Complaint Matter

Mrs. XXXXXX has lodged her complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:

The Client used account # 2100064231 for active trading operations in the FOREX market. The incident occurred on January 26, 2018 at 00:01:57 (server time). By the time of the incident several positions in GBPUSD were established by the Client on the specified account:

Ticket Open Time             Type Volume Item Price S/L T/P Close time Price Swap Profit
17417482 2018.01.19 13:35:35 sell   0.2 GBPUSD 1.38711 0 1.38681 2018.01.26 00:01:57 1.41508 -0.99 -559.4
17441405 2018.01.23 06:11:12 sell   0.2 GBPUSD 1.39785 0 1.38681 2018.01.26 00:01:57 1.41508 -0.71 -344.6
17521949 2018.01.25 16:32:56 buy 1.5 GBPUSD 1.43084 0 0 2018.01.26 00:01:57 1.41508 -10.5 -2 662.5
17534988 2018.01.25 22:32:54 sell   1.1 GBPUSD 1.41333 0 0 2018.01.26 00:01:57 1.41508 -0.78 -192.5

 

Thus, by the time of the incident:

According to the Client, before the incident she cancelled T/P and S/L orders in order to manage her positions manually, since the president Trump’s speech was scheduled later that day.  However, after some time she discovered that her trading platform lost connection with the server. She contacted two representatives of the Broker’s via Facebook chat but didn’t get any useful advice or help from them. Market experienced a round of high volatility after the president Trump started to deliver his speech. This, in turn, caused widening of the spread in the financial instrument GBPUSD. As a result, all Client’s positions were liquidated by the Broker due to deficit of margin (Stop Out).

The Client believes that all losses on her trading account were incurred by the technical update of the server on Broker’s side. Client claims that she was unable to connect to the server and failed to manage her open positions as well as establish new hedge positions for the period of two hours.    

In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission to investigate the incident and believes that the Broker should compensate all losses ($3772) incurred from the technical issue mentioned above. The Client provided the screenshots of the frozen terminal taken at the time of the incident, the records from the terminal logs taken from two different PCs, as well as the screenshots of Facebook chat, as documentary evidence.

For his part, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint, as in his opinion, all Client’s positions were closed correctly, at real market prices and in accordance with the provisions of the regulatory documents. The Broker claims that no upgrades were released during market hours on January 25-26, 2018 and the Client was served as honestly and professionally as always, however information provided by the Client contains some accusations towards the company that are based on non-existent and distorted factual circumstances presented in the complaint.

Because this case involved specific trades conducted by the client, the complaint was classified as a “trade-related” dispute. Unfortunately, the DRC was unable to receive necessary server logs and other information from the Broker to conduct a thorough analysis of the trades in question.

As such, the DRC had to rely on all factual and documentary evidence provided by both broker and client to issue a decision and was not able to independently verify pricing and tick data. Given the abundance of evidence of a technical malfunction on the Broker’s trading server and the reluctance of the Broker to provide additional information from their execution venue for review of trade executions, the DRC issued a decision in the client’s favor in full.

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
26/01/2018 29/01/2018
Complaint response:

The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by Mrs. XXXXXX and the brokerage company 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, it should be noted that the Client has provided significant evidence of system failure. The records from two different terminal logs, as well as screenshots of the frozen trading platform provided by the Client, show the same technical problem – multiple failed trials of the Client to connect to the server.
  2. Also, it should be noted, that the Broker refused to provide server logs which can show whether the XXX server was running at the time of the incident or not. Server logs contain not only the trading operations but also various service records, which make it possible to understand that the trading server was turned on and worked normally. These logs were not provided to DRC members for review.
  3. Taking into account the documentary evidence provided by the Client (screenshots from Facebook), the experts of the DRC have come to the conclusion that at the time of the incident the Client was trying to contact Broker’s representatives in order to resolve the problem with her trading account. In turn, the Broker’s staff had a good opportunity to explain to the Client that there are alternative ways to close positions but refused to do so.

Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee ruled in favor of the Client. Members of the Committee believe that canceling the financial results of the disputed transactions is a fair decision in this case. Accordingly, the Broker should compensate the losses of the Client in the amount of $3772.

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 3772.00 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

March 7th 2018

Complaint Matter

Mr. XXX has lodged his complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:

The Client used account #XXXXX for active trading in Binary Options. The incident on the Client’s account occurred on May 11, 2018. On that day the Broker refused to execute the withdrawal application submitted by the Client and blocked all funds in the amount of 1724.84 USD on his trading account. The Broker accuses the Client in violation of the Service Agreement for trading on non-market prices. In turn, the Client claims that he has been trading with the Broker for several months using the same strategy and considers the actions of the Broker as unfair.

