Blaze Casino in Brazil: Operators, Revenue Figures and the R$380m Claim

Which companies are behind Blaze in Brazil and offshore?

Two separate legal entities appear in two separate regulators’ records: Prolific Trade N.V. in Curaçao and Foggo Entertainment LTDA in Brazil. Both records list the domain blaze.bet.br, but neither record establishes that the two companies are the same business, share ownership or control each other. We keep them as two distinct edges from two distinct sources.

The Curaçao entry comes from the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA, the island’s gambling regulator). Prolific Trade N.V. is shown with registration number 150731 and holds business-to-consumer licence OGL/2024/1415/0636, according to the CGA online gaming licence register dated 21 September 2026 and the CGA licence certificate for Prolific Trade N.V., both checked by us on 29 September 2026. The regulator disclosed the registration number; we did not obtain an independent corporate-register extract.

The Brazilian entry comes from the Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA, the Ministry of Finance’s prizes and betting secretariat). Foggo Entertainment LTDA is listed with CNPJ 56.431.248/0001-61 and fixed-odds betting authorisation SPA/MF 471 of 10 March 2025 on the ministry’s list of SPA authorisations issued before MP 1.394/2026, checked 29 September 2026.

Three plain-language notes on that table. “Indefinite” is the register’s own wording for the licence term, not a statement that the licence can never change. A Curaçao licence authorises the holder under Curaçao law; it is not an authorisation to serve customers in Brazil, the United Kingdom or anywhere else. And the domain counts are our count of distinct hostnames in each source snapshot on 29 September 2026 — domains are not brands, mirrors are included, and the snapshot is not a permanent inventory.

The register status and the certificate status are two separate observations that we do not merge. For OGL/2024/1415/0636 the register dated 21 September 2026 shows “Indefinite” while the certificate display shows “Active” with a grant date of 4 December 2024, which sits before the issue date recorded in the register. We report both as found; why register and certificate views diverge is explained more generally in our Curaçao licence check: certificate versus register.

Why does blaze.bet.br appear in two regulators’ records?

The domain blaze.bet.br appears both on the Curaçao certificate held by Prolific Trade N.V. and in the Brazilian list under Foggo Entertainment LTDA — an overlap we identified by cross-checking the two public records on 29 September 2026. This is a reconciliation task for the regulators and the operators, not evidence of misconduct by either company.

There are ordinary explanations a reader should hold open. A certificate may carry a domain that has since moved to a domestic licensing structure; one of the two records may be stale; or the same consumer-facing domain may be covered differently in each jurisdiction. Shared domains, addresses, suppliers or payment providers are not proof of common ownership or control, and we make no ownership finding here.

What the overlap does mean in practice is that a single record cannot answer “who is authorised to run this site for Brazilian customers”. The offshore certificate speaks to Curaçao; the country scope of the Brazilian consumer market is addressed only by the SPA record, and that record is itself now labelled as covering authorisations issued before MP 1.394/2026. A comparable dual-record pattern is set out on our page about who operates Stake across Curaçao, Brazil and the UK.

What do the published financial figures show for Blaze in Brazil?

The figures below were reported by Folha de S.Paulo on 16 July 2026 for the eleven months from January to November 2025 and are attributed to company accounts; they are rounded, they are not audited statements we reviewed, and they cover eleven months rather than a full year. The gross revenue figure is separately corroborated by the prosecutor’s published statement.

The distinctions in the “what it is not” column matter. Deposits are the largest number on the page and the least informative about company earnings: money can be deposited, wagered repeatedly and withdrawn. Revenue, profit and dividends are three different measures and should never be added together or netted off.

Three ratios below are our own arithmetic on the rounded published amounts, so they are approximate and should be read as indicative scale rather than precise accounting:

The R$380m figure is the amount the Ministério Público do Distrito Federal e Territórios (MPDFT, the public prosecutor’s office for Brasília and the federal territories) requested on 23 July 2026, according to its published statement. It is a request, not an award, a fine or a final penalty.

