Very interesting. So they operate under 2 separate entities? One under CSSF supervision and the other outside CSSF jurisdiction? If this is true, then this seems to open a can of worms.

With both entities named almost the same, what's stopping them from using the unsupervised "Bitstamp Limited (London, UK)" entity for most if not all their exchange operations, effectively making it an unlicensed entity and giving little to no protection to traders? Whereas the supervised entity would be there to simply show they are accredited and licensed.

To avoid jeopardizing their highly valued license, I'm guessing they are operating the exchange as Bitstamp Limited (London, UK) while Bitstamp Europe S.A. is not linked to their actual operations, making it difficult for their customer base to complain about any issues (since their UK entity is an unregulated one).

They are still a very reputable and safe exchange, but this dual entity system makes me think they thought about a plan B to safeguard their Luxembourg credentials.

FINANCIAL REGULATION
Our business model, and our Service, consists of facilitating the buying, selling and trading of Bitcoins and their use to purchase goods in an unregulated, international open payment system. The Services we provide are currently unregulated within the UK.