In connection with the above, the Client requests the Dispute Resolution Committee to check the correctness of execution of the disputed transactions and release the funds in the amount 1724.84 USD for withdrawal.

In turn, the Broker does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint and claims that after performing an audit of all Client’s transactions, the Company came to the conclusion that the Client was trading on the platform solely on non-market quotes. According to the Broker, all large transactions opened by the Client at 00: 00: XX on May 2, May 1 and earlier in April were executed on non-market prices. In support of his decision, the Broker provided the history of transactions performed by the Client (with a number of disputed transactions highlighted by the Broker), as well as the screenshots of two disputed transactions (## 443230214, 453677578), taken from www.tradeproofer.com, as documentary evidence.

In this particular case, the DRC one again classified the complaint as a “trade-related dispute” and as such conducted a price and execution analysis of the trades. The results identified trades that were executed under normal market conditions with prices comparable to independent execution venues but also identified trades that were executed at “off-market” rates.

As such, the decision, in this case, was made in favor of the client, but partially, since there were some trades identified as “off-market” in the investigation phase of the resolution process that, in the opinion of the DRC, do not warrant a return of trade results back to the customer.

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
14/05/2018 15/05/2018
Complaint response:

The decision on this complaint is based on the information provided by the brokerage company and Mr. XXXXX.

After a comprehensive analysis of the documentary evidence provided by the Client and the Broker the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission has come to the following conclusions:

  1. First of all, it should be noted that in order to make a decision on this case, the DRC conducted a thorough analysis of the Client’s trading activity on account # XXXXXX. To ensure an objective investigation of the case the DRC requested historical data on the financial instruments in the disputed transactions from other independent providers of financial services.
  2. Verification of price feeds from other brokerage companies confirmed the fact that the majority of all large transactions opened by the Client at 00: 00: XX on May 2, May 1 and earlier in April were executed at real market prices.
  3. Also, significant deviations in the Broker’s quote feed were registered at the time of execution of the following transactions: ## 435806744, 435806766, 435806981, 443231124, 443230049, 443230006, 443232420, 443230214, 453677578, 453677530, 455609306, 455609281, 455609345, 455609378, 455609391. This confirms the fact that a number of transactions performed by the Client at 00: 00: XX on May 2, May 1 and earlier in April were executed at non-market prices, since the quotes published by the Broker at the moment of execution of these transactions were non-consistent with acceptable market prices.

Summarizing all the above the DRC has made a decision in favor of the Client. The members of the DRC have not found any evidence proving the fact that the Client somehow violated any provisions of the Service Agreement, and as such, should be allowed to withdraw his funds without any restrictions. However, the DRC has found sufficient evidence proving the fact that the disputed transactions ## 435806744, 435806766, 435806981, 443230049, 443230006, 443232420, 443230214, 453677578, 453677530, 455609306, 455609281, 455609345, 455609378, 455609391 were executed at non-market prices, and as such, the financial results of these transactions (profit in the amount of 427.17 USD) should be canceled by the Broker.

This complaint was reviewed by the members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission and was processed by the Head of the Committee.

Ruled in Favor Compensation
Client 1297.67 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

June 8th 2018

Complaint Matter

Mr. XXX has lodged his complaint with the Financial Commission on the following grounds:

The Client used trading account #XXXXX for trading operations on the Binary Options market.

The incident on the client’s trading account occurred on March 14th, 2018. At the time of the incident, between 00:10:03 and 00:13:21 (server time) the client opened several positions on the currency pair GBPCHF (12 positions at 4,000 rubles in size and 1 position at 5,100 rubles in size). Further, according to the client, the trading platform experienced a technical issue, during which the price charts for GBPCHF stopped moving on the trading platform, after which a message appeared “trading in GBPCHF has been stopped due to technical reasons”. As a result, all 13 open positions were closed by the broker and resulted in a material loss. It is the client’s opinion that the prices displayed for GBPCHF on the trading platform at the time of the incident were “off-market” rates that significantly differ from the prices available at other trade execution venues.

Considering the above, the client has asked the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) of the Financial Commission to check the validity of the trade executions on the client’s account and is demanding a compensation from their broker in the amount of 84,960 rubles (account balance of 53,100 rubles + unrealized profit in the amount of 31,860 rubles), which were lost as a result of the executed trades on the broker’s platform. The client provided documentary evidence to the DRC in the form of written communications with the broker, screenshots of their trading platform during the technical malfunction, historical rates for GBPCHF pair taken from the trading platform of finam.ru, as well as screenshots of GBPCHF price charts taken from the website investing.com.

