Problem IronFx : Whistleblower corner

[IronFX Officer]

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…..

Dear oscarra,

We have no comment on individual group subsidiaries.

Subsidiary results are affected by a variety of factors including group-wide transfer pricing.

As per posting #209 above, we reiterate that we comply with all regulatory filings as required by each of our regulators. We confirm that we have never breached any of these requirements.

We also confirm that we have never breached any regulatory capital requirements for any of our regulators.

We reiterate that we remain fully regulated by the following regulators, with no warnings or fines by them.


• 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

 

[marc56]

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

Oh my God ... An incredible story ... Now I understand many things ... and in the meantime time passes ... over 3 years waiting for my money ...

 

[oscarra]

Oh my God ... An incredible story ... Now I understand many things ... and in the meantime time passes ... over 3 years waiting for my money ...

Hi marc56

You sure ended in most grotesque trap ever seen, but of standard proceeding in the Cyprus financial crook paradise…
Nobody would be surprised if those last usd 10.660 were shared between iron scam heads and local FOS

…hell net loss usd 26.952 and you end up still been accused of abusive trading behavior, wow, of course you are lucky not to own them some usd 1.241.168 or usd 33 .275

There is an accurate article on Europol website, IP addresses don’t prove anything !

However this Regulator& FOS don’t ever want to look into their authorized Brokers abusing clients, as example all the manipulation we seen by binary brokers…the same is of course standard practice since many years by their Fx, Cfd’s junk shops, most unexperienced traders have no idea how their accounts get whipped out (but we will look into this…market price manipulations etc etc…a long list of criminal failures)

....tell us more about your account manager

 

[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 the CySEC 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 mechanisms to prevent abusive activities, and that the company informed clients about alleged abusive activities 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 settlement


In 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 further investment 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 that range (due within 5 days) was agreed, while committing the company to waive any appeal against 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 complaints


and to increase its capital basis


Regarding 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.

 

[marc56]

Hello Oscarra

You are right, probably nothing has been by chance, this is a scam organized by expert people ... The worst thing is that a broker can make a scam, but the competent body responsible, that SHOULD CHECK and to intervene, in this case Cysec or Financial Ombudsman, do not defend the client, but they are accomplices of this shame ..
All figures were invented by Iron (deposit, withdrawal, net loss) and sold to the FO, which completed the work.
Same IP other customers, I had an IB ... all lies !!! All customers received the same email.
Now I ask for explanations to iron, which however says to ask FO, which however does not answer ... like a carousel ..
I WANT ONLY MY MONEY !!!! I WANT ONLY MY MONEY !!! ( DEPOSIT - WITHDRAWAL )

Another absurd thing: to each customer a different sentence from the FO. I know customers who had made profits, well, in this case iron has zeroed profits ... If you have lost money .. then they invent the "net loss" that will clear your withdrawable money .. IRON WINS ALWAYS !!!
Then I know a customer who has received a sentence from the FO, it is written: no evidence has been given to the customer of abusive trading, for this reason iron must pay the customer, deposit + profits.
WHY EVERY PERSON HAS A DIFFERENT JUDGMENT ???
Even to me no proof has been given, then why my withdrawal is denied?
Probably iron is angry with me ???

I have changed more account managers in these years, but no support from them.
Every 3-4 months change my account manager, but each of them says the same thing: I do not know your situation, I can not do anything ... probably the new account manager the truth is hidden
Iron was the biggest scam suffered, it was my first experience in this field, and it was also the last one. I have not been trading for 3 years, for me it was a bad story for my family .. now I just want to get out of this nightmare,
I want to go back to my life, I think I do not ask much ..

 

[IronFX Officer]

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.

View attachment 36871

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

Dear Alphabeta,

Thank you for your most recent comment.

Our complaints procedure is in compliance with EU regulations and has been so since the inception of our operation.

With regards to the complaints handling, we have received legal opinions from a number of international law firms.

Any client that is not happy with our final response is free to use the FOS service or the Courts of Justice.

For reference, we remain fully regulated by the following home regulators, all of which are satisfied with our complaints handling procedure.

• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA No. 585561)

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission (AFSL No. 417482)

• Financial Services Board (FSP No. 45276)

• Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (Licence No. 125/10)


Thank you

 

[IronFX Officer]

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

Dear IRONFXSCAM,

Thank you for your posting.

We refer you to our reply to “Pharaoh” (post #206, in this thread) and in particular points (3) and (4) of the said posting:

(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/

We repeat that the CySEC investigation was inconclusive and a settlement reached in this respect. No wrongdoing was admitted by any party.

For reference, we remain fully regulated by the following home regulators. During 8 years of operations, we have received no warnings or fines from them.

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

Thank you

 

[IronFX Officer]

Oh my God ... An incredible story ... Now I understand many things ... and in the meantime time passes ... over 3 years waiting for my money ...

Dear marc56,

Thank you for your posting.

We refer you to our response in this thread in regards to your case (post #80).

For the record, you chose to conceal that you had referred your complaint to the FOS Service.

We welcome any further factual comments that you may have.

Thank you

 

[IRONFXSCAM]

Dear IronFx Officer,
You have apparently not read the General Auditor Report properly The Report confirms that you company was investigated due to capital adequacy issues, that serious infringements were found, that your abusive trading allegations were based on arbitrary suspicionts and assumptions and that you were mandated to resolve all complaints and take corrective measures.The investigation was not inconclusive at all: you had to pay a fine which was almost as high as the highest possible fine, which was $ 350.000 under the old legislation.Why should you pay a fine if there was no wrongdoing?
The Report also illustrates how did you struggle in order to get a "zero fine".

I enclose 2 extracts from the General Auditor Report, to refresh you memory

 

[IronFX Officer]

Hi marc56

You sure ended in most grotesque trap ever seen, but of standard proceeding in the Cyprus financial crook paradise…
Nobody would be surprised if those last usd 10.660 were shared between iron scam heads and local FOS

…hell net loss usd 26.952 and you end up still been accused of abusive trading behavior, wow, of course you are lucky not to own them some usd 1.241.168 or usd 33 .275

There is an accurate article on Europol website, IP addresses don’t prove anything !

However this Regulator& FOS don’t ever want to look into their authorized Brokers abusing clients, as example all the manipulation we seen by binary brokers…the same is of course standard practice since many years by their Fx, Cfd’s junk shops, most unexperienced traders have no idea how their accounts get whipped out (but we will look into this…market price manipulations etc etc…a long list of criminal failures)

....tell us more about your account manager

Dear oscarra,

Thank you for your posting.

We will not comment on your assertions as to the Cyprus Financial system, the FOS Service, and CySEC. It is your right to express opinions.

With regards to marc56, please refer to our previous responses e.g. posting #217 above.

Thank you