MarioBet company, licence and complaints in Cyprus
What MarioBet says about its company and licence
The branded interface captured on 6 October 2026 names Feel So Good Limited, gives company number 16205 and claims an Anjouan licence numbered ALSI-202605014-FI1. It also displays sports, live betting, live casino, poker and slots. Those details are statements made by the operator. They are not an independently verified ownership record, an issuer-registry result or confirmation that the claimed licence covers the hostname that was observed.
The public terms present a materially different description. They name Feel So Good B.V. and claim Curaçao licence OGL/2024/1297/0532. The available evidence does not establish that Limited and B.V. are the same legal person, that one replaced the other, or that a corporate migration occurred. It also does not show that either licence claim is false. The correct conclusion is narrower: the documents conflict and neither combination has been independently matched in the relevant issuer register.
| Location checked | Company stated | Licence stated | Evidence status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Captured footer | Feel So Good Limited, company 16205 | Anjouan ALSI-202605014-FI1 | Operator statement only |
| Public terms | Feel So Good B.V. | Curaçao OGL/2024/1297/0532 | Operator statement only |
| Cyprus authorisation | Not established | No exact Class B licence verified | Not independently verified |
Why the discrepancy matters
A customer should be able to identify the legal counterparty responsible for the account, deposits, withdrawals and complaints. Different corporate names and licensing jurisdictions can affect where a complaint should be sent and which authority, if any, can examine it. Until the operator explains the discrepancy in writing and the relevant public register confirms the answer, neither description should be treated as settled.
It does, however, make careful record-keeping important. A useful written request should ask which legal entity contracted with the customer on the registration date, which licence covered the exact hostname on that date, and which version of the terms governed the disputed transaction. Save the response alongside the terms and account records.
What Cyprus rules establish
The National Betting Authority’s announcement dated 8 August 2025 states that operating an online casino is prohibited in the Republic of Cyprus. Its FAQ distinguishes licensed Class B online betting from prohibited or unlicensed gambling categories, including online casino and poker. A foreign licence statement, a website that loads, or an interface in another language does not establish Cyprus permission.
The material reviewed does not confirm an exact Cyprus Class B licence for MarioBet or coverage of the observed 1268 hostname. Protections described by the Authority for customers of Class B licensed bookmakers therefore cannot be attributed to this operator. The broader local rule is relevant because the captured interface displays casino and poker products, but it is not a MarioBet-specific adjudication of fraud or wrongdoing. Further guidance on the local distinction is available in the Cyprus licence and law guide.
What the blocking-list check does and does not show
The Authority’s current blocking-list endpoint was retrieved on 7 October 2026. A text search of that snapshot found no MarioBet hostname string. That limited result must be interpreted carefully: it was not an exhaustive review of aliases, redirects, related domains or later list changes. The Authority says the list is updated weekly, so a dated search cannot settle future status.
| Finding | Reasonable conclusion | Conclusion not supported |
|---|---|---|
| No MarioBet hostname string found in the retrieved snapshot | No exact text match was identified in that dated file | That MarioBet is licensed, approved or safe |
| General Cyprus warning covers online casino activity | Casino legality must be assessed under Cyprus rules | That the Authority made a brand-specific fraud finding |
| Observed site states foreign licences | The operator publishes those claims | That either licence covers Cyprus or the observed hostname |
Absence from one snapshot is not equivalent to regulatory approval. Equally, it would be inaccurate to invent or imply a brand-specific blocking entry when none was verified. Customers should use the Authority’s current resources when checking a domain and retain the date and exact hostname used in the search.
Withdrawal and verification claims need caution
The operator’s FAQ advertises withdrawals within five minutes and says withdrawal documents are not required. It also says the operator charges no transaction commission and mentions bank transfer, e-wallet and cryptocurrency withdrawals. These are published claims rather than tested outcomes. No withdrawal, recipient-credit timing, support response or fee test was performed.
Other operator documents reserve the right to request identity, address and payment evidence, with possible source-of-funds or source-of-wealth checks. The standalone KYC policy lists a driving licence, identity card, passport and proof of residence, and describes submitting two listed documents after a request. This conflicts with a broad reading of the “no documents” FAQ statement. Requirements may differ by customer, and supplying extra documents does not guarantee a withdrawal.
