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

 

Complaint Matter

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

The Client used account #XXXXX for trading operations in the Forex and CFD markets. The incident occurred on 29.04.2016 shortly before the end of the US trading session on Friday. By the time of the incident, the client established a SHORT position in USDJPY:

27464405      29.04.2016      18:00      sell       15       usdjpy         106.894        107.453        0.000

According to the Client, he placed his Stop Loss order at 107.453 price level, however, the Take Profit order was not set, because the trade was under his full control. After a short period of time, the client’s position was closed by Stop Loss order with a slippage of several points.

The client does not agree with the actions of the Broker and believes that his position was closed at the non-market price. This follows from a comparison of USDJPY price graph in the platform of the Broker with the similar price graphs of other financial services providers.

The client considers the actions of the Broker as unfair and requires:

– to recover funds lost due to improper closing of the short position ($8469.69);

– to compensate for unrealized gains on closed position in the amount of $26150.

For its part, the Broker believes that the Client’s complaint has no ground because his order was executed at real market prices. In support of his decision, the Broker provided the investigation with the server log records and the screenshot of the 1m chart of the instrument.

In addition to the above, the Broker refers to the paragraph XX.XX of the Terms of Business, according to which “The Trading Server of the Broker is the only reliable source of quotations, by which any relationship between both Sides arising from the Customer Agreement, the Terms of Business and other documents of the Company will be governed.”

Complainant Broker
XXX YYY
Financial Commission Complaint #ZZZ
Complaint Raising Date Complaint Filing Date
29/04/2016 7/06/2016
Complaint Response

The decision for this complaint is based on the information provided by Mr. XXX and Broker YYY. In order to investigate the incident and to make an objective decision on the complaint, the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Financial Commission closely examined the price dynamics of USDJPY in the period before and after the incident.After a comprehensive analysis of the market situation in the USDJPY instrument at the time of the incident, the Committee concluded that there were non-market prices in the quote feed of the Broker.

Thus, the Committee considers that the transaction, which resulted in a Stop Loss order execution, should be canceled. Broker must compensate the losses incurred in a transaction # 27464405 in full ($ 8469.69).

As for the customer’s requirements on partial or full reimbursement of the amount of unrealized profit, which was lost because of Broker’s misconduct, the Committee considers that this is not acceptable, because the Client did not indicate his intentions with respect to his open position, and it cannot be assumed what kind of actions he would take in relation to his position otherwise.

In addition, the Committee members consider unacceptable the restoration of the Customer’s position after a long period of time, and in connection with the inability to initiate the trade at the original price.

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 $ 8469.69
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

8/07/2016

 

索诉事宜

XXX先生向金融委员会就如下事宜进行索诉:

客户称其经纪服务商按照《交易条款》9.9 和 9.22 条内容,以“非市场报价”删除、修改了其欧元兑卢布的一系列已关闭交易。

根据客户的意见,经纪服务商试图证明这些报价是由于违反了“客户协议” 16.1 b 条而产生的技术失误,亦即当这些条款的盈利被记录在客户的账户中的时候,经纪商迟后改变了交易条件。

客户承认经纪商提供了比竞争者优惠的交易条件,从而使客户在高度波动的市场行情中获得了盈利。但是客户认为任何的技术失误或非市场报价在所诉时间段都没有发生。

在其自己的做出了如下辩解:

1. 这个案子并未涉及到经纪商引用的“交易条款”第 10.1 条所述的最后一项条件。根据“交易条款” 10.1 条,非市场报价或者说跳空报价都只是错误价格,并且具有如下特征:

a) 明显的价格跳空;

b) 短期跳空价都有价格反弹;

c) 在跳空前都没有快速价格剧烈波动;

d) 没有宏观经济数据发布,或者同时也没有可以影响价格的全国性数据报告.