Timeline: injunction, damages request and MP 1.394/2026

Three dated events frame the current position, two Blaze-specific and one market-wide.

The transition wording is statutory text, not an observation about any particular website: the 10-day period does not tell a reader whether blaze.bet.br or any other site has complied. Our cross-check also notes that the ministry now labels its own list as authorisations issued before MP 1.394/2026, which means an older authorisation row on its own cannot support a claim that a company currently holds an unrestricted Brazilian licence.

The practical reading for anyone checking Blaze on 30 September 2026, when we last rechecked the licence records, is therefore split: a Curaçao licence record showing “Indefinite” with an “Active” certificate display, and a Brazilian authorisation row expressly framed as pre-dating a measure whose effects and court treatment were still developing. How that sits alongside our wider mapping of exposure is set out on the Casino Secrets overview page.

Anyone worried about their own or someone else’s gambling can contact a gambling support service in their own country. What published reporting adds to these records, and what Foggo Entertainment LTDA has said in response, follows next.

What the prosecutor requested and what Blaze says

The Ministério Público do Distrito Federal e Territórios (MPDFT, the public prosecutor’s office for Brazil’s Federal District) announced an advertising injunction dated 21 July 2026 and, two days later, a collective damages request of R$380,000,000 against Foggo Entertainment LTDA. According to the MPDFT announcement, the interim measure was partial relief: it imposed restrictions on advertising promising guaranteed profit and a 48-hour requirement to remove the relevant content. Partial interim relief is a provisional court step, not a finding of liability.

The R$380,000,000 figure is a prosecutor’s demand recorded on 23 July 2026, not an award, a fine or an adjudicated sum. On our own arithmetic, it equals 20.0% of the R$1.9bn gross revenue for January–November 2025 reported by Folha and separately cited by the MPDFT; that percentage is a scale comparison of two published figures, not a penalty rate anyone has set.

Folha’s reporting of 16 July 2026 includes a response attributed to Blaze: that its influencer partnerships comply with national rules, and that it declined to comment on commercial financial and contract matters. No further published response to the damages request appears in the sources we reviewed. The reporting names a Brazilian influencer; this page covers legal entities and licence records only, so we refer to influencer partnerships without discussing individuals.

How the Casino Secrets reporting relates to Blaze

Blaze is directly discussed as a brand in later Casino Secrets / Curaçao Files coverage, according to Folha’s 23 September 2026 article. That is a reporting link to the brand, not an official finding about either licence holder.

Sequence matters here. The advertising proceeding and the damages request are dated July 2026 and therefore predate the September 2026 publication of the investigation. In the records reviewed for this page, no causal link between the leak and either the MPDFT proceeding or the Brazilian provisional measure is established, and we do not infer one. For background on how the wider dataset is structured, see our overview of which casinos and countries are most exposed.

Claim versus evidence: what is a record, what is reporting

What is still unresolved

• The outcome of the R$380,000,000 damages request: as of our 29 September 2026 cut-off, nothing in the reviewed records shows an award, a settlement or a dismissal.
• Court challenges to MP 1.394/2026: UOL reported on 28 September 2026 that litigation over the measure was pending.
• Why blaze.bet.br appears in two regulators’ records at once, and which record governs which activity.
• Whether the authorisation held by Foggo Entertainment LTDA survives the transition: the Ministry of Finance list is now labelled as authorisations issued before MP 1.394/2026, so an old row alone cannot support a claim of current unrestricted authorisation.
• The Curaçao position rests on two separate observations that we do not merge: the register dated 21 September 2026 and the certificate display.

Why these records matter

For readers in the UK checking a casino: a Curaçao licence and a Brazilian authorisation are permissions in those jurisdictions only, and neither is an authorisation to serve customers in the United Kingdom. Anyone worried about their own or someone else’s gambling can contact a gambling support service in their country.

