1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An Open Letter to the CEO of MEXExchange

Discussion in 'Scoundrels' started by AsstModerator, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. traderfish

    traderfish Recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great,Great,work.Glad to be a member,Traderfish
     
  2. richard56

    richard56 Recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    9
    Good research and well done FPA ! tks These "lawyers" are not conficing at all
     
  3. shappons

    shappons Private, 1st Class

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    6
    thank you FPA..if there were something i could do in my capacity to contribute let me know...thanks
     
  4. Tryingtrader

    Tryingtrader Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    96
    Well done Bill, clearly and succinctly put. This is really a very childish attempt by them to intimidate and bully .... it's not going to work here! Facts are facts - better get used to it!
     
  5. Henry Lin

    Henry Lin Recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Posting threat of any form to a reputable forex review site like FPA is the stupidest thing I can imagine a broker doing. Although I don't have any needs for a new broker account in the near future, I like to express my respect and thanks to the FPA team.
     
  6. AsstModerator

    AsstModerator FPA Forums and Reviews Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,370
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    This thread is now one year old.

    I had hoped that the people at MEX would take responsibility for their actions. Instead, their newest representative to the FPA has wasted large amounts of my time arguing that since he is such a great guy, I shouldn't worry about the actions of the people who pay his salary.

    The FPA recently got a message from another lawyer about another forums thread about MEX. That lawyer said he was representing Naser Taher, MEX Group Worldwide Limited and MEX Fintech Limited. He demanded quite a few things be removed.

    I informed MEX's new rep of the situation. He claimed that "Naser personally advised that he seeks peace with FPA and wants to keep it in a civilized fashion."

    I suggested that Naser Taher should step up and fix the main issue, since neither Jacob Nel or Alan Droste seemed willing to do so. His response was "I agree that would be great for things to be cleared up , it’s probably best not to open old wounds so I’d like to keep it in a positive tone to help reach a positive outcome for us." In his next email, he indicated that the newest legal issue was not with MEX Australia, but with another branch of MEX. My reply is...

    "You should keep in mind that it was MEX Australia that started the whole issue. It's easy to hide behind "not opening old wounds" when it's the MEX company you work for that inflicted the wounds.

    I was hoping you were smart enough to comprehend that MEX Australia and MEX Group are all part of the same mess that was started by MEX Australia. I was hoping you were smart enough to understand that until action from the top is taken, this situation will continue to be escalated by some other part of the company. I was hoping you were ethical enough to make the requirement for actions to permanently resolve these issues very clear to Jacob and Naser. Instead, you continue trying to help them escape all responsibility. I'm deeply disappointed in you.

    If the owner and the CEOs of MEX companies keep hiding from responsibility, then why would any trader trust any of the MEX companies enough to place money with them?
    "

    I'm attaching the original legal demand from MEX Australia's lawyer to this post. This way there will be no doubt that legal issues with MEX began with MEX Australia trying to hide the factual connections between various MEX companies and Ikon. The letter ends with a suggestion of discussion, but when I emailed evidence to MEX's lawyer showing factual connections to Ikon, he replied...

    In response to your e-mail below, which replied to my prior demand letter dated August 14, 2017 (another copy attached), I have investigated this matter further, including inquiry with CLP Solicitors, whose October 25, 2017 letter to me also is attached. Unless there is prompt compliance with the August 14 demand letter, we will be proceeding with filing the lawsuit.

    Please reply without delay to state whether you will comply with the August 14 letter or will require litigation.

    Alan J. Droste


    I'm very surprised that his further investigation of the matter didn't result in even one change to his demands. I provided more than enough evidence to him of links between Ikon companies and MEX. I'm not surprised that the lawsuit wasn't filed. The evidence I provided him was only part of what I had available, but it was enough to show that all the disputed items at the FPA were factual.

    I'm disappointed that a full year after publishing an open letter to Jacob Nel, the CEO of MEX Exchange / Mex Australia, there has been no reply from Jacob or anyone above him. Instead, all I get are excuses about how Jacob, his lawyer, and his boss, Naser Taher, shouldn't need to bother to take any responsibility for using extreme legal threats to try to hide facts.
     
