How to Check Whether a Website Really Belongs to a Seychelles Licensed Broker
A company name in the footer and a Securities Dealer licence number on the disclosure page may look conclusive. On their own, they are not.
The company may exist. The licence number may be genuine and currently on the Seychelles FSA register. Neither fact tells you who is running the website in front of you.
This is what makes copied regulatory details harder to assess than obviously fabricated ones. An invented regulator or a made up licence number tends to fail a basic search. A copied company name, licence number or regulatory disclosure can look more convincing precisely because part of the information is real. The Seychelles FSA publishes warnings on this territory regularly — unauthorised websites, false claims of regulation, forged licences, and sites with no connection to any regulated entity. Some of those notices describe websites that quoted a specific Securities Dealer licence number for a company the Authority stated was not known to it. In a scam alert dated 10 June 2026, for example, the FSA advised that the website optimamarket.org was not linked to any entity licensed or regulated by the Authority. Recent notices have named both the websites concerned and the entities presented as operating or associated with them.
So the question worth asking is not whether the licence number exists. It is whether this domain, this client agreement and this bank account belong to the company that holds it.
Where the licence number check stops working
A licence number only means something when it is attached to the right entity, the right permitted activity, and the right operating channel.
Anyone can lift a number from the FSA register, a competitor’s disclosure page, a certificate PDF, an old regulatory announcement, or a client agreement circulating online. Copying costs almost nothing. Proper verification takes several independent checks, and sometimes a written answer from the licensee or the regulator before it closes out.
The five things that need to line up: the legal entity, the licence and its current status, the permitted activity, the website, and the account receiving the money. If any one of them sits outside the chain, the licence is decoration.
1. Pin down the contracting entity
Start with the legal name, not the brand. “ABC Markets” at the top of the page and “ABC Global Limited” in the terms are two different things until documents say otherwise. Trading names are legitimate; unexplained ones are not.
Record the full legal name, registration number, registered office, jurisdiction, stated regulator, and licence type and number. Then check that the same name appears in the terms and conditions, client agreement, privacy policy, risk disclosure, complaints procedure and deposit instructions. Formatting differences are noise. A different company in the complaints policy is not.
Worth remembering: a Seychelles IBC registration proves the company exists. Those are separate authorisations, and plenty of websites blur them deliberately. We covered the gap between a Seychelles IBC and a financial licence in more detail separately. It says nothing about whether it may deal in securities. Those are separate authorisations, and plenty of websites blur them deliberately.
2. Go to the FSA’s own pages, not the broker’s screenshot
Navigate to the regulator independently and work through more than one section.
Regulated Entities → Capital Markets lists licensed Securities Dealers and their representatives. Depending on what the FSA publishes for the entity concerned, an entry may include the registered name, licence number, address, telephone, email, website and associated representatives. Not every record carries every field.
Media Corner → Regulatory Updates carries what the register alone will not show you: surrendered licences, terminated representative accreditations, public statements on named companies, and warnings about specific websites.
Enforcement includes the Regulatory Enforcements and Disciplinary Actions sections, which set out the FSA’s enforcement powers and the measures available to it — inspections, directives, public statements, suspension or revocation of a licence. Entity-specific licence changes and public notices should still be checked through Regulatory Updates.
Virtual asset businesses fall under a separate VASP framework. The FSA maintains a page covering licensed providers alongside entities whose applications remain under assessment. Under section 42 of the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2024, entities that submitted a complete application are permitted to continue operating until the Authority determines the application — so an appearance on that page has to be read together with the status shown against the entity. A website claiming that a Securities Dealer licence by itself authorises virtual asset activity should be checked for an applicable VASP licence, transitional permission or other valid authorisation — our step-by-step guide to verifying a Seychelles financial or VASP licence walks through where each status is published.
Never verify from a link, screenshot or PDF supplied by the party being checked. Clone operations have reproduced regulator pages as well as broker pages.
3. Match the licence to what is actually being sold
Appearing on a register does not authorise everything advertised on the site. Compare the licence category against the business model as it is presented.
Is the entity acting as counterparty to its clients’ trades, or introducing them to another executing or licensed firm? Is it holding client money? Is it running copy trading, managed accounts or a fixed return programme? Is it marketing into countries where local authorisation would be required regardless of what Seychelles permits? A Seychelles licence does not displace the rules of the jurisdiction where the client sits, and the site’s territorial restrictions should reflect that.
4. Tie the domain to the licensee
This is the step most reviews skip, because it is the hardest to close out.
A register confirms the company. It does not necessarily list every domain the group operates, and legitimate broker groups do run multiple brands, regional sites and campaign domains, sometimes changing them after a rebrand.
Where the FSA entry does show a website, compare it character by character. Added words, swapped letters, an extra hyphen, a different top-level domain, an unfamiliar subdomain, a redirect through an unrelated site — any of these can indicate a separate operator.
Where it doesn’t, ask the licensed company directly, using contact details taken from the register rather than from the site under review. If the site is fraudulent, its mailbox is controlled by the same people. Ask in writing whether the company operates the domain, whether the brand is one of its trading names, whether it issues that client agreement, and whether the individual making contact is an authorised employee or representative.
