Customer Complaint Dated December 14th 2023

The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXXXX 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:

1. First of all, it should be noted that according to the information received from the Broker:

a) On 13.11.2023 at 01:30:19 a non-market quote from one of the liquidity providers (1920.96) entered the price flow for the financial instrument XAUUSD.

b) As a result of the pricing incident the Client’s positions ## 30202517, 30350840, 30542914, 30851355, 30887570, 30905531 were forcibly closed by Stop Out.

с) The Broker has credited the Client’s account with the compensation in the amount of 1314.40 The fact of compensation is confirmed by 1 balance sheet transaction # 28694941.

d) The amount of compensation was calculated by the Broker as the difference between the actual closing price (1920.96) of the disputed Long positions ## 30202517, 30542914, 30851355, 30905531 and the actual market price (1937.39) available at the moment of the Stop Out event, that occurred at 01:30:19 (server time).

In support of their position the Broker referred to the following provisions of the Regulations on trading operations for MT5 accounts:

9.21 In the event of a spike (error quote) – when a non-market quote enters the quotes flow (a non-market quote means the following: a price in the trading platform that does not correspond to the market price at a given period of time; there is a significant price gap; the price returns to its initial position within a short period with a price gap being formed; the absence of extreme price fluctuations preceding the formation of this quotation; the absence of significant macroeconomic events and/or high-impact corporate news at the time of its occurrence), the Company shall be liable for any losses incurred as a result of trading operations performed at this non-market quote, ie the Client will be fully reimbursed for the loss received due to a non-market quote. The profit received from a non- market quote will be fully deducted from the Client’s trading account.

2. Second, with regard to the unrealized profits on the disputed positions established with the financial instrument XAUUSD, which the Client claims were missed due to the pricing error on the Broker’s side, the following should be noted:

a) According to the documentary evidence provided by the Broker (full trading statement, server log records), the Client did not attach any pending Take Profit / Stop Loss orders to the disputed positions ## 30542914, In other words, the Client did not in any way indicate his intentions with respect to the relevant positions.

b) The same is true for the liquidated positions ## 30350840, 30887570 established with the financial instrument Nasdaq100.

с) At the same time the disputed positions ## 30202517, 30851355 established with the financial instrument XAUUSD were supposed to be closed with profits at the price levels of 2011.62 and 25 indicated by the Client in the relevant Take Profit orders attached to said positions.

d) Thus, in the absence of the pricing error in the Broker’s platform, the Client’s positions ## 30202517, 30851355 would have been closed with profits in a few days after the incident, as the price of the financial instrument XAUUSD had reached its all-time high, but the rest of the disputed positions with no TP and SL orders attached to them (i.e. positions ## 30542914, 30905531, 30350840, 30887570) would have continued to generate profits/losses.

3. Third, to ensure an objective investigation of the case the DRC requested historical price data on the financial instrument in the disputed transactions from other independent providers of financial Financial Commission uses several different sources, such as Tradeproofer, Tradefora, Verify My Trade, TrueFX, FX Benchmark and some others for the purpose of verification of the quality of trades’ execution. The comparison of the Broker’s quotes offered to the Client with the quotes received from independent sources confirmed the fact that at the time of the incident (13.11.2023, at 01:30:19, server time) the Bid quote (1937.39) for the financial instrument XAUUSD, used by the Broker to calculate the amount of compensation, reflected the actual situation on the market.

4. Finally, it should be noted that the members of the DRC took into account the following circumstances in reaching their decision on this complaint:

a) The members of the DRC admitted that the pricing error in the Broker’s platform disrupted the Client’s trading plans and that this event had a negative impact on the Client’s psychological state.

b) Considering the above, it should be noted that the Financial Commission is committed to the best business practices accepted throughout the industry, which assumes that if there is any problem caused by the broker, there should be minimum impact on the Client, and some solutions should be provided in a quick manner to mitigate negative effects of it on the Client’s positions.

c) The Broker partially compensated the Client for unrealized profits and losses that could have been avoided due to the system failure. Thus, in the general opinion of DRC experts, the Broker acted correctly, but the amount of compensation offered to the Client was not considered appropriate.

Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has ruled in favor of the Client. Considering the circumstances of the case, as well as the documentary evidence provided by both parties of the dispute, the experts of the DRC have found the actions of the Broker in the period of the incident as correct and legitimate. At the same time, the experts of the DRC have decided that the Client should be paid additional compensation in the amount of unrealized profits for the disputed orders ## 30202517, 30851355, taking into account the Client’s intentions in relation to the said orders, as well as the price dynamics of the financial instrument XAUUSD that occurred after the incident.

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.

Head of DRC