2. 客户认为,经纪商在官网上提供的此段行情中的非市场报价与欧元兑卢布汇率报价没有关系。

3. 客户提供了其他经纪商欧元兑卢布汇率在此段剧烈波动价格时间段的分时图截屏。

因此,客户要求还原2014年11月7日市场收盘前的交易记录,或者无需还原交易记录只需货币赔偿4742.62美金。

索诉者 经纪商
XXX YYY
金融委员会投诉 编号#ZZZ
投诉起始日 索诉受理日
2014年11月15日 2014年12月1日
索诉仲裁结果:

 

此索诉仲裁结果基于XXX先生和YYY经纪商并欧元兑卢布汇率在给定时间段的市场行情。

1) 在此期间,卢布波动剧烈,市场经历着加剧的波动和清淡交易。这时任何新闻或央行消息,抑或其他市场大单都可能引起汇率价格大幅波动;

2) 客户在此期间并未改变交易策略,也没有试图欺骗经纪商。根据经纪商报告显示,客户并未有激进的交易行为,同时客户也没有在类似条件下改变交易策略;

3) 经纪商不应迟后改变交易条件,也应注意到可能的卢布汇率波动。在交投清淡时关闭盈利交易单被判定为故意拒付客户款项;

4) 经纪商拥有足够的手段以在交投清淡时规避交易风险,特别是对于交投清淡的汇率商品,应该制定特别的交易规则;

基于以上信息,仲裁委员会判定客户胜诉,经纪商须补偿客户损失。

此索诉案由金融委员会所属仲裁委员会成员评审,并由委员会主席执行。

胜诉方 补偿
客户 $ 4742.62
如果您有关于仲裁评审的任何问题,请发邮件到:[email protected]
声明
我声明所有信息已被金融委员会下属争议解决会评审,进而确认本决定为公正、公平和独立的。我承诺本文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 责任人 日期

争议解决会会长

2014年12月1日

投诉事宜

XXX 先生已基于以下事宜向金融委员会提起投诉:

事件发生于2015年11月6日,当时美国非农就业报告公布。此前,客户账户余额为 13501卢布,客户已开立 EURUSD多个头寸。事件发生之前,客户建立的EURUSD 空头头寸总值为 80000 基础货币单位。就在报告公布前,客户又增加了三个卖出止损(Sell Stop)挂单:

146331265   06.11.2015 卖  0.20  EURUSD   1.08500 (订单由于资金不足而未被执行)

146330490  06.11.2015 卖  1.50  EURUSD    1.08300 (订单被执行)

                       06.11.2015 卖  1.50  EURUSD   1.08000 (订单未被执行)

格林尼治标准时间 13:30,市场由于美国失业数据而出现一段激烈价格波动。当报告公布的当口,EURUSD 市场一下子出现了超出10个点位的跳空。

客户投诉其经纪商违反了在价格跳空时开立挂单的程序,从而导致保证金亏损,于是客户头寸被斩仓清盘。客户认为编号为 146331265的挂单应该先被执行,而不是编号为 146330490 的挂单被执行,并认为一旦执行正确,编号为 146330490 的订单就会由于缺乏资金而被取消。

客户认为经纪商的行为属于过失,并要求赔偿(至少应返还损失的保证金)。

投诉者 经纪商
XXX 先生 YYY 经纪商
金融委员会投诉 编号ZZZ
投诉起始日 投诉受理日
2015年11月17日 2015年12月4日
投诉回复针对本投诉的裁决基于XXX先生和经纪商YYY所提供的信息。首先应注意,以上所提到的市场对于重要的美国宏观经济数据的反应并不罕见,并时常导致波动行情、短期流动性下滑,并从而导致价格跳空,带来交易品种的点差大小增加。第二需要注意的是:买止/卖止型订单天然就不能保证客户订单在精准的设定价位成交。根据市场行情,此类订单或许以设定的精准价位成交,也可能比订单设定的价位要差。一旦经纪商的报价信息流中的价位达到客户设定的买止/卖止挂单价位就会生效。在挂单激活后第一个经纪商报价信息流中的可适用报价必须成交。按此情况,客户编号为146331265和146330490的订单位于价格跳空区间,并在经纪商的服务器中同步被激活。本事实在经纪商提供的服务器日志文件中有记录。

第三,经纪商并未操控价格跳空期间的订单执行程序。另外,在实际的与以上提及的行情出现时间段,银行间市场遵从市场逻辑为大额度订单优先被执行。订单交易的执行技术是以大额订单优先原则来执行,并且之后较小的订单交易才能以仍然有效的价位被执行。

