PlayAmo and Oshi share a permission and split their ceilings
ALSI-202508056-FI2, twice
Two of the ten operators in the table name the same Anjouan licence number, the same holding company and the same clause number for their withdrawal ceiling. The ceilings themselves differ by close to a factor of four.
The same number in two rows
Read the licence column of the table on this site and one string appears twice: ALSI-202508056-FI2, issued by the Anjouan Gaming Board, held by Novatrix SRL.
It sits against PlayAmo and against Oshi Casino.
Two brands, two websites, two sets of terms, one permission and one company. In the wider library of a hundred operators the same number turned up against a third brand, Slotum, which did not make this table. Nothing here is hidden: both operators publish the number, and the duplication is only visible because the numbers were written down side by side.
Same clause number, different ceiling
The coincidence goes further than the licence, and this is the part worth reading twice.
Both operators put their withdrawal ceiling in a clause numbered 12. PlayAmo's says 7,500 EUR a week. Oshi Casino's says 4,000 EUR a day.
Over seven days that is 7,500 against 28,000, in the same currency, under the same permission, from the same company, in identically numbered clauses. Whatever sets these limits, it is not the regulator and it is not the corporate structure. The full set of six published ceilings, and why the periods make a single column of amounts misleading, is in withdrawal ceilings.
What a shared number does prove
It is easy to over-read this, so here is the boundary.
A shared licence number and a shared holder establish that one company holds one permission covering both brands. That is what the register entry says and no more. It does not establish a shared payout queue, shared staff, shared risk rules or shared confirmation policies, and none of those is claimed on this page.
What it does establish is where a dispute goes. A complaint about either brand names the same regulator and the same company, and a player who opened accounts at both to spread risk has not spread it as far as two brand names suggest. What a licence number is worth in a dispute at all is set out in licence numbers.
The verification clauses differ too
The two brands do not read identically once past the ceiling.
Oshi Casino's clause 12 carries the harder deadline: verification is discretionary, accounts may be locked until it is complete, and winnings may be confiscated if the requested information is not provided within 40 days. PlayAmo's clause 12 describes documents, and adds that a phone call or a video call may be required, with accounts locked until fully verified. Neither publishes a monetary threshold.
Two brands under one permission with two different worst cases written down. The clause is the thing that varies, not the licence, which is the same conclusion the ceilings reach by a different route. All ten verification clauses are collected in the verification delay.
What this changes for a reader comparing payouts
Three practical consequences follow, and none of them requires trusting anything this site says beyond a number a reader can check.
A comparison of two brands under one licence is a comparison of two contracts, not two companies. The differences in those contracts are real, published and enforceable, so reading both is worthwhile. And the similarity underneath is real too: an account opened at each is not a hedge against the company, whatever the two logos suggest.
None of this is a mark against either operator. Multi-brand operation is ordinary in this market, and both publish the number that makes it visible, which several operators in the wider library do not: 68 of the hundred carry a licence number at all. The reading rules that produced this page are in how the clauses are read, and where the ceiling sits among the three waits that make up a payout is in the processing window.