Problem IronFx : Whistleblower corner

[Alphabeta]

Don't send me to your letter of March 3, 2017, because doing it you've just imitated the answer. So I publish this letter here. And I ask you about this text: What exactly is my "abusive trading activity"? That prevents you from sending me my money back from my account 17014199 starting from December 2015 (the attachments are here). If "we are in sound financial state"!
And also demand your publicly real answer! I insist 'Right here!' - I have absolutely nothing to hide! And what about you?

The "final response" which was sent to Alex on March 3, 2017 is identical to the final response that a large number of complainants (ca. 1800) received in January 2016 . The final response was:

"Following the company's investigation for the accounts registered under the email address XXXXXXXXX you are hereby informed that has been established that an abusive trading activity has occurred on certain of these accounts and you are in breach of the terms and conditions relating to one or more promotions made available to those accounts. This is the Company final response"

This final response does not fulfill the requirements of a proper Complaint Handling, since it does not comply with the requirements of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which has publicly specified that client’s withdrawal requests must be processed immediately and information about delay must be clear and not misleading.

The above "final response" is misleading and unsubstantiated.

Details of abusive transactions are not specified.

So if you received such a “final response”, keep complaining to the company, but also bypass Cyprus by complaining to the ESMA: BUL@esma.europa.eu

 

[IronFX Officer]

Withholding clients' money for year is a crime and every damaged client should file criminal complaint.


Search the Public Prosecutor of your country/city and lodge a criminal complaint for Fraud against

1) Cypriot directors of IronFx

2) the Account Managers who moved you to deposit money.

Lodge your criminal complaint in writing, via fax or certified mail.


Report to Europol and ask them to request the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to initiate, conduct or coordinate a criminal investigation against IronFx (pursuant to Art. 6 of the Europol Regulation)


Europol will usually request you to contact national authorities https://www.europol.europa.eu/report-a-crime


Please request a coordinate action. You can contact Europol per telephone, postal address or Whatsapp.

Dear IRONFXSCAM,

Thank you for your posting.

For the record, we have never been found guilty by any Regulator or Court of Law.

We also refer to the failed July 2017 petition to the EU Parliament and the recent attempt for a petition that didn’t even gather the required minimum if petitioners. Please refer to @BinaryLad comment (post #38 on the thread https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-com.14830/page-4) and please follow the discussion on that thread in regards to this matter.

We remind you that we have an unblemished regulatory record. In 8 years of operation, the company has never received any fines or warnings by its regulators and remains fully regulated by the FCA (FCA No. 585561), ASIC (AFSL No. 417482), FSB (FSP No. 45276) and CySEC (Licence No. 125/10).

Should you have any additional questions, please refer to the opening posting in the “IronFX – falsely Accused Broker” thread (https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-falsely-accused-broker.54115/).

Thank you

 

[IronFX Officer]

Don't send me to your letter of March 3, 2017, because doing it you've just imitated the answer. So I publish this letter here. And I ask you about this text: What exactly is my "abusive trading activity"? That prevents you from sending me my money back from my account 17014199 starting from December 2015 (the attachments are here). If "we are in sound financial state"!
And also demand your publicly real answer! I insist 'Right here!' - I have absolutely nothing to hide! And what about you?

Dear AlexF7,

Thank you for your posting.

We refer you to post #53, in the thread https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-falsely-accused-broker.54115/page-5

This represents the Company’s final response to your case.

Thank you

 

[IronFX Officer]

If you are "well capitalized", why don't you return clients' funds? Why did you not pay your office rent for months?

I have heard that your landlord won the office rent case: you had to pay 200.000 € and all procedure fees.

Dear IRONFXSCAM,

Thank you for your posting.

For the record, we are well capitalised as indicated by the full compliance to our regulatory capital requirements in four main regulatory jurisdictions. You can check these online for each regulator (FCA No. 585561), ASIC (AFSL No. 417482), FSB (FSP No. 45276) and CySEC (Licence No. 125/10).

