After opening his trading account #XXXXX on February 14, 2013 the complainant made several funding operations using a variety of payment methods. The total amount of funds deposited by client on his trading account had reached $32143.25. On September 5, 2013 the client made a trial withdrawal of funds in the amount of $170. On November 8, 2013 the client filed his first request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of $3000. On November 11, 2013 the client filed his second request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of another $3000. The client confirms that all his withdrawal requests were sent to the broker`s back-office and his personal manager.
The dispute situation occurred on November 12, 2013. On that day the broker has blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. In justification of his actions, the broker cites the fact that the client initiated a chargeback against his funding operation dated July 8, 2013. The Broker claims that his payment counterparty notified him about the chargeback operation related to funding transaction #ZZZZZ dated July 8,2013 for the amount of $3000. The chargeback operation ARN was provided as well. The chargeback was executed on November 8,2013.
On November 22, 2013 the client received the wire transfer in the amount of $3000 from the broker. For the period of next three months the client was trying to deal with the broker and resolve the dispute. The client insists that he did not initiate chargeback operation and provides investigation with his bank notice as confirmation. On February 25, 2013 the client withdrew remaining funds in the amount of $ 15780.15 from his trading account.
|Financial Commission Complaint Response|
|Name of the Applicant||Broker – Company|
|Complaint to Financial Commission||# ХХ|
|Date of complaint||Date of complaint submission|
CLEINT submitted a complaint to the Financial Commission regarding the following:
Trading account number XXXXX. Starting from February 2013, the client conducted active trading activity in his account. The client used several different funding methods, including plastic cards of several banks. The total amount of the funds invested by client had reached $ 32143.25. On November 12, 2013 the broker had blocked the client`s trading account and closed his positions with a total loss of $25980. According to the broker, the reason for blocking customer’s account was a chargeback operation, initiated by the client.
The client claims that the broker brings against him baseless accusations because he had never initiated chargeback operations. The client believes that the broker unreasonably blocked his trading account, and thus made a significant material and moral damage to him. The client requires compensation from the broker in the form of refund of the remaining part of invested funds ($ 13193.10).
Decision on the complaint was made on the basis of information provided by the BROKER and the CLIENT.First of all, it should be noted that in accordance with the rules of the Financial Commission “Customer may submit a claim to the Financial Commission within 45 days of the incident.” Such restrictions are not accidental, because, in our opinion, prolonged inactivity of the parties only exacerbates the situation and complicates its fair settlement.
Second, the both parties of the dispute have enough solid evidence that there were no violations of regulations and rules of engagement for business partners. Here we are referring to the fact that:
a) the customer has provided sufficient documentary evidence of the absence of any intention to initiate a chargeback operation and thus cause material damage to his partner (broker);
b) on the other hand, we are convinced that the brokerage company also acted within the rules (para. XX and ZZ of the Customer Agreement) and blocked legitimately the trading account of the customer to learn more about the chargeback operation.
After verification of the information provided by the parties of the dispute, members of the DRC came to the unanimous opinion that this claim cannot be the subject of investigation by the Financial Commission according to para.11 (e) of the Rules of the Financial Commission.
DRC members believe that in this situation all the responsibility lies on the BROKER`s financial counterparty (CONTRACTOR), which in accordance with its security policy for any reasons beyond the control of the BROKER initiated chargeback operation.
Thus, formally speaking, this claim cannot be resolved in one’s favor. However, the general opinion of the members of the DRC, as an act of goodwill BROKER could meet some of CLIENT`s requirements for compensation of material damage. It is out of question to fully compensate the customer`s material damage, because at the moment of the incident the customer’s account was at a loss. Furthermore, because of limitation period of the incident we also cannot consider any recovery of the client`s positions.
This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee and was processed by the head of Committee Anatoly Bulanov.
|Decision in favor of||Compensation|
|Client||At Broker’s discretion|
|If you have any questions regarding this complaint review, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org|
|I certify that the Dispute Resolution Committee considered all information and I confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without anyone’s intervention. I am sure that the information provided in the document is true.|
|Head of Dispute Resolution Committee||03/31/2014|