Account and bonus conditions also state that wagering restrictions may apply to principal funds even without a bonus, while bonus use can introduce further withdrawal conditions. The default bonus-use period is stated as 30 days unless a promotion provides otherwise. The actual offer, eligibility and account-specific outcome were not tested. Do not gamble further merely to try to release disputed funds; seek a written explanation of the precise contractual clause instead.
How to prepare a clear complaint
Start with a concise chronology rather than allegations. Record the account identifier, registration date, exact hostname, transaction dates, amounts, payment references and the date the issue began. Save the terms and policy versions visible at the relevant time, together with withdrawal status screens and complete messages. Redact unrelated financial information when it is not necessary to explain the dispute.
| Include | Why it matters | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Exact disputed amount and transaction reference | Defines the issue precisely | Passwords, PINs or one-time codes |
| Dated screenshots and complete correspondence | Preserves the sequence and wording | Cropped material that removes context |
| Requested remedy and response deadline | Makes the complaint actionable | Threats or unsupported accusations |
| Question about the contracting entity and applicable licence | Addresses the documentary conflict | Assuming the two companies are identical |
Ask for a final written response that states the decision, reasons, contractual basis and available escalation route. If the issue concerns an unauthorised card or bank transaction, contact the payment provider promptly and follow its security instructions. The complaints and scam-warning guide explains how to organise evidence without promising recovery or a particular decision.
Sharing identity and payment documents safely
Verification requests can involve highly sensitive material. Before sending anything, confirm the destination through a channel already associated with the account and ask why each document is required, how it will be protected, how long it will be retained and which legal entity will receive it. Do not send passwords, card PINs, security codes, cryptocurrency seed phrases or remote-access credentials.
If the company identity or communication channel remains unclear, pause and obtain clarification. Consider masking information that is not required, provided the recipient confirms that redaction is acceptable. Keep a copy of the request and what was supplied. A demand for more documents is not proof that payment will follow, while a verification request is not automatically evidence of misconduct. The key issue is whether the request is proportionate, securely handled and linked to a clearly identified counterparty.
Evidence-led conclusion
The strongest supported conclusion is an amber one. MarioBet’s captured materials contain an unresolved difference between a Limited company with an Anjouan licence and a B.V. company with a Curaçao licence. Neither has been independently verified as the entity operating the observed hostname, and no exact Cyprus Class B authorisation has been established.
Cyprus primary sources provide important context: online casino operation is prohibited, while licensed Class B online betting is a distinct category. The retrieved blocking-list snapshot produced no exact MarioBet hostname match, but that does not amount to approval or a safety finding. Anyone with an account or payment dispute should preserve evidence, request the contracting entity and licence basis in writing, and direct the complaint according to the verified subject of the dispute.
nba.gov.cy · nba.gov.cy · nba.gov.cy
Frequently asked questions
Is MarioBet licensed in Cyprus?
No exact Cyprus Class B licence has been verified for MarioBet or for the observed 1268 hostname. The foreign licence statements shown in its own materials do not establish permission in Cyprus.
Why does MarioBet show two company and licence descriptions?
The captured footer names Feel So Good Limited and an Anjouan licence, while the terms name Feel So Good B.V. and a Curaçao licence. The evidence does not explain the difference or prove that the entities are identical, related or part of a verified migration.
Is MarioBet on the Cyprus blocking list?
No MarioBet hostname string was found in the snapshot retrieved on 7 October 2026. This was not an exhaustive alias review, and absence from a dated list is not a licence, approval or evidence of safety.
Are five-minute withdrawals guaranteed?
No. Five-minute withdrawal processing is an operator-published claim. No payout test was conducted, and the claim does not establish when a recipient receives funds, whether verification will be requested or whether intermediaries impose costs.
Where should a MarioBet complaint be sent?
First request a written final response from the entity identified as the contractual counterparty, while asking it to clarify the conflicting company and licence details. For payment fraud or an unauthorised transaction, contact the payment provider promptly. Regulatory routing depends on the verified activity, entity and licence; no recovery or complaint outcome can be guaranteed.