Scammed by FortFS

[tran dinh bao]

FortFS representative's answer was just a justification for the arbitrary act of hacking into my account, no reason to delete all client profits during the time they traded, my account was new too has been deleted by FortFS on August 16, 2020 as their account, the company should really be closed because of customers' money profiting.

 

[Mark Miller (FortFS)]

Sure, we will explain in plain English: KYC and AML violation may lead to complications/funds freezes and severe fines from payment systems. Which is why it is serious for us and risk-management upon inspection of the situation decided to nullify trading history. Once again, both profitable trades and unprofitable. We have refunded the full deposit amount, including the previously lost funds.
What you are basically saying is: "Hey, we see they they broke the agreed upon rules and that your actions in this case are clearly stated, but you should ignore it because... some reasons". Well, we did not think we should ignore it.
Hopefully, this is plain enough of an explanation.

To finish this conversation: we were initially confused as to where you got "170k" from and what it means at all, so we ignored it. Since you keep pushing this number, we went back to further inspect uploaded statements and guess what? They are wrong. The currency of the account is USDC, which stand for USD cents of course. (See attachement for the real statement header). There was never anything remotely close to 170k and we can only assume that they may have been edited deliberately to misinform the public in extortion attempts. (Misinformation succeeded as we can see).
Now that we realize that fake evidence are used against us, we are officially done with this thread.

 

[compu-forex]

Now that we realize that fake evidence are used against us, we are officially done with this thread

@Mark Miller (FortFS), great! Thank you for your reply. At last we are getting somewhere but I feel you are still deflecting.

@ariel6984 please can you clarify the value of this account. The statement you posted indicates USD but apparently is USC

Mark, would you dispute the fact that the very last page of his statement is exactly as printed from your own MT4 platform? Put aside the false indignation for a while and focus on correcting such incorrect information as you find it. It helps to have correct facts at hand and you have a role to play in that. I understand we are talking about $1700 but lets, for the sake of this discussion, pretend that it is $10, as the amount is irrelevant, it is about the principle.

I sense your frustration but it is important that you keep working with us here. I am generally quite sympathetic towards brokers, so please help me to understand why you consider these actions as reasonable. I don't even have a horse in the race, I am simply Joe Public.

Following a logical approach to this issue, I still do not see how the punishment fits the crime. The KYC requirements that are imposed on you by payment processors are about the systems that you have in place, not about the individual client. You are going to have transgressors and you need to have a system in place to identify and deal with them. I doubt your payment processors require valid trades to be voided. If they do, perhaps you can tell us what happened with the OP's friend that has also breached your T&C.......I understand his account traded at a loss. Have you voided those trades and offered him his deposit back? But he didn't request a withdrawal, so you don't know he violated your T&C. Are you ever going to inform him of his violation? Will you be accepting further deposits from him.....is that not inviting penalties from your payment processors?

You see what I am getting at......your system of only checking at withdrawal is opportunistic. It places your clients in the position where they may trade for a period of time - all in violation of your T&C - and you can then choose to confiscate profits from the profitable traders whilst scoring against the losing traders.

You have also not addressed the $500 withdrawal limit.

 

[ariel6984]

@Mark Miller (FortFS), great! Thank you for your reply. At last we are getting somewhere but I feel you are still deflecting.

@ariel6984 please can you clarify the value of this account. The statement you posted indicates USD but apparently is USC

Mark, would you dispute the fact that the very last page of his statement is exactly as printed from your own MT4 platform? Put aside the false indignation for a while and focus on correcting such incorrect information as you find it. It helps to have correct facts at hand and you have a role to play in that. I understand we are talking about $1700 but lets, for the sake of this discussion, pretend that it is $10, as the amount is irrelevant, it is about the principle.

I sense your frustration but it is important that you keep working with us here. I am generally quite sympathetic towards brokers, so please help me to understand why you consider these actions as reasonable. I don't even have a horse in the race, I am simply Joe Public.

Following a logical approach to this issue, I still do not see how the punishment fits the crime. The KYC requirements that are imposed on you by payment processors are about the systems that you have in place, not about the individual client. You are going to have transgressors and you need to have a system in place to identify and deal with them. I doubt your payment processors require valid trades to be voided. If they do, perhaps you can tell us what happened with the OP's friend that has also breached your T&C.......I understand his account traded at a loss. Have you voided those trades and offered him his deposit back? But he didn't request a withdrawal, so you don't know he violated your T&C. Are you ever going to inform him of his violation? Will you be accepting further deposits from him.....is that not inviting penalties from your payment processors?

You see what I am getting at......your system of only checking at withdrawal is opportunistic. It places your clients in the position where they may trade for a period of time - all in violation of your T&C - and you can then choose to confiscate profits from the profitable traders whilst scoring against the losing traders.

You have also not addressed the $500 withdrawal limit.

