I have been scammed from aaatrade@com the amount of $36692
Below you can read the letter of my lawyer that he sent to aaatrade.com about the clear manipulation that they did to me.
The case was filled in 25th of May 2016.The reason that i post it now is because I requested the company to pay me at list the 80% of my money and i received an email from their lawyer threading me that if i post anything hear i will regret it.He said that he will call to my family job company which is authorized by the goverment,which means that he could recall my licence and all my family ( Father, Mother,Brother and another 5 members to stay jobless). This was all about because i told them that its totally unfair what they did to me and i want my money back.
Please read the complain below, I have all proofs if needed.
Below you can read the letter of my lawyer that he sent to aaatrade.com about the clear manipulation that they did to me.
The case was filled in 25th of May 2016.The reason that i post it now is because I requested the company to pay me at list the 80% of my money and i received an email from their lawyer threading me that if i post anything hear i will regret it.He said that he will call to my family job company which is authorized by the goverment,which means that he could recall my licence and all my family ( Father, Mother,Brother and another 5 members to stay jobless). This was all about because i told them that its totally unfair what they did to me and i want my money back.
Please read the complain below, I have all proofs if needed.
- Our client began trading with AAA Trade Ltd on 15 March 2016, when he opened
his first account (Account No. 556609) (hereinafter the “First Account”). With
your approval and encouragement, our client opened a second account (Account
No. 556733) with AAA Trade (hereinafter the “Second Account”), in which
account he transferred funds from the first account; leading him and/or allowing
him to operate under the false impression that he could trade in products other
than contracts for future difference (“CFDs”) on your platform. We fully reserve
our client’s rights in raising claims, in relation to your duty to evaluate his previous
trading experience and/or not to expose him in risky trading, unsuitable for his
level.
Contrary to the express provisions of the Terms & Conditions applicable in our
client’s dealings with your firm, your obligations to provide accurate information i
- relation to your services and the standard industry practice, on or about the 1st of
April 2016, our client’s First Account, presented a negative balance.
Upon an enquiry by our client and during his frequent communications with Ms.
Nina Mihailova of AAA Trade Ltd, you had led him to believe, that the negative
balance of his account, was a technical error and/or that otherwise your company
would not demand the negative balance and/or that he was not obliged to pay
that negative balance. For the avoidance of any doubt, we note that it is our legal
opinion that you are not entitled to demand the negative balance, or apply a set-
off with regard to that balance.
Upon your assurances, as noted herein, our client was convinced and/or lured to
deposit a further EUR 16.000 in his Second Account, for which deposit you have
offered our client a 10% bonus amounting to EUR 1.600, while you have also
increased the leverage of the account to 1:200. While all this is evidenced in
writing, at the point of receiving the additional deposit, or granting our client a
bonus in relation to the deposit, you have not mentioned or reserved your right to
set-off such balance with the negative balance of the First Account.
As you are very well aware, our client would not have continued trading with your
firm, nor agreed to deposit further sums with you, had it not been for your express
assurances, that the negative balance was not due and payable, which was re-
affirmed by the granting of the bonus of EUR 1.600.
Following the above dealings, once again, on or about the 7th of April 2016, the
Second Account presented a negative balance, contrary to the express
provisions of the Terms & Conditions applicable in our client’s dealings with your
firm, your obligations to provide accurate information in relation to your services
and the standard industry practice.
Once again you have reassured our client that the negative balance of his
account, was a technical error and/or that otherwise your company would not
demand the negative balance and/or that he was not obliged to pay that negative
balance and in the same manner as before you have encouraged the opening of
- a third account (Account No. 556747) with AAA Trade (the “Third Account”), for
the opening of which you undertook to reward our client with a 10% bonus on his
deposits.
Upon your assurances, as noted herein, our client was convinced and/or lured to
deposit a further USD 11.278 in his Third Account, for which deposit you have
offered our client a 10% bonus amounting to USD 1.127. While all this is
evidenced in writing, at the point of receiving the additional deposit, or granting
our client a bonus in relation to the deposit, you have not mentioned or reserved
your right to set-off such balance with the negative balance of the First Account or
the Second Account.
As you are very well aware, our client would not have continued trading with your
firm, nor agreed to deposit further sums with you, had it not been for your express
assurances, that the negative balance was not due and payable, which was re-
affirmed by the granting of the bonus of USD 1.127.
Following successful trading of our client, on or about the 3rd of May, the Third
Account presented a balance of USD 36.692.
Our client’s request for the withdrawal of sums from the Third Account, received
by AAA Trade on or about the 3rd of May 2016, has been rejected on the
pretence that the positive balance of the Third Account, had to be set-off with the
negative balance of the First and the Second Account, by referring him to your
Terms and Conditions.