With regards to your repetitive comment about the payment of rent, we refer you to the opening posting in the “IronFX – falsely Accused Broker” thread – and specifically to point (5) (https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-falsely-accused-broker.54115/).

We confirm that a normal rent dispute was judged in our favour at the High Court. Please provide the correct facts in your postings.

Thank you

 

[BinaryLad]

I think both sides need to read that CONSOB warning a little closer. It is not a direct warning from CONSOB against Iron Fx. It is CONSOB repeating a warning against IronFx by the regulators in Argentina. If you read Spanish, here is the warning against IronFx:

http://www.cvm.gov.br/export/sites/...015/201508191__ATO_DECLARATORIO_CVM_14375.pdf

I'm very surprised at IronFx can't remember being fined by any regulators. I think it's time for a history lesson.

On the 6th of August, 2015, Cysec announced an investigation against IronFx. You can read the announcement here:

https://cysec.gov.cy/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=c5b69085-0611-4a66-b15c-af61bcfb3af0

FxMaster decided to ask live chat at IronFx about this. They claimed the investigation was not against IronFx, but an investigation IronFx asked Cysec to make against cheating clients:

"some of our clients engaged on illegetimate trading operations against our terms and conditions, using our bonus promotions to obtain illegal gains at the company's expenses
Due to that, we executed our right to request a Cysec investigation into their trade accounts and block them until the investigation is done and is concluded if effective malpractice was done
Client
and CySec investigating about it after getting lots of complaints about your firm and that what I read in Cysec Article."

You can read that in his post on page 2 of this thread:

https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/cysec-vs-ironfx.41412/

Funny that the wording of the Cysec announcement said:

"As a consequence of media reports and the increasing number of complaints submitted by investors against the Cyprus Investment Firm IronFX Global Ltd (the “CIF”), the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (the “CySEC”) wishes to clarify that there is an ongoing investigation against the CIF with respect to possible infringements of the Legislation."

And now, a flat denial of:

"In 8 years of operation, the Company has never received any fines or warnings by its regulators and remains fully regulated by the FCA (FCA No. 585561), ASIC (AFSL No. 417482), FSB (FSP No. 45276) and CySEC (Licence No. 125/10)."

I would like to hear how this statement correlates with the outcome of the Cysec investigation, where IronFx used a plea bargain and paid €335,000 on the 27th of November 2015. You can read the report here:

https://cysec.gov.cy/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=f3b8aa80-6679-4efa-9ede-6cb53097e8d5

Also, I notice the wording only applies to specific regulators and thus sidesteps the administrative decision against IronFx handed down by the Cyprus Consumer Protection Office on the 22nd of December, 2017:

http://www.consumer.gov.cy/mcit/cyc...EAB230D6F2CDF797C22582180026D18B?OpenDocument

How does IronFx respond to a Cyprus government agency saying its actions towards clients are unfair?

P.S. No, I'm not a client and I don't work for any broker, so please skip the canned responses and post some real answers.

I notice no response to the from the IronFX Officer but lots of rebuttals.

IronFX Officer, you can't just pick and choose what you respond to. This is in clear contradiction to what you keep posting.

 

[IronFX Officer]

I think both sides need to read that CONSOB warning a little closer. It is not a direct warning from CONSOB against Iron Fx. It is CONSOB repeating a warning against IronFx by the regulators in Argentina. If you read Spanish, here is the warning against IronFx:

http://www.cvm.gov.br/export/sites/...015/201508191__ATO_DECLARATORIO_CVM_14375.pdf

I'm very surprised at IronFx can't remember being fined by any regulators. I think it's time for a history lesson.

On the 6th of August, 2015, Cysec announced an investigation against IronFx. You can read the announcement here:

https://cysec.gov.cy/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=c5b69085-0611-4a66-b15c-af61bcfb3af0

FxMaster decided to ask live chat at IronFx about this. They claimed the investigation was not against IronFx, but an investigation IronFx asked Cysec to make against cheating clients:

"some of our clients engaged on illegetimate trading operations against our terms and conditions, using our bonus promotions to obtain illegal gains at the company's expenses
Due to that, we executed our right to request a Cysec investigation into their trade accounts and block them until the investigation is done and is concluded if effective malpractice was done
Client
and CySec investigating about it after getting lots of complaints about your firm and that what I read in Cysec Article."