Two things that prove less than people assume:
WHOIS data. Useful for registration date, registrar and recent changes. Not conclusive either way — regulated firms routinely use privacy services and corporate domain managers, and fraudulent operators can enter whatever details they like. A domain registered three weeks ago deserves scrutiny; an old domain proves nothing on its own.
The padlock. HTTPS shows the connection is encrypted. It says nothing about who operates the site or whether they hold a licence. Certificates are free.
5. Check the payment beneficiary before anything moves
Sites, licences and onboarding packs can all be internally consistent while the deposit instructions point somewhere else entirely. This is the point at which an earlier verification failure turns into a direct financial loss.
Before sending funds, compare the beneficiary name against the contracting entity in the client agreement, and check the bank or EMI, the account jurisdiction, the currency, the payment processor and the stated purpose.
In the cleanest structure, the beneficiary is the licensed counterparty. Real exceptions exist — a disclosed client money account, an appropriately authorised bank or payment service provider, a documented group treasury arrangement, a collection agent acting under a written agreement — and each should come with an explanation and a document. What should stop the transfer: payment to an individual, to an informal exchange agent, to a local collector, or to a company nobody will explain. The same applies when deposit details change suddenly or arrive only through a messaging app.
An account that accepts funds is not an account controlled by the broker.
Why banks, EMIs and technology providers run the same check
This is not only an investor protection exercise. Many of the key counterparties a broker depends on perform some version of the same check before completing onboarding.
Banks and EMIs compare ownership, licensed activity, website disclosures, expected flows, client jurisdictions and payment beneficiaries against the account application. A site promoting services that look inconsistent with the applicant’s licence may delay onboarding, prompt further questions, or count against the application. Material inconsistencies found after opening may lead to enhanced due diligence, transaction review, restrictions, or reconsideration of the relationship. This is one of several reasons offshore companies still fail bank and EMI onboarding with a licence in hand.
MetaQuotes. In practice, a broker’s website and its disclosures usually form part of the supporting compliance picture when applying for MetaTrader products or related infrastructure. Where the entity, brand, licence, domain and legal documents don’t align, expect requests for further explanation — and a licence certificate on its own rarely settles the point. Where a broker is assembling documents for purchase or annual review, that alignment is what an MT4/MT5 KYC pack has to demonstrate.
Liquidity providers and prime of prime firms review the licensed counterparty, control, target markets, trading model, client agreements, AML controls and banking. A domain that can’t be tied to the licensee is a legal and reputational exposure they don’t need.
CRM, payment and hosting providers may also need to establish which legal entity is using the service, depending on the service and their own onboarding requirements. Where several brands are involved, the contracts, invoices, domains and platform records should reflect the structure that was approved.
The ten point check
- Legal entity — exact name, registration number, registered office.
- FSA entry — confirmed directly on the regulator’s Capital Markets list.
- Status — licence number checked against recent Regulatory Updates.
- Permitted activity — licence category matches what the site sells.
- Domain — operated or acknowledged by the licensed entity.
- Contact details — email, phone and address match independently obtained records.
- Contracting entity — identified in the client agreement, consistent across policies.
- Payment beneficiary — consistent with the documented structure.
- Complaints route — a named entity with a traceable escalation path.
- Independent confirmation — obtained from the licensee or the FSA where doubt remains.
Signals that justify a closer look
No single item below proves fraud. Several appearing together should pause the onboarding, payment or approval until the inconsistencies have been resolved.
The licensed company won’t confirm the domain. The licence number belongs to a differently named company. No contracting entity is identified anywhere. Different policies name different companies. Payment is requested to an individual or an unrelated firm. Returns are guaranteed. Deposits are urgent. Withdrawals require a tax, insurance or unlocking payment first. The regulator’s logo links somewhere that isn’t the regulator. The only evidence of a licence is a screenshot. Everything happens on Telegram.
A properly structured broker can produce its legal name, registration number, licence number, registered office, official domain and email, client agreement, complaints procedure, deposit instructions, an explanation of any group entities or trading names, and documentation for any third party payment arrangement. Those documents should tell one coherent story.
The chain is: legal entity → licence → permitted activity → domain → client agreement → payment beneficiary → complaints route. Where a link doesn’t connect, finish the verification before the account is opened, the service approved, or the funds sent.
How FinPro Consulting can help
We work with brokers, fund managers, payment firms and fintech operators on:
- Seychelles and other offshore financial licence applications
- Licensed entity and regulatory status verification
- Corporate and ownership structure reviews
- Corporate bank and EMI account introductions
- MetaQuotes application preparation and ongoing KYC compliance
- Compliance oriented broker website development
- Consistency checks across website, legal documents and banking structure
- Onboarding preparation for liquidity and technology providers
The work doesn’t stop at a company and a licence. It ends when the entity, permissions, website, client documents and banking structure hold together as one operation.
Disclaimer: This article is general information only and is not legal, regulatory, investment or financial advice. Licence status and permitted activities should be verified directly with the relevant authority, and qualified professional advice obtained, before any decision is made.