这种挂单执行方式也与客户收到的经纪商YYY的官方回复是一致的。

根据以上信息,仲裁委员会未发现经纪商的任何违规行为,因此也没有形成支持客户投诉的理由。

本投诉由金融委员会的仲裁委员会审理,并由委员会主席安纳托利·布拉诺夫监理。

胜诉方 赔偿
经纪商
若您有任何有关本稽查的问题,请发邮件到以下邮箱:[email protected]
承认
我证实所有信息都由金融委员会的争议解决会慎重考量,并在此确认本决定不违反公平、公正和独立处理原则。我确信涉及案件文件所提供的信息属实。
签名 职位 日期

仲裁委员会主席

2015年12月4日

投诉事宜

在瑞士央行宣布了它放弃瑞士法郎相对欧元和其他货币汇率下限引发汇率持续增值的动荡行情之后,元月15日客户的两单价格与市场行情不一致的欧元兑瑞郎的头寸被斩仓,尽管欧元兑瑞郎汇率急速下挫,客户的两张0.01份欧元兑瑞郎空头头寸单在瑞士央行通告之后被一个与市场报价1.20水平相反的的价穿刺价位1.33的非市场价格平仓。客户声称此次斩仓价位不但与市场价格完全不符,而且也使他丧失了瑞行宣布后行情价格大幅下滑而获利的机会。客户与经纪商取得了联系,经纪商初步做出了拒绝他以当时实际接近0.85的市场价位结算的要求。在金融委员会仲裁征询客户是否获得经纪商任何的补偿的时候,他确认收到了经纪商的保证金返还。 客户要求他的两张头寸在0.85的点位进行平仓,并重开被注销的PAMM账户,以便可以交易或提款。 客户给出了关于他的PAMM账户头寸情况信息。

投诉者 经纪商
XXX 先生 YYY 公司
金融委员会投诉 编号#ZZZ
投诉起始日 投诉受理日
2015年1月15日 2015年12月4日
投诉回复 ***经纪商回应确认动荡行情发生于瑞士央行宣布政策之时。经纪商声明当时其专家监测到他们的流动性供应商提供的价位和交易量指标在两台服务器上显示最高挑到1.3269。 经纪商声称他们的对冲交易没有被修正或取消,尽管他们试图这样做。 然而经纪商对MT4交易行情图进行了修正,并且决定对其客户进行因行情引起的损失补偿。客户的账户获得了85.12美元和61.13欧元的补偿。 他也及时地收到了通知。此补偿决定基于客户和YYY经纪商提供的信息。综上情况,争议解决会发现情况有利客户。争议解决会发现瑞行宣布后的反向价格穿刺与市场报价并不一致,并注意到经纪商采取行动补偿了客户。 争议解决会发现客户应该在有机会反映其损失机会的同时,更应获得一种公平补偿。争议解决会承认经纪商在做出决定时会遇到进一步补偿客户的技术问题。 然而,解决会认为经纪商不必要对客户基于已发生交易数据而可能取得的全部假设收入负有赔付责任。
胜诉方 补偿
客户  会员经纪商决定
如果您对本案有任何问题,请发电邮:[email protected]
声明
我证明所有信息已被金融委员会下属争议解决会考核,进而确认本决定为公正、公平和独立的。我信任本文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 责任人 日期

争议解决会会长

2015年2月24日

投诉事宜 

XXX 先生以下列事件为由向金融委员会提出投诉:

客户声称其美元兑卢布头寸于11月28日在一个非市场价位被斩仓。客户提出点差幅度不对称,从而引起市场报价对其空头头寸不利。同时经纪商的其他非市场报价被以一个引起客户头寸斩仓交易的价位被例外执行、客户要求补偿其1,434.81美元的损失。

投诉者 经纪商
XXX 先生 YYY 公司
金融委员会投诉 编号#ZZZ
投诉起始日 投诉受理日
2014年11月28日 2014年12月18日
投诉回应

经纪商提供了上述日期客户头寸被斩仓的具体数据,坚持当天多次动荡行情引起的美元兑卢布点差扩大。经纪商声称在正常状态下点差是稳定的,但非常的动荡行情会引起流动性提供商供给点差扩大,反映在流动性提供商的报价中。经纪商也为客户提供了一种在不同情况下之不同的账户选择和固定点差。

