I would never open an account with IronFX thanks to FPA. I'm simply trying to help out the IronFX victims who are members of the FPA - community sprit......
-
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.
Discuss IronFx.com
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ironfx
General discussions of a financial company
IronFX Officer
IronFx Representative
- Messages
- 380
Dear BinaryLad,
Please note that we are commencing an effort to identify and factually respond to all allegations by users of this site.
Writing regarding unproven allegations with defamatory language is neither constructive nor beneficial for the users of this website.
The Company has thrived and grown throughout the years and has undoubtedly proven its prominence in the financial services sector despite a number of deliberate unsuccessful attempts by third parties in causing harm and damage to the Company’s interests and reputation.
Finally, we note that the IronFX Group of Companies comprises of investment firms authorized and regulated by the competent financial authorities in the UK (FCA no. 585561), Australia (AFSL no. 417482), South Africa (FSP no. 45276) and Cyprus (License no. 125/10). We note that none of the said group companies has received either a fine or penalty by any competent authority nor has any court ruled against any of the group companies.
Thank you
I have made no such statements, only encouraging those that state you have acted unethically to sign a petition so that investigations can be conducted and put the matters to rest. As you state you have done absolutely nothing wrong, never received any fine or any negative court ruling so this would clear your reputation once and for all. Then you can proceed to take any action you feel appropriate against all those that have made false allegations against you.
I have quoted the complaints number (I can't confirm) and the number of signatories for the petition (confirmed). This is in your favour as you say this 1,900 complaints number is false and only 50 people have signed the petitions. If there are genuinely 1,900 complaints to CySec then I would have thought there would be at least 50%+ of those people signing the petition. By pointing this out I'm highlighting on your behalf this discrepancy in your favour.
Surely any innocent person / organisation would welcome my posts on this matter ? If I was IronFX trying to clear my name from false allegations I would get all my employees to sign the petition to help clear the name of my company.
As stated I would not open an account with yourselves due to the information on PFA. If this petition goes forward and the investigation / conclusions show you have been falsely accused I would. That said with your response to my post I would have to reconsider even if your name is cleared. You might want to think about that.
As an innocent organisation I would have thought you would react more positively to my post. If not innocent then you would of course react negatively. You and other members of this forum can decide which course you chose in your reply.
I look forward to your reply and hopefully thanking me for trying to assist your organisation in clearing your name. As I said in my post if the number of people signing the petition doesn't increase significantly then I'll presume these are false allegations and will post here to say so and berate those that have. BTW, the number of people signing has not changed since my original post so I am starting to believe you are being falsely accused. If you had acted unethically towards me then I would be straight on the EU petition website to support the petition but no one has for the past 5 days.
Those accusing IronFX of wrong doing why are you not signing this petition if your allegations are valid ?
As I suspected, no reply from IronFX to this post. I did send them a message via FPA as well to invite them to respond.
IronFX Officer
IronFx Representative
- Messages
- 380
Dear BinaryLad,
As one can see through threads relevant to IronFX in this site, despite the fact that we have started an effort to identify and factually respond to all allegations, most users have failed to provide their client credentials and are just defamatory.
Regarding the 1,900 complaints, please note that the actual number is substantially less and in any case that this number represents less than 0.2% of our total client base of nearly 1.1 million. The vast majority of the complaints are old and have already been dealt with.
Furthermore, there is no need to take our directness as aggression, we are simply pointing out our clean background as a company. As a serious financial institution, we like to keep our statements factual and to the point. Note that we are regulated by the premier FX regulators of the world (FCA, ASIC, FSB and CySEC) and none of them has issued a fine against us.
As you rightly point out, the fact that no one has signed the petition “in the last 5 days,” points out the defamatory nature of these allegations. Please also note that the last petition to the European Parliament in July 2017 plainly confirmed the sole jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus in dealing with any complaints against CySEC regulated entities. The statutes on National Sovereignty are very clear and any additional petitions (if ever lodged) will have a similar fate.
Finally, we would like to assure you that your comments are welcomed. We would be more than happy to welcome you to trade with us.
Kind Regards,
Last edited:
The lack of response to requests of posters on your part is an element of my decision to encourage members who have posted of IronFX wrong doing to sign the petition. I'd just simply like to know the truth. I have checked again today and no one else has signed.
I do take the comment "Writing regarding unproven allegations with defamatory language is neither constructive nor beneficial" as aggression and factually inaccurate given what I wrote, as would any potential customer. Do consider refraining from this type of response. Especially as you now say my comments are welcome.