You can read that in his post on page 2 of this thread:

https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/cysec-vs-ironfx.41412/

Funny that the wording of the Cysec announcement said:

"As a consequence of media reports and the increasing number of complaints submitted by investors against the Cyprus Investment Firm IronFX Global Ltd (the “CIF”), the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (the “CySEC”) wishes to clarify that there is an ongoing investigation against the CIF with respect to possible infringements of the Legislation."

And now, a flat denial of:

"In 8 years of operation, the Company has never received any fines or warnings by its regulators and remains fully regulated by the FCA (FCA No. 585561), ASIC (AFSL No. 417482), FSB (FSP No. 45276) and CySEC (Licence No. 125/10)."

I would like to hear how this statement correlates with the outcome of the Cysec investigation, where IronFx used a plea bargain and paid €335,000 on the 27th of November 2015. You can read the report here:

https://cysec.gov.cy/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=f3b8aa80-6679-4efa-9ede-6cb53097e8d5

Also, I notice the wording only applies to specific regulators and thus sidesteps the administrative decision against IronFx handed down by the Cyprus Consumer Protection Office on the 22nd of December, 2017:

http://www.consumer.gov.cy/mcit/cyc...EAB230D6F2CDF797C22582180026D18B?OpenDocument

How does IronFx respond to a Cyprus government agency saying its actions towards clients are unfair?

P.S. No, I'm not a client and I don't work for any broker, so please skip the canned responses and post some real answers.

Dear Pharaoh,

Thank you for your clarifications.

In relation to your points:

1. Indeed, we have no warning from Consob. The warning you are posting is from the Brazilian regulator CVM (not the Argentinian regulator) which we are currently disputing.

2. None of our home regulators (FCA, ASIC, CySEC, and FSB) has issued a fine or warning against up. We reached a settlement with CySEC after an inconclusive investigation.

3. The statement about the investigation is correct. Following the abusive trading by a number of our clients, we did obtain legal opinions from a number of leading international law firms and we did request CySEC to investigate the matter. The below extract is a confirmation from CySEC that indeed there was an ongoing investigation.

4. The statement about the fines is correct: the CySEC investigation was inconclusive and as a result, a settlement was reached (not a fine and not a plea bargain). During the same investigation, a further 4 firms were handed fines (UFX, EZTrader, InteractiveOption, FXGM). We refer you to Leaprate article https://www.leaprate.com/news/cysec...fines-to-ufx-eztrader-interactiveoption-fxgm/

5. With regards to the administrative decision of the Consumer Protection Service (CPS): (1) the CPS has no regulatory jurisdiction on the Company and no legal power vested, (2) we have commenced legal action against the CPS which is currently ongoing for the erroneous decision, (3) we have won a seminal Court case that clients are not consumers.

It is evident from the last 3 months since the reactivation of our participation in the FPA forums, that only a handful of clients have come forward and all cases have since been resolved.

We welcome any further comments and clarifications and we would be happy to provide factual responses.

Thank you

 

[oscarra]

Ok, all sounds nice, however no one so far is able to obtain the most basic documents, which would be their remaining financial statements, local registrar point’s out they done have any etc etc…ironofficer don’t want to upload them either…..how come, what is there to be hidden

……hell we are not asking for the ultimate beneficial owner name, that will be an FBI job !

 

[IronFX Officer]

Ok, all sounds nice, however no one so far is able to obtain the most basic documents, which would be their remaining financial statements, local registrar point’s out they done have any etc etc…ironofficer don’t want to upload them either…..how come, what is there to be hidden

……hell we are not asking for the ultimate beneficial owner name, that will be an FBI job !

Dear oscarra,

Thank you for your recent posting.

We comply with all regulatory filings as required by each of our regulators. We confirm that we have never beached any of these requirements.

Should you require any publicly disclosable information, please refer to each of the regulators' websites and use our registration numbers to search for all information.

