Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The client used trading accounts ## 57454, 123052, 156338, and 226712 for active transactions with Forex and CFD market instruments. By the time of the incident, the Client had opened several Long positions on the financial instrument USDRUB on the indicated accounts:
The total volume of the Long position on the USDRUB instrument was 12.2 lots;
The total volume of the Long position on the USDRUB instrument was 12.2 lots;
The total volume of the Long position on the USDRUB instrument was 13.2 lots;
The total volume of the Long position on the USDRUB instrument was 10.2 lots.
Thus, the total volume of the Client’s Long position before the incident was 47.8 lots. To ensure the fixation of potential profit on all specified positions, the Client set pending Sell Limit (Take Profit) orders at the price level of 77.77.
The incident on the Client’s trading account occurred on Tuesday, March 21, 2023, at 04:00 (time GMT). At the specified time, as a result of an unfavorable change in the price of the USDRUB financial instrument, the margin level on the Client’s trading accounts fell below critical (60%), resulting in positions ## 28807109, 28807614, 28808095, 28808455, 28808666, 28808838, 28809129, 28810459, 28810910, 28811586, 28811728, 2881292 9, 28807115, 28807609, 28808100, 28808447, 28808671, 28808822, 28809138, 28810465, 28810923, 28811515, 28811844, 28813094, 28807088, 28807182, 28807594, 28808051, 28808441, 28808681, 28808816, 28809116, 28810468, 28810917, 28 811534, 28811743, 28812921, 28807147, 28807971, 28808043, 28808226, 28808433, 28808661, 28808903, 28810451, 28810930, 2881150 4, 28811851, 28812880 Clients were forcibly liquidated by the Broker (Stop Out). The total amount of the Client’s financial losses as a result of the incident amounted to 13,742,000 RUB.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision on his claim (see below) and believes that the disputed positions were liquidated by the Broker unlawfully. In support of his position, the Client points to two circumstances: firstly, the closing of these positions was carried out by the Broker at prices significantly different from the current market prices of other independent financial service providers, secondly, the liquidation of the disputed positions occurred 3 hours earlier, What usually happens when a trading session for the USDRUB financial instrument opens on the Broker’s platform.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to verify the correctness and legality of the Broker’s actions during the incident and also to oblige the latter to compensate for financial losses in the amount of 13,742,000 RUB, which arose as a result of the incorrect, in the Client’s opinion, forced liquidation of these positions.
For its part, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s claim and believes that all of his transactions were executed correctly, at market prices current at the time of the transaction and in full compliance with the provisions of regulatory documents, as well as the trading conditions accepted by the Company. In support of its position, the Broker provided the history of the Client’s trading operations, as well as the trading server log records during the incident.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
15/04/2023 | 25/04/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and Mr. XXX 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: According to information received from the Broker, the company does not influence the flow of quotes that are broadcast on the platform. The Broker claims that the positions indicated by the Client ## 28807109, 28807614, 28808095, 28808455, 28808666, 28808838, 28809129, 28810459, 28810910, 28811586, 28811728, 2 8812929, 28807115, 28807609, 28808100, 28808447, 28808671, 28808822, 28809138, 28810465, 28810923, 28811515, 28811844, 28813094, 28807088, 28807182, 28807594, 28808051, 28808441, 28808681, 28808816, 28809116, 28810468, 28810917, 28811534, 28811743, 28812921, 28807147, 28807971, 28808043, 28808226, 28808433, 28808661, 28808903, 28810451, 28810 930, 28811504, 28811851, 28812880 were closed at current market prices available at the time of the incident and received from the Broker’s liquidity provider.
14.1. In this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings: − “Market Conditions Other than Normal” means “Thin Market” or “Fast Market”. … − “Fast market” means a market condition characterized by rapid exchange rate changes in a short period of time. Often accompanied by price gaps. Typically occurs immediately before and/or immediately after one or more events: a. publication of the main macroeconomic indicators for the global economy that have a high degree of influence on financial markets; b. announcement of interest rate decisions by central banks or their committees; c. speeches and press conferences of the heads of the Central Bank, heads of state, finance ministers and other important statements; d. conducting foreign exchange interventions by government organizations; e. terrorist acts of national (state) scale; f. natural disasters that caused the introduction of a state of emergency (or similar restrictive measures) in the affected areas; g. the outbreak of war or hostilities; h. political force majeure events: resignations and appointments (including based on election results) of representatives of the executive branch of states; i. other events that have a significant impact on the dynamics of the instrument’s exchange rate. For this reason, the Company decided to establish a trading break for clients and limit their ability to conduct trading operations on the thin market during the specified period of time. During the trading break established for clients, the company constantly calculates and monitors the level of margin on clients’ trading accounts at current market rates provided by the liquidity provider. Calculation and control of the margin level is carried out in order to timely liquidate trading positions in cases where the margin level on the client’s account falls below 60% and approaches negative values. In such cases, in accordance with Section 11 of the Trading Regulations and the definition of Stop Out, the Company has the right to close any or all open trading positions without the client’s consent and prior notice.
11.1. Margin is a collateral that provides the opportunity to receive funds for temporary use to carry out speculative transactions on the Trading Platform. 11.2. The margin level in the Trading Platform is calculated using the following formula: (Funds/Collateral)*100%. 11.3. The Company has the right to reject any trading order to open a trading position if there is insufficient free margin on the Client’s trading account. 11.4. The Client undertakes to maintain a margin level of at least 60%. 11.5. The Company has the right but is not obligated, to close any or all open trading positions if the margin level on the Client’s trading account falls below 60%. Typically, but not necessarily, the most unprofitable open trading position is closed first. 11.6. Forced closure of the Client’s trading position by the Company is called stop out.
Based on the above information, the Resolution Committee made a decision in favour of the Client. The Committee experts came to a consensus that the Broker’s forced liquidation of disputed positions ## 28807109, 28807614, 28808095, 28808455, 28808666, 28808838, 28809129, 28810459, 28810910, 28811 586, 28811728, 28812929, 28807115, 28807609, 28808100, 28808447, 28808671, 28808822, 28809138, 28810465, 28810923, 28811515, 28811844, 28813094, 28807088, 28807182, 28807594, 28808051, 28 808441, 28808681, 28808816, 28809116, 28810468, 28810917, 28811534, 28811743, 28812921, 28807147, 28807971, 28808043, 2880822 6, 28808433, 28808661, 28808903, 28810451, 28810930, 28811504, 28811851, 28812880 of the Client during the incident occurred incorrectly. In accordance with the decision made, the Broker must cancel the financial result obtained by the Client in the disputed transactions and return funds in the amount of 13,742,000 RUB to the Client’s corresponding trading accounts. 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 | |||
Client | 13,742,000 RUB | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
02/06/2023 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The client used account # XXX for active trading operations with Forex and CFD market instruments. At the time of the incident, 4 Short positions on the EURAUD financial instrument were opened on the specified trading account, with a total volume of 0.93 lots. The incident on the Client’s trading account occurred on Monday, March 27, 2023, at 00:59 (server time).
At the specified time, as a result of an unfavorable price change, as well as an expansion of the spread on the financial instrument EURAUD, positions ## 50743483, 50900194, 51427174, 52024537 of the Client were forcibly liquidated by the Broker due to a shortage of margin collateral (Stop Out). The total amount of the Client’s financial losses as a result of the incident amounted to 171,745.44 RUR. The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below) regarding his claim and believes that the Broker’s liquidation of the disputed positions was carried out unlawfully.
According to the Client, during the period of the incident Stop Out should not have worked on his trading account, since the disputed positions were liquidated immediately after the Broker increased the spread on the EURAUD financial instrument to more than 300 points (0.00300). According to the Client, at the beginning of the trading session, the spread for this currency pair at the Broker was a maximum of 260 points. After increasing the spread to 300+ points and liquidating the disputed positions, the Broker reduced the spread to 60–70 points and the price began to change in a direction favorable to the Client.
In addition to the above, the Client claims that the liquidation of positions occurred without warning from the Broker about the low margin percentage. At the time the spread widened in the first hour of trading, the margin percentage was 124%. The liquidation of positions occurred at a margin level of 1.59%, although in the “Trading Conditions” section on the Broker’s website it is indicated that the Stop Out level is 20%.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to verify the correctness and legality of the Broker’s actions to liquidate the disputed positions during the incident. As documentary evidence, the Client provided the investigation with screenshots of the price dynamics of the financial instrument EURAUD and the parameters of trading account # XXX 57 minutes before the incident, taken from the Broker’s trading platform.
For its part, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s claim and believes that all of his transactions were executed correctly, at market prices current at the time of the transaction and in full compliance with the provisions of regulatory documents, as well as the trading conditions accepted by the Company.
According to the Broker, during the incident no errors or failures in the operation of services were recorded on the Company’s side. In support of its position, the Broker provided the history of the Client’s trading operations, the trading server log records, as well as the history of tick data for the EURAUD financial instrument during the incident.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
07/09/2023 | 29/03/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and Mr. XXX 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:
If we reveal in detail the logic of executing a Stop order on the real market, it will look like this: when the market reaches the price specified in the client’s order, the system submits a Market order at any price available on the market (in the market depth) for a given volume. In this case, execution will occur according to the queue of current positions registered on the Broker’s server.
7.1 The Company has the right to forcefully close the Client’s open positions without consent and any prior notice if the “Equity”/“Funds” ratio on the trading account falls below the Stop out level. The Stop out level is indicated on the Company’s website in the “Trade conditions” section. 7.2 The margin level is controlled by the server, which, if condition 7.1 is met, generates an order to forcefully close all positions on instruments during their trading session without prior notice. Stop out is executed at the market price in the order of the general queue with the Clients’ orders. The Client agrees that the execution price may differ from the quote at which the Stop out order was generated. Forced closing of a position is accompanied by a corresponding entry in the server log file with the comment “Stop out or so”.
