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

[Pharaoh]

Prince or no prince, the thread in Scam Alerts shows this to be more than a leverage dispute. Ozberk reports that they've frozen his funds.

https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/fore...onal-sicfx-uae-owned-prince-saudi-arabia.html

 

[winegums]

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

Hi, well I hate to disagree with you, as you really are a good person, but part of the point of the FPA is to help people to learn. So being harsh with a person who openly explains how they fell into one of the many FX broker traps is in my view a bit harsh.There are so many traps and snares for the FX user they are quite likely to blunder. So someone new like myself, reading conversations like this is, learning from other's experience. In the scam section it is inevitable that everyone who has fallen prey to a scam could have avoided it with due diligence, caution and preparation. Anyway enough of my sermon - what do I know ?

Continue the great job FPA !!

 

[ozberk]

1) The screen shot was taken after their platform rejected my attempted trades in USDTRY. Since I was using a robot I can not take a screen shot during automated trades. That was an evidence that they were using 1:66 i/o 1:200. I used a small amount to prove that the leverage is not as promised.
2)MY name is not Ahmed. Ahmed is the person in charge in SICFX. Please read the thread once again. You are confused. Besides it is not a theory that I would not loose money if they use 1:200 leverage as they promised. Its a fact.
3)Please go through the evidences. If the representative and the management have been confirming that they use 1:200 in all pairs on correspondence, it is a contractual fact although it was not written on the agreement. You dont see this case from my point of view. I dont have a control what they would put in the contract. Before I signed the agreement they said all the conditions would be confirmed after the account opening, but they did not. I am proving that they promised me 1:200 on email conversations.
4)You still misunderstand the case. The management does not claim that they can change the leverage whenever they want. They are saying that they use 1:200 for all pairs!!!!! Also they are not in US nor the pair is Gold.
5) SICFX gained my losses my friend. They are market makers and as I lost money they gain this amount. And although they accept that I lost because of this leverage thing, they dont want to take any responsibility. Besides when I wanted to complain, they froze my account and send letter to Turkish officials claiming that I was money laundering.

Also you ignore the fact that they put on their website that they were regulated, but clearly its a lie.

Anyway I believe you have not understood the main thing here. They are dishonest people who make profit by breaking their promises to the clients.

Please try to be OBJECTİVE

 

[Chris Russell]

Withdraw any funds you have left and find another broker after reviewing them on the Forex Peace Army's reviews first. Every success in your endeavours.

 

[Jeffpark]

Guidance

Is there a thread or something somewhere - I have not found it but it probably exists - with some basic guidance, such as suggested about starting cash, withdrawing some, regulation (eg only US,UK or Swiss/EU regulator approved), warning about how market makers operate, ECN,STP etc.

Of course spreads, leverage etc are important but first is protect your cash.

Jeff

 

[NeverCaughtUp]

I vote "Not Guilty", but only because of the definition of the charges.

I agree to the letter with pianoman959. This broker has demonstrated what I consider to be poor business practices and the record should show that, but the charges as defined are not substantiated. There is neither fraud or scam proven and as much as I would like to side with the plaintiff I can not.

However, my "Not Guilty" vote will not be recorded because of a faulty voting machine. I tried multiple times to cast my vote and each time I received a 405 Error.


AsstModerator Note: Sorry for not noticing this earlier. I want everyone to be able to cast a ballot. 405 errors in voting or posting usually happen because of a dynamic IP address changing between loading the page and submitting the vote or forums post. If this happens, you will need to reload the page before submitting. In the case of a forums post, hit you back button and try to copy what you wrote first.

 

[whiterabbit]

I would consider voting not guilty if broker would explain any of this, however everything I can read from them is "it's not our fault - this is our partner fault" - nice answer - than deal with your liquidity partner and return money to your client. Also statements on their website are not true (i.e. regulated broker).

 

[TrevorM]

I agree with pianoman959 views.
I agree that the broker may have mislead you about the leverage. This is bad business practice and all the FPA members should be grateful that we been warned about this brokers integrity.
I guess I'm too naive about FX trading but if one made losses on leverage of 1:66 then one could potentially have made bigger losses on leverage of 1:200. If, as has been suggested in this forum post, the claim is due to potential losses on future trades not being executed because of the inability to trade due to insufficient leverage then I don't believe this is fraudulent or a scam.
If you have a legitimate balance remaining in your account and the broker hasn't refunded this in a reasonable amount of time after the refund request then this is fraudulent in my view but I don't see evidence of that.

 

[TrevorM]

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

I agree that ozberk seems naive and I would not reasonably expect the Prince to respond. I don't recall reading of any royal family member in any country responding to requests like these. However, royal families have full time staff who obviously respond to many requests and are constantly on the lookout for scam artists seeking illicit profit from purporting to represent them. Since this case has only been open for a month or so it is a relatively short time to expect an official reaction.
So I would not be totally surprised to hear that ozberk received a response, in due course.
Perhaps a more constructive response may be more instructive to ozberk and other inexperienced traders viewing these posts for information.

 

[pianoman959]

I ended up voting guilty but only after a careful review of all comments and the documentation contained in the scam alerts folder referenced by Pharoah. In my opinion, there was no clear justification for freezing the funds and the letter smelled pretty bad.

To me the leverage was not the key issue, not returning and freezing funds is. There is a big difference between a broker/dealer making up trade losses due to leverage and the broker/dealer not returning account balances.

Any chance we could put a drop down or multi-select to identify the key issues of the case at the top of each report. If I hadn't gone back and read additional comments and looked at documents outside of this thread, I would have completely missed a key element of this case.