本投诉仲裁决定以经纪商和客户双方提供的信息为依据。

综上所述,争议解决会发现情况对客户有利——尽管行情动荡增加,但当天的斩仓价格记录与市场价格不甚符合。

本投诉仲裁由金融委员会争议解决会审查,并由解决会会长梳理与决策。

胜诉方 补偿
客户 $1,434.81
If 如果您对本仲裁案有任何问题,请发邮件至: [email protected]
承认
我证实所有信息都由金融委员会的争议解决会慎重考量,并在此确认本决定不违反公平、公正和独立处理原则。我确信涉及案件文件所提供的信息属实。
签名 职位 日期

仲裁委员会主席

2015年1月5日

投诉详情

在2013年2月14日开立了交易账户 #XXXXX 之后,投诉人使用多种支付方式进行了多次入金。客户账户入金总金额为 32143.25美元。2013年9月5日,客户做了额度为170美元的试验提款。2013年11月8日,客户第一次提交了3000美元的提款要求。2013年11月11日,客户又提交了3000美元的第二次提款要求。客户确认其所有的提款要求都送达到了经纪商的管理部门及其私人经理人。

2013年11月12日,争议开始发生。此日经纪商锁定了客户的交易账户,强行平仓了客户的头寸,导致总计 25980美元的亏损。为了为其行为辩解,经纪商引述一个事实,即客户于2013年7月8日对其入金操作进行了退款操作。经纪商声明客户使用的支付方已提示客户其退款操作关联2013年7月8日#ZZZZZ的3000美元的入金交易。同时提供了此退款操作号ARN(受让人参考号)。此退款操作于2013年11月8日被执行。

2013年11月22日,客户收到经纪商汇出的3000美元电子汇款。接下来的三个月中,客户一直在与经纪商交涉以解决此争端。客户坚持认为他没有进行退款操作,并提供了银行确认通知单作为调查证据。2013年2月25日,客户从其交易账户中提取剩余账户资金 15780美元。

争端解决会裁决

 金融委员会投诉回应
申请人姓名 经纪商
CLIENT(客户) BROKER(经纪商)
向金融委员会的投诉 # ХХ
投诉日期 投诉提交日期
2013/11/12 2014/03/14
投诉要件:客户就如下向金融委员会提起投诉:

交易帐号:XXXXX。客户从2013年2月开始进行账户交易活动。客户使用了多种入金方式,包括多家银行卡。客户投资账户入金总额为 32143.25美元。 2013年11月12日,经纪商锁定了客户的交易账户,并强行平仓其头寸,导致 25980美元亏损。根据经纪商所述,锁定客户账户的原因是客户进行了一次退款操作。

客户声明经纪商对其指控毫无根据,因为他从来没有进行退款操作。客户坚信经纪商无端地锁定了他的交易账户,因此给他造成了财产和精神损失。客户要求经纪商做出偿还,退回其余13193.10美元的投资本金。

投诉回应:对此投诉的裁定基于经纪商和客户双方提供的信息。

首先需要指出,金融委员会规定“客户需要在事件发生后45天内向金融委员会提起投诉”,本限制规定并非随意制定,我们认为,双方的拖延行为只会使情况更加严重,也使得公平处理复杂化。

其次,争端的双方都具有足够的可信证据,双方的行为表明他们没有违反业务伙伴互动法规及操作规程规则。在此我们引用如下事实:

a) 客户已经提供了足够的文件证据表明没有试图进行退款操作从而导致其合作伙伴(经纪商)的实际财务损失。

b)另一方面,我们证实经纪公司也按照规则(客户合约XX和ZZ段落)正当地行事——锁定了交易账户以便更多地了解退款操作情况。

在验证了争议双方提供的信息之后,争端解决会成员一致认为,本索诉根据金融委员会规则11(e)段落的规定,不属于金融委员会进行核查的规定范围。

争端解决会成员认为在这种情况下,按照安全控制的政策要求,经纪商的合约方因以退款操作方式脱离经纪商的控制而负有全责。

因此,我们宣布,本索诉不能就支持一方的利益所求做出裁定。然而,争端解决会的成员一致认为,按照善意行为原则,经纪商应满足客户对实质损失的部分偿还要求,不可能全部偿还客户的实质损失,因为事件发生时客户帐号处于亏损状态。而且,因为此事件投诉超出限制周期,我们也不可能考虑对客户头寸做出恢复。

本投诉审核意见由争端解决会的成员做出,并由争端解决会会长 Anatoly Bulanov负责执行。

胜诉方 补偿
客户 经纪商意见
如果你对本投诉审议结果有任何疑义,请发邮件到 [email protected]
确认
我认为争端解决会已审慎考虑过所有信息,并承认此裁决为独立、公平和公正的。我确信此文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 职位 日期
争端解决会会长 2014/03/31