For its part, the Broker decided that it would be a fair decision in this particular case to cancel all the trades conducted by the client on the trading platform on March 14th, 2018. As such, all trade results were annulled by the Broker.

In studying the facts of the case the DRC determined this to be a “trade-related dispute”. Trade disputes are related directly to the process of trading on the markets and include the execution of orders, margin requirement calculations, commission and trade cost calculations, trade liquidations and other situations directly related to placing trades on the Forex, CFD, and Binary Options markets.  

As such, the Committee conducted a thorough review of the client’s trades, the execution prices and the prices available at other independent execution venues. As a result, the DRC found that the broker unnecessarily annulled the results of all trades and determined which specific trades were executed under normal market conditions.

It is with this determination that the DRC ruled partially in the customer’s favor – to restore the P/L from transactions that executed in normal market conditions.

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
14/03/2018 22/03/2018
Complaint response:

The decision for this complaint is based on the information provided by the Client and the Broker.

To ensure an objective investigation of the incident, the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) of the Financial Commission closely examined the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the dispute. Having analyzed the materials of the complaint, the Dispute Resolution Committee has come to the following conclusions:

The disputed transactions on GBPCHF were analyzed by the DRC to ensure that trades were executed at real market prices. To conduct this unbiased analysis the DRC received historical price data from several independent execution venues. The analysis of the tick price data showed:

  1. Transactions ## 413830671, 413830688 should not be challenged, since they were executed and closed at reasonable, live market rates.
  2. Transactions ## 413830720, 413830756 should not be challenged, since they were executed at reasonable, live market rates and even though they were closed at rates that signaled a technical error was about to occur, since the closing price did not affect the material outcome of the trade.
  3. All further transactions and trading results (## 413831298, 413831304, 413831316, 413831322, 413831354, 413831367, 413831374, 413831458, 413831710, 413831718, 413832271, 413832294, 413832319) should be annulled because they were opened and closed at “off-market” rates according to the DRC’s analysis.

Taking into account the above-mentioned trade execution analysis, the DRC is of the opinion that the Broker should reinstate the trading results (P/L) for transactions ## 413830671, 413830688, 413830720, 413830756 and compensate the client 9,600 rubles, which equals the amount of profit/loss resulting from these transactions.

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 9,600 rubles
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

April 6th 2018

Complaint Matter

Ms. XXX has lodged his complaint with Financial Commission on the following grounds:

The Client used trading account #XXXXX for trading operations on the Forex and CFD market. Having had little to no experience trading the markets, the Client used the services of an investment consultant (a representative of the broker XXXX).

At the time of the alleged incident described in the complaint the Client held open positions LONG and SHORT (including hedged positions) in several financial instruments:

-sum of SHORT position size on Aluminium equal to 1.40 contracts,

-sum of LONG position size on Aluminium equal to 1.40 contracts,

-NET position size on Aluminium equal to 0.00 contracts;

– sum of SHORT position size on  Palladium equal to 0.50 contracts,

– sum of LONG position size on Palladium equal to 1.00 contracts,

– NET position size on Palladium equal to 0.50 contracts;

– sum of SHORT position size on Platinum equal to 0.50 contracts,

– sum of LONG position size on Platinum equal to 0.50 contracts,

– NET position size on Platinum equal to 0.00 contracts;

– sum of SHORT position size on Crude Oil equal to 0.50 contracts,

– sum of LONG position size on Crude Oil equal to 0.50 contracts,

– NET position size on Crude Oil equal to 0.00 contracts;

– sum of SHORT position size on USDRUB equal to 340000 of base currency,

– sum of LONG position size on USDRUB equal to 50000 of base currency,

– NET position size on USDRUB equal to 290000 of base currency;

– sum of LONG position size on Gold equal to 0.10 contracts;

-sum of SHORT position size on USDJPY equal to 20000 of base currency.

The incident occured on the Client’s account on November 30th, 2017 at 16:20 (trading server time). At this time a new SHORT position was established in the account on the USDRUB currency pair:

 

Ticket Open time Type Volume Item Price S/L T/P Close time Price Swap Profit
1483737 30.11.2016 16:20 sell 3.00 usdrub 63.4520 0.00 0.00 30.11.2016 16:20 65.4491 0.00 -9 154.14

 

The opening of the order #1483737 led to the decrease in margin on the account to a critical level and, as a result led to the liquidation of all open positions on the account by the Broker (Stop Out).

