between November 2019 and June 2026, that comes to an average of around 22 websites blocked per month, or roughly five per week. The rate is not constant: the early rounds added dozens at a time, and the pace has accelerated in 2026 as the ACMA has invested in the routine. The single round reported in late June 2026 — which added twelve more names in one announcement — is itself close to that monthly average.

That figure is the regulator’s own running total of how fast the offshore market regenerates after each round of enforcement. It is not the size of the entire offshore market; many sites never trigger a blocking request. It is, however, the public, audited slice of that market, and the slice is large enough to put the question of brand selection in a different light. The decision to play at an offshore casino is not a decision between two similar Trustly-accepting brands; it is a decision to enter a market in which the Australian regulator is publishing a fresh list of named operators several times a year, and the brand on a Trustly listing this month is unlikely to be the brand on the ACMA’s blocking list next month. The market moves; the regulator’s record moves with it; the marketing pages do not record either movement.

The choices that do exist for a player in 2026 sit in three distinct places. The first is the licensed Australian wagering market — Sportsbet, Bet365, Ladbrokes and the rest of the NTRWC-licensed field, restricted to wagering on racing and sport before the event, plus lotteries and keno. The second is land-based play: casinos in each state and territory, and the club and pub pokies that account for the majority of Australia’s legal gambling spend. The third is the offshore market this page has been about, where every brand offering online casino games is in breach of the IGA. A punter weighing the choices is weighing the licensed market against the unlicensed market, not choosing between Trustly-friendly and non-Trustly-friendly unlicensed operators.

The Trustly question, when it is separated from the marketing, is narrower than the listings make it look. Trustly is a real European payment institution with a real licence from Finansinspektionen, a real rail that touches 12,000 banks, and a real history of being used by gaming operators. What it is not, in Australia, is a domestic payment rail: there is no Australian bank that routes Trustly deposits to Australian operators, because there are no Australian operators in this product category. The rail exists; the destination does not. A Trustly deposit clears because the offshore operator has set up a merchant account that accepts the rail; it does not clear because any Australian authority has approved the transaction.

For a player who has decided the offshore market is where the play is, the practical questions the page can answer are about the shape of that market, not about whether any one brand is safer than another. The eleven brands above are the ones the ACMA has chosen to publish; there are dozens more the regulator has not yet published, and there are dozens more again that have never crossed the regulator’s threshold at all. A reader who treats Trustly availability as the meaningful differentiator is choosing on a payment-method dimension the regulator does not score on. The differentiator the regulator does score on is whether the brand is offering prohibited services in Australia — and on that dimension, the eleven above are all on the same side of the line.

Tax is the last piece of the picture the marketing rarely shows. Under section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, gambling winnings of a recreational player are not assessable income, and losses are not deductible — unless the person carries on a business of gambling, which is a model only and one to check with the ATO rather than to assume. For an offshore casino player, the corollary is that any AUD-denominated win is not taxed in Australia, but it is also not protected by anything in the Australian tax system if the operator refuses to pay it.

The closest honest summary of the situation is this: a Trustly-friendly offshore casino is not a more or less legitimate version of a licensed casino — it is a different market, with different consumer protections, different dispute resolution, and a different regulatory status under Australian law. The payment rail is not the boundary that matters.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal for an offshore casino to take Trustly from a player in Australia?

No. Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 as amended in 2017, providing online casino games to a person physically in Australia is an offence, regardless of payment method. The brand’s payment menu is not a legal safe harbour, and Trustly availability does not change the prohibition. The player is not prosecuted; the operator is.

What is the smallest deposit a Trustly casino usually asks for?

The minimum offshore Trustly-friendly casinos cite varies by brand and is most often in the A$10 to A$20 range, though no single verified figure was returned across the research set. Trustly’s own rail does not impose a per-transaction minimum; what minimum applies is set by the casino. The smaller figure on a brand’s cashier page is worth treating as marketing until the cashier confirms it.

Does a Trustly withdrawal clear faster than a card withdrawal at these sites?

The Trustly rail is fast once the casino releases the funds, with bank-to-bank account transfers settling in seconds to minutes. What slows a withdrawal at an offshore casino is rarely the rail; it is the casino’s own internal checks before the withdrawal is queued. A Trustly payout that clears in hours and one that takes several days are both within the published range.

Is Trustly available at every offshore pokies-style site, or only some?

Only some. Trustly support is operator-by-operator and varies over time as merchants are added or dropped from the rail. The brands that surface on payment-method listings as accepting Trustly are a subset of the offshore market, not the whole market. The brand’s own cashier page is the only source for whether Trustly is actually enabled on a given account.

Does depositing with Trustly add an extra fee at these casino sites?

Trustly itself does not charge consumers for standard deposits or withdrawals; any fee on the player side is set by the casino. Offshore Trustly-friendly brands are not uniform on that point, and an Australian player has no domestic consumer protection if a fee is charged in a way the marketing page did not describe.