Yes sir, it is a cent account. FORTFS statement is just like that. I can share with you emails of my daily statement if it can clear the air. Right now, FORTFS has block all my access thru the MT4 account. I am left with evidence from my email sent from their server of my previous trading statement. I

In FortFS MT4 terminal, cent account is Indicated by f symbol on each currency pair. Like EURAUDf.

I have never indicated that my account is in Standard account. I will upload the statements I have from my email to another hosting if anybody need it.

And @Mark Miller (FortFS) , I have never said anything about Cent or Standard account. Please go thru the thread. I said that FORTFS has scammed me and refused my withdrawal. For me, this case is still not settle.

We still have a long way to go.

You can manipulate your system to your advantage, but I still have my trading log.

 

[ariel6984]

@Mark Miller (FortFS) , 170K USDCents still bring the figure to USD1.7k and in my country, Malaysia, that surely is more than enough for my 3 months expenses. So, don't you dare to beat around the bush of this 170k or USD1.7k matter. I demand FORTFS to pay me my profits.

 

[ariel6984]

Admin, please help me with this case

 

[ariel6984]

@compu-forex attached is the sample of cent account with the f symbol on each pair, example GBPJPYf, EURAUDf.

The account type is at above, USDC

The few snapshot of evidences is captured from MT4 account which now has been blocked by that scoundrel team of @Mark Miller (FortFS)

 

[compu-forex]

@ariel6984,

Yup, I accept that for what it is. Mark is seizing on an irrelevant inaccuracy to try and discredit the accusations his company is facing. Unfortunately it is easy to see through these deflection tactics. He still has not come close to addressing the actual matters at hand and one has to assume that is because there is no defending their position.

 

[ariel6984]

@ariel6984,

Yup, I accept that for what it is. Mark is seizing on an irrelevant inaccuracy to try and discredit the accusations his company is facing. Unfortunately it is easy to see through these deflection tactics. He still has not come close to addressing the actual matters at hand and one has to assume that is because there is no defending their position.

Thanks sir.. I will wait on what more fantasy story will Mr @Mark Miller (FortFS) going to tell this time. I am grateful that I don't delete all my daily trading log in my email. I am fully ready to give all the statements if that scammer @Mark Miller (FortFS) want to debate on my trading records.

 

[Mark Miller (FortFS)]

He still has not come close to addressing the actual matters at hand

We have addressed the matters at hand fully, twice, in posts #27 and #32, also our letter with full violations explanation and agreement quotes is posted in the thread. We are yet to hear any counter-argument other than that we should not follow our own Client agreement, so we do not have anything to add on the matter.

Have you voided those trades and offered him his deposit back? But he didn't request a withdrawal, so you don't know he violated your T&C. Are you ever going to inform him of his violation? Will you be accepting further deposits from him.....is that not inviting penalties from your payment processors?

We are not comfortable to discuss other clients in detail for this would be a huge breach of confidentiality, but, to answer your questions - yes, all parties involved in violation received the same treatment: all orders were nullified, all deposits returned to account for refund/withdrawal and the client agreement was terminated, no further deposits are to be accepted. Unfortunately, you seem to be very quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions and assume that parties were treated asymmetrically for a person who "spends his life here defending brokers so that this place can be seen as a balanced."

You have also not addressed the $500 withdrawal limit.

The right to change the limit is indeed reserved for financial department should they require so, however this does not mean this right is often executed. Your perception is clearly skewed by confirmation bias as you do not see hundreds of clients who follow the client agreement properly and withdraw within regular limits or without any limits at all. That being said, no limits were applied to the OP withdrawal so this question is not relevant to the case whatsoever.

The KYC requirements that are imposed on you by payment processors are about the systems that you have in place, not about the individual client.

Payment processors are routinely performing selective checks for clients' compliance to KYC and AML policies. If broker, a merchant or any other involved party does not comply with KYC and AML policy, the fines are imposed or the funds are freezed, which is obviously not acceptable for us. To avoid such consequences, our company terminates the client agreement fully with clients, which includes full deposit refunds and orders nullification, who were found out to have violated the policies.

You are going to have transgressors and you need to have a system in place to identify and deal with them.

We are not quite sure what your point is: we have a transgressor in question in this thread, he was identified by our system and we are dealing with him the way the agreement he accepted describes. We are doing exactly what you suggest we should be doing.

Which brings us to the final point. Let's recap one last time: OP has entered the agreement with the company and the company has entered the agreement with OP. OP's actions are clearly defined as a violation in this mutually accepted agreement; the company's actions in such case are clearly defined as well. We do not see any arguments that would show the agreement not being followed correctly. The whole thread is based on the premise that we need to act in a way that goes against our own agreement (and put the company under potential sanctions from our payment processor partners while doing so) under the threat of bad publicity. Such premise is borderline extortion or is highly unfair at the very least.