The Client states that she believes her trading account deposit was lost due to the deliberate actions of the investment consultant. In supporting this conclusion the Client argues that the investment consultant: opened too many trades, did not employ simple rules of equity management, placed trades in products with high spreads, frequent use of hedging in trading. The Client is requesting the Broker to return funds in the amount of $16343 that were deposit in the trading account. The documentary evidence provided by the Client includes a trading account statement for account #XXXXXX, as well as audio recordings of conversations with a representative of Broker YYYYY.

The Broker believes the Client’s complaint is not justified and does not take any responsibility for the losses incurred on the Clients’ account, because, as stated by the Broker, the Client was made aware of all risks involved in trading leveraged products on the financial market. The appropriate risk disclosures were provided to the Client in electronic format during the account opening process.

Moreover, the Broker indicated that all trades conducted on the Client’s account were made either directly by the Client or by the investment consultant after receiving verbal confirmation from the Client.

Following the Dispute Resolution Committee’s decision in the case, the Broker did not satisfy the DRC’s decision to compensate the client within 28 days, according to the Rules and Guidelines of the Financial Commission.

Because the Broker failed to satisfy the decision, the Commission took emergency action to assist the Client and invoked the use of the Compensation Fund to compensate the Client for their losses identified in the DRC decision. As a result, the Client was awarded the maximum amount of $5000 from the Compensation Fund, as the Broker was a Category B member.

Furthermore, the Commission took action and expelled the Broker’s membership with the Financial Commission.

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
30/11/2016 11/01/2017
Complaint response:

The decision for this complaint is based on the information provided by the Client and the Broker.

To ensure an objective investigation of the incident, the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) of the Financial Commission closely examined the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the dispute. Having analyzed the materials of the complaint, the Dispute Resolution Committee has come to the following conclusions:

  1. With regards to the financial losses incurred by the Client due to the trading conducted by the investment consultant it is necessary to note that the Client should have been aware of all the risk associated with using or not using any trading strategy provided by the investment consultant:
  • According to section 7 of the Customer Agreement

7.1 The Company does not consult the Client on the benefits of any specific trade order or otherwise provide any other consulting regarding investments, and the Client agrees that the services do not include investment consultations on financial instruments, base markets or equity. The Client makes trading decisions exclusively of their own accord, including to place trading orders.

7.2 The Company is not required to provide any legal, tax or other advise associated with any trades. If the Client wishes, they can consult with an independent party on such matters before executing a trade.

  • The Client completed a Client questionnaire and in doing so should have evaluated their risk tolerance and also provided an acknowledgement that they accept the Terms of service with the Company that states that “the Client shall decide how to manage their account, place orders and make decisions of their own fruition.”
  • The Company takes adequate steps to provide risk warnings to customers that can result in trading non-exchange traded products, including risk warnings displayed on the Company website and electronic messages addresses to clients:

Risk Warning: Trading leveraged products such as CFD’s involves substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Trading such products is risky and you may lose all of your invested capital. Please click here to read full Risk Disclosure. Safekeeping and Brokerage services are provided by XXXX. with license number YYYY, address in ZZZZ. XXXX does not establish accounts to residents or passport holders of certain jurisdictions including Canada and USA.

  1. It is also important to point out that the Client is not disputing the any verbal instructions that she gave to the investment consultant for conducting trades on her account. This is confirmed by audio recordings provided by the client.

 

  1. Nonetheless, there is one instance which points to the responsibility of the Broker for partial losses incurred on the Client’s account. In particular, the Broker could not provide the Dispute Resolution Committee comments on trade #XXXXXX, which, according to the account statements provided by the Broker was closed at an off market rate (i.e. without the spread amount of 2 RUB). This fact puts into question the validity of trade  #XXXXXX and all other subsequent trades in the account (including trade #ZZZZZ), which led to the liquidation of positions on the account and subsequent losses.

 

  1. In response to its questions the DRC did not receive in a timely matter other evidence requested from the Broker, including trading server logs indicating tick pricing on the USDRUB currency pair at the time of the incident.

As such, having reviewed all the facts and circumstances of the dispute, the DRC has come to unanimous agreement that trades #XXXXX and ZZZZZZ) conducted on trading account #XXXXX should be deemed invalid and the results of these trades annulled. Given this determination, the Broker must compensate the Client for losses incurred with trades #XXXXX and #ZZZZZZ in the sum of $9233.90.