投诉详情

客户使用三个微账户 #XXXXX, #YYYYY 和 #ZZZZZ同时进行交易。

三个账户都开立了几个GBPUSD的空头头寸。按照经纪商对微账户设定的交易条款,客户可选择的杠杆比例为1:1到500:1不等,但是账户余额不可超过3000美元。此外,如若账户余额超过了3000美元,则杠杆比例自动缩减100倍。

2014年2月14日,在因GBPUSD行情价反转引起的可用保证金不足的情况下而发生争议。客户决定增加一定数额的资金到账户中以免头寸被强制平仓(Stop Out),希望行情很快可以反转。客户通知经纪商的在线客服代表,并要求保持账户的杠杆比例500:1不变,因为如果增加资金进入账户,余额超过了3000美元的限制。经纪商回应客户建议——他通过从账户中提取部分款项的方式削减余额。客户提交了提款请求,然而最终他的浮动亏损头寸被止损离场。

客户不满经纪公司的行为,因为他认为由于经纪商对微账户设定的交易条款的误导,导致了其账户亏损。

争端解决会裁定

金融委员会投诉回应
投诉人 经纪商
CLIENT(客户) BROKER(经纪商)
金融委员会投诉 #XX
投诉起始日 投诉成文日
2014/2/4 2014/3/1
投诉要件:客户就如下向金融委员会提起投诉:客户使用三个微账户 #XXXXX, #YYYYY 和 #ZZZZZ同时进行交易。

每个账户在不同的时间段开立了GBPUSD的多个空头头寸。之后由于GBPUSD 汇率行情反转导致保证金不足,所有浮亏头寸都被经纪商强制平仓(Stop Out 操作)。

客户不满经纪商的行为,并认为对微账户设定的交易条款的误导是其亏损的主要原因。根据客户意见,他在这种交易规则制约下,根本没有选择以挽救其账户。根据以上所述,客户坚持认为对其投诉的公平解决办法是要求经纪商赔偿其三个账户的头寸被强行清算导致的亏损(大约7500美金)。

对投诉的回应:对此投诉的裁定基于经纪商和客户双方提供的信息。根据经纪商设定的微账户交易条款,任何客户都可选择杠杆比例从 1:1 到 500:1不等,但是每个账户余额不可超过3000美元。此外,如若账户余额超过了3000美元,则杠杆比例自动缩减100倍(即杠杆比例从 1:1 到 5:1)。强行平仓水平也已在经纪商网站明确声明(剩余20%的时候)。经纪公司在其网站的“交易条款”章节已公示了所有的交易条件。另外,交易条款也在注册账号之时对客户列明。接受交易条款,客户即确认他了解账户保证金要求,也理解账户保证金余额变更要求。综上所述,很明显,经纪人向客户提供了可接受的交易条件,尽管从客户角度来看这些条件不够理想。因此,争端解决会认为经纪商没有违反交易条款,也没有找到可对经纪商提起索诉的任何根据。

此投诉已由金融委员会之争端解决会认真考虑,并由解决会会长 Anatoly Bulanov结案。

被支持方 补偿
经纪商
如果您有关于本调查结论的任何疑义,请发邮件到[email protected]
确认声明
我认为金融委员会之争端解决会已审慎考虑过所有信息,并在此承认此裁决为独立、公平和公正的。我确信此文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 职务 日期

争端解决会会长

2014/3/13

投诉详情

投诉人使用其账户#XXXXX 进行了交易。争端于2014年2月28日发生。

此日客户使用的智能交易系(EA)统就USDJPY开立了卖出头寸:

2014.02.28 00:00:56 ‘XXXXX’:订单#ZZZZZ,于102.23200 卖出0.33 手USDJPY

头寸建立后 智能交易系统 当即设置一对OCO订单(止损单和止盈单):

00:00:57.353 ‘XXXXX’: 于102.232 卖出0.33 手USDJPY 的订单#ZZZZZ 被修改为->止损:102.422 止盈102.162

几分钟之后智能交易系统修改了OCO订单的参数(止损挂单和止盈挂单):