2.34 The Client undertakes to independently monitor the level of the required margin on his trading account.
a) The Client did not use pending Stop Loss orders to limit potential financial losses on disputed positions ## 50743483, 50900194, 51427174, 52024537, and was thus prepared to lose the entire deposit under certain circumstances. b) a few hours after the incident, the price of the EURAUD financial instrument reached the level at which Stop Out on the Client’s trading account should have been triggered. c) the Client’s pending Take Profit orders were not and could not be executed until now, since the price of the EURAUD financial instrument did not reach the appropriate levels. Taking into account the above, as well as the documentary evidence provided by the Broker, the Committee experts came to a consensus that the Broker’s liquidation of the Client’s unprofitable positions ## 50743483, 50900194, 51427174, 52024537 was incorrect. In connection with this circumstance, the members of the Committee proposed a compromise solution to the parties to the dispute: to restore positions ## 50743483, 50900194, 51427174, 52024537, provided that the Client is ready to deposit additional funds into the trading account # XXX necessary to maintain these positions (taking into account the level Stop Out 20%, as well as the price dynamics of the EURAUD financial instrument that took place after the incident). If the Client is ready to restore the disputed positions, and within three days from the date of this decision fulfills the conditions named by the Committee, the disputed positions must be restored 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 | |||
Client | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
17/04/2023 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (USD) for trading operations with the financial instruments of the FX market. According to the Client, he has been a user of the Broker since October 10, 2022, with more than 850 positions closed on the specified account.
The Client indicates that everything was fine for almost a year with nearly 800 executed Limit orders at correct prices, but since July 24, 2023, lots of Limit orders placed by the Client have been executed at prices worse than the price indicated in the order (Buy Limit orders executed at higher prices and Sell Limit orders executed at lower prices) which, in the Client’s opinion, is obviously against definitions, standards and rules, and is causing additional losses to the Client. The Client filed a complaint with the Broker and described the newly occurred problem in detail with all necessary data and asked the Broker to fix the issue. The Broker did not uphold the Client’s complaint, indicating that orders for MT5 account # XXX were executed at the next available prices provided by their Liquidity Providers.
In addition, the Broker indicated that No Liquidity Provider/Exchange/Execution Venue can guarantee execution at declared prices but instead on available market prices.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below), accuses the latter of misconduct, and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to verify the correctness of the execution of the disputed transactions, as well as the Broker’s actions in the period of the incident. The Client believes that a fair decision in the dispute would be for the Broker to fix the problem so that positions based on Limit orders are opened at the exact price indicated in the order or at a better price (as per the basic standards and rules) and it never repeats in the future. The Client provided the investigation with the screenshots showing the communication between the Broker and him regarding this incident, as well as the whole position history, including order type, order price and corresponding executed position opening price, with the disputed orders (and positions) highlighted in red, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all the Client’s orders/positions were processed correctly, at actual market prices and in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents and the trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided the investigation with the history of the Client’s trading/non-trading operations, as well as the FIX logs records for the entire period of the Client’s trading activity, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
07/09/2023 | 17/09/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and Mr. XXX 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:
a) The Client’s orders for MT5 account # XXX were executed at the next available prices provided by the Broker’s Liquidity Providers. The Broker indicates that slippage can be positive or negative depending on factors like available liquidity, order type and volume. b) The Broker’s execution model of Limit and Stop orders assumes activation only after a trigger price indicated in the order is hit. When the price of the asset reaches the trigger price, a Market order is sent. A Market order will be executed at the current market price. The reason for this is to avoid clients’ order rejections due to not available liquidity at a certain price. с) In the Broker’s opinion, Market execution ensures that clients can trade under live streaming and best executable prices with immediate confirmations by the interbank market where Buy and Sell orders are matched up. d) The execution prices came directly from the LPs and no wrongdoing is recorded anywhere from outside, as confirmed by the FIX log records. The Company is dependent on 3rd parties which it has no control over.
a) The general analysis of the transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
b) The analysis of the financial results of transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
с) The analysis of the execution quality of the trades provided by the Client for the investigation, which included 373 trades, showed the following:
Thus, on one hand the DRC members agreed that the Broker has sufficient grounds to claim that the Client indeed used special technical means (EA) exploiting inefficiencies in the Broker’s quoting system. In this regard, the experts of the DRC expressed a common opinion on the organization of the process of trading low-liquid financial instruments during a period of low market activity: if a broker cannot provide a normal supply of prices, they should prohibit trading or look for another source of quotations. Currently, there are many companies offering high-quality Market Data that can be used without any risk to business. The experts of the DRC believe that the Broker should bear the risks associated with the quality of the quotations supplied. On the other hand, the experts of the DRC expressed a common opinion that the Broker must adhere to the principles of Fair Business Practice, which in this particular case assumes the following: if the Broker does not have the technical ability to place Buy Limit/Sell Limit orders (including Take Profit orders) as Limit orders on the LP side, then they must either prohibit clients from using orders of this type on their platform (so as not to mislead the clients), either update the technical part of their infrastructure to place such orders as Limit, or accept the risk that they will have to cover negative slippage when executing pending orders from clients from their own funds. 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 | |||
Client | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
12/10/2023 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (EUR) for active operations with the financial instruments of the FX market. On May 22, 2023, the Client funded his trading account with 1500 EUR and started trading operations. By the time of the incident, the Client has made profits in the amount of 19905.52 EUR and successfully withdrawn 2094.73 EUR from the specified account.
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on July 27, 2023, i.e., on the day when the Broker performed a Cash Adjustment operation on the Client’s trading account and cancelled the Client’s request for withdrawal of funds in the amount of 301.58 EUR, claiming that the Client’s account was disabled for violation of the trading rules established by the Company. The Client indicates that the Broker has blocked his account for no apparent reason, since in the Client’s opinion, none of the Broker’s rules has been violated. According to the Client, the Broker does not let him withdraw profits, that, in the Client’s opinion, were legally acquired in the period of trading on the Broker’s platform.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below) and considers the actions of the Broker as unfair. Also, the Client indicated that he had been trading for several months using the same trading strategy, without any issues. In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to check the disputed transactions for alleged violations and requires the Broker to return the rest of the withheld funds in the amount of 20207.10 EUR, which represents the rest of the Client’s deposit in the amount of 301.58 EUR and accrued profits in the amount of 19905.52 EUR. The Client provided the investigation with the e-mail communication with the Broker regarding this complaint, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker claims that in the period of the incident, the Client has been using an EA that was trying to abuse the system (exploit weaknesses in the Broker’s trading platform). As such, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint and refers to the following provisions of Cl. 1.4.b.v, 9.3.b, and 12.6 of their Client Agreement, according to which:
1.4. CLIENT REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
9.3. TERMINATION
viii) a Default Event has occurred;
12.6. In calculating or mitigating its loss due to a Default Event, XXX is entitled to:
In support of their decision, the Broker provided the investigation with a history of all trading/non-trading operations performed in the Client’s trading account, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
31/07/2023 | 17/10/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and Mr. XXX. 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:
a) The analysis of the nature of the transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
b) The analysis of the financial results of transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
To ensure an objective investigation Financial Commission uses several different sources, such as Tradeproofer, Tradefora, Verify My Trade, TrueFX, FX Benchmark and some others to verify the quality of trades’ execution. The analysis of the execution quality of the Client’s trades showed that a significant part of the large-size trades (0.5 lots or more) performed in the period between 28.06.2023 and 27.07.2023 were opened and/or closed at prices that were much better than the actual market prices available in the period of the incident. A good example of the above-mentioned abusive strategy utilized by the Client can be a series consisting of 4 consecutive profitable transactions with the financial instrument XAUUSD performed on the Client’s account on June 29, 2023. As such, in the common opinion of the DRC members, the Broker have sufficient grounds to assert that at least a part of transactions performed on the Client’s trading account # 1279859 were executed at lagging / non-market prices. It is highly likely that the Client might have used special technical means (EA) to exploit vulnerabilities in the Broker’s quotation system.
Thus, taking into account all of the above, the members of the DRC have decided:
a) The Company must bear the proper but limited responsibility for the occurrence of technical problems in its trading system and belated reaction in their elimination b) The Company must be duly responsible for the untimely notification of the Client about the revealed violations of its trading rules с) The Company should formulate more clearly the provisions of regulatory documents concerning the abuse of such kind. As an example, the following wording could be recommended: You consent that the Company reserves the right to immediately terminate your access to the trading platform(s) or Account(s) or refuse or cancel any order, in the event you voluntarily and/or involuntarily partake in arbitrage unrelated to market inefficiencies, including but not limited to, latency arbitrage and swap arbitrage and/or contrary to good faith; under such circumstances, the Company may at its discretion, close any of your Account(s) and recover any losses incurred from such practices. Based on the above, the members of the DRC of the Financial Commission have decided that the Client should be compensated in the amount of 50% of the disputed amount. Also, according to the general opinion of the DRC members, the Broker should take the necessary measures for the timely detection of such technical problems and their elimination in the future. 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 | |||
Client | 9952.76 EUR | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
04/01/2024 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (USD) for trading operations with the financial instruments of the FX market. Before the incident, the Client established several positions (Long and Short) with different financial instruments on the specified account.
Thus, by the time of the incident:
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on December 4, 2023, at 01:39 (server time, UTC+2). At the specified time, due to the widening of spread in the financial instrument XAUUSD, which occurred after the short-term increase in market volatility, the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s account fell below the critical level. Therefore, the Broker liquidated the Client’s the disputed positions ## 49586486, 49596596, 49596622, 46155870, 48886713, 49259052, 49664998, 49674113, 48886673, 49021139, 49044482, 49175857, 49175865, 49258891, 49693280, 49664695, 49664989, 49693254, 49699199, 49610305, 49696990, 49697606 due to lack of margin (Stop Out). As a result of the forced liquidation, the total amount of the Client’s financial losses was 16661.72 USD.