  7. Elio Matacena

    Elio Matacena Private

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    1
    I really appreciate all this huge work you did, do and are doing.
    Merry Christmas.
     
  8. 4evermaat

    4evermaat Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    95
  9. Michelle Yang

    Michelle Yang Recruit

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Naser Taher, IKON and MEX were never the same thing, which we all know not be true, along with everything else Taher publishes.

    Taher just renamed his companies, nothing was restructured, the public record is clear about this. Just a name change, to escape criminal concerns in Europe relating to his partners. Partners that he told us he severed all ties with.

    Taher has been caught in his own lie.

    If Taher severed all ties as he claims, how come Taher issued legal proceedings against IKON Finance Limited just before Christmas in London, as reported by http://www.law360.com.

    https://www.law360.com/articles/1115281/uk-litigation-roundup-here-s-what-you-missed-in-london

    The claim filed specifically relates to a breach of contract. If all ties had been severed in 2016, how was there still a contract in place that could have been breached in December 2018.

    This news suggests all Taher's previous press releases on this subject were less than truthful.

    All ties were not severed.

    The consistent untruths remain:
    • They were not regulated globally. (No FCA, No BaFin, No RAK, No SFC, No CIMA, No DIFC, No China)
    • Multibank was not formed in California in 2005. (Multibank was formed in 2016)
    • Multibank, MEX and IKON does not have $322 million paid up share capital. (Never did)
    Things are not going well for MEX, Multibank, IKON Mutibank or whatever they call themselves this week.

    The ASIC public record details that MEX Australia reported another loss - No money is being made in Australia.

    MEX Australia does not have any substantial paid up capital and only limited financial resources, unless a substantial capital injection is made, MEX Australia will be insolvent come March.

    MEX China and Taher personally did not have a good 2018 either. Following MEX being placed on a list of unregulated brokers by the People's Bank of China, MEX and Taher promptly closed down all operations in China and relocated to Hong Kong, where they are not regulated either.

    We have all seen the video where Taher claims he moved from Beijing to Hong Kong to be closer to the Chinese market. If you have not, look at my other posts where this is comprehensively covered. Multibank and Taher were chased out of China.

    MEX losing its Chinese operations is catastrophic for the business and along the the below points explains why no progress has been made in the long promised IPO of Multibank.

    MEX Dubai is having major issues too. It remains defunct following being exposed as an unregulated entity, the false claims of DIFC regulation along with RAK Government regulation are simply not true and have returned to haunt them.

    MEX London no longer exists, Taher claims due to BREXIT. However its replacement MEX Europe in Frankfurt is not regulated to trade with retail customers, not regulated to hold customer funds and not even regulated as a broker.

    MEX Barcelona appears to be nothing more than press release fluff. Taher claims this company is regulated by CNMV, but it is not. Check the CMMV public register yourselves, it does not exist.

    http://cnmv.es/portal/Consultas/BusquedaPorEntidad.aspx

    MEX Cayman Islands is not regulated either. It's just a dormant fund administration business exposed as misrepresenting itself to clients as a regulated entity, it is not even a brokerage.

    MEX USA is just a shell company, there are no operations in the USA and MEX is not regulated to do business in this shell company.

    Which leaves MEX Vietnam. Vietnam ended as fast as it started. Taher Claimed to his experienced Vietnamese partners that he was well resourced and regulated globally. When Taher's false claims were exposed by regulators worldwide blacklisting the Vietnam office, Taher and his new partners went to war with each other, which is well documented on FPA and other portals.

    Which MEX company makes money?

    It does not appear that any of the companies are making money, which is worrying, given the financial position of MEX Australia. Where is the cash injection coming from that will save MEX Australia?

    Jacob Nel?

    Any comment?
     
  10. AsstModerator

    AsstModerator FPA Forums and Reviews Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,370
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Threatening to sue the FPA to hide facts says a lot about a company, but Scam labels are reserved for abuse of traders instead of abuse of the FPA.
     

Share This Page