Unsupported/Abandoned complaint - xm.com trying to scam me

[4evermaat]

I think vanwambekesepp provided the letter from the bank here. Can you attach your letter here as well please? It would also be good if you could attach a screenshot of the email that you got from the bank. The entire thread if possible. The email(s) requesting assistance from the bank, and the bank's response(s) to that email.

This all seems a bit odd in any case.

So that's it? The original funding of the account is really just a figment of vanwambe's imagination? So was all of the trading activity? Just close the account as if nothing ever happened Amazing .

Any updates on the trader's court case?

 

[vanwambekeseppe]

I'm shocked! Well atleast i know for sure they are scammers now. I contacted my bank and they said no one from xm.com contacted them.

 

[Pharaoh]

There is a simple solution. Vanwambenese, have the person at the bank who sent you that letter email XM from their address at the bank and CC you (and preferably also the FPA). If the document you showed is real, this will ruin XM's argument.

On the other hand, if the document is a forgery in an attempt to get around a secondary ID check, that would be firm evidence that you tried to circumvent AML laws by providing a falsified bank document. If that is the case, then I don't think XM could legally send you anything other than the initial deposit.

 

[4evermaat]

There is a simple solution. Vanwambenese, have the person at the bank who sent you that letter email XM from their address at the bank and CC you (and preferably also the FPA). If the document you showed is real, this will ruin XM's argument.

On the other hand, if the document is a forgery in an attempt to get around a secondary ID check, that would be firm evidence that you tried to circumvent AML laws by providing a falsified bank document. If that is the case, then I don't think XM could legally send you anything other than the initial deposit.

This is all a distraction. The burden of proof is on XM to not even accept deposit if it was fraudulent. They were supposed to process withdraw within 24 business hours. Honestly i cant believe FPA even entertained XM's stalling this long.

The only thing left is FPA court case. Unlikely he will get his money back, but at least others can know of the bs that some brokers are about. IronFx is still standing despite the mountain of evidence suggesting their license begs for suspension. Honest CySec brokers must be hurting over the last year.

 

[Pharaoh]

I can easily believe one bank employee believing one thing and another bank employee believing something else. By asking the bank to send evidence to both XM and the FPA, it will become very apparent if one side or the other is lying vs banking employees getting confused.

Let me lay out a possible scenario here. This sort of thing really does happen.

Imagine I create a fake ID to match some credit cards with high limits. I use the cards to fund accounts at several brokers. If I'm really clever, I'm the only one making unauthorized charges on these cards, so there won't be any red flags until I start using them.

I open the accounts and get confirmed as quickly as possible. When I start funding one or more accounts, I may or may not trigger some red flags.

I the money place high risk trades. If I win, I try to get the deposit paid back as soon as possible. If I'm quick, the card holder may think the money moved out and back was an error. For the losing accounts, I keep pairing them off and trading in opposite directions. Winners get initial deposits back and the final losers get the associated card info deleted from my computer.

It's nearly a perfect crime, except that I want to get the profits out. I have to get the company to send me the profits in some way other than to the card or to a bank account at the same bank the card came from. What can trip me up is if the initial deposit triggered a warning on the card. If that happens, the bank will flag the card for additional confirmation. The bank may even ask for small amounts to be tranferred to the card as part of the confirmation process.

Assuming this is the case, I have a problem. I don't have access to the real credit card statements and need to explain why I can't see what the amounts are.

If this is the case, then both regulations and ALM laws would be violation if profits I made using borrowed money and an assortment of forged and stolen documents were transferred to me.


On the other hand, if I was innocent and my letter from my bank saying those inbound transfers was real, I'd be happy to get the same guy who sent the letter to me to email the broker and the FPA. I'd have him ask XM.com the name and contact info of the bank employee who claimed the document was false. Since it's my account and I'm the one asking, there's no privacy rules to break in asking for the info to also be sent to the FPA. This way I would quickly find out if someone else at the bank made a mistake or else I'd have indisputable evidence that the broker was publicly lying about my case.

 

[4evermaat]

^^The same scenario can be true for all businesses, online or in person....but especially online businesses; it's a part of the business. Do any other online business that you know of request private bank statements or a call/letter from the bank AFTER providing the actual service?

If your scenario applies to all merchants that were concerned about fraud, why take the business in the first place? Why aren't ALL XM clients that funded with credit card (or all of the business's clients) subjected to the same scrutiny? Or are only people who win are suddenly fraud suspects? If you suspect fraud, you can simply reject the payment and request another payment method, before providing the service. No [legit] broker, financial institution, or any business for that matter (particularly those that need some sort of working capital up front [deposit] to start work] would knowingly provide a product or service with fraudulent payment method. Again, especially a business that requires a deposit to get started.

I'm thinking about starting a business, taking prospects money, and then not providing them what was promised, then keeping whatever benefit I got from the prospect that originally gave me his/her money. That is the perfect business, isn't it?

I wish the OP and any other trader who wants to trade with these scandalous brokers all the best. It is interesting to see how long some of these people can keep the scam going.

 

[Pharaoh]

Amazon isn't going to violate AML laws if you return a book. Brokers and other financial institutions regularly ask clients to keep their records up to date (most don't, including me). but if your account was somehow marked as suspicious by another financial institution (such as a credit card company), then you can bet your next visit to the teller window might not go as you planned.

There are 3 explanations.

1. The letter is a forgery, which means that our thread starter really did something wrong (like "borrow" a credit card). If so, AML laws and other regulations would prohibit XM from paying the profits.

2. XM lied about their contact with the bank. If so, I don't think AsstModerator would wait for a traders court vote before dropping a scam label on their site.

3. The bank has a serious internal communication problem.

Getting the author of the letter in question to email the client, XM, and the FPA would quickly sort out exactly where the fault lies.

 

[AsstModerator]

In his case thread, vanwambekeseppe was asked to get his bank, XM, and the FPA into contact. He didn't bother to do so. If he had done so, it would have been very easy to determine the source of the problem. Since he did not seem interested in getting indisputable facts out in the open, I have to assume he believed the facts would not back up the message he claimed the bank provided to him.

His case is dismissed. This thread is being marked as Unsupported/Abandoned and will now be moved.