One last thing. What do you think of the annual report of the General Auditor of Cyprus ? Is this fake or just inaccurate (presumably therefore slanderous) ? If the latter are you taking any legal or procedural measures to redress this ? Is there anything in this report you do agree with and are taking concrete actions to redress ? This report is one I would take most notice of as it's originating from an independent and respected source that doesn't not have a vested interest, such as CySec and EMSA.
Thank you for responding to my posts and I look forward to your response to my last paragraph.
IronFX Officer
IronFx Representative
- Messages
- 380
Dear BinaryLad,
Thank you for your comments.
With regard to the Auditor-General report for the year ended 2016, you may wish to refer to the Company’s official public statement which is set-out below for your ease of reference:
1. The Company was investigated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) in 2015 following a number of customer complaints. The findings of the investigation that led to a €335,000 settlement were made publicly available on the Commissions website on November 27, 2015.
2. With regards to the erroneous reference of the $176m amount mentioned in the Auditor General’s report the Company would like to emphasize that it did not relate to client money but to client equity that included non-withdrawable bonuses and is therefore misinterpreted in the Auditor General’s report. The said report includes selective data and fails to present the full facts of the investigation and the final findings of the Commission as they were presented in the settlement that was reached in November 2015. The Company is taking all necessary steps to rectify this misrepresentation.
3. The Company would also like to reiterate that all actions taken with regards to the treatment of the abusive traders are well documented and are in line with the various legal opinions it obtained and are further supported by its Terms & Conditions which are binding on both the Company and its clients.
4. Finally, the Company would like to draw your attention to the official statement of the CySEC Chairman published December 27, 2016. The Chairman explains among others, the Auditor General’s failure to present the CySEC’s position on all matters raised by his office and fully present the facts and results of the Commission’s investigation by including selective information in its report, thereby misrepresenting the facts.
The CySEC’s Chairman official statement can be accessed via the following link http://www.stockwatch.com.cy/el/article/hrimatistiriaka/ektetheimeni-i-kalogiroy-gia-iron-fx. A working translation of the Chairman’s official statement to the said report can be found below:
Following the recent article of Stockwatch, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) notes that it exercises its powers pursuant to the relevant legislation.
As mentioned, the decisions of CySEC are decided by its Board of Directors and not the Chairman or any other person. It is noted that “the Board of Directors of CySEC evaluates the recommendations and material put before it by the CySEC’s officers before it makes its own reasoned decisions. The recommendations of the officers are not binding on CySEC and is noted that each decision of the Board is adequately documented and reasoned in the Minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors”.
It should be noted that CySEC had adequately addressed and responded to all queries raised by the Office of the Auditor’s General.
“A number of CySEC’s responses are addressed in the Auditor’s-General report whereas some others are not as a result of which the picture and information provided for the matters that were under investigation are incomplete. As confirmed by the Auditor’s General Report, CySeC takes into account and/or has adopted a number of the recommendations of the office of the Auditor’s General but it believes that the Office of the Auditor’s General is not the competent body of the Republic to decide on the adequacy and legality of the CySEC’s decisions. CySEC is an independent regulatory authority which acts independently with the view to protecting investors and the proper functioning and development of the Commission. In doing so, CySEC cannot be subject to pressure by other governmental authorities as to the way it exercises its powers. Only the Courts of the Republic of Cyprus have the power to do so. The correctness and legality of the CySEC’s decisions is judged by the Courts which are the competent bodies.”
It is noted that the amount of EUR 335.000 was among the higher amounts imposed by the CySEC to date.
You could have just said "inaccurate". I hope you have some method of redress to the AG of Cyprus as what was said is very damaging for your business.
Mod's, what do you think of a "falsely accused broker" section. IronFX could then post all their responses to each allegation there and refer members to that forum. They are regulated all over the place, including FCA which I think we can say is a strong regulator.
IronFX Officer
IronFx Representative
- Messages
- 380
Dear BinaryLad
Thank you for your continuing responses.
Your constructive approach is appreciated and welcomed as it provides a sensible discussion forum for us to engage using facts rather than hearsay.
Point noted on wording used; indeed “inaccurate” may have been better. Please understand, however, our position in clearing what was indeed proven to be a multitude of repeated hostile, baseless and defamatory allegations by non-clients. This sometimes required us to take a forcefully factual approach in order to stop purely defamatory threads without a valid client claim.
