• Please try to select the correct prefix when making a new thread in this folder.

    Discuss is for general discussions of a financial company or issues related to companies.

    Info is for things like "Has anyone heard of Company X?" or "Is Company X legit or not?"

    Compare is for things like "Which of these 2 (or more) companies is best?"

    Searching is for things like "Help me pick a broker" or "What's the best VPS out there for trading?"

    Problem is for reporting an issue with a company. Please don't just scream "CompanyX is a scam!" It is much more useful to say "I can't withdraw my money from Company X" or "Company Y is not honoring their refund guarantee" in the subject line.
    Keep Problem discussions civil and lay out the facts of your case. Your goal should be to get your problem resolved or reported to the regulators, not to see how many insults you can put into the thread.

    More info coming soon.

Problem NoaFX failed to return EUR 275,000 funds

I am having an issue with a company
yes because it is very obvious that there is a scam going on - and in fact has been going on for years under different corporate outfits - so the sooner any real names are publicly exposed, the better it is for no new people to fall into the same trap. NoaFx has no intention to stop illegally offering brokerage services, I even still get their market news email daily...
 
yes because it is very obvious that there is a scam going on - and in fact has been going on for years under different corporate outfits - so the sooner any real names are publicly exposed, the better it is for no new people to fall into the same trap. NoaFx has no intention to stop illegally offering brokerage services, I even still get their market news email daily...

The scam has been going on for years under different corporate outfits and there cannot be any doubt about this.

Here's some additional evidence linking FxEthos to NoaFX (and ultimately to CMI Group). The following information (or rather misrepresentation thereof) has been provided by Karthik Subramanian.

Mr Subramanian works as Head of Operations for both NoaFX and FxEthos brokerages and is one of the three people behind the whole NoaFX/FxEthos/CMI scam. At the time he was trying to entice me to become an investor in CMI mother company.

[12/08/15 15:15:35] Gian Piero: how come you are looking into opening another Fx brokerage?
[12/08/15 15:15:49] Gian Piero: you have Ethos for retail side and NOA for institutional side
[12/08/15 15:16:03] Gian Piero: which market are you aiming to?
[12/08/15 15:16:08] ns_karthik1: yes not starting a new one...this is for growth capital...
[12/08/15 15:16:30] ns_karthik1: need to get into China/TW/Brazil and Africa where our clients are growing.
[12/08/15 15:16:34] Gian Piero: so you look for partners for Ethos and/or NOA
[12/08/15 15:16:42] ns_karthik1: only Noa
[12/08/15 15:17:09] ns_karthik1: basically grow into a mid-sized brokerage..
[12/08/15 15:17:09] Gian Piero: or are you planning to open up on developing countries under a new brand?
[12/08/15 15:17:39] ns_karthik1: no we want to develop this brand...we have a decent name in the market that we are already...so want to leverage this name to grow into others
[12/08/15 15:18:56] ns_karthik1: we are getting decent number of clients from China/Brazil/Portugal...so we want to expand there and elsewhere
[12/08/15 15:19:19] Gian Piero: but the Ethos brand has been kind of burnt-out by bad word of mouth as you know
[12/08/15 15:19:44] ns_karthik1: yes I do...that's why we don't promote it...we promote only noa


It must be noted that Ethos Capital Limited (who FxEthos is allegedly part of) has been placed into liquidation in 2013. Ethos Capital Limited was controlled and operated by the same people who control and operate Capital Market Investments Limited.

From that time on, Capital Market Investments Limited (who NoaFX is part of) has operated FxEthos brand under direct control, deceiving investors by pretending FxEthos and NoaFX were two different brokerages still run by two different companies.
 
Last edited:
What about the KIWI REGULATOR , shouldn’t they normally file charges with the local
Prosecutors office , or are they all completely behind the moon ?
 
What about the KIWI REGULATOR , shouldn’t they normally file charges with the local
Prosecutors office , or are they all completely behind the moon ?
im not even sure they would know what or where the local prosecutors office would even be.....
 
What about the KIWI REGULATOR , shouldn’t they normally file charges with the local
Prosecutors office , or are they all completely behind the moon ?