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 $9233.90
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

March 6th 2017

 

Complaint Matter

Ms. XXX has lodged his complaint with Financial Commission on the following grounds:

The Client used trading account #XXXXX for trading operations on the Forex and CFD market. Having had little to no experience trading the markets, the Client used the services of an investment consultant (a representative of the broker XXXX).

The Client states that she believes her trading account deposit was lost due to the deliberate actions of the investment consultant. In the words of the Client in the beginning of the process of working with the consultant, the Client did not conduct any self-directed trades as they relied on the consultant to place trades on her behalf in the trading account using a remote access program called TeamViewer. After the trading account lost considerable equity (approximately $2000) the client was introduced to another investment consultant of the Broker, who conducted a series of trades with metals contracts, as instructed by the Client herself. As a result, the subsequent trades in the account led to the Client losing her full initial deposit amount.

The Client is requesting the Broker to return funds in the amount of the initial deposit less $150, which was withdrawn from the account on December 13th 2016 ($2082). The documentary evidence provided by the Client includes a trading account statement for account #XXXXXX, as well as screenshot of an electronic message from the investment consultant with instructions on downloading the TeamViewer program.

The Broker believes the Client’s complaint is not justified and does not take any responsibility for the losses incurred on the Clients’ account, because, as stated by the Broker, the Client was made aware of all risks involved in trading leveraged products on the financial market. The appropriate risk disclosures were provided to the Client in electronic format during the account opening process.

Moreover, the Broker indicated that all trades conducted on the Client’s account were made either directly by the Client or by the investment consultant after receiving verbal confirmation from the Client.

Following the Dispute Resolution Committee’s decision in the case, the Broker did not satisfy the DRC’s decision to compensate the client within 28 days, according to the Rules and Guidelines of the Financial Commission.

Because the Broker failed to satisfy the decision, the Commission took emergency action to assist the Client and invoked the use of the Compensation Fund to compensate the Client for their losses identified in the DRC decision. As a result, the Client was awarded $2082 from the Compensation Fund.

Furthermore, the Commission took action and expelled the Broker’s membership with the Financial Commission

 

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
16/12/2016 04/01/2017
Complaint response:

The decision for this complaint is based on the information provided by the Client and the Broker.

To ensure an objective investigation of the incident, the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission closely examined the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the dispute. Having analyzed the materials of the complaint, the Dispute Resolution Committee has come to the following conclusions:

  1. With regards to the financial losses incurred by the Client due to the trading conducted by the investment consultant it is necessary to note that the Client should have been aware of all the risk associated with using or not using any trading strategy provided by the investment consultant:
  • According to section 7 of the Customer Agreement

7.1 The Company does not consult the Client on the benefits of any specific trade order or otherwise provide any other consulting regarding investments, and the Client agrees that the services do not include investment consultations on financial instruments, base markets or equity. The Client makes trading decisions exclusively of their own accord, including to place trading orders.

7.2 The Company is not required to provide any legal, tax or other advise associated with any trades. If the Client wishes, they can consult with an independent party on such matters before executing a trade.

  • The Client completed a Client questionnaire and in doing so should have evaluated their risk tolerance and also provided an acknowledgement that they accept the Terms of service with the Company that states that “the Client shall decide how to manage their account, place orders and make decisions of their own fruition.”
  • The Company takes adequate steps to provide risk warnings to customers that can result in trading non-exchange traded products, including risk warnings displayed on the Company website and electronic messages addresses to clients:

Risk Warning: Trading leveraged products such as CFD’s involves substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Trading such products is risky and you may lose all of your invested capital. Please click here to read full Risk Disclosure. Safekeeping and Brokerage services are provided by XXXX. with license number YYYY, address in ZZZZ. XXXX does not establish accounts to residents or passport holders of certain jurisdictions including Canada and USA.

  1. On the other hand, the Client states that they never agreed to allow the first investment consultant to place trades on her account, verbally or otherwise. In this regard it is important to note that the broker did not provide the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) evidence of audio recordings with the Client in a timely manner as set out in the Membership Rules and Guidelines. Thus no evidence was provided indicating that the Client gave verbal agreement to the investment consultant to conduct trades on her account. This puts into question the Broker’s statement regarding the full responsibility of the Client for all the trades conducted in the account.

As such, having reviewed all the facts and circumstances of the dispute, the DRC has come to unanimous agreement that all the trades conducted on trading account #XXXXX should be deemed invalid. Given this determination, the Broker must compensate the Client for all losses incurred on the account in the sum of $2082.

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 $ 2082
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

March 7th 2017