Yes, sometimes the market had moved against my positions, so I guess that the negative balance protection had been used (their platform doesn't let you go under zero).
But again, if something like this had been considered as abuse, why the company is remembering this when the client is withdrawing his profit from his last deposit/ trade?
If the company thought that she shouldn't have covered the negative balance from a specific trade of the client, she should inform him about this, either letting him negative, either changing the conditions like lowering the leverage, either disabling the trading functions of his account (like the read only state for Metatrader accounts) so he has no reason to make any new deposit.
Instead of this, she wants him depositing again and again and WHEN the client manages to catch a good move for example of an index gap, and he asks for withdrawal, THEN they decide to REJECT it and loot ALL his profits ( together with his last deposit) , together of course with all his previous deposits which were bad trades.
SO the deposits which led to bad trades of course are lost, but the profits of your last deposits are lost too?? AND your last deposit too??? Because the company is accussing you of NBP abuse for the old trades??? LOL and then WHY they didn't told me so when I needed the negative balance protection???
And they are telling this NOW??
The answer is obvious: the company doesn't really have any problem holding the balance to zero while the client IS LOSING.
They simply have problem when you profit and they use the NBP abuse story just the right moment in order to cancel your withdrawal and to loot your last deposits too, which were traded in a profitable way and hadn't been lost like the previous!!
So the company NEVER LOSE and the client NEVER make any profit (even if she had paid you in the very beginning -like in my case, they had paid me a couple of times- with the above strategy they finally profit by looting your last deposits AND by refusing to pay you any profits).