The Client is not satisfied with the Broker’s decision (see below), accuses the Broker of misconduct and blames the Broker for the financial losses caused by the incident. The Client claims that in the period of the incident, the Broker acted unfairly by liquidating fully hedged positions on his account, where before the incident was 800 USD of free margin. In this connection, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to verify the correctness of the Broker’s actions in the period of the incident, as well as the correctness of the execution of the disputed transactions. The Client believes that a fair decision in the dispute would be monetary compensation from the Broker in the amount of the financial losses caused by the incident. The Client provided the investigation with screenshots showing the history of transactions performed on trading account # XXX in the period of the incident and the Broker’s official response to this complaint, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at actual market prices and in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents and the trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided the investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, the server log records in the period of the incident, as well as the formal letter from the LP regarding abnormal market conditions during the incident, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
07/12/2023 | 17/12/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company and the Client. 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:
14.2. The Client shall pay the Initial Margin and/or Hedged Margin at the moment of opening a position. The amount of Initial Margin and Hedged Margin for each Instrument is defined in the Contract Specifications. … 14.6. XXXXXX is entitled to close the Client’s Open Positions without the consent of the Client or any prior Written Notice if the Equity is less than a certain rate depending on the account type as stipulated on the Website.
Summarizing all the above and taking into account the abnormal market conditions during the incident, the experts of the DRC have made their decision in favour of the Broker. In the general opinion of the DRC members, at the time of the incident, the Broker acted in full compliance with the provisions of its regulatory documents and the trading rules established by the Company. The experts of the DRC found the execution of the disputed orders correct and legitimate since the quotes on the financial instruments published by the Broker were consistent with acceptable market prices. Accordingly, the claim of the Client for compensation of losses in the amount of 16661.72 USD was found by the members of the Committee as having no grounds. 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 | |||
Broker | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
25/12/2023 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXXXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (USD) for active operations with the financial instruments of the FX market and CFDs. Before the incident, the Client established several positions (Long and Short) with different financial instruments on the specified account.
Thus, by the time of the incident:
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on November 13, 2023, at 01:30:19 (server time, UTC+2). At the specified time, due to the unfavourable change in the price of the financial instrument XAUUSD the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s account fell below the critical level. Therefore, the Client’s positions ## 30202517, 30350840, 30542914, 30851355, 30887570, and 30905531, were liquidated by the Broker due to lack of Margin (Stop Out). The total amount of the Client’s financial losses was 3165.81 USD.
Following the incident, the Broker admitted that during the period of the incident, the Company experienced a pricing error, that led to the erroneous closing of the Client’s positions. According to the Broker, the incorrect quote (1920.96) for the financial instrument XAUUSD was received from one of its liquidity providers at the close of the Client’s trades, and the disputed positions were closed incorrectly. Therefore, the Broker apologized to the Client for the inconvenience caused by the pricing error and offered him compensation in the amount of 1314.40 USD.
The Client is not satisfied with the Broker’s decision on this complaint (see below), holds the Broker responsible for the financial losses that occurred on trading account # XXX and believes that the liquidated positions could have been closed with much higher profits if not for the pricing error on the Broker’s platform, as the price of the financial instrument XAUUSD reached all-time highs in a few days after the incident. Therefore, the Client rejects the compensation offered by the Broker and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to verify the correctness of the Broker’s actions during and after the incident. In the Client’s opinion, a fair resolution of the dispute would be for the Broker to reinstate the disputed positions at the same prices or to calculate the accrued profits from the price difference between the previous price and the actual current price and deposit it into his account. The Client has provided the investigation with the screenshots showing the email communications with Broker regarding this incident, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion, they acted in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker has provided the investigation with the official response to the Client’s complaint, the history of the Client’s trading /non-trading operations, as well as the history of quotes on the financial instrument XAUUSD and the server log records in the period of the incident, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
04/12/2023 | 14/12/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
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. |
||||
Ruled in Favor | Compensation | |||
Client | 1638.10 USD | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
29/01/2024 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
Complaint Matter
The Client used account # XXX (SGD) for active operations with the financial instruments of the FX market. Prior to the incident the Client established several positions (Long and Short) with the financial instrument XAUUSD on the specified account.
Thus, by the time of the incident:
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on November 13, 2023, at 01:30 (server time, UTC+2). At the specified time, due to the unfavourable change in the price of the financial instrument XAUUSD, the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s account fell below the critical level of 20%. Therefore, the Client’s positions ## 15277912, 15291904, 15291997, 17598230, 17627465, 17651169, 17735218, 17753357, 17973560, 18009662, 18009713, 18009758, 18009759, 18009893, 18076189, 18105997, 18106345, 18106350, 18106568, 18126509, 18130179, 18130726, 18169068, 18169284, 18176490, 18176499, 18176755, 18177970, 18178101 were liquidated by the Broker due to lack of Margin (Stop Out). The total amount of the Client’s financial losses was 73902.41 SGD.
Following the incident, the Broker admitted that during the period of the incident, the Company experienced a pricing error, that resulted in the erroneous closing of the Client’s positions. According to the Broker, incorrect quotes for the financial instruments XAUUSD, XAUEUR, XAUGBP and XAUAUD were received from one of its liquidity providers at the close of the Client’s trades, and the disputed positions were incorrectly closed. Therefore, on November 13, 2023, between 9:59 and 10:01 (server time) the Broker made the adjustment to the Client’s account in accordance with its Error Handling Policy. Appropriate notifications were sent to affected clients at 16:30 (UTC+8), i.e. just a few hours after the adjustments were made. In addition, as a gesture of goodwill, the Broker offered the Client additional compensation in the amount of 1200 SGD.
The Client is not satisfied with the Broker’s decision on this complaint (see below), holds the Broker responsible for the financial losses that occurred on trading account # XXX and refuses the compensation offered by the Broker. The Client believes that the disputed positions could have been closed with much higher profits, if not for the pricing error on the Broker’s platform, as the price of the financial instrument XAUUSD reached all-time highs in a few days after the incident. In this regard, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to verify the correctness of the Broker’s actions during the incident and demands compensation from the Broker in the amount of 54000 SGD (i.e. 2/3 of total financial losses caused by the incident).
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion, they acted in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker has provided the investigation with the official response to the Client’s complaint, the history of the Client’s trading /non-trading operations, as well as the history of quotes on the financial instrument XAUUSD and the server log records in the period of the incident, as documentary evidence
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
13/11/2023 | 21/12/2023 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXXXX and Ms. XXXXXX. 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, based on the information from the documents received from the Broker (full trading statement, server log), the chronology of events in the period of the incident developed as follows: a) At the end of the trading day on Friday, November 10, 2023, the amount of Equity on the Client’s trading account was 1557.66 SGD. This fact is confirmed by the history of trading operations performed on the Client’s account # 4329333. b) On November 10 and 11, 2023, the Client made additional deposits in the amount of 1500 SGD, as well as the internal transfer of funds in the amount of 236.59 SGD. The fact of the relevant non-trading operations performed on the Client’s account is confirmed by 3 balance sheet transactions ## 18178672, 18180001, 18180007. c) Thus, at the end of Sunday, November 12, 2023, the amount of Equity on the Client’s trading account should not be less than 3294.25 SGD. d) On 13.11.2023 at 01:30:51-59 non-market quotes from one of the Broker’s liquidity providers entered the price flow for the financial instrument XAUUSD. e) As a result of the pricing incident, the Client’s positions ## 15277912, 15291904, 15291997, 17598230, 17627465, 17651169, 17735218, 17753357, 17973560, 18009662, 18009713, 18009758, 18009759, 18009893, 18076189, 18105997, 18106345, 18106350, 18106568, 18126509, 18130179, 18130726, 18169068, 18169284, 18176490, 18176499, 18176755, 18177970, 18178101 were forcibly closed by Stop Out. f) On November 13, 2023, the Broker made the necessary adjustment to the Client’s account # XXX in the amount of 3251.65 SGD. The fact of the adjustment is confirmed by the balance sheet transactions ## 18186892, 18186893, 18186894, 18186896, 18186899, 18186901, 18186904, 18186907, 18186928, 18186930, 18186931, 18186933, 18186934, 18186935, 18186938, 18186943, 18186944, 18186945, 18186946, 18186992, 18187009, 18187015, 18187024, 18187025, 18187054, 18187055, 18187057, 18187074, 18187095. g) The Broker claims that the amount of compensation was calculated based on the last valid quotes for the financial instrument XAUUSD available in the Broker’s platform before market close on Friday, November 10, 2023, e. 1938.18 / 1939.08. 2. Second, the Broker indicates that the adjustment they made based on the last valid quote 1938.18 / 08 is the fair offer they can provide to the Client: a) Although the pricing incident did realize 70000 SGD losses, it neither increased the Client’s loss nor left the Client with less equity than what was in her account immediately before the incident b) In addition, according to the Broker, their investigation revealed that the Client started executing short positions in XAUUSD within an hour of receiving cash adjustments to her trading account. Therefore, the Broker believes that the Client could have instead chosen to re-instate the net 0.64 lot Long position if she had a bullish view at prices that were at a similar level for at least a couple of hours after the first post-adjustment XAUUSD trade. с) Finally, the Broker disagrees with the Client’s belief that she would have recovered all her unrealized losses if she had left the position open. The reason is that if the Client had chosen to reopen her net 64 lot Long position, it would have required the XAUUSD price to rise by around 887 dollars. However, in reality, the XAUUSD price was only averaging about 100 dollars higher, with a peak of 2132 USD registered on December 4, 2023. In support of their position the Broker referred to the following provisions of its Client Agreement:
