An Open Letter to the CEO of MEXExchange

Not open for further replies.


FPA Forums and Reviews Admin
Below is an open letter to the CEO of MEX Exchange.

Before the letter, I'd like to explain to FPA readers how this situation developed.

There are legal issues between the MEX group of companies and IkonGroup of companies. The FPA has evidence that became part of MEX and that at least 2 companies with names formerly including Ikon became MEX companies. The FPA never said any MEX company was related to Ikon Group. MEX appears to want any indication of it being linked to the name Ikon removed from the FPA and is threatening legal action if this is not done.

Whether this "Ikon Group" ever was or was not related to website and whether the other Ikon companies which rebranded as MEX ever were or were not connected to Ikon Group is something I don't know. The FPA never had any intention of providing any false connections, but will not remove information about factual connections.

Instead of someone from MEX posting a simple explanation of which Ikon companies and sites are related to MEX and which are not, lawyers representing MEX have threatened to sue the FPA.

The legal threat demands removal of material linking any usage of the name Ikon to MEX. Removal of an article about an NFA action against one Ikon company which pre-dated the MEX name and which makes no mention of MEX is also demanded. When I sent a response to one of the lawyers containing some evidence to back up statements on the FPA site, he wrote back still demanding removal of all the same items.

I now feel the only way to deal with this is to publicly explain everything to both Jacob Nel, the CEO of MEXExchange. as well as to members of the FPA.

An Open Letter to the CEO of MEXExchange

Hello Jacob,

Based on the information you provided, I understand that MEXExchange and the remaining MEX Group companies are owned by Naser Taher and have no relationship to the Ikon Group companies owned by Engin Yikilmazoglu. I am also aware that there is a claim of a some sort of sealed judicial order which supposedly forbids anyone claiming that any MEX company owned by Naser is related to any Ikon company owned by Engin. The FPA has made no such claim.

Based on these numerous pieces of evidence, I also see there are direct connections between MEX Group companies and some companies previously under the name Ikon. This includes the old website as well as more than one MEX company registration. Since I can't see the full text of the claimed judicial order, I cannot say if it really demands removal of factual information. If it does, I would be very surprised. If you will provide me with the contact info of the presiding judge, I'll be happy to make contact, show all of the evidence below, and ask for clarification.

I am uncertain if or any of the Ikon companies MEX is connected to were ever linked to Ikon Group in the past or if the name Ikon relating to forex was come up with by two completely separate groups of companies. That is not the issue. The issue is the repeated legal threats demanding facts about MEX and separate facts about one Ikon website be removed.

Before I lay out the evidence, I would like to ask you a few questions...

1. Why are you so afraid of the fact that the name Ikon connect to MEX in various ways? In earlier correspondence, you didn't dispute me referring to Ikon. Neither did another MEX employee.

2. Why is a multimillion dollar company hiring lawyers to make threats to a small review website over factual postings? Are you so determined to remove facts that you would try to drag the FPA into court? This sounds very much like a SLAPP suit threat designed to hide facts to me. Can you explain how I'm wrong about this? If you aren't familiar with that term, you can read the Wikipedia article on SLAPP suits HERE.

3. Your lawyer claims he'll charge the FPA with all of this...

The claims include but are not limited to the following: (1) Violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; (2) Trade Libel; (3) Defamation, (4) Unfair
Competition and False Advertising in Violation of Lanham Act; (5) Unfair Competition and
False Advertising in Violation of California Law; (6) Intentional Interference with Economic
Advantage; (7) Conspiracy; and (8) Injunctive Relief.

RICO - that's for organized crime. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure publishing some simple facts about MEX would not be considered as organized crime.

Trade Libel - Please explain how provable facts can be libelous.

Defamation - If your company didn't want to be associated with the name Ikon, maybe having your name show up on and acquiring old companies with Ikon in the name was a bad move. Do you also intend to file a legal complaint against the government agencies which have this information publicly available?

Unfair Competition and False Advertising in Violation of Lanham Act - Lanham is about deliberate misuse of trademarks. Did you expect the length of your list to terrify the FPA into removing facts?

Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage - The FPA published facts. If factual events in the history of MEX companies is a disadvantage, you should have started exclusively with fresh clean websites and companies.

Conspiracy - The FPA conspires to present facts to readers. Can I put that on the FPA homepage and attribute it to you?

Injunctive Relief - The FPA will be happy to view any injunction and always endeavors to stay within US law. So far, all that has been presented is a claim regarding a sealed order. Do you alleged that the UK Court really wanted facts to be hidden?

The whole legal threat strikes me as a simple attempt to frighten the FPA into hiding factual information.

4. Why are you afraid of a factual article about an NFA fine against Ikon GM which doesn't mention MEX at all? It predates the name MEX by years. Are you planning to threaten the NFA to get them to take down the original? Is the name MEX so delicate that that the UK Courts want the FPA to erase all mention of all companies with the word Ikon in their names in order to protect your "economic advantage"?

5. Since another of your legal letters claims there is now a complaint against the FPA at the FCA, would you please provide the contact info of the FCA investigator involved? I would like to send all the evidence to ensure the FCA has all the facts.