In our effort at FPA we have answered all threads with facts. We have identified all real clients and successfully dealt with their claims. We have also answered to a multitude of postings by non-clients. You may have noticed that these postings are just the same things going round and round and round in a merry and baseless go-round.
The undisputed facts are:
1. We have been operational for 8 years, one of the longest established global Brokers.
2. We are regulated by the four premier regulators in the FX world (FCA, ASIC, CySEC and FSB) with full licencing and with an absolutely clean record of conduct. No fines and no warnings whatsoever. To this effect, we don’t think that e.g. the FCA would turn a blind eye to any misdemeanours.
3. We never breached any Capital Adequacy requirements in any of our regulated jurisdictions.
4. We have had the same auditors since inception with a clean audit record throughout.
5. We have not had a single Court judgment in any jurisdiction against us.
6. The “huge number of complaints” respond to a mere 0.2% of our client base, most are old and have been dealt with.
7. We have passed significant due diligence as part of various investment processes in our 8 years of operations. This has culminated in the recent investment by a regulated fund in our company.
The allegations merry go round (same things posted again and again in different threads) are as follows and concern 10 repeated statements which are presented below in no particular order:
1. “$176m in lost client funds”: see points (2) and (4) in the list above. We are one of the few Brokers that hold the client funds on-balance sheet and are therefore audited. Some regulators e.g. FCA also require daily reconciliations. The Auditor General’s report was a report by a non-expert criticising primarily CySEC processes. This was spun out as “confirmation of a $176m hole”. We have taken measures since to correct this misunderstanding but unfortunately the report cannot be retracted as it is a mammoth annual report covering all departments of the Cyprus Government.
2. “Petitions in the European Parliament”: As you rightly point out, the fact that no one has signed the petition “in the last 5 days,” points out the defamatory nature of these allegations. Please also note that the last petition to the European Parliament in July 2017 plainly confirmed the sole jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus in dealing with any complaints against CySEC regulated entities. The statutes on National Sovereignty are very clear and any additional petitions (if ever lodged) will have a similar fate.
3. “German criminal cases against members of management”: to-date we are not aware of any cases against management. The German document that appeared in some of the threads was just a confirmation that no case exists. It was misrepresented as being a criminal case against management. On the contrary, we have won a seminal defamation case at the Munich Court against a paid-for defamator and we have obtained a cease-and-desist order.
4. “Clients are consumers”: we have won seminal court cases in this respect. The EU law is clear in this respect that clients are not consumers. The Cyprus Consumer Protection Service opinion was just an unfortunate and wrongful interpretation of the legal framework. We have initiated legal action in this respect. We also stress that this is not a Court decision.
5. “Unpaid rents”: against a misrepresentation of the decision of the Junior Court in Cyprus in a simple rent dispute. This was overturned in our favour at the High Court.
6. “BBC documentary”: this is purely a defamatory attempt by a disgruntled ex-client that happened to be an ex-BBC employee. Was spun out as a “BBC documentary”. No BBC documentaries exist on the subject matter and indeed no articles exist in the mainstream press (other than positive articles in e.g. FT or Wall Street Journal)
7. “Class action lawsuits”: we confirm none is in existence and we have never been notified of one. A couple of comments on threads concern shady law firms trying to procure unsuspecting clients. They never get anywhere as there are no real claims and no one is willing to pay legal fees.
8. “Legal action against one of our lawyers”: we have global operations and we engage a multitude a legal firms (c. 30 globally). We cannot comment on individual law firms and any case against a law firm is clearly not a misdemeanour against the company
9. “€335,000 fine”: this was a settlement with CySEC following their investigation of the 10-largest Cyprus Brokers in 2015. No party admitted wrongdoing and the matter is closed since November 2015. IronFX was the only company under investigation that did not receive a fine. All the remaining Brokers in the investigation received fines.
10. “Amazon Book”: this a free book that it is just a write-up of the points above. We have no additional comments as to the motives.
As you can see, facts pay a very clear picture of an organised defamation attempt.
We welcome your suggestion for a “falsely accused broker” section where we can post final and factual responses for the 10 false allegations above that get repeated throughout the FPA threads.
We would also expect this effort will result in the removal of the “Scam Broker” rating by the FPA.
Thanks again for your initiative.
Thank you for your patience and responses. I do think your responses deserve to be aired and to save time be put in a separate thread so you can link to it in any responses you post.
Similar threads