00:05:50.151 ‘XXXXX’:于102.232 卖出0.33 手USDJPY 的订单#ZZZZZ 被修改为->止损:102.192 盈利102.162

最终,客户订单#ZZZZZ 的头寸在市价到达止盈价后被平仓。这个事实可被经纪商服务器中的日志文件证实。

2014.02.28 00:11:29    ‘XXXXX’ 订单 #ZZZZZ 的 0.33 手‘USDJPY’ 盈利挂单于 102.16200 被平仓

2014.02.28 00:11:29    ‘XXXXX’: 订单#ZZZZZ 的0.33 手 ‘USDJPY’ 卖单于 102.15700 被平仓

双方之间的争端是由于经纪商随后彻底撤消了这单USDJPY交易。给出解释说撤消此单是由于客户订单执行之时(2014/02/28 00:00,MT4平台时间),ECN服务器上的USDJPY汇率显示出了一个“非市报价”。此价位被流动性供应商(做市商)判定为非市场价,#ZZZZZ 号头寸由此被撤消,此取消被服务器日志文件记录所证实。

2014.02.28 02:09:12 账户 ‘XXXXX’ 的订单 #ZZZZZ 被删除 – 于102.23200 卖出 0.33手 USDJPY,盈利 : 24.23

投诉人坚持认为经纪商歪曲了价格变动并且进行了市场价格的篡改活动。客户认为对此争端的公平解决方案应是经纪商补偿其由于被撤消了交易而未实现的盈利。并且,客户认为公众都判定ECN服务器上价格失真事件是由于经纪商的篡改所致。

 争端解决会裁定

金融委员会投诉回应
申请人姓名 经纪公司
CLIENT(客户) BROKER (经纪商)
向金融委员会的投诉 # ХХ
投诉日期 投诉提交日期
2014/2/28 2014/3/31
投诉要件: 客户向金融委员会就如下事项提起投诉: 交易帐号为 XXXXX。

在客户使用的智能交易系统帮助下而开立的并且在市价达到止盈挂单价位后被获利平仓的 USDJPY 卖出头寸,最终被经纪商彻底撤消:

ZZZZZ订单卖出0.33手USDJPY @102.23200 止损:102.192 盈利:102.162

客户坚信此头寸的撤消没有根据,要求对盈利的损失进行补偿。

对投诉的回应: 对此投诉的裁定基于经纪商和客户双方提供的信息。在作出对信息的分析后,争端解决会成员得出结论,经纪商撤消客户卖出头寸的交易没有根据,因其为市场价格自然波动的结果。在具有争议性的非市报价出现之前,客户已经设置了平仓挂单:

止损@102.192和止盈@102.162

因此,在紧接着非市报价后的第一个价位变动出现并且价位触及客户的挂单价之时,客户的头寸即须被平仓。任何情况下,此卖出头寸获得的利润都应被贷入客户的账户。经纪商须为客户提供时间和交易信息,并根据止损和止盈挂单来证实头寸已经平仓。

此投诉已由争端解决会审议,并由解决会会长 Anatoly Bulanov负责执行。

胜诉方 补偿
CLIENT 24.23美元
如果对此投诉审议结果有任何疑义,请发邮件到: [email protected]
确认
我认为争端解决会已审慎考虑过所有信息,并承认此裁决为独立、公平和公正的。我确信此文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 职位 日期
争端解决会会长 2014/4/10

投诉详情

在研究客户于2013年12月30日提供的投诉材料之后争端解决会了解的是在三个月的期间内(从2013年8月下旬到12月底)客户使用了MT4平台专用的智能交易系统(EA)进行了他的交易并赚取一些利润在他的交易帐户。 于2013年11月5日客户从他交易账户提取了一部分利润(400美元)并继续进行交易。一段时间后,经纪人发现客户违反了交易规则并于2013年12月24日作出决定取消客户已经到那个时候赚取的所有利润。经纪人在自己的论点指出这样的事实:在2013年11月5日至12月4日的期间内客户使用的智能交易系统,能够识别出那些其报价落后于当时真正市场的金融工具,从而使客户能够以过时或不存在的价格进行交易。除了取消客户大多数赢利交易结果之外经纪公司要求客户关闭他的真实交易账户。反过来,客户在他的行动中没有发现任何交易规则违反并要求赔偿金额为586.16美元不正当取消的利润。