6. Did your lawyer bother to tell you about the allegations of review manipulation and the claim of your company not being able to respond to reviews being false? Your own FPA forums account is capable of leaving comments. Just login to your account and go to the MEX review page. If you need help, you have my email address.

7. Do you also demand the FPA remove the client reviews which point out some connections to the name Ikon, or do clients still get the freedom to express themselves?

The Evidence

Since your lawyer did not even bother to comment on the evidence I sent, I'm going to post all that evidence and more here.

Emails from MEX employees

Here is an mail from Jeff exchanged during an incident with multiple accounts from MEX abusing the FPA's forums rules...


Jeff isn't quoting me. He used the name IKON himself.

Jacob, here's part of an email you sent to me on March 29th, 2017. The first line of text is you quoting me. The red text is your reply. You didn't dispute me about the Ikon reference.


If there never was any connection to any company with Ikon in the name, why did you not mention that instead of claiming improvements?

The homepage

The history of what the homepage of showed includes direct connections to the MEX logo and MultiBank Exchange name. Check out this image from an old screenshot of


Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Ikon MEX is trying to get away from improperly showed MEX logos on IkonFX. if this was the case, there shouldn't be anything in the press connecting MEX to anything named Ikon, should there?

MEX and Ikon in the press

Allow me to quote from LeapRate...

"IKON MultiBank Group, an online forex trading service provider regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority UK and Australian Securities & Investments Commission announced today restructuring under a new trademark name of MultiBank Exchange Group (MEX Group), with a new holding company based in California, USA.

As part of the restructuring, MultiBank Exchange Group also announced today the establishment of a new aggregated platform engine, which will commence its operations on Monday 18th July 2016 under the name MultiBank Exchange.

CLICK HERE to read the original.

If LeapRate takes the article down, I already have a screenshot of the page.

But, what if LeapRate is wrong. Is there any outside proof of this? Maybe I should check some government websites.

MEX Company Registrations



That's just Australia showing "IKON" as a prior name for MEX. What about the UK? What does Companies House say about prior names?

'MEX (EUROPE) LIMITED-beta_companieshouse_gov_uk_company_06474299.png

IKON as a prior name twice. And what does the UK FCA say about prior trading names?


The FCA shows 3 different IKON names as prior trading names for MEX.

If MEX doesn't want to be incorrectly tied to the Ikon Group company owned by Engin Yikilmazoglu, that's fine. If MEX wants to claim that no one can publish anything tying MEX to any company using the name Ikon. then you need to sue ASIC, Companies House, the FCA, LeapRate, and others before trying to use legal threats to try to hide facts posted at the FPA.

I believe I've made it very clear that the website is related to Mex. I've also provided evidence from regulators showing at least 2 MEX companies previously used the name Ikon. The FPA posted facts, nothing more. Legal threats do not change reality.

Jacob, I am publicly inviting you to post in the FPA's Press Releases folder. Please give details about how MEX is not related to the "Ikon Group" company and explain the links to "other Ikons" which later turned into MEX. Please also explain why your company chose to make abusive legal threats over information someone in your position should know to be factual.

I expect all legal threats over this issue to be permanently and irrevocably withdrawn. Further, I believe the FPA is owed a sincere public apology over this incident.

Best regards,
Bill K.
Great stuff FPA. These people want to sue with no real evidence, and if they tried to sue with little or no evidence to a certain figure, I would then immediately counter-sue to the same amount or more for using false and misleading claims or evidence or non-evidence as in this case, and you would probably win. I have seen this done before. It works. Anyway you have over 70,000 supporters to back you up. This really sows bad Karma for these companies, and over time they will have their end. I have seen this before too, nothing to fear on your part.
Well done, awesome research work and exposé. Management changes, ethical issues, "restructuring" will not compensate for the arrogance of intimidation. The FPA and its members will most likely have increased awareness now that this act of ineptitude has called more attention to itself.
Sounds to me something like a corporate merger or spinoff deal went very bad and one of the parties wants to pretend the relationship never happened. Let me see what I can dig up.

Wow. Looks like there's an Ikon A vs. Ikon F case in Australia.

And here's a previous joint statement of the two guys who own the two Ikons above. Looks like they once `worked together, one as President and one as CEO:



Wait a second. That post looks familiar. Look at post #40 here:

It doesn't contain the first line about the president and CEO of Ikon. It's been edited. Makes me wonder if that is what was removed.
Well-done Admin FPA

I think the is not just correlated to MEX but indeed its regiment or same co with duel trademarks, just switching the brand name to Mex in order to get out of the disputes due to their flawed doings. The spokespersons of MEX should concede it based on the evidence FPA stipulated I think that’s widely sufficient to prove it that IKON and MEX are either a sister partner concerns or basically one firm having dualistic classes.

We truthfully value the superlative exertions made by FPA bringing the facts to the Forex community, and once again to state that the MEX Company seems to be the conjoint cohort of IKON. They are obliged to admit it or prove it fictional with genuine evidences.
Not open for further replies.