Akintinoyea
Recruit
- Messages
- 8
Perticipating
this broker is just noting but a SCAM an the CEO is a big scammer himself
this broker is just noting but a SCAM an the CEO is a big scammer himself
Partially Resolved Case# 2013-064 | Weiniwinslow vs www.Cititrader.com
- Thread starter Weiniwinslow
- Start date
magicmagog
Recruit
- Messages
- 1
Guilty!!!!!
I am so sick of these slimy, dishonourable scammers. I say shoot 'em.
Twice!
I am so sick of these slimy, dishonourable scammers. I say shoot 'em.
Twice!
knight270
Private
- Messages
- 24
Guilty is the name for their action!
Without mincing words, they are guilty, nothing but scammers!
Without mincing words, they are guilty, nothing but scammers!
Looks guilty to me. I will vote accordingly.
However, I would say a few things regarding this case.
-Reading through the JPGs attached, I see that Weini has calculated incorrectly the sum required to trade (they are right in saying $29,000). I get the imnpression that there has been a lot of back and forth emails on this issue from the frustrated tone of "Jeff", however Weini does not show the email chain, only a very selective part.
-The "threat" regarding sharing personal details on FPA was wrong of them, however, also not the best approach of Weini either to indicate that they have made "a very bad enemy". I appreciate that frustration can cause people to say (write) bad things about others, but sober reflection should be used by all parties when disputes are active. For this the FPA is a wonderful resource for traders worldwide.
-I do not see the "proof" attached that they changed the rules regarding minors from 18 to 20 which Weini talks about. If a bullet point is going to be made as part of a convincing proof to support the claim of corrupt practices, then the proof should be provided as an attachment along with the other "evidence".
-Weini states that the initial deposit was refunded. We read about so many victims on the FPA website that lose their entire initial deposit that can amount to tens of thousands. So consider yourself lucky to get it back.
-I get the distinct sensation that there has been mistakes made on both sides here. The broker should be more professional/responsible, certainly, but there is also an onus of responsibility on the trader (the old adage of "buyer beware").
-To sum up, I feel that there has been a very selective presentation of "evidence" to support Weini's claims. If the terms of agreement state that 20 times volume of the initial investment must be traded before withdrawals are permitted, then that is that. We do not see any "evidence" attached regarding the broker's refusal to pay out the trading profit. Why not? I think the broker should be given another opportunity to respond to this case before a verdict is handed down.
However, I would say a few things regarding this case.
-Reading through the JPGs attached, I see that Weini has calculated incorrectly the sum required to trade (they are right in saying $29,000). I get the imnpression that there has been a lot of back and forth emails on this issue from the frustrated tone of "Jeff", however Weini does not show the email chain, only a very selective part.
-The "threat" regarding sharing personal details on FPA was wrong of them, however, also not the best approach of Weini either to indicate that they have made "a very bad enemy". I appreciate that frustration can cause people to say (write) bad things about others, but sober reflection should be used by all parties when disputes are active. For this the FPA is a wonderful resource for traders worldwide.
-I do not see the "proof" attached that they changed the rules regarding minors from 18 to 20 which Weini talks about. If a bullet point is going to be made as part of a convincing proof to support the claim of corrupt practices, then the proof should be provided as an attachment along with the other "evidence".
-Weini states that the initial deposit was refunded. We read about so many victims on the FPA website that lose their entire initial deposit that can amount to tens of thousands. So consider yourself lucky to get it back.
-I get the distinct sensation that there has been mistakes made on both sides here. The broker should be more professional/responsible, certainly, but there is also an onus of responsibility on the trader (the old adage of "buyer beware").
-To sum up, I feel that there has been a very selective presentation of "evidence" to support Weini's claims. If the terms of agreement state that 20 times volume of the initial investment must be traded before withdrawals are permitted, then that is that. We do not see any "evidence" attached regarding the broker's refusal to pay out the trading profit. Why not? I think the broker should be given another opportunity to respond to this case before a verdict is handed down.
John Naluswa
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 37
Guilty as charged!
Onyebuchim C. Obike
Sergeant
- Messages
- 178
I somewhat see some sense in snazzman's viewpoint. Although this event has made me to always look deeper in broker terms.
It's a dicey case and a funny one too. However if weini met the payoff requirements then he should get paid.
It's a dicey case and a funny one too. However if weini met the payoff requirements then he should get paid.
dbrawner
Private, 1st Class
- Messages
- 49
Another "red flagged" T&C... I personally would not trade with a broker that required me to make any defined level of trading before allowing me to withdrawl funds or profits. What is the legal, ethical, moral, or business basis for this type of requirement other than holding customer funds for the longest time possible????
PLEASE people READ the documents and understand what you are signing. If you don't understand them, find someone (not the broker) to explain them to you OR find a Broker with easier to understand documentation. They are out there and they tend to be the more reputable firms.
Legaleze and confusing documents are a sure sign that any future dispute will NOT go well for you (the Client/Trader).
All that said, my vote is still guilty in this case.
PLEASE people READ the documents and understand what you are signing. If you don't understand them, find someone (not the broker) to explain them to you OR find a Broker with easier to understand documentation. They are out there and they tend to be the more reputable firms.
Legaleze and confusing documents are a sure sign that any future dispute will NOT go well for you (the Client/Trader).
All that said, my vote is still guilty in this case.
Similar threads
