On November 8th, I had made a profit of between 7k and 9k, just like I had other times before, but minutes after the American news of 2:30 PM, some pending orders of BUY STOP that my EA set near the market price for the GBP USD and AUD USD opened at 10,000 pips of distance in a 5-digit platform. For the Pound, an order was opened at 1.70000 when the market was barely at 1.60000. For the AUD USD, orders were opened at 1.0400 when the market price was around 0.94000.
This situation resulted in my accounts completely breaking down.
I looked at other accounts at the broker; standard and ECN, and that price does not appear in other platforms. This only happened with my accounts and that price did not appear in any other broker at that hour. Moreover, at the time this happened, the price was going down and the system drove the candlesticks up.
I was informed that the liquidity provider sent that price and my EA accepted it. Logically, I can put up a pending order at a future price so high that the order can remain months or years without executing itself. But it is clear by the logs that the prices that my EA solicited in the pending orders were very near the market price at that moment.
I have screen prints, logs, etc. that demonstrate the irregularity of this whole operation. I was told by Bernardo Martinez, the company’s representative for Latin America, that the liquidity provider didn’t want to give back the 100% of the funds lost by this “technical error”, but they offered 50% of the funds, adducing that it was my EA’s fault for accepting the price.
A few days later, I was offered a closing deal of half the funds lost, where they stated again the it was my EA’s responsibility. I was under a lot of pressure thinking that I might lose all my capital and they told me that if they tried to negotiate a 100% refund with the liquidity provider, they might even give up the first offer altogether. So obviously, I signed and settled for half the funds, at least momentarily.
All the process lasted eight days, where I lived moments of much anguish and frustration, considering the possibility of losing all my savings. This was obviously a well-thought strategy of the broker because from the beginning, they suggested the idea of giving back only a part of the money. It was easy for them to press me into signing that ridiculous agreement because I was scared of losing everything.
An EA cannot tamper with the market price. That is downright impossible.
After signing this ridiculous agreement, which I can show at request, and getting back half my capital, I tried to contact the broker three times, trying to negotiate a better offer to settle the whole thing.
At this point, I would’ve been happy if they gave me back the initial capital invested. They answered that having signed that agreement, I accepted their terms, and that I shouldn’t involve the liquidity provider. They said they definitely wouldn’t give back more than they had, and that giving back half the funds was already very generous of them. They also said that they are not responsible for the market price, but in this case, the price was intentionally tampered with. If a broker states that the market price is not their responsibility, then the client is totally unprotected since they could modify the price and then say they are not liable for anything.
I warned the broker that I would inform all the regulation entities and forums of this flagrant scam, and they said I should stop the threats and that if I made bad publicity, they would sue me. They also prohibited me from showing the document I signed under pressure because they know it was a maneuver aimed simply at taking away my money.
It is important to highlight that the FSA regulation does not reach them as brokers because they are listed as a pay processor. This is another trick they use in order to steal money from investors and remain free of charges.
I will accept my responsibility if the broker can prove that my EA produced that price and took it in spite of the fact that the pending orders differed from that price. I have all the evidence to show that that is impossible. But the broker has nothing to prove what they put forward; only words and a document they made me sign under pressure in order to make me responsible for something that is implausible and in order to silence me.
Using only common sense, if what they say was true and my EA had provoked this error in the account, why the broker should give me back half the amount lost? Out of generosity? This is business, and I don’t know one broker in history that has taken responsibility for their clients’ errors. I am not talking cents here: my capital was of USD 470.000, and they stole half of it in one minute. Eight days later, they gave me back $235.000. There are two options: either I thank them for the money they gave me as a present or this is a blatant fraud.
I leave this question for the investors.
This situation resulted in my accounts completely breaking down.
I looked at other accounts at the broker; standard and ECN, and that price does not appear in other platforms. This only happened with my accounts and that price did not appear in any other broker at that hour. Moreover, at the time this happened, the price was going down and the system drove the candlesticks up.
I was informed that the liquidity provider sent that price and my EA accepted it. Logically, I can put up a pending order at a future price so high that the order can remain months or years without executing itself. But it is clear by the logs that the prices that my EA solicited in the pending orders were very near the market price at that moment.
I have screen prints, logs, etc. that demonstrate the irregularity of this whole operation. I was told by Bernardo Martinez, the company’s representative for Latin America, that the liquidity provider didn’t want to give back the 100% of the funds lost by this “technical error”, but they offered 50% of the funds, adducing that it was my EA’s fault for accepting the price.
A few days later, I was offered a closing deal of half the funds lost, where they stated again the it was my EA’s responsibility. I was under a lot of pressure thinking that I might lose all my capital and they told me that if they tried to negotiate a 100% refund with the liquidity provider, they might even give up the first offer altogether. So obviously, I signed and settled for half the funds, at least momentarily.
All the process lasted eight days, where I lived moments of much anguish and frustration, considering the possibility of losing all my savings. This was obviously a well-thought strategy of the broker because from the beginning, they suggested the idea of giving back only a part of the money. It was easy for them to press me into signing that ridiculous agreement because I was scared of losing everything.
An EA cannot tamper with the market price. That is downright impossible.
After signing this ridiculous agreement, which I can show at request, and getting back half my capital, I tried to contact the broker three times, trying to negotiate a better offer to settle the whole thing.
At this point, I would’ve been happy if they gave me back the initial capital invested. They answered that having signed that agreement, I accepted their terms, and that I shouldn’t involve the liquidity provider. They said they definitely wouldn’t give back more than they had, and that giving back half the funds was already very generous of them. They also said that they are not responsible for the market price, but in this case, the price was intentionally tampered with. If a broker states that the market price is not their responsibility, then the client is totally unprotected since they could modify the price and then say they are not liable for anything.
I warned the broker that I would inform all the regulation entities and forums of this flagrant scam, and they said I should stop the threats and that if I made bad publicity, they would sue me. They also prohibited me from showing the document I signed under pressure because they know it was a maneuver aimed simply at taking away my money.
It is important to highlight that the FSA regulation does not reach them as brokers because they are listed as a pay processor. This is another trick they use in order to steal money from investors and remain free of charges.
I will accept my responsibility if the broker can prove that my EA produced that price and took it in spite of the fact that the pending orders differed from that price. I have all the evidence to show that that is impossible. But the broker has nothing to prove what they put forward; only words and a document they made me sign under pressure in order to make me responsible for something that is implausible and in order to silence me.
Using only common sense, if what they say was true and my EA had provoked this error in the account, why the broker should give me back half the amount lost? Out of generosity? This is business, and I don’t know one broker in history that has taken responsibility for their clients’ errors. I am not talking cents here: my capital was of USD 470.000, and they stole half of it in one minute. Eight days later, they gave me back $235.000. There are two options: either I thank them for the money they gave me as a present or this is a blatant fraud.
I leave this question for the investors.
