PENDING RESOLUTION Case# 2012-092 | Rajivxxx vs

Based on the available evidence, do you believe that LiteForex is guilty?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 53 91.4%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


This could have been a typo by you, but you state your first contact with the company as 10/6/12. However, in the evidence you provided regarding the amount in question (Ticket # 18632810) is dated for 11/06/12. This is a whole month later??? Also, like others have stated, in all fairness, they did give back your $100.00. The evidence provided to me doesn't show enough guilt on liteforex's part.


I have refrained from voting on this case.

LiteForex's actions were unfair, but their ToS clearly describe situations like this.
Whether the ToS should be as they are isn't the issue here, and Raji has signed them off (even though he probably hasn't read them, but that is beside the matter, too).

Since I definitely didn't want to vote 'not guilty', I have decided refraining to be the best option.

One good thing about this whole case is that everybody should by now have realized the importance of reading every single legal document a broker publishes on his website ... no matter how tedious reading 30-plus pages of 'lawyerese' is.


P.S. That broker's management is dumb ... they prefer being found 'guilty' in a forum as popular as the FPA's to paying 40 bucks. Good move, guys, lol.


Private, 1st Class
Regardless of the TOS being displayed, Lite forex has yet to provide any evidence that this case would fall under these terms to be canceled.

We can't let a broker slide just because they have a catch-all clause in their TOS. They need to still prove that this trader violated terms in some way. Were the trades even during a news event? Did the price have any sort of spike due to news? It is on lite forex to show with statements and records that this was the case. Just flashing some completely unfair TOS doesn't let them off the hook.

If anything, this should be MORE of a warning to all traders to stay FAR away from such a broker that even has such terms and that will use them at anytime, regardless of the circumstances to remove all of your profits without EVER compensating for losses incurred under the same circumstances.

Also, you can then expect this broker to call you a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and accuse you of illegal activity without ever providing and supporting evidence to their defamatory claims. In some countries, that alone would be a crime.


Private, 1st Class
It seems like the rules of this broker are open to a lot of discretion from their part, without having to be precise about anything. This is not the way to do any business, especially when it comes to handling money. I vote guilty.


Banned for uncivilized conduct
Would like to ask FPA members to read the Traders Court Open Case and its Scam Folder Case very well before deciding if a broker/company are Guilty or not.
Most of the cases that reach here are seen scam after many chances for the company to express its point of view, it neither appear on the scam folder or traders court nor convince us FPA members about it being Innocent.
But FPA members must always read the case well because in some cases like this one, it is not a very clear violation from the broker since there are terms and conditions involved.
However, after reading this case well, also knowing liteforex history of too much using its terms and conditions against many of its clients to prevent withdrawal.
Besides, seeing that rule in the terms of "increases profits by more than 10% of the Equity" is very stupid and abnormal to be a condition applied on market trading, despite putting it inside news trading, market open/close for more manipulation and confusion of its real meaning by a devil lawyer:mad:

I Vote Guilty in this case.
I still dont understand how brokers frame their own rules. How come they stop making profits during news time trading... Will the brokers refund if the trader losses??

Dont think so, they will...



Private, 1st Class
Original FPA Traders Court Submission by Rajivxxx:
Based on the information available and the absence of any response from LF, it seems a fit case of voting guilty. It is necessary that following such negative votes, FPA must Black list such Brokers for the benefit of FPA members for future indulgence.

Rajiv you have my vote which is self-explanatory.