Errors in pricing may occur from time to time. In these circumstances, we may adjust any element of your Position. Our prices reflect those in the Underlying Instrument. Prices can vary quickly and in some circumstances prices that we publish may not be available for large volumes. In addition, errors can occur, and we reserve the right to alter the price or even void the transaction. Our aim in making any adjustment to pricing will be to act fairly to you. We will not seek to take advantage of pricing errors to advantage ourselves. If we consider that a pricing Error has occurred, we may adjust various parameters of your Position, including potentially reversing or closing out Positions, which may mean that your profit is less than would otherwise be the case, or even that you incur a loss. However, such an adjustment will only occur when we are satisfied that a genuine pricing Error has occurred, that is, the price or value of the Position did not accurately reflect the price or value of the relevant Underlying Instrument. 3. Third, in order to ensure an objective investigation of the case, the DRC requested historical price data for the financial instrument in the disputed transactions from other independent providers of financial services. Financial Commission uses several different sources, such as Tradeproofer, Tradefora, Verify My Trade, TrueFX, FX Benchmark and some others for the purpose of verifying 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 the Bid/Ask quote (1938.18/1939.08) for the financial instrument XAUUSD registered at the end of the trading day, 10.11.2023, and used by the Broker for the calculation of the amount of compensation, reflected the actual situation on the market. Also, for the purpose of calculating the potential profits/losses on the Client’s disputed positions, the DRC determined that on December 3, 2023, at 23:33:59 UTC the average Bid/Ask quotes for the financial instrument XAUUSD reached its all-time high, i.e. 2144.40/2146.70. 4. Fourth, regarding the unrealized profits on the disputed positions, 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 disputed Long positions ## 15277912, 15291904, 15291997, 17973560, 18009893, 18076189, 18105997, 18106345, 18106350, 18106568, 18126509, 18130179, 18130726, 18169068, 18169284 with pending Take Profit orders attached to them could have generated losses in the amount of (-) 2133.56 SGD after their execution (not including additional negative Swap fees since the date of the incident). b) After the execution of the pending Take Profit orders placed by the Client (including the one attached to Long position # 15277912, at the highest price level of 75), the Client’s exposure could have been changed from Net Long 0.64 lots to Net Short 2.61 lots. с) The Client did not attach any Take Profit orders to the disputed Long positions ## 18009662, 18009713, 18009758, In other words, the Client did not in any way indicate her intentions with respect to the relevant positions. Thus, on December 3, 2023, at 23:33:59 UTC the specified positions could have generated profits in the amount of 42550.84 SGD (not including additional negative Swap fees since the date of the incident). d) The Client did not attach any Stop Loss orders to the disputed Short positions ## 17598230, 17627465, 17651169, 17735218, 17753357, 18176490, 18176499, 18176755, 18177970, 18178101. In other words, the Client did not in any way limit the potential losses on the relevant positions. Thus, on December 3, 2023, at 23:33:59 UTC the specified positions could have generated losses in the amount of (-) 120906.80 SGD (not including additional positive Swap fees since the date of the incident). e) Thus, in the absence of the pricing error on the Broker’s platform, the amount of Equity on the Client’s account would have eventually decreased, and the Equity/Margin ratio would have fallen below the critical Stop-Out level. Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has ruled in favor of the Broker. Considering the circumstances of the case, as well as the documentary evidence provided by the Broker, the experts of the DRC have found the actions of the Broker in the period of the incident as correct and legitimate. The Client’s suggestion that the Broker “stole her account” is a common misconception by retail traders who don’t understand that from a mark-to-market perspective unrealized losses are the same as realized losses. In the general opinion of the DRC members, the Client does not have sufficient grounds to demand additional compensation from the Broker for the unrealized profits. At the same time, the members of the DRC agreed that the compensation offered by the Broker is reasonable and appropriate in this case. This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution |
||||
Ruled in Favor | Compensation | |||
Broker | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
29/01/2024 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # 1700091006 for active trading operations with the instruments of FX market and CFDs. On the day of the incident, 11.05.2022, in the period from 19:26 to 20:06 (server time) the Client consecutively, at intervals of several seconds, opened 60 Long positions with the financial instrument USTEC, with a total volume of 300 lots. The Client decided not to use pending Stop Loss orders to limit their possible financial losses. 3 minutes after the moment of opening the last Long position # 58208820 in the specified series of transactions, following an unfavorable change in the price of the financial instrument USTEC, the Client tried to reduce financial losses by making short-term Short transactions, with a total volume comparable to the volume of previously opened Long positions, i.e. by hedging the positions opened initially. Despite the efforts made, in the period from 20:06:58 to 20:07:01, the Client’s Long positions ## 58208081, 58208093, 58208083, 58208104, 58208109 were forcibly liquidated by the Broker due to deficit of margin (Stop Out). At the same time, Short positions ## 58208887, 58208895, 58208897, 58208900, 58208901, 58208903 with a total volume of 100 lots, opened by the Client for the purpose of hedging, were closed by the latter at current market prices with a total loss of 1183 USD.
All further actions of the Client, starting from 20:15:28 and up to 21:47:06, consisted in opening and closing a large number of short-term Short positions and several Long positions in order to reduce the total losses incurred on the Client’s account earlier. Nevertheless, the logical result of all trading activity of the Client during the specified period was the complete zeroing of the account, after a series of several Stop Outs. The total losses of the Client in the specified series of transactions amounted to 47913 USD.
The Client claims that in the period of the incident, he successfully opened and closed hedging Short positions, gradually reducing the total losses on open Long positions, however, starting from 20:46:59 (server time) he lost this opportunity, since the Broker’s terminal began to display the message “No money.”
The Client believes that due to the lack of accessible and intelligible information about the trading platform’s hedging mechanism provided on the Brokers website or/and in the regulatory documents, during his first days of trading the Client had lost 82000 USD and later due to another mis-info about that mechanism provided in the email correspondence regarding this issue the Client had lost another 48000 USD. The Client claims that some days later, after the incidents the Broker sent him an e-mail accepting that more explanation is needed for the hedging mechanism and would put more info to their pages. As such, the Client feels misled since he was not provided the necessary information by the Broker and blames the latter for the financial losses.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below) and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to check the legitimacy of the Broker’s actions in the period of the incident. The Client believes that a fair resolution of the dispute would be for the Broker to return the funds in the amount of 48000 USD lost in the period of the incident. The Client provided the investigation with the e-mail correspondence between him and the Broker regarding this complaint, the screenshots with information on the disputed transactions and the screenshot showing the balance of the Client’s account before the incident, taken from the Broker’s trading platform, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at actual market prices and in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, the server log records, as well as the Broker’s official response on this complaint, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
11/05/2022 | 24/06/2022 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and The Client. 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:
a) The Client’s positions will be forcibly liquidated by the Broker if the margin level falls below the critical level of 50% specified by the Broker; b) The Client’s positions will be forcibly liquidated by the Broker if there are no Client’s funds left on the trading account; c) 100% hedging (locking) on trading accounts with a floating spread is impossible, due to the absence of a fixed difference between the Buy and Sell prices. In the case of position hedging (which was the case in this case), spread widening automatically reduces the unrealized positive financial result on profitable positions, while increasing the unrealized negative financial result on unprofitable positions. In some market situations, spread widening can lead to undesirable consequences, such as Stop Out. d) Asymmetrical unwinding of a hedged position will result in an unhedged position which is treated as a newly opened position. Thus, margin for this position is calculated based on the increased margin requirements and is distributed proportionally between the open transactions that involve the hedged financial instrument.
Thus, in order to fix the floating losses on previously opened Long positions, the Client opened a comparable volume of Short positions (190 lots) without any problems with the Broker’s hedging mechanism, thus freeing up the maximum possible margin for opening new positions. At the same time, the volume of hedged positions amounted to 380 lots (190*2), while the remaining Short positions with a volume of 15 lots were unhedged. A further increase in the volume of Short positions became unavailable for the Client due to the requirement of 100% margin for maintaining them (margin deficit). The Client tried to reduce his financial losses by operating 15-20 lots in unhedged Short positions, but did not succeed in this matter.
15.1 Upon opening a Transaction, you will be required to pay us the Initial Margin for that Transaction, as calculated by us. 15.2 You acknowledge that the Initial Margin for certain Transactions (for example, Share CFDs) will be based on a percentage of the Contract Value of the Transaction and therefore, the Initial Margin due for such Transactions will fluctuate in accordance with the Contract Value. 15.3 Initial Margin is due and payable to us before you enter into a Transaction (and for Transactions that have a fluctuating Initial Margin based on a percentage of the Contract Value, immediately on opening the Transaction and thereafter immediately on any increase in Contract Value taking place). 15.4 You agree that for different Financial Products there will be different Margin requirements and they may be displayed on the Website. The Margin requirements are subject to change without notice to you so you should make yourself aware of the Margin requirements. 15.5 You also agree that you have a continuing Margin obligations to us to ensure that at all times during which you have open Transactions you have Margin Cover in your Account and that it is positive at all times. 15.6 You must maintain at least the amount of Margin Cover required by us whether or not we give any notice to you to make those payments. 15.7 It is solely your responsibility to monitor and to satisfy all Margin Cover requirements. 15.8 You are required to maintain the Margin Cover, which might mean you must pay more Margin, whether or not we give you a Margin call and even if you are not contactable. … 15.11 XXX may (without notice to you) Close Out, but will not be obliged to Close Out or to attempt to Close Out, some or all Open Positions, at that time or any later time as we determine (whether in our discretion or by automatic trading platform management) if: (a) your Account Value falls below the Liquidation Level; or (b) you fail to maintain the required Margin Cover; or (c) at any time, and from time to time, XXX determines that the value of all of your Open Positions (and not taking into account any cash balance in your Account) represents a substantial net unrealized loss to you such that, in our belief, the continued trading, or failure to Close Out, one or more of your Open Positions will or is likely to materially prejudice your Account Value. 15.12 Details of Margin amounts paid and owing by you are available by logging onto your Account.
Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has ruled in favor of the Broker. In the general opinion of the DRC members, in the period of the incident the Broker acted in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Client’s financial losses have nothing to do with the settings of the hedging mechanism applied on the Broker’s platform. The Client chose very aggressive trading strategy and was ready for the loss of entire balance on his trading account. Analysis of the history of the Client’s trading operations performed on trading account # 1700091006 in the period from 19.11.2021 to 11.05.2022 confirms this fact (more than 10 Stop Out events). Accordingly, the claim of the Client for compensation of losses in the amount of 48000 USD was found by the members of the Committee as having no grounds. 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 | |||
Broker | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
26/07/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (JPY) for active operations with Forex market instruments. The incident on the Client’s account occurred on April 15, 2022, in the period between 0:57:23 and 6:19:27 (GMT). The Client was trading one financial instrument: GBPJPY.
The chronology of events in the specified period of time and afterwards developed as follows:
After the incident the Broker acknowledged the technical issue faced by the Client and reimbursed him twice prior to the submission of the Client’s claims to the Financial Commission. The compensation in the amount of 1867884 JPY offered by the Broker was paid to the Client on 15.04.2022 (785846.02 JPY) and on 20.04.2022 (1082037.98 JPY).
Nonetheless, the Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision, because he believes that the amount of compensation for positions ## 74105041, 74105055, 74105166, 74105180, opened in the first place, was made by the Broker incorrectly. According to the Client, in case of correct calculation of unrealized profit on the specified positions and its timely compensation by the Broker, the incident with the forced liquidation of positions on the Client’s trading account could have been avoided.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to bind the Broker to cancel the financial results on the disputed positions ## 74105515, 74105641 and requires checking the correctness of calculation of compensation amount offered by the Broker. In the Client’s opinion a fair resolution to the dispute would be a compensation of losses on positions ## 74105515, 74105641 and additional compensation on all positions established on the day of the incident in the amount of 1489291 JPY (3357175 JPY – 1867884 JPY).
The Client provided the investigation with the calculations of would-be P&L amounts on trading account
# 934059 in case of normal operation of the Broker’s platform in the period of the incident, as well as the calculations of anticipated additional compensation from the Broker, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion the compensation offered to the Client is adequate, as it was calculated at actual market prices available in the period of the incident and in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, the history of financial operations performed on the Client’s account in the period from 15.04.2000 to 24.04.2022, as well as the server log records, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
15/04/2022 | 25/04/2022 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and The Client. 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:
a) Until the very moment of system failure, the Client has indicated his intentions toward positions ## 74105041, 74105055, 74105166, 74105180 as follows: closing positions via market orders at 164.867 (Ask) or lower price. b) The Broker compensated the unrealized profit on the Client’s positions ## 74105041, 74105055, 74105166, 74105180 based on the price of 164.867 (Ask) available on the market at the time of system failure. c) The local minimum price on the financial instrument GBPJPY in the specified period was registered at 164.756/164.839 level (Bid/Ask, TrueFX); d) After the system failure, the Client has indicated its intentions toward his positions as follows:
e) Thus, even if assume that the Client potentially could have closed with profits positions ## 74105041, 74105055, 74105166, 74105180 before the moment of system failure and, as a result, there would have been no grounds for unfolding the scenario with Stop Out on 15.04.2022, the Client would still have got a Stop Out on his positions ## 74105515, 74105641 during the trading session on 19.04.2022, even taking into account the Broker’s compensation and replenishment of the account by 1000000 JPY, made by the Client on 15.04.2022.
Summarizing all the above, it should be noted that when making a decision on this case, the votes of experts were divided equally: a) The members of the DRC admitted that due to the system failure on the Broker’s side the Client’s trading plans were disrupted and this event had negative consequences on the Client’s psychological state. On the other hand, in the general opinion of DRC experts, after the first event, the Client should have proceeded to trading operations considering only the funds available on his account at that time, and not rely on any amounts of promised compensations, since the situation with it had yet to be resolved. b) The negative aspect of the whole situation is the fact that the Broker does not have clearly defined provisions of the Client Agreement regulating the measures and deadlines of response to the consequences of technical incidents on their side. c) In this regard it should be noted that Financial Commission is committed to the best business practices accepted throughout the industry which assume that, if there is some issue caused by the broker, there shall be minimum impact on the client, and some solutions shall be provided in a swift manner to mitigate negative effects of it on the client’s positions. d) The Broker compensated the Client for losses and unrealized profits, which could have been secured before the system failure, on all open positions. In the general opinion of DRC experts, the Broker acted correctly, however, the speed of reaction (3 business days) and compensation amount offered to the Client were deemed as not acceptable by some members of the DRC. As such, taking into account the division of experts’ votes on the case, the DRC has made a compromise decision, according to which the Broker must offer the Client additional compensation of unrealized profits on positions ## 74105041, 74105055, 74105166, 74105180, calculated at best possible price (164.839) available on the market in the period of the incident (112000 JPY). 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 | |||
Client | 112000 JPY | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
15/06/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # 599941130 (USD) for active operations with the instruments of FX market. According to the Client, all trades performed on the specified trading account were opened either manually or by the means of EA, which is allowed by the Broker. The Client acknowledges that for the purpose of minimizing delay issues she used UK and US based VPS.
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on March 1, 2022, i.e., on the day when the Broker reversed the Client’s withdrawal request claiming that the Client’s account was disabled for violation of trading rules established by the Company. The Client indicates that the Broker had blocked her account for no apparent reason, since in the Client’s opinion, none of the Broker’s rules had been violated. According to the Client, the Broker let her withdraw only the initial deposit in the amount of 1400 USD and refused to pay the profits in the amount of 3657 USD, that, in the Client’s opinion, were legally obtained in the period of trading on the Broker’s platform.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below) and considers the actions of the Broker as unfair. According to the Client, she had been trading on the Broker’s platform for several days using the same trading strategy without issues. In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to check the disputed transactions for alleged violations and requires the Broker to return the rest of the withheld funds. The Client provided the investigation with the Broker’s comments on this complaint, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker claims that before the incident the Client had been using a combination of VPS and EA that are trying to abuse the system (exploit weaknesses in the Broker’s trading platform). As such, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint and refers to clause 35.2 of their Client Agreement, according to which:
35.2. In the event that the Client placed an Open Position, Trade and/or Order in breach of any of the representations and warranties given or if XXX has grounds that any of the Parties are involved in any form of prohibited trading, i.e. certain trading techniques commonly known as “arbitrage trading”, “picking/ sniping” and/or follow an abusive trading strategy as any trading activity, which is aiming towards potential riskless profit by opening opposite orders, during periods of volatile market conditions, during news announcements, on opening gaps (trading sessions starts), or on possible gaps where the underlying instrument has been suspended or restricted on a particular market, between same or different trading accounts, or if the client is believed to have manipulated quotes, execution processes, or any other forms of market abuse, XXX , may, in its absolute discretion (and with or without giving notice to the Client), and without being under any obligation to inform the Client of its reason for doing so, close that Open Position and/or Order and any other Open Position(s) and/or Order(s) that the Client may have open at that time, and in XXX’s absolute discretion:
– Enforce the Open Position or Trade against the Client if it is an Open Position or Trade under which the Client had made losses
– Treat all the Client’s Open Positions and Trades under this paragraph as immediately void even if they are Open Positions or Trades under which the Client has made profits.
– terminate this Service with immediate notice to the Client and/or the business relationship established between the Company and any of the Parties;
– close any of the Client’s accounts with the Company and/or suspend his account for an indefinite period of time;
– charge a penalty fee to any of the Client as the Company deems fit and proportionate;
– enforce the transaction(s) against the Client if it is a transaction(s) that results in the Client owing money to the Company
– close the account, confiscate any profits that arose from prohibited trading techniques and return the original deposit(s) to the Parties. If profits arising out of Prohibited Trading were already withdrawn, profits can be confiscated from the Parties related accounts to make up for the difference
– withhold any funds from the Client who we suspect to have derived any of abovementioned activities.
Unless and until the Client produces conclusive evidence that in fact, they have not committed the breach of warranty and/or misrepresentation as referred to above, within the period of one month from the date of closure under this paragraph, all such Trades between the Company and the Client (under which the Client has made profits) will be finally null and void.
In support of their decision, the Broker provided the history of all transactions performed by the Client, the server log records, the history of logins into trading account # 599941130 operated by the Client, the history of transactions performed on the account # 599940660 belonging to another client, who in the Broker’s opinion, had been using the same abusive trading strategy, as well as the screenshots with typical price dynamics of the financial instrument XAUUSD in the period of the Client’s trading activity, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
01/03/2022 | 09/03/2022 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and the Client. 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, according to the Broker, prior to the incident the Client identified a technical problem on the Broker’s side and implemented a strategy aimed at making risk-free profits at the expense of lagging / non-market prices. According to the Broker: a) The Client has been trading XAUUSD via high quality low latency VPS (IP address 89.31.124.153) which is located in the UK. The Broker allows using EAs and VPS, provided that combination of VPS and EA is not trying to abuse the Broker’s MT4 infrastructure. b) The Client’s operations were probably driven by the means of EA. On the other hand, the Broker indicates that the EA driven trading activity is not verified by MT4, as the reason of all trades in the trading terminal history is ‘Client’ and not ‘Expert’. In the Broker’s opinion “this is usually done (hidden) on EAs that are trying to abuse the system”. с) Most of the Client’s trades were opened and closed within minutes in volatile market conditions and most of them were counter positions with the same volume. d) Having compared their pricing with other major LPs like LMAX, the Broker is confident that in most cases the Client was getting better prices. The Broker believes that trading operations of this kind confirm the fact of the Client’s deliberate trading using system vulnerabilities. e) The Client have been trading XAUUSD under 2 leg price arbitrage strategy by taking various and counter positions on 2 or more brokers and locking profit upon closing. f) All trades performed on the Client’s account were placed from 89.31.124.153. The Broker indicates that the VPS located on the specified IP address was used by one person for managing account # 599941130, as well as other clients’ accounts, by the means of the exact same trading strategy. The history of investors’ logins into trading account # 599941130 provided by the Broker confirms this fact.
