GUILTY Case# 2014-078 | katmall689 vs xpertmarket.com

[Pharaoh]

It clearly looks guilty (terrible! a company trading without your permission!!!), but I would like to have more proofs of katmall689 is saying.

In a case like a bonus dispute, the person filing needs to have all the terms of the bonus as part of the evidence before the case can even move to open cases. What we have here is a simple dispute over whether a broker employee was authorized to place trades. The client says this was not authorized. The only party that can provide evidence to the contrary is the broker. They have decided to not bother answering the question.

Based on the lack of response from the broker, all available evidence makes me think GUILTY is the only logical vote.

 

[Videep]

These companies give binary options a bad name >.>
I vote guilty..

 

[burrocampeador]

Based on the lack of response from the broker, all available evidence makes me think GUILTY is the only logical vote.

You are right. Therefore, I have just voted GUILTY!

 

[Pharaoh]

These companies give binary options a bad name >.>

Binary options already has a bad name. These companies just reinforce it.