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?
Reply; ' it may or may not but if they entered a verbal contract they should honour their contract'.
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. They now have the gall to freeze Ahmed's account
reply: ' Pianoman according to me it is quite simple - Ahmed states/declared ' that they said they were licensed and that they were regulated'-
They are neither- so they tried to scam/con/cheat or lie to people to get their money under false pretences-i name that a scam/fraud as they did that for their personal gain-
Ahmed also claims that ' they entered a verbal contract' he believed them and it is reasonable to expect that they honour their contract. They sicfx have been invited by FPA to the table so they can give their reply and repudiate the story -so far they have not, ''why not'' is the question one should ask -especially if they have nothing to hide -
Nevertheless i see them as a scam for the 3 main points -that from the start they lied saying that they were' licensed' and 'regulated' and if they are not according to me they did that to scam people. 3rd The proof is always in the pudding they have now 'violated their client contract with intimidation and withholdings funds'. They are an unscrupulous bunch -utterly dishonest with theft of funds that is not theirs.
As i wrote before if they show proof to FPA that they are licensed that they are regulated and that they truly tried to honour their contract with Ahmed -i will retract my opinions.
Reply; ' it may or may not but if they entered a verbal contract they should honour their contract'.
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. They now have the gall to freeze Ahmed's account
reply: ' Pianoman according to me it is quite simple - Ahmed states/declared ' that they said they were licensed and that they were regulated'-
They are neither- so they tried to scam/con/cheat or lie to people to get their money under false pretences-i name that a scam/fraud as they did that for their personal gain-
Ahmed also claims that ' they entered a verbal contract' he believed them and it is reasonable to expect that they honour their contract. They sicfx have been invited by FPA to the table so they can give their reply and repudiate the story -so far they have not, ''why not'' is the question one should ask -especially if they have nothing to hide -
Nevertheless i see them as a scam for the 3 main points -that from the start they lied saying that they were' licensed' and 'regulated' and if they are not according to me they did that to scam people. 3rd The proof is always in the pudding they have now 'violated their client contract with intimidation and withholdings funds'. They are an unscrupulous bunch -utterly dishonest with theft of funds that is not theirs.
As i wrote before if they show proof to FPA that they are licensed that they are regulated and that they truly tried to honour their contract with Ahmed -i will retract my opinions.
Last edited:
) I took my expensive lesson 