a) Analysis of the nature of the transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
b) The analysis of the financial results of transactions performed by the Client showed the following:
3. Third, the DRC has verified the validity of the Broker’s assertion regarding the Client’s use of the vulnerabilities of their technical equipment and software for profit. For this purpose, the DRC has examined the documentary evidence provided by the Broker, as well as the history of price data on the financial instrument in the disputed transactions, obtained from independent providers of financial services. To ensure an objective investigation 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 analysis of execution quality of the Client’s trades showed that vast majority of them were opened and closed at actual prices available on the market. 4. On the other hand, the experts of the DRC did not see any intelligible explanation why the Client’s actions violate any Trading Rules of the Broker: a) Experts did not see any problem with the client using a VPS, nor any problem with a client using an EA, nor any problem with the EA using “client” tag instead of “expert” tag; b) Experts did not see any risk-free trading from the statement on the Client’s account, since most of the Client’s positions were opened and held for a long time without locking. The advantage in the opening or/and the closing price can be leveled by the movement of the market. As such, trading risks were in place in this case. с) In the experts’ opinion, price arb between brokers is a really smart way to trade. There is no problem with this since it is a very well accepted way of trading that is used by the highest level of professional traders at bank and hedge funds; d) Also, the pricing of the product (XAUUSD) in the period of the incident was obviously very aggressive, but in the end that pricing was received from an LP and passed to the Client or generated by the Broker themselves. Scenarios like this have been seen before: where the LP skews its pricing according to its own exposure, which makes the prices much more aggressive and exposes the broker. This is not uncommon practice, but this is a problem that the broker needs to take care of with their LP, not with the trader. As such, in the common opinion of the DRC members, the Broker does not have sufficient grounds to assert that the disputed transactions performed on the Client’s trading account # 599941130 were executed at lagging / non-market prices. It is unlikely that the Client might have used special technical means (EA) exploiting vulnerabilities in the Broker’s quotation system. Based on the above, the members of the DRC of the Financial Commission have ruled in favor of the Client and decided the following:
Also, the experts of the DRC expressed their common opinion with regards to the organization of the sustainable operational process of the Broker’s infrastructure: DRC experts believe that if a Broker cannot provide a normal supply of prices, they should look for another source of information. Currently, there are many companies offering high-quality Market Data that can be used without any risk to business. According to the experts of the DRC, the Broker should take on the risks associated with the quality of the quotations supplied. 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 | |||
Client | 3657 USD | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
25/04/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # 1804263035 (USD) for active trading operations with FX market instruments and CFDs. Prior to the incident the Client opened one Long position with the financial instrument BTCUSD. Also, the Client attached pending Stop Loss and Take Profit orders to the specified position. The incident on the Client’s account occurred on August 12, 2022, in the period between 22:45:03 and 23:30:05 (GMT).
The chronology of events in the specified period of time, before and afterwards developed as follows:
• At 21:16:21 Long position # 75210080 was established on the Client’s account (@24174.63).
• At 21:16:29 the Client set pending Stop Loss (@24061.85) and Take Profit (@24248.43) orders.
• At 22:45:03 the Client tried to change the parameters of his Take Profit order (@24248.43 > @24800) but failed to do so because of a technical issue with the Broker’s platform.
• At 23:05 the Client contacted the Broker’s Customer Service regarding the platform’s failure and asked them to change the parameters of his pending Take Profit order.
• At 23:05 the Broker acknowledged technical issues on their side and asked the Client to wait until the full recovery of their service.
• Between 23:13:44 and 23:29:07 the Client tried several times to change the parameters of his pending Take Profit order but failed again.
• At 23:30:05 the operation of the Broker’s platform got back to normal, while the price of the financial instrument BTCUSD had risen beyond Take Profit level set by the Client initially (@24248.43).
• The Client’s Long position #75210080 was closed by the Broker via Take Profit order, as per
Client’s initial instructions.
• At 23:55:25 Short position #75211034 was established on the Client’s account (@24406.44).
On August 13, 2022, the price of the financial instrument BTCUSD had risen above the price level @24800.
More than 3 weeks after the incident, i. e. on 07.09.2022 the Broker acknowledged the technical issues faced by the Client on August 12, 2022, and asked the Client to accept execution of the Take Profit order by 24300.51 and additional profits in the amount of 287.39 USD, however, rejected the Client’s demands for additional compensation, since in their opinion the disputed position # 75210080 was closed correctly, as per Client’s instructions specified in his Take Profit order.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below), does not accept the Broker’s offer for compensation in the amount of 287.39 USD, accuses the Broker of misconduct, as well as in connection of their delayed response. In the Client’s opinion the fair solution to the dispute would be a compensation in the amount of 4000 USD, instead of 694.52 USD (407.24 + 287.39) profit offered by the Broker. The Client believes that in case of stable operation of the Broker’s platform in the period of the incident the said amount of profits could have been easily guaranteed.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the
correctness of the Broker’s actions in the period of the incident, as well as bind the Broker to offer the Client additional compensation for unrealized profits (4000 USD). The Client provided the investigation with the screenshots of the Broker’s platform in the period of the incident and the response of their Customer Support regarding the incident, as well as the Broker’s official response on this complaint, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion the compensation offered to the Client is adequate, as it was calculated at actual market prices available in the period of the incident and in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, as well as the server log records, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
12/08/2022 | 07/09/2022 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and The Client. 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:
a) On 12.08.2022 at 21:16:40 GMT the Client placed his limit Take Profit order at 24248.43 BID price level which secured him 407.24 USD of profit. The profit was duly credited to the Client’s account; therefore, in the Broker’s opinion, the disputed position # 75210080 was not closed by an error but on the contrary according to set instruction of the Client. b) The Client was duly and most importantly timely informed about the technical problems on the platform and difficulties clients could face. According to the logs of the system the Client tried to set the “Take Profit” to the claimed level of 24771.94 at 23:29:07 GMT, what is 24 minutes after he was well informed about the technical situation on the platform. c) The Broker believes that the Client accepted and assumed the risk and consequences of technical failure of the platform. In support of their position the Broker refers to their regulatory documents: Risk Warning “…Clients undertake transactions on any electronic system, they will be exposed to risks associated with electronic systems, which include the failure of hardware, software, servers… The result of any such failure may be that a Client’s order is either not executed according to his/her instructions or is not executed at all.” Agreement for international financial services 4.10. The Company shall bear no responsibility for any circumstantial, special, accidental and penalty losses of the Client including (but not Limited) any lost profits, the loss of any expected savings or the loss of a profit in case the Client was informed by the Company about the possibility of such losses. Moral damage is not subject to any compensation. d) The Company does not admit any of the allegations of or liability towards the Client but as an exception and as a gesture of a goodwill on 07.09.2022 the Company has asked the Client to accept execution of the order by 24300.51 and extra profit in the amount of 287.39 USD. The reason for this particular amount is that the Client attempted to make this modification of the order and the price would have reached that level during the period of difficulties.
“In this case it remains to wait for the system operation to be reinstated.”
a) Initially the Client had indicated his intentions toward the disputed position # 75210080 as follows: closing position via Take Profit order at 24248.43 price level. b) Between 22:40 and 22:45 the BID price of the financial instrument BTCUSD reached the 24237 price level, as confirmed by the price dynamics of the said instrument in the MT4 platform offered by the Broker. c) As such, since the Client’s Take Profit order was not filled, at 22:45:03-22:45:31 (that is, before the Broker informed the Client about the platform’s malfunction), following the price advance, the Client changed his intentions toward the disputed position # 75210080 as follows: making attempts to change the parameters of the pending Take Profit order from 24248.43 to 24800. d) In the next couple hours before the full recovery of the platform’s operations the Client made several additional attempts to change the parameters of his pending Take Profit order (@24800>@24300.51>@24300.2>@24400.7>@24363.92>@24364.46>@24410.62>@24410.09> @24385.54>@24386.29>@24386.69>@24403.01>@24399.7>@24400>@24792.88>@24771.94), thereby introducing uncertainty into his intentions towards the price level where the disputed position should have been closed. e) Thus, in the general opinion of the DRC experts, the only reliable indicator of the true intentions of the Client in relation to the disputed position # 75210080 could be considered the actions taken by the Client after the restoration of the platform operation, namely the opening of new Short positions ## 75211034, 75211462, 75211843, 75212128, from the 24406.44 price level or higher. Summarizing all the above, the members of the DRC determined the following: a) The members of the DRC admitted that due to the system failure on the Broker’s side the Client’s trading plans were disrupted and this event had negative consequences on the Client’s psychological state. b) The negative aspect of the whole situation is the fact that the Broker does not have clearly defined provisions of the Client Agreement regulating the measures and deadlines of response to the consequences of technical incidents on their side not to mention the fact of their inability to transfer the Client’s request to the Dealing Department. c) In this regard it should be noted that Financial Commission is committed to the best business practices accepted throughout the industry which assume that, if there is some issue caused by the broker, there shall be minimum impact on the client, and some solutions shall be provided in a swift manner to mitigate negative effects of it on the client’s positions. d) The Broker is ready to partially compensate the Client for unrealized profits, which could have been secured under normal operation of the Broker’s platform. Nevertheless, in the general opinion of DRC experts, the compensation amount offered to the Client were deemed as not enough. As such, taking into account the circumstances of the incident, the DRC has made a compromise decision, according to which the Broker must offer the Client additional compensation of unrealized profits on position # 75210080, calculated at best possible price (24406.44) at which the Client might have closed his position. The amount of additional compensation is calculated as follows: 667 * 200 * (24406.44/24174.63 – 1) – 407.24 = 871.93 USD 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 | |||
Client | 871.93 USD | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
15/10/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
The Client has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # 5269533 (GBP) for active operations with the financial instruments of FX market. According to the Client, on June 22, 2022, he requested the Broker to change the leverage on his trading account from 1:500 to 1:50. Later, on the same day, the Client received a confirmation email from the Broker, stating that the Client’s request had been successfully processed. After reported change in the leverage ratio on his account the Client continued trading and performed more than 300 operations.