I was as baffled as you are.
You may find enlightening what Karthik Subramanian thought about the whole New Zealand regulating framework:

[27/08/15 06:53:34] ns_karthik1: as u know, we have a FSP license..
[27/08/15 06:53:49] ns_karthik1: and lately, they are getting more and more stricter..
[27/08/15 06:54:02] Gian Piero: in which way?
[27/08/15 06:54:14] ns_karthik1: new rules include having 1M as security deposit...all the directors should be in NZ with a full fledged office
[27/08/15 06:54:30] ns_karthik1: we cannot do just FX
[27/08/15 06:54:41] ns_karthik1: we have to do be doing something more
[27/08/15 06:54:45] ns_karthik1: that too in NZ
[27/08/15 06:55:00] Gian Piero: in that way you are out of scope with new regs?
[27/08/15 06:55:25] ns_karthik1: we are negotiating as these are just proposals at this stage
[27/08/15 06:55:34] ns_karthik1: nothing black and white as yet
[27/08/15 06:55:55] Gian Piero: are CFDs still regarded as FX as far as NZ regs are concerned?
[27/08/15 06:56:02] ns_karthik1: yes they r
[27/08/15 06:56:26] Gian Piero: and binaries as well I presume
[27/08/15 06:56:55] ns_karthik1: yes
[27/08/15 06:57:21] Gian Piero: tell me the WCS - what if you don't meet NZ regs requirements?
[27/08/15 06:57:46] ns_karthik1: before that, before the stuff hits the fan, we want to get a backup license
[27/08/15 06:58:07] ns_karthik1: and basically that is that
[27/08/15 06:58:20] ns_karthik1: a notice is put on their website saying that XXXX broker has been suspended
[27/08/15 06:59:17] Gian Piero: so any further brokering activity brought on since then is considered a regs violation
[27/08/15 06:59:38] ns_karthik1: yes...as far as NZ authorities are concerned
[27/08/15 06:59:55] ns_karthik1: no one can stop us from brokering
[27/08/15 07:00:16] ns_karthik1: its just that the broker wont be regulated by FSP any more
[27/08/15 07:01:02] Gian Piero: so you'll be floating into void as far as brokering license are concerned
[27/08/15 07:01:25] Gian Piero: and subject to any kind of legal consequence
[27/08/15 07:01:35] ns_karthik1: yes but we expect these things to come out sometime next year...all these new regulations....so we are trying to plan ahead
[27/08/15 07:01:53] Gian Piero: for example a client goes nuts and sue you because you are not licensed
[27/08/15 07:02:05] Gian Piero: or an LP can blackmail you
[27/08/15 07:02:45] ns_karthik1: well, it could happen...though I doubt it....unless I misrepresent myself saying that I am FSP when I don't have a license
[27/08/15 07:02:59] ns_karthik1: i mean, if FSP is cancelled, you remove that from the website
[27/08/15 07:03:04] ns_karthik1: there ends the matter
[27/08/15 07:04:06] Gian Piero: yeah but you know that brokering without a brokerage license - no matter how worthless it is - it's risky business
[27/08/15 07:04:27] ns_karthik1: indeed...as i said, these are plans for next year from the NZ guys and we want to plan ahead
[27/08/15 07:04:31] ns_karthik1: and go for a backup license


Soon after misappropriating clients funds, on 12 January 2016 NoaFX deregistered from the FSP and dropped the associated FDR scheme. At present, NoaFX is still fraudulently claiming to hold a FSP license and to be FMA regulated: http://www.noafx.com/faq.php#accordion-8

“No one can stop us from brokering”.
 
Last edited:
Who are these guys......

Stewart & Associates Lawyers Limited (SAL) is a New Zealand law firm. Reference to SAL is made in clause 4 of NoaFX Customer Agreement:

"The customer agrees and acknowledges that his/her funds will be deposited for safe-keeping in the solicitor's trust account administered by the firm, Stewart & Associates Lawyers Limited in Alexandra, New Zealand."

NoaFX's clients funds were therefore supposed to be kept safe in a trust account administered by SAL who acted as a 3rd party trustee.

SAL is currently facing an investigation by the New Zealand Law Society.
 
SAL is currently facing an investigation by the New Zealand Law Society.

I can imagine that ! what about you guys, are you involved with an authentic New Zealand Bar registered Law office……if that’s the case……they can/MUST find the solution.
 
Back
Top