Second point, the FO write : In this case trading behaviour raised reasonable suspicions that the complainant was engaged in abuse trading...
WHAT ???? Where are the proofs, HOW FO CAN ASSERT THIS?
I have asked many times the proofs... not 1 answer !!!!
It is clear,dear rapresentative ,that iron dictate this judgment to FO.
In addition,please read this informations..
Let’s make some facts about the Financial Ombudsman of Cyprus (FOS) clear. This Cypriot entity, which is not independent and does not fulfill the quality requirements foreseen by EU law, is not legally entitled to issue any decision on disputes against Cypriot financial providers.
Pursuant to
directive 2013/11/EU on Alternative Dispute ResolutionCyprus was obliged to establish en entity for the off-court-resolution of consumer disputes (so called ADR entities), but has failed to establish such an ADR entity for the resolution of disputes with financial providers until now.
For this reason, upon complaints of damaged clients, the EU Commission has launched the first stage of an infringement procedure against Cyprus, which is an EU pilot procedure. You can read about this procedure in this
document (
http://bit.ly/2CmrDKF).
During the procedure, Cyprus has repeatedly admitted that the Financial Ombudsman is not an ADR entity and does not comply with the quality requirements of an ADR entity, which are
1. Procedure length up to 3 months (the FOS procedure takes 2 years)
2. Independence and Impartiality (the FOS depends on the CySEC and has engaged external financial analysts to solve the cases. These external financial analysts are possibly connected with the investigated financial providers)
3. Transparency (the FOS never issued an annual report of its activities. It would be interesting to know how many disputes were filed against IronFx)
4. Fairness (complainant were not given the possibility to respond to the abusive trading allegations of IronFx)
Please note the first cases against IronFx were filed to the FOS in early 2015. But the FOS began to examine the cases in early 2017, just after the
General Auditor Report(
http://bit.ly/2hNZFAQ ) (such an odd coincidence!).
Since the FOS was understaffed, a couple of external financial analysts had to be engaged in order to solve the cases, which have reached the number of 2500.
The decisions were made in a rush, just a couple of days after receiving a statement of IronFx. The complainants were not given the possibility to respond.
In its decisions, the FOS basically recognized the claim of the client for the initial deposit, by deducting the trading losses and zeroing the profit.
Despite accounting all trading losses, the FOS did not recognize the claim of the client for the trading PROFIT, by fully accepting IronFx allegations of “abusive trading”.
These allegations were never supported by evidence. IronFx supported the allegations only with an “
Expert Opinion” issued by the law firm Reed Smith LLP (these lawyers were so smart not to call this piece of paper “legal opinion”.). Read it, it is an explosive document:
http://bit.ly/2fDlleJ
Among other, the FOS invokes in its decision the contract term (Art. 17) which was found to be
unfair by Cyprus Consumer Protection Service (
http://bit.ly/2mBsGkX)
You can read 2 FOS decisions here:
http://bit.ly/2Ghwj80 (this case is unbelievable. The client had never traded, but his funds were illegally withheld for 2 years)
http://bit.ly/2ntBNmn(here you can see how the claim for profit was not recognized)
Now I ask to you representative, is this the way to solve my case? Publish the simple opinion of the FO about my case means having it resolved ???
I still do not see my money, if you consider the matter closed I have no other chance than bringing you to court, and you can be sure I will do this ...