For ease of reference our regulators and respective licence numbers are:

• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA no. 585561)
• Australia Securities and Investments Commission (AFSL no. 417482)
• Financial Services Board (FSP No 45276)
• Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (Licence no. 125/10)

Thank you

 

[IRONFXSCAM]

Dear IronFx Officer,why do you keep telling us lies?There is public document which already revealed the truth about the reasons and the outcome of the CySEC investigation and fine of € 335.000 in November 2017.The General Auditor Report reveals: 1. That the company accounts and capitalization were investigated (not the clients)2. That CySEC supervisors found a multitude of infringements"In late August 2015 the results of the inspection by CySEC officers were submitted to theCySEC Board. The results described a multitude of infringements of laws and directives indicating that the company was not acting fairly, honestly and professionally and in the best interests of its clients. The most serious breach, according to the officers, was related to the methodology which the company employed to classify customers as bonus abusers, which was based on arbitrary suspicions and assumptions. Meanwhile, the officers found that the company lacked the necessary control mechanismsto prevent abusive activities, and that the company informed clients about alleged abusiveactivities only after a funds withdrawal request. Additionally, they found violation in the calculation formula of the amount due to clients, as it was designed against clients (and for the benefit of the company). They also found that the company was not able to know at any time the exact amount corresponding to deposits / profit / bonus of its clients.According to officers calculations (based on data provided by the company), the shortage in clients' money (i.e. clients' money that should be segregated) was approximately $ 176 million. An amount which, according to CySEC officers, the company should deposit immediately onto clients' accounts in order to comply with Article 18 (2) (i) of N.144 (I) / 2007 related to the safety of clients' funds. The CySEC officers also stated that any recapitalization of the company could not be considered as an acceptable alternative to securing the money owed to the clients. Regardless of the outcome of the above matters, CySEC officers suggested to report the case to the Attorney General for consideration of possible criminal offenses, such as fraud and abuse of clients' money ( manipulation of the calculation formula for the outstanding amount of clients' money)." 3. That IronFx had to struggle in order to reach a settlementIn October 2015, the company made representations to the CySEC and subsequently sent a letter to the President of the Republic (which was notified to the CySEC by the Office of the President of the Republic) in which it stated that a particular foreign investor was considering a major investment in the company in order to use it as a basis for furtherinvestment activities. Also, the letter indicated that any final decision of the CySEC would affect the final decision of the investor …………..…………Later, the company requested the CySEC to make use of Article 37 (4) of N.73 (I) / 2009 for a settlement. The following session of the CySEC Board was attended by company officials, who sought a settlement with zero fine, a proposal which was rejected by the Board. A new company's proposal for a settlement with certain amount of fine followed, which was also rejected by the Board, which decided to authorize the Chairman to discuss by phone (during the session) a possible settlement with a fine of a certain range. After contacting the CEO of the company, a settlement with a fine of thatrange (due within 5 days) was agreed, while committing the company to waive any appealagainst the settlement.
4. That the CySEC mandated IronFx to resolve all complaints It was also decided that the company would review the granting of bonuses to clients in order to comply with the Law and also that it would review and make sure that the information provided to clients was appropriate and understandable (including the calculation formula). In addition, the company was mandated to investigate all complaints and inform all complainants, by analyzing the underlying data and correcting the causes for the complaintsand to increase its capital basisRegarding the ICAAP report submitted by the company, the Board decided to accept it, although the completeness and correctness of the content was not given (the report not being audited). The company was given 2 months to increase its capital base, in order to reach the amount calculated in the ICAAP report. In the next meeting, the Board rejected the company's proposal to extend the deadline for increasing the capital base from 2 months to 6 months, but approved extending the deadline for payment of the fine from 5 days to 15 days

 

[oscarra]

Should you require any publicly disclosable information, please refer to each of the regulators' websites and use our registration numbers to search for all information.

Yes, we seen the 2016 8SAFE loss figure on companies house registrar, for the sake of transparency
just upload the Cyprus figures, 2015, 2016 and whatever 2017…..