GUILTY Case# 2013-011 | ozberk vs www.sicfx.com

[ozberk]

Original FPA Traders Court Submission:

I am submitting the case against: www.sicfx.com

My Case is: I have been contacted with a forex broker called Spread International based in UAE. I agreed with them on the conditions of:
1) the leverage for all the pairs would be 1:200
2) I could use forex robots in my account
Then I started trading. The broker did not accept my trades on USDTRY and I found out that they are using 1:66 leverage for that pair instead of 1:200 as agreed.
Because of breach of leverage agreement I lost USD 8.000. I complaint about this to the company, but they told me that this was their liquidity provider's fault, thats why they did not want to refund my losses.
On their website they claim to be owned by HRH Prince of Saudi Arabia and they claim to be regulated by authorities. I found out that they are not regulated and they dont have a broker license. I suspect about their royal ownership as well because the Prince has not replied my email.
I believe they are scammers and they should be forced out of the forex market not to scam more forex investors.

New thread in the Scam Alerts Folder:

• https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-forum/scam-alerts-folder/22934-spread-international-sicfx-uae-owned-prince-saudi-arabia.html
  

Review is submitted by ozberk on 01/14/13

The company was first contacted about the issue on 01/08/13 the last contact was on 01/16/13

Details: They have been ignoring me.

Company representatives' emails: Ahmed <ahmed@sicfx.com>
Info <info@sicfx.com>
Dalia <dalia@sicfx.com>

 

[Pharaoh]

Two suggestions for the future. First, always check a broker's regulation before opening an account. Second, always start your trades with very small amounts of cash. This way you can check how the leverage works without risking much and not ending up in a margin call situation.

I do think the broker needs to address this. AsstMod, can you please send them an invitation?

 

[AsstModerator]

Invitation sent.

 

[FreddyFX]

Two suggestions for the future. First, always check a broker's regulation before opening an account. Second, always start your trades with very small amounts of cash. This way you can check how the leverage works without risking much and not ending up in a margin call situation.

I do think the broker needs to address this. AsstMod, can you please send them an invitation?

How many times have I seen you posting warnings like this??!!!!!
Do people NEVER learn?

 

[Joh]

Two suggestions for the future. First, always check a broker's regulation before opening an account. Second, always start your trades with very small amounts of cash. This way you can check how the leverage works without risking much and not ending up in a margin call situation.

I do think the broker needs to address this. AsstMod, can you please send them an invitation?

not only that start small and after you have made $500 TAKE IT OUT and see how they react!!!!!

And get any promise-agreement -too good to be true statements -get them in writing please.

 

[Joh]

Oh man i am sorry to read the above-it sounds like you tried to set the basic 'civil' ground rules and they abused the conditions.
Am sad -but when they announced they supposedly belong to the Royal Family, somehow all my alarms bells went of at once. You tells us they told you they were regulated and they are not and that they had a brokers license which they do not have.

They appear a bunch of scum bags to me - writing/saying anything they want to get hold of your hard earned dollars.

Thank you for warning us as the 50000 people or so that get these emails they will take note - they will read this and the follow ups that are written and worldwide people will read what kind of mongrels these Welcome to SicFX are........ sicfx yes very sick indeed -

Am willing to retract what i wrote above when they Welcome to SicFX - honour you and refund you your hard earned cash - but i doubt that they will-Unlicensed -Not regulated---- give me a break -

 

[pianoman959]

The one snapshot of a trade is one where the margin requirement is clearly not 200 to 1. However, the margin percentage is 286.98%; nowhere near being stopped out. I also see a snapshot of a chat with a representative stating the leverage is 200 to 1 on all currencies.

I assume Ahmed is complaining because his automated robot was not allowed to open more positions and he theorizes that if the robot had been able to open additional positions he would not have lost money. If this is not the case, we need additional information from Ahmed clearly identifying the issue.

While I can understand Ahmed being upset over not getting the leverage of 200 to 1 after going to the headache of opening an account, I have a very hard time swallowing a claim of fraud for several reasons:

1. I cannot find anywhere on the site or in the application paperwork where it states that a leverage of 200 to 1 is in place across all currency pairs. If someone finds this, please post a link or snapshot.
2. While fairly rare, leverage can be changed even against open positions when directed by regulatory agencies. In the U.S., we have had this happen fairly recently with gold positions.
3. In most cases, a stated leverage does NOT apply against all pairs. NFA regulated brokers in the U.S. frequently quote 50 to 1 leverage as required by U.S. law. This leverage does not apply to gold or silver and often there will be a pair or two that does not have the 50 to 1 leverage.

Understand I don't like the fact that a representative at the dealer said the leverage was 200 to 1 for all pairs but Does the fact that the leverage wasn't 200 to 1 for a single pair constitute fraud or a scam?


Fraud involves deception for personal gain. Assuming SICFX returned the money in Ahmed's account, where did SICFX gain in this transaction? They lost a client and potential future commissions. The same logic holds for considering this a scam. If they returned the remaining money in the account, this simply isn't a scam. While the representative was mistaken on the leverage actually being received on the trade, did the dealer/broker take more money than was actually lost and would have been lost in the trade? I see no evidence of this and thus no basis for a fraud/scam claim.

To me, the fact that trades couldn't be opened by an automated robot due to margin requirements (which can changed overnight) is insufficient to support a claim of fraud or a scam finding. As a result, I really question whether this case belongs in the scams folder. In my opinion, if a guilty finding is made without more evidence, this case could actually hurt FPA's credibility in cases involving real frauds and scams.

 

[PetDane]

At stage this I would call it a dispute rather than a scam. Withdraw any funds might be good idea

 

[nevadaoutlaw]

I looked at this outfit, did not like what I saw, decided to stay away from them. Thanks for the info, you have verified my doubts about this site.

 

[Aldo Colombo]

You doubt because the Prince has not replied your email? Are you on your right mind?