For industry and compliance readers: the Blaze case shows why entity-level diligence beats brand-level diligence. Two different companies, two different licence numbers and two different regulators sit behind one domain family, and an eleven-month reporting period is not a financial year. Shared domains do not establish common ownership or control.

For regulators and journalists: the open items are documentary. A dated register snapshot, a certificate display and a pre-MP authorisation list can disagree without anyone having done anything wrong, and reconciling them is a records task. Our method for separating those two Curaçao layers is set out in the Curaçao licence check guide, and a comparable dual-jurisdiction pattern is discussed in who operates Stake.

How to check Blaze’s records yourself

1. Open the CGA online gaming licence register and locate the row for licence OGL/2024/1415/0636 (page 15, row 422 in the version dated 21 September 2026), noting the register date printed on the file.
2. Separately open the CGA licence certificate for Prolific Trade N.V. and record the certificate status and the approved domains shown, keeping it apart from the register reading.
3. Search the Brazilian Ministry of Finance list of SPA authorisations issued before MP 1.394/2026 for CNPJ 56.431.248/0001-61 and note the list’s own label about the measure.
4. Read the transition wording in provisional measure 1.394/2026, including the 10-day website disablement period and the 30-day authorisation extinction period counted from publication.
5. Check the MPDFT announcement for the procedural stage of the injunction and the damages request, then look for any later court decision.
6. Date-stamp every screenshot. Our records were rechecked on 30 September 2026; a snapshot is not a guarantee of the current state.

How we checked this

• We reviewed the Curaçao Gaming Authority’s online gaming licence register dated 21 September 2026 and the corresponding public certificate for Prolific Trade N.V. to establish the offshore licence record and its listed domains.
• We cross-checked Brazil’s SPA (Secretariat of Prizes and Bets) authorisation list and the text of MP 1.394/2026 to confirm Foggo Entertainment LTDA’s domestic authorisation and its transition status.
• We read the prosecutor’s own statement on the advertising injunction and damages request published by the MPDFT (Federal District and Territories Public Prosecutor’s Office), rather than relying on secondary summaries.
• Financial figures were taken from Folha’s published reporting on Blaze’s accounts and cross-referenced against the prosecutor’s own cited revenue figure where both sources overlap.
• Research cut-off for this page is 29 September 2026; licence and register records were rechecked on 30 September 2026. We did not access, host or reproduce any leaked documents, did not name any individual person, and did not obtain an independent corporate-registry extract for either company beyond what regulators themselves disclose.

Limits

• The Brazilian financial figures are journalistic reporting of company accounts for January to November 2025, rounded, not audited statements we independently reviewed.
• We did not perform a live court-status check; the outcome of the R$380 million damages request and any court challenge to MP 1.394/2026 were unresolved as of the research cut-off.
• Deposits, gross revenue, net revenue, net profit, advertising spend and dividends are different measures and are never added together or converted between currencies.
• Certificate and register snapshots reflect the dates stated; they are not a live or permanent inventory of domains or authorisations.

Sources

• CGA online gaming licence register - official record, dated 21 September 2026
• CGA licence certificate: Prolific Trade N.V. - official record, certificate snapshot
• SPA authorisations before MP 1.394/2026 - official record, Brazilian government list
• Brazil provisional measure 1.394/2026 - official record, published 25 September 2026
• Folha: Blaze and Casino Secrets - published reporting, 23 September 2026
• Folha: Blaze financial reporting - published reporting, 16 July 2026
• MPDFT: Blaze advertising injunction and damages request - official record, 23 July 2026
• Reporting on pending challenges to Brazilian measure - published reporting, 28 September 2026

Corrections and right of reply

Any company named on this page, including Prolific Trade N.V. or Foggo Entertainment LTDA, may send a correction request or a response, and any published response is added next to the relevant claim rather than replacing it. This page is updated when the underlying registers, court filings or reporting change, and the recheck date above will be revised accordingly.

Curaçao Leak is not affiliated with the Casino Secrets / Curaçao Files project, its journalists or media partners, the Curaçao Gaming Authority, or any company named on this site.