George Mcall
Corporal
- Messages
- 89
I am convinced. There is no justification in having frozen that third account. In my opinion guilty as charged.
George Mcall
Corporal
- Messages
- 89
Under the section 'About' on FXVV website they make the following statement:
FXVV started and establish business in early 2011 and owned by 3 company that was registered in New Zealand, Ras Al Khaimah and Dubai. First company ; Universal Capital Markets FZE was register under Ras Al Khaimah in United Arab Emirates and authorised under Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority. Second company; FXVV Capital Markets LTD was registered in New Zealand under Ministry of Economic Development and third company; FXVV Commercial Brokers LLC was registered under Dubai Department of Economic Development in United Arab Emirates.
Looking at Investopedia, the definition of 'Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority - RAKIA' is an organization established under a 2005 decree issued by the ruler of Ras Al Khaimah in United Arab Emirates (UAE). RAKIA's vision is to become the leading authority in making sound investments in Ras Al Khaimah and partner with other parties who share this vision in order to create a sustainable and growing economy. The formation of RAKIA has been an important step towards meeting the Ras Al Khaimah royal family's objective of making the emirate a regional hub for manufacturing, service and tourism.
Whether there is any association between FXVV and Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority, I do not know. However if there is, then there may be recourse to them. Alternatively if there is not, then the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority might just wish for the record to be put straight.
As another concern it would appear that they should be regulated by the New Zealand Financial Authority and clearly they are not. It is a matter that could properly be taken up with them.
FXVV started and establish business in early 2011 and owned by 3 company that was registered in New Zealand, Ras Al Khaimah and Dubai. First company ; Universal Capital Markets FZE was register under Ras Al Khaimah in United Arab Emirates and authorised under Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority. Second company; FXVV Capital Markets LTD was registered in New Zealand under Ministry of Economic Development and third company; FXVV Commercial Brokers LLC was registered under Dubai Department of Economic Development in United Arab Emirates.
Looking at Investopedia, the definition of 'Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority - RAKIA' is an organization established under a 2005 decree issued by the ruler of Ras Al Khaimah in United Arab Emirates (UAE). RAKIA's vision is to become the leading authority in making sound investments in Ras Al Khaimah and partner with other parties who share this vision in order to create a sustainable and growing economy. The formation of RAKIA has been an important step towards meeting the Ras Al Khaimah royal family's objective of making the emirate a regional hub for manufacturing, service and tourism.
Whether there is any association between FXVV and Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority, I do not know. However if there is, then there may be recourse to them. Alternatively if there is not, then the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority might just wish for the record to be put straight.
As another concern it would appear that they should be regulated by the New Zealand Financial Authority and clearly they are not. It is a matter that could properly be taken up with them.
Last edited:
tommbstone
Private
- Messages
- 10
I have 100 dollars in the account I've not yet tried to retrieve. I will post later if it happens. Not only are these guys snakes, they have very slow execution time and the spreads are not that great. I have tried them and I do NOT recommend them. Stay away.
George Mcall
Corporal
- Messages
- 89
Another thought is that in the original post, hp69flva said that he used a bank card. It may be that a debt-creditor-supplier agreement can be established and in which case the card company could be jointly liable for this loss. It is just a thought and really there is not enough information to give any proper opinion. Nevertheless it might be worth looking at and certainly worth a letter or email to the bank issuing the card.
George,
I truly appreciate your insightful comments. Will try to look into those suggestions but it's been 4-5mos since I used my US bank card to fund my 3 accounts at FXVV, so I think my "statue of limitation" may have expired. Nevertheless, I will contact my bank. At this point, I just need a miracle to get anything back. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, it's less about the money than the trust. As a trader you work hard and you constantly take risk but if the brokerage firms act in this manner then why continue to trade? - who do you trust? It's quite disheartning.
Thanks again though.
I truly appreciate your insightful comments. Will try to look into those suggestions but it's been 4-5mos since I used my US bank card to fund my 3 accounts at FXVV, so I think my "statue of limitation" may have expired. Nevertheless, I will contact my bank. At this point, I just need a miracle to get anything back. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, it's less about the money than the trust. As a trader you work hard and you constantly take risk but if the brokerage firms act in this manner then why continue to trade? - who do you trust? It's quite disheartning.
Thanks again though.
Pharaoh
Brigadier General
- Messages
- 20,308
A week or two delay in withdrawals is poor customer service. A rude (or absent) response from the company is poor customer service.
This is not poor customer service. It's blocking a client's access to funds that are in his trading account for a very very long time. There is no sign of the company having any intention of allowing the trader to get his money. That is theft. If they later give the trader his money, then the case can be marked as resolved.
Short of a clear and reasonable explanation for the delay or, better yet, giving Hp69flva his money, I see no question. Absolutely 100% Guilty!
This is not poor customer service. It's blocking a client's access to funds that are in his trading account for a very very long time. There is no sign of the company having any intention of allowing the trader to get his money. That is theft. If they later give the trader his money, then the case can be marked as resolved.
Short of a clear and reasonable explanation for the delay or, better yet, giving Hp69flva his money, I see no question. Absolutely 100% Guilty!
Master Yoda
Captain
- Messages
- 2,929
they just don't answer because they have nothing to say and they know they are wrong
some are answering just to stall the case, some answer to find a solution
some are answering just to stall the case, some answer to find a solution
George Mcall
Corporal
- Messages
- 89
Hi Eddiger
I agree with you. The biggest challenge is in the US with the implementation of Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This is making trading in the US ever so much more difficult. For example there is the First-in-first-out rules. Then there is no hedging of positions though this has been relaxed slightly. As a result of this a number of unlicensed yet very reputable brokers have opened up to allow US citizens to trade under the same conditions as banks, hedge funds, and the like. The problem is that this is a twilight market and a number of less than reputable brokers have opened up scamming peoples money. Sadly the European Union may just be moving in that direction.
Three days ago this article appeared in Forex Magnets:
Get Out! CySEC Bans FX Firms From Accepting Non-EU Clients | Forex Magnates
However there has been a bit of back-tracking with this article:
CySEC Backtracks On Non-EU Client Ban - Moves Implementation Date To October | Forex Magnates
Whilst I do accept that Frank Dobbs and Cysec are intending to act in the consumers best interest, the fallout from their actions are actually creating more of a problem than is being solving. By that I mean there are an ever increasing number of scam forex brokers opening up offering services that are unlawful on the misconception of being in consumers interest.
I agree with you. The biggest challenge is in the US with the implementation of Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This is making trading in the US ever so much more difficult. For example there is the First-in-first-out rules. Then there is no hedging of positions though this has been relaxed slightly. As a result of this a number of unlicensed yet very reputable brokers have opened up to allow US citizens to trade under the same conditions as banks, hedge funds, and the like. The problem is that this is a twilight market and a number of less than reputable brokers have opened up scamming peoples money. Sadly the European Union may just be moving in that direction.
Three days ago this article appeared in Forex Magnets:
Get Out! CySEC Bans FX Firms From Accepting Non-EU Clients | Forex Magnates
However there has been a bit of back-tracking with this article:
CySEC Backtracks On Non-EU Client Ban - Moves Implementation Date To October | Forex Magnates
Whilst I do accept that Frank Dobbs and Cysec are intending to act in the consumers best interest, the fallout from their actions are actually creating more of a problem than is being solving. By that I mean there are an ever increasing number of scam forex brokers opening up offering services that are unlawful on the misconception of being in consumers interest.
Similar threads
