Mr. XXX has lodged his complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account #XXXXX for active trading in Binary Options. The incident on the Client’s account occurred on May 11, 2018. On that day the Broker refused to execute the withdrawal application submitted by the Client and blocked all funds in the amount of 1724.84 USD on his trading account. The Broker accuses the Client in violation of the Service Agreement for trading on non-market prices. In turn, the Client claims that he has been trading with the Broker for several months using the same strategy and considers the actions of the Broker as unfair.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the correctness of execution of the disputed transactions and release the funds in the amount 1724.84 USD for withdrawal.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint and claims that after performing an audit of all Client’s transactions, the Company came to the conclusion that the Client was trading on the platform solely on non-market quotes. According to the Broker, all large transactions opened by the Client at 00: 00: XX on May 2, May 1 and earlier in April were executed on non-market prices. In support of his decision, the Broker provided the history of transactions performed by the Client (with a number of disputed transactions highlighted by the Broker), as well as the screenshots of two disputed transactions (## 443230214, 453677578), taken from www.tradeproofer.com, as documentary evidence.
In this particular case, the DRC one again classified the complaint as a “trade-related dispute” and as such conducted a price and execution analysis of the trades. The results identified trades that were executed under normal market conditions with prices comparable to independent execution venues but also identified trades that were executed at “off-market” rates.
As such, the decision, in this case, was made in favor of the client, but partially, since there were some trades identified as “off-market” in the investigation phase of the resolution process that, in the opinion of the DRC, do not warrant a return of trade results back to the customer.
|Financial Commission Complaint||#ZZZ|
|Complaint Raising Date||Complaint Filing Date|
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company and Mr. XXXXX.
After a comprehensive analysis of the documentary evidence provided by the Client and the Broker the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission has come to the following conclusions:
Summarizing all the above the DRC has made a decision in favor of the Client. The members of the DRC have not found any evidence proving the fact that the Client somehow violated any provisions of the Service Agreement, and as such, should be allowed to withdraw his funds without any restrictions. However, the DRC has found sufficient evidence proving the fact that the disputed transactions ## 435806744, 435806766, 435806981, 443230049, 443230006, 443232420, 443230214, 453677578, 453677530, 455609306, 455609281, 455609345, 455609378, 455609391 were executed at non-market prices, and as such, the financial results of these transactions (profit in the amount of 427.17 USD) should be canceled by the Broker.
This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the Head of the Committee.
|Ruled in Favor||Compensation|
|If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address email@example.com|
|I certify that all information was considered by the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and hereby confirm that the decision was made fairly, impartially and without interference. I am confident that the information provided in the document is true.|
Head of DRC
|June 8th 2018|