The incident on the Client’s account occurred on 01.07.2022. On the specified date, due to unfavorable change in price of the financial instrument EURUSD the Client suffered losses in the amount of 3125.89 GBP. The Client’s position # 202333806 was liquidated by the Broker due to deficit of margin (Stop Out), while the rest of the Client’s positions (## 202300047, 202300073, 202321707, 202321732, 202321775, 202322113, 202322203, 202322302, 202322363) were closed by the Client at current market prices, via market orders. The Client claims that, only after the incident he realized that the Broker had failed to change the leverage on his account, as reported earlier.
The Client blames the Broker for the financial losses occurred on his account in the period of the incident, since in his opinion, the misleading information on the leverage change was behind this incident. The Client believes that the Broker operates in a fraudulent manner with false confirmations of the leverage changes and fictitious email reports to the Client. According to the Client the technical error on the Broker’s side caused him to trade unknowingly that his leverage was 1:500, as well as indicates that if he was aware of the change, he would have controlled his risk and positions adequately.
The Client is not satisfied with the Broker’s decision (see below) and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the correctness of the Broker’s actions prior and after of the incident. The Client believes that a fair resolution to the dispute would be a compensation of losses occurred in the period from 22.06.2022 to 01.07.2022 (4000 GBP) from the Broker. The Client provided investigation with the screenshots of the Broker’s confirmation emails, as well as the Broker’s official response on this complaint, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion the Client was always aware of high leverage ratio applied to his trading account but chose to continue trading. Nevertheless, the Broker acknowledged that due to a technical inconsistence, the leverage on the Client’s account had not been updated as requested on 22.06.2022 and, therefore agreed to cover the part of the Clients losses in the amount of 166.88 GBP, as a gesture of goodwill. The Broker provided investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, the server log records, as well as the communication with the Client regarding the leverage issue, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
02/07/2022 | 12/07/2022 | |||
Complaint Response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company XXX and The Client. 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:
10.23 You agree that: (g) there are significant risks in using an Electronic Trading Service to deal in our Financial Products because it is operated by computer and telecommunication systems.
15.7 It is solely your responsibility to monitor and to satisfy all Margin Cover requirements. 15.8 You are required to maintain the Margin Cover, which might mean you must pay more Margin, whether or not we give you a Margin call and even if you are not contactable. … 15.11 XXX may (without notice to you) Close Out, but will not be obliged to Close Out or to attempt to Close Out, some or all Open Positions, at that time or any later time as we determine (whether in our discretion or by automatic trading platform management) if: (a) your Account Value falls below the Liquidation Level; or (b) you fail to maintain the required Margin Cover; or (c) at any time, and from time to time, XXX determines that the value of all of your Open Positions (and not taking into account any cash balance in your Account) represents a substantial net unrealized loss to you such that, in our belief, the continued trading, or failure to Close Out, one or more of your Open Positions will or is likely to materially prejudice your Account Value. 15.12 Details of Margin amounts paid and owing by you are available by logging onto your Account.
Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has made its decision in favor of the Client. In the general opinion of the DRC members, the Broker must bear limited responsibility for the Client’s financial losses and reimburse the latter only for losses on order # 202333806 closed by Stop Out. If the Client changed leverage before and saw margin live on the platform it is hard to believe that he has not noticed lack of change. 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 | |||
Client | 400.57 GBP | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
08/08/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged this complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used accounts #XXX #YYY (HKD) for active operations with the instruments of FX market. According to the Client, several Long and Short positions with the financial instrument XAUUSD were established on the specified accounts before the incident.
Thus, by the time of the incident:
Account #XXX
Account #YYY
According to the Client, before the incident the margin level on both his accounts was more than enough to maintain his positions. The incident on the Client’s accounts occurred on April 22, 2022, at 01:04 (GMT). At the specified time, due to expansion of the spread in the financial instrument XAUUSD, the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s accounts dropped below the critical level. As such, the Client’s positions with the financial instrument XAUUSD established on trading accounts were liquidated by the Broker due to deficit of margin (Stop Out). The amount of the Client’s losses incurred by the incident totaled 95605.20 HKD. After the incident the Broker offered compensation to the Client in the amount of 20000 HKD, as a gesture of goodwill.
The Client is not satisfied with the Broker’s decision (see below), does not accept the compensation offered by the Broker, and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the correctness of execution of the disputed transactions closed by Stop Out, as well as demands compensation of losses in the amount of 120000 HKD from the Broker. The Client provided investigation with the screenshot of tick data on the financial instrument XAUUSD in the period of the incident provided by the Broker, as well as the list of transactions liquidated by the Broker, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at actual market prices and in accordance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided investigation with the history of trading operations performed by the Client, the server log records, the history of ticks on the financial instrument XAUUSD in the period of the incident, as well as e-mail correspondence with the Client on this complaint, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
22/04/2022 | 22/05/2022 | |||
Complaint response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company and complainant. 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:
15.11 The Company may (without notice to you) Close Out, but will not be obliged to Close Out or to attempt to Close Out, some or all Open Positions, at that time or any later time as we determine (whether in our discretion or by automatic trading platform management) if: (a) your Account Value falls below the Liquidation Level; or (b) you fail to maintain the required Margin Cover; or (c) at any time, and from time to time, the Company determines that the value of all of your Open Positions (and not taking into account any cash balance in your Account) represents a substantial net unrealized loss to you such that, in our belief, the continued trading, or failure to Close Out, one or more of your Open Positions will or is likely to materially prejudice your Account Value. 15.12 Details of Margin amounts paid and owing by you are available by logging onto your Account.
Summarizing all the above, the Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission has made a decision in favor of the Client and decided as follows:
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 | |||
Client | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
13/06/2022 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged his complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (USD) for active operations with cryptocurrencies.
The Client used account # 8809629 (USD) for active operations with Forex market instruments and CFDs. According to the Client, the specified account was registered on October 13, 2020, and funded with 7990.43 USD on December 21, 2020. On the same day, the Broker credited bonus funds in the amount of 1598 USD to the Client’s account.
By the day of the incident, the Client established 21 Short positions with the financial instrument USOIL with a total volume of 538 lots. The incident on the Client’s account occurred on January 4, 2021, at 12:31:34 (server time). At the specified time the Broker deducted all overnight fees obtained from USOIL positions established by the Client. As a result, this circumstance led to debit of bonus funds from the Client’s account, as well as forced liquidation of the Client’s positions ## 56617870, 56617871, 56617872, 56618848, 56618862, 56623804, 56623805, 56623832, 56623833, 56623834, 56691961 due to deficit of margin (Stop Out). The number of the Client’s losses incurred by the incident totalled 6135.30 USD. Also, it should be noted that shortly after the incident the Client covered the rest of his positions in USOIL manually, at market prices, with additional losses in the amount of 1006 USD.
The Client does not agree with the Broker’s decision (see below), accuses the Broker of misconduct and requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the legitimacy of the Broker’s actions in the period and after the incident. The Client believes that a fair resolution to the dispute should be compensation of financial losses incurred by the incident (7000 USD) from the Broker. The Client provided the investigation with the screenshot taken from the Broker’s platform, as well as the screenshot taken from the live chat, as documentary evidence.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at actual market prices and in accordance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided the investigation with the trading history of the Client, the server log records, the Bonus Promotion T&C, as well as the official response to the Client on this claim, as documentary evidence.
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
17/01/2020 | 28/01/2021 | |||
Complaint response:
The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company and the Client. 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. According to the information received from the Broker, they have experienced a Swap incident on USOIL positions that were incorrectly charged to their clients starting December 23, 2020. The Broker sent out client communication on January 4, 2021 prior to the actual adjustments to inform affected clients that investigation is in place and adjustments would be made shortly. On the same day, adjustments were made and client communication sent to inform affected clients. In this regard the Broker claims that they acted in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and refers to the appropriate clauses of their Client Agreement: 2.5 CHARGES AND CREDIT TO YOUR ACCOUNT … (c) If we discover that we have made an error in respect of any fee calculation, we will rectify that error by giving you written notice within 28 days. … 3.5 ERRORS IN PRICES Errors in pricing may occur from time to time. In these circumstances, we may adjust any element of your Position. See section 3.7 of the Product Disclosure Statement for more information about the basis on which we can do this. … 12.1 EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY To the maximum extent permitted by law, we are not liable for:
2. Also, the Broker claims that the Client received their Credit Bonus under the condition that the Client’s account equity balance must not fall below credit balance, otherwise, the Credit Bonus will be removed, as outlined by the provisions of clause 16 of the Bonus Promotion Terms & Conditions:
The Broker claims that the Swap adjustment made to the Client’s account lowered his account equity level and triggered the removal of the Credit Bonus. It was also partially due to an overnight USOIL price increase from 48.351 to 48.941, which enlarged the Client’s trading loss. 3. It should be noted that trading terms for the Client’s account suggest a floating spread and a Stop Out at 20% level. This information is clearly defined by the Broker’s regulatory documents (see Product Schedule). By opening a trading account of the selected type, the Client agreed to accept the trading terms provided by the Company. According to the Broker, at the time of the incident, the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s account fell below the critical 20% level. As such, due to insufficient margin, the Client’s positions ## 56617870, 56617871, 56617872, 56618848, 56618862, 56623804, 56623805, 56623832, 56623833, 56623834, 56691961 were closed automatically, at prices available on the market (Stop Out). This fact is confirmed by the records from the server log, provided by the Broker. 4. It is quite obvious, that from a legal standpoint the Broker acted in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents. At the same time, it should be noted, that from an operational perspective it does not seem that the Broker acted in a very professional way. The Broker made the error, and only after 2 weeks fixed things opportunistically without explaining to the Client or giving them the chance to deposit additional funds or reduce their position. 5. Financial Commission is committed to the best business practices accepted throughout the industry which assume that, if there is some issue caused by the broker, there shall be minimum impact on the client, and some solutions shall be provided in a swift manner to mitigate negative effects of it on the client’s positions. Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has made a decision in favour of the Client. In the general opinion of the DRC members, the Broker should bear the loss of their errors, as well as communicate much more clearly and take appropriate measures in order to avoid the occurrence of such situations on their clients’ accounts in the future. Accordingly, the Broker must fully satisfy the Client’s requirement for compensation of losses in the amount of 7000 USD incurred by 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. |
||||
Ruled in Favor | Compensation | |||
Client | 7000 USD | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
5/03/2021 | ||
Complaint Matter
Mr. XXX has lodged his complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:
The Client used account # XXX (USD) for active operations with cryptocurrencies.
