GUILTY Case# 2012-086 | naibody vs true8fx.com

Based on the available evidence, do you believe that True8Fx.com is guilty?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 53 98.1%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
Original FPA Traders Court Submission by naibody:

Dear Razvan,

According to the above note from the Company, it seems like you can withdraw the "deposit bonus" of $20 after you cross $200 whereas, you would like the entire amount of $224.89 having crossed over $200 as per the initial offer.

Generally, speaking it is unlikely a Company would accept total withdrawal of funds up to the last zero on an active Forex account. Anyone may please correct me on this in all fairness to a business practice. It is therefore, necessary to know the following:
1. What is the general Withdrawal Policy of the Company ?
2. Is their a minimum amount that needs to kept in the account for it to be an active account ?
3. Did you ask for closure of the account ?
4. Did you make any initial deposit when you opened the Account ? If not, then was the deposit bonus of $20 extended to you as an incentive to open an account to reach a minimum balance that the Company otherwise requires in order to open an account to begin trading. Therefore, did they mean to allow you to withdraw only the amount over $200 being the minimum required to remain in the account. We have therefore quite a few aspects that needs to be answered.

The above should enable determine the withdrawal policy in general and particularly, in relation to the "deposit bonus" to establish how much can actually be withdrawn. As stated above, it has to be determined whether your profit element accrued is $4.89, or 24.89, or 224.89.

In view of inadequate information, I would refrain from casting a vote thereby, giving an opportunity for parties concerned to furnish necessary clarification before arriving at any final conclusion of a guilty or a not guilty verdict. Thanks.

P.S. If FPA Court expects a conclusive vote as in now, then my position would be "ABSTAIN". Ideally, it would be reasonable to have a third option of "ABSTAIN" for situations as above. Thanks.
 
This one looks like it's well covered in the public discussions thread.

AsstMod, could you please invite the company to reply publicly?

Please refer my response. I would prefer to refrain from vote in the absence of sufficient information as indicated. Thanks.
 
The company had plenty of opportunities to speak up for themselves in this issue and chose not to.

Since the company abstained from showing their side, I felt it to be inappropriate to abstain from giving them a guilty vote.
 
The company had plenty of opportunities to speak up for themselves in this issue and chose not to.

Since the company abstained from showing their side, I felt it to be inappropriate to abstain from giving them a guilty vote.

In the absence of any reply it cannot be construed that the Company is guilty unless it can be established that the Company offer was deceptive. Secondly, if I am left with no option but to vote either ways then I would vote for the Company unless Razvan is able to clarify my queries as indicated above.
 
Sadly, the FPA doesn't have the ability to force a company to testify. The call for a vote is based on available evidence. If a company chooses not to present it's side, then I'm still going to vote based on available evidence. Otherwise, all a company would need to do is never reply to any client complaint and we'd have to say "we haven't seen both sides" and silence would always result in a not-guilty verdict.

UFX Markets never publicly responded to any of the FPA Traders Court cases against them. Using your logic, their silence would mean no one should have voted guilty in any of the cases.
 
Sadly, the FPA doesn't have the ability to force a company to testify. The call for a vote is based on available evidence. If a company chooses not to present it's side, then I'm still going to vote based on available evidence. Otherwise, all a company would need to do is never reply to any client complaint and we'd have to say "we haven't seen both sides" and silence would always result in a not-guilty verdict.

UFX Markets never publicly responded to any of the FPA Traders Court cases against them. Using your logic, their silence would mean no one should have voted guilty in any of the cases.

Being the devil's advocate only helps us to further re-examine some of the queries I had posted in my first response. On the other hand, voting guilty or not guilty either could be wrong as I am not sure whether they are guilty or not based on the evidence available. Secondly, silence does not give room to condemn without adequate justification. On the other hand, yes legal bodies do take ex-parte decisions based on conjecture.
 
Being the devil's advocate only helps us to further re-examine some of the queries I had posted in my first response. On the other hand, voting guilty or not guilty either could be wrong as I am not sure whether they are guilty or not based on the evidence available. Secondly, silence does not give room to condemn without adequate justification. On the other hand, yes legal bodies do take ex-parte decisions based on conjecture.

I believe, not feeling like you're looking for scandal or simply feel important if you put against all. I mean you think you're the smartest. But that's just my opinion. What you do not understand is that this company no longer exists. If you really wanted to know the truth, you were going on their Facebook page or their website and see that they are abandoned.
 
I believe, not feeling like you're looking for scandal or simply feel important if you put against all. I mean you think you're the smartest. But that's just my opinion. What you do not understand is that this company no longer exists. If you really wanted to know the truth, you were going on their Facebook page or their website and see that they are abandoned.

It is not clear what exactly are you trying to communicate. Conveying an opinion not necessarily to your liking Naibody, seems to have upset you which is evident from your comments. The questions I have raised needs to be answered satisfactorily. Having said that, it is only for you to realize that there could yet be another point of view that must learnt to be respected and appreciated. Going on the basis of Facebook etc., has nothing to do with the case in question.
 
Last edited:
All traders court votes as well as FPA Scam Findings are based on available evidence.

There is nothing wrong with re-examining an issue or questioning it. The FPA has reversed rulings based on companies resolving an issue and could reverse an issue if a company provides sufficient evidence in a timely fashion.

In this case, the company doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. Unless they change their minds, the Guilty verdict will remain in place.
 
Back
Top