Scammed by Andrew Jeffery Marshall/ Forex Management Investment LLC

[Andrew Marshall]

Damocles, since you still have that conversation on FB, why not scroll down a little further to where you suggest to raise the Max DD to 40%? Or even more, when I contact you about losses and you give the confirmation that everything is fine and to continue trading? The drawdown showing on that statement is inaccurate, not sure why the inaccuracy, but the real DD is 19.7%.

You are also a citizen of China and have no status in the U.S., correct? We spoke of the issues that I was having trying to find the best method for opening an account for management by a U.S. Citizen, but funded by a citizen of China. We even had to switch brokers (from ATCbrokers to forex.com) because of this.

I may have unintentionally violated the terms of service with FOREX.com (gain capital Corp), but there were no violations pertaining to U.S. Regulations with the NFA or CFTC. You were not scammed by any stretch of the imagination, sir. You would have received your funds back as soon as the open trades were closed within the time limit granted in the LPOA. No new trades were opened using your funds once the written confirmation was received.

I also think you're having a hard time understanding how increasing exposure at random can cause a swing in performance. Trading my with my normal exposure on my strategy shows a different return than increasing risk at random because 20 and 40% are 2X and 4X my normal exposure (same TP, SL, just larger lot sizes) which means if the increase took place just prior to a losing trade, that losing trade is going to be greater (proportionally) than the previous wins. In theory, however, if trading continues to play out at the same exposure, then the reward would have increased as well. I will take the blame for that, because I've been trading with the same exposure and risk for years, and should have known better than to succumb to the wishes for an increase.

 

[Pharaoh]

Non-resident Chinese citizens are still considered to be human beings under US law. Your client may have no connection to the US as a citizen or resident, but that's not the same as being an entity with "no status". I believe you'll find that the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943. Other such dehumanizing laws have either been long repealed or overturned in the courts.

If you violated the TOS of Forex.com, then how would you have the legal right to sue a client who brought your actions to the attention of Forex.com.

Although I would like to see any additional parts of the Facebook conversation, I'm not sure what the NFA would think of a FB chat over-riding a signed LPOA.

What sort of forex managed account gets to hold onto client funds for 90 days?

The statement shows a reasonable drawdown as of when it was posted, but shows a maximal drawdown of $4204.60. It would take a re-creation of the trades to show if 67.57% is accurate, but it certainly appears that 20% was exceeded.

 

[Damocles]

Quote Andrew Marshall:
“why not scroll down a little further to where you suggest to raise the Max DD to 40%?”

As far as I am concerned, I have NEVER suggested that nor seen it anywhere in our chat history. Could you please post a screenshot of this?

20% Max Drawdown was what I agreed on as shown on my previous thread reply and also cited on the predefined LPOA.

And (see below)... so let’s just stick to the predefined LPOA that we both signed.

“I also think you're having a hard time understanding how increasing exposure at random can cause a swing in performance. Trading my with my normal exposure on my strategy shows a different return than increasing risk at random because 20 and 40% are 2X and 4X my normal exposure”

Irrelevant. Never requested a 40% Max Drawdown.


“The drawdown showing on that statement is inaccurate, not sure why the inaccuracy, but the real DD is 19.7%.”

As Pharaoh stated above, “it certainly appears that 20% was exceeded”.


“No new trades were opened using your funds once the written confirmation was received.”

I have not seen any statement from my managed account since 25 Oct, 2015 when you blocked my access to the account after I requested for my withdrawal.

I urge you to post it here, I don’t mind it being posted publicly.


“You are also a citizen of China and have no status in the U.S., correct?”

I am not a citizen of China, I am a British Citizen based in Hong Kong, I am not surprised that you can’t even get this right.


“You were not scammed by any stretch of the imagination, sir.”

So you are still saying the 500k fake account statement that you solicited me with is yours? Your company had not even existed at the time Mr. Marshall.

Plus there's nothing wrong to trade my money illegally when you were unauthorized to do so? Sir?



FPA Readers:

To be honest I don’t really know what’s more to argue here, the following points are stated, true and proven.

1. Andrew Jeffery Marshall solicited me with a trading statement that wasn’t his.
   
   
2. Unauthorized trading from Andrew Jeffery Marshall confirmed by the broker, Forex.com.
   
   
3. Andrew Jeffery Marshall breached the contract by exceeding the drawdown limit on the predefined LPOA.
   

 

[Damocles]

Although I would like to see any additional parts of the Facebook conversation....

The entire Facebook conversation between me and Mr. Marshall where we discussed about Max Drawdown upon opening account is shown below.

We settled and agreed on 20% Max Drawdown as stated in the predefined LPOA.