By the time of the incident, several Long positions were opened on the specified trading account for the ETHUSD financial instrument, with a total volume of 8890.31 micro-lots.
The incident on the Client’s trading account occurred during the flash crash on the cryptocurrency market, on February 22, 2021, at 16:23 (server time). At the specified time, as a result of a short-term surge in the volatility of financial markets and the subsequent unfavourable change in the price of the ETHUSD financial instrument, Client’s positions ## 215349578,
215349585, 215349594, 215349606, 215349616, 215349623, 215349629, 215349635, 215349641,
215349653, 215349660, 215349665, 215349675, 215349680, 215349687, 215349693, 215349701,
215349710, 215349717, 215349723, 215349730, 215349737, 215349743, 215349752, 215349758,
215349766, 215349775, 215349782, 215349787, 215349794, 215349799, 215349807, 215349812,
215349817, 215349824, 215349831, 215349836 were forcibly liquidated by the Broker due to a shortage in margin collateral (Stop Out). As a result of the incident total amount of the Client’s financial losses totalled 7343.52 USD.
According to the Client, the loss of the deposit was a direct consequence of the incorrect operation of the trading server and the illegal actions of the Broker during the incident. The Client is convinced that the liquidation of positions on the ETHUSD financial instrument by the Broker was carried out at non-market prices. As an example, the Client cites prices on Libertex trading platform, www.investing.com platform, as well as large crypto exchanges BitMEX, Binance and other independent financial service providers, where the minimum quotes for the specified financial instrument did not fall below USD 1500 during the incident. At the same time, the quotes of the Broker using Kraken crypto exchange as a liquidity provider dropped to the level of USD 997.92. The client considers such a discrepancy in prices for the same asset to be unacceptable. In the Client opinion, the Broker should act based on the market information obtained from several sources, and not be limited to only one single source, since this limits the objectivity. The Client also notes that during the incident, due to the freezing of the Broker’s trading server, the Buy Limit pending orders did not work on the Client’s trading account, as well as displayed incorrect price information on the trading platform charts.
In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to verify the correctness of the Broker’s actions during the incident and the correctness of the execution of the disputed transactions ## 215349578, 215349585, 215349594, 215349606, 215349616, 215349623, 215349629, 215349635, 215349641, 215349653, 215349660, 215349665, 215349675, 215349680, 215349687, 215349693, 215349701, 215349710, 215349717, 215349723, 215349730, 215349737, 215349743, 215349752, 215349758, 215349766, 215349775, 215349782, 215349787, 215349794, 215349799, 215349807, 215349812, 215349817, 215349824, 215349831, 215349836, as well as a compensation of financial losses incurred by the incident in the amount of 7343.52 USD. As documentary evidence, the Client provided screenshots of the price dynamics of the ETHUSD financial instrument during the incident, taken from the Broker’s trading platform.
In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, since in their opinion all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at actual market prices and in accordance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and trading rules established by the Company. The Broker provided the investigation with the trading history of the Client, the server log records, and tick data history on ETHUSD financial instrument during the incident got from the liquidity provider
Complainant | Broker | |||
XXX | YYY | |||
Financial Commission Complaint | #ZZZ | |||
Complaint Raising Date | Complaint Filing Date | |||
22/02/2021 | 02/03/2021 | |||
Complaint response:
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 the incident on the Client’s trading account occurred against the background of massive actions of market participants to fix profits, after significant growth in the cryptocurrency market and the ETHUSD asset reached the psychologically important price level of 2000 USD on the eve of the incident. The growth of market volatility and, as a consequence, a significant decrease in its liquidity is a typical market reaction during a period of volatility. The client should understand that circumstances of this kind radically change the flow of quotes, since it often involves price gaps, widening spreads and slippage during order execution. The client should be aware that trading in such market conditions is accompanied by significant risks. 2. Secondly, according to the information received from the Broker, the quotation of the ETHUSD financial instrument, disputed by the Client, was received from the Broker’s liquidity provider – the Kraken crypto exchange. In turn, the history of tick data from Kraken indicates that during the incident, the Bid quotes (for which Long positions are closed) for the ETHUSD instrument on the specified exchange dropped to the price level of 690 USD. At the same time, on the Broker’s platform, the minimum value of Bid quotes is registered at 997.92 USD. The Broker explains the difference in the minimum quotes by the fact that his trading system uses filtering mechanisms that do not allow single quotes with serious deviations from the previous ones to enter the stream. 3. Thirdly, according to the trading conditions specified in the “Trading Conditions” section on the Company’s website, the Client’s account type assumes Stop Out at the level of 10%. At the time of the incident, the margin level on the Client’s trading account dropped below the critical level, and therefore the Broker forcibly liquidated the Client’s unprofitable positions. This fact is confirmed by the trade server log entries provided by the Broker. The Broker’s actions during the incident fully comply with the provisions of the Client Agreement: 12.1 In case the Margin Level on the Client’s trading account becomes equal or lower than the Stop Out value, the Company has the right to close all open positions on the Client’s trading account compulsory at the current market price without any preliminary notification and the Client’s consent. Stop Out values for all account types are specified in a comparison table of account types on the Company’s website. 4. Fourth, it should also be noted that the Client assumed the risk of a complete loss of funds in his trading account, under certain circumstances, since he did not use any restrictions on the amount of possible financial losses on open positions, although he could have done this, just as it was done by him in the case of restrictions on profit. For all disputed positions, the Client has placed pending Take Profit orders at the price level of 1676.23 USD. 5. Fifth, in the text of his complaint, the Client refers to technical problems with the Broker’s trading server and the freezing of his trading terminal, which allegedly took place during the incident. The client believes that this circumstance has deprived him of the opportunity to manage his trading account and monitor the price dynamics of the financial market. In addition, according to the Client, in the group of clients affected by this incident, there are allegedly 5% of accounts that survived the drawdown, although they used the same trading algorithm (EA). In this regard, the following should be noted:
2021.02.22 16:23:03.276 ‘37012959’: new account state: Assets: 0.00, Liabilities: 0.00, Equity -5118195.65, Margin: 585468.32, Free Margin: -5703663.97 2021.02.22 16:23:03.276 ‘37012959’: order #215349848 was canceled – not enough money for order activation [#215349848 buy limit 9.18518K ETHUSD at 1583.97] 2021.02.22 16:23:03.292 ‘37012959’: position stop out triggered [#215349836 buy 1.48346K ETHUSD 1631.75 tp: 1676.23] [#215397080 sell 1.48346K ETHUSD at 997.92] [997.92 / 1249.34]
6. Finally, it should also be mentioned that, in the Client’s opinion, the quotes of the Kraken crypto exchange are not an authoritative source, and the brokerage company is obliged to aggregate prices from different crypto exchanges and provide clients with average prices. According to the experts of the Dispute Resolution Committee, this request is not realistic, since prices on different crypto-exchanges tend to deviate significantly from each other, especially during periods of low volatility, such as the one that took place during the incident. It should also be noted that in a decentralized market, which is the FOREX market, each broker can offer its clients prices close to the real market, although slightly different from the prices of other brokers. This is normal practice, given the varying transaction volumes for each individual broker, the ever-changing market situation and some other factors. Considering the above and taking into account the abnormal market conditions during the incident, as well as the documentary evidence provided by the Broker, the experts of the Committee, by a majority vote, decided in favour of the Broker. According to the decision taken, the actions of the Broker to forcibly liquidate Client’s unprofitable positions ## 215349578, 215349585, 215349594, 215349606, 215349616, 215349623, 215349629, 215349635, 215349641, 215349653, 215349660, 215349665, 215349675, 215349680, 215349687, 215349693, 215349701, 215349710, 215349717, 215349723, 215349730, 215349737, 215349743, 215349752, 215349758, 215349766, 215349775, 215349782, 215349787, 215349794, 215349799, 215349807, 215349812, 215349817, 215349824, 215349831, 215349836 during the incident were recognized by the experts of the Committee as correct and executed in accordance with the provisions of the Broker’s regulatory documents and the trading rules adopted by the Company. Also, according to the general opinion of the DRC experts, the Broker should notify its clients from which crypto-exchange the quotes are taken, so that such questions do not arise in the future. Based on the above, the Dispute Resolution Committee does not see any violations on the part of the Broker and does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint. 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 | |||
Broker | None | |||
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please send them to the following address [email protected] | ||||
Acknowledgement | ||||
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. | ||||
Signature | Designation | Date | ||
Anatoly Bulanov |
Head of DRC |
31/03/2021 | ||