Having reviewed your Terms and Conditions, and by reference to the relevant
legislation, we consider your actions as an illegal attempt to withhold the profits
that resulted from our Client’s trading with your firm.
We draw your particular attention to term 9.8 of the Terms and Conditions, which
provides for a Stop Out level of 15%.
Term 9.8 provides - “9.8. When the Client reaches 15% of the Margin in the Client Account,his
positionswillstartclosingautomatically (Stop Out level of 15%) starting with
the most losing Order and the Company has the right to refuse a new Orders.”
We further draw your attention, to your obligations under section 36 of Law
144(I)/2007, and the corresponding section of the MiFID Directive, which govern
your obligation to provide your clients with accurate information in relation to your
services when dealing with them.
On the basis of the above, and the standard industry practice in relation to
negative balances (in particular under normal market conditions), we note that it
was your duty, to ensure that your platform and in particular the accounts of our
client did not reach a negative balance, but instead be stopped-out .
We further note, that even in the absence of your obligation to stop-out the
account prior to reaching a negative balance; by your actions and
communications (on the basis of which our Client had agreed to invest further
money with your firm), as they are noted herein above, you are not entitled and/or
you are estopped and/or have waived your right to demand and/or set off the
negative balance in the First and Second Accounts.
In view of the above, we fully reject the contents of your email (sent by Ms. Nina
Mihailova on 06/05/16), refusing our client’s request for the withdrawal of sums,
on the basis on an alleged set-off right. We further note, that even though the
said email is marked as “Without Prejudice”, it does not qualify as a genuine
attempt to reach a settlement of the dispute, and as such we reserve our client’s
right to publish or submit all written correspondence in relation to this matter with
the authorities, including CySec, and potentially file it as evidence in proceedings
to be raised against you.
In view of the above, we request that you release at once all the sums held in the
Third Account of our client, amounting to USD 36.692 and expressly
- acknowledge that there is no obligation on our Client in relation to the negative
balances presented in the First and the Second Account
- As you are very well aware, our client would not have continued trading with your
firm, nor agreed to deposit further sums with you, had it not been for your express
assurances, that the negative balance was not due and payable, which was re-
affirmed by the granting of the bonus of USD 1.127.
Following successful trading of our client, on or about the 3rd of May, the Third
Account presented a balance of USD 36.692.
Our client’s request for the withdrawal of sums from the Third Account, received
by AAA Trade on or about the 3rd of May 2016, has been rejected on the
pretence that the positive balance of the Third Account, had to be set-off with the
negative balance of the First and the Second Account, by referring him to your
Terms and Conditions.
Having reviewed your Terms and Conditions, and by reference to the relevant
legislation, we consider your actions as an illegal attempt to withhold the profits
that resulted from our Client’s trading with your firm.
We draw your particular attention to term 9.8 of the Terms and Conditions, which
provides for a Stop Out level of 15%.
Term 9.8 provides: - “9.8. When the Client reaches 15% of the Margin in the Client Account,his
positionswillstartclosingautomatically (Stop Out level of 15%) starting with
the most losing Order and the Company has the right to refuse a new Orders.”
16.We further draw your attention, to your obligations under section 36 of Law
144(I)/2007, and the corresponding section of the MiFID Directive, which govern
your obligation to provide your clients with accurate information in relation to your
services when dealing with them.
On the basis of the above, and the standard industry practice in relation to
negative balances (in particular under normal market conditions), we note that it
was your duty, to ensure that your platform and in particular the accounts of our
client did not reach a negative balance, but instead be stopped-out .
We further note, that even in the absence of your obligation to stop-out the
account prior to reaching a negative balance; by your actions and
communications (on the basis of which our Client had agreed to invest further
money with your firm), as they are noted herein above, you are not entitled and/or
you are estopped and/or have waived your right to demand and/or set off the
negative balance in the First and Second Accounts.
In view of the above, we fully reject the contents of your email (sent by Ms. Nina
Mihailova on 06/05/16), refusing our client’s request for the withdrawal of sums,
on the basis on an alleged set-off right. We further note, that even though the
said email is marked as “Without Prejudice”, it does not qualify as a genuine
attempt to reach a settlement of the dispute, and as such we reserve our client’s
right to publish or submit all written correspondence in relation to this matter with
the authorities, including CySec, and potentially file it as evidence in proceedings
to be raised against you.
In view of the above, we request that you release at once all the sums held in the
Third Account of our client, amounting to USD 36.692 and expressly
4 - acknowledge that there is no obligation on our Client in relation to the negative
balances presented in the First and the Second Account.
If you fail to comply with our request within 5 days of receiving this letter, legal
proceedings and/or a report will be filed with CySec and/or other authorities
without any further warning.
The present letter is sent with full reservation of our Client’s rights to initiate
proceedings against you.