On two latter occasions, I did ask Mr. Marshall why he did not increase trading lot sizes since the account jumped from $5000 to $14000 where additional deposits were made (since he was still trading the exact same 0.1 lot size as he was in the $5000 account).

I have NEVER suggested an increase to a 40% Max Drawdown since the LPOA was already signed and a 20% Max Drawdown was agreed on.

 

[oscarra]

http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/hong-kong-regulator-freezes-maxim-capitals-assets/

You being Chinese resident (even Uk citizen) i guess you could also inform or get some advice from the local regulator SFC. (who knows the hidden part)

Some interesting points mentioned by financemagnates

 

[Damocles]

http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/hong-kong-regulator-freezes-maxim-capitals-assets/

You being Chinese resident (even Uk citizen) i guess you could also inform or get some advice from the local regulator SFC. (who knows the hidden part)

Some interesting points mentioned by financemagnates

Thanks a lot for the info Oscarra. I will definitely look into that.

 

[Damocles]

Mr. Marshall chose to ignore this FPA thread, but replied on a public Facebook Group.

He also doesn't seem to have read the points I made on my previous posts.



Andrew Jeffery Marshall:

"Just now seeing this. No one seems to point out to Damocles that it is the job of the courts to determine what wrong was committed here, and by who the act was committed. Anything beyond that can and will be considered slander.

The initial contract signed outlines the risk assumed and max DD (of the principal investment, not the account balance), but there are email communications between myself and Damocles where he is pleased with the performance and wishes to increase that risk in an attempt to increase the profit. I follow by thoroughly explaining the details of that, which are essentially the increased drawdown that may be realized and he asserted that he was comfortable with that risk. The final request by Damocles was a max DD of 40% (again: principal investment, not of the account balance), and after the account experienced a drawdown of approx 20%, I contacted Damocles and via the same email chain and he asserted that trading should continue and he was confident in my abilities. The following week he requested a full withdrawal, just prior to that there were trades opened with hadn't been allowed to run to maturity. In the LPoA, there is a 90 window of time just for a situation like this to allow these trades to close at the best possible position in accordance to the opinion of the account manager. Damocles, panicked (which I credit to his lack of experience in business/investments) and contacted the broker which does violate the contract and caused the trades to close prematurely.

$7,055 was the amount of his portion at the time of his request, but that portion will have shrunk (not my much however) due to the premature closure of trades. Because his actions were in violation of the contract, he will be considered liable for those loses incurred on the other funds in the account and it will be the decision of the court if he should be held liable for the potential profit that may have been realized in the event that he would have complied with the 90 day "grace period" outlined in the LPoA. Again, this is a situation for the courts to decide and I am not attacking the character of Damocles in any way.

I did have trouble finding a broker to work with in this particular situation because of Damocles' citizenship status and my own. This is where the question of policy has came up with the broker. I assumed that with the LPoA that I safe to consider these funds proprietary, but the broker is having legal council look into the situation (as per their last communication with me). I will take blame for that if there is any violation of the broker's policy, but I am confident that there were no violation of any regulations I am to be government by.

On a side note, Damocles (as did others) contacted me personally (as well as commented on the temporary thread in "Forex USA") and my statements were always made know to be a matter of opinion, and not fact. It was also mentioned that any opinion informed was purely speculation concerning the "what if" situation that the blog's information was accurate."

 

[Damocles]

Quote Andrew Marshall in post #17:
"I will take blame for that if there is any violation of the broker's policy."

FPA, is this statement would be considered his accepting responsilibity for the loss of funds if I dont get them from Forex.com?

And if so, by the contract am I due 80% refunded to me?

 

[Pharaoh]

Sounds like FB chats are contracts when Andrew wants them to be and aren't contracts when he doesn't want them to be.

He also seems to believe that any complaint not already backed up by a court ruling is "slander". I guess free speech and the right to publicly complain don't exist in Andrew's world.

Hey Andrew, if I say that the UK committed crimes against humanity by shipping Opium to China and illegally forced the Chinese to "rent" them Hong Kong for 99 yars as part of reparations for a war the UK fought to support drug dealing, will the fact that this isn't backed up by a court ruling mean that the Queen of England can come and sue me?

Hey Andrew, will you support slander charges against people like Benjamin Franklin? He wrote and said some very unpleasant things about King George and never got a court ruling to back him up.

 

[Damocles]

Andrew Marshall still clearly thinks it's my fault the fact that he solicited me with trading results that were a million miles from what he produced, lost my money and refused to give me any statements. Not to mention he wasn’t authorized to trade my money this whole time.

Turns out he has had previous investors with bad experiences too.

A guy in the group who is part of a money management company spoke of his experiences with this trader, where he drew down one of his managed account by 75% and was never profitable.

More conversation extract from the Public Facebook Group below.