争端解决会裁定

金融委员会投诉回应
申请人姓名 经纪公司
CLIENT(客户) BROKER (经纪商)
向金融委员会的投诉 # ХХ
投诉日期 投诉提交日期
12/13/2013 12/30/2013
投诉要件: 客户向金融委员会就以下事项提交投诉: 交易帐号为 XXXXX. 客户不同意经纪公司取消他从2013年11月5日到12月4日内完成的交易并且从他交易账户没收586.16美元的决定,因此要求账户余额恢复到原来的水平。
对投诉的回应对此投诉的裁定基于经纪商和客户双方提供的信息。经过深入分析由争议各方提供的资料,争议解决委员会得出的结论是客户采用了一个特殊智能交易系统(EA),其目的在于找出经纪商报价系统中的漏洞完成交易。为了在业务合作伙伴之间建立诚信互利的关系而言这样的行动是不可接受的。为了在业务合作伙伴之间建立诚信互利的关系而言这样的行动是不可接受的。根据经纪商操作规程在这种情况下,经纪公司有权取消客户提交的订单并且撤销因技术错误执行的交易结果。

此外,还值得一提的是,在使用这种做法,客户能够从他的交易账户中提取金额为400美元不诚实获取的利润。

基于上述信息,争端解决委员会在经纪人的行为中没有看出任何违规并认为其行为是合法的。

此投诉已由争端解决会审议,并由解决会会长 Anatoly Bulanov 负责执行。

胜诉方 补偿
BROKER
如果对此投诉审议结果有任何疑义,请发邮件到 [email protected]
确认
我认为争端解决会已审慎考虑过所有信息,并承认此裁决为独立、公平和公正的。我确信此文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 职位 日期
争端解决会会长 01/20/2014

投诉详情

根据争端各方于2013年12月31日提供的投诉材料的研究,争端解决会发现,投诉人在2013年7月通过经纪公司进行交易时遇到了一些问题。根据客户提供的信息,本索赔的价值为200000美元左右,这是因为他在本经纪公司里注册了自己的PAMM帐户并在一个月内进行了约2000笔交易。他声称,经纪商在执行他的挂单时经常发生延迟情况。此外,每一次当市场价格达到在挂单中规定的价格水平后这些订单在随后的6秒钟历史价格数据当中按最坏的报价被经纪商执行。客户还声称,所有这些订单都是提前预设的订单,并且这些订单被经纪商执行之前连续几个小时内处于等待状态。这是无论市况如何或订单大小多少。根据客户提供的信息,只有历史价格数据中不存那种与挂单中规定的价格相比差于10点(0.00001)的价格情况下经纪商在执行挂单时没有任何滑点(这是标准帐户最小的滑点)。

争端解决会裁定

金融委员会投诉回应
申请人姓名 经纪公司
CLIENT(客户) BROKER(经纪商)
向金融委员会的投诉 # ХХ
投诉日期 投诉提交日期
7/30/2013 12/30/2013
投诉要件:客户向金融委员会就以下事项提交投诉: 交易帐号为 XXXXX. 客户从2013年7月1日至30日在自己的投资账户进行了活跃的交易(本月内大约完成了2000笔交易)。在这段时间内经纪商执行客户止损类型订单时经常出现数秒钟的延迟和数点的滑点情况,因此限制了客户潜在的利润。根据客户计算,这导致利润金额下降200000美元左右。

客户要求经纪商重新计算执行订单的价格并且补偿损失的利润。

对投诉的回应对此投诉的裁定基于经纪商和客户双方提供的信息。首先应该指出的是,买入止损和卖出止损订单本身并不能保证准确的执行价格。根据不同的市场条件,这种订单可以按客户指定的准确价格或更坏的价格执行。一旦经纪商的报价流当中至少有一个报价达到客户指定的价格,客户预设的买入止损(卖出止损)将变成激活状态订单。订单激活之后,其将按在经纪人报价流中的第一个可用的报价被执行。在市场大幅波动时,挂单的执行价格可能会从由客户指定的价格相差几个点。此挂单执行的做法与经纪人的官方回应没有任何矛盾。根据经纪人的订单执行政策,“所有的预设订单和“一旦成交”类型订单都会按指定的价格或在订单执行时可用的价格由公司执行,而执行的价格可能会和指定的价格有所不同(操作规程第XX.XX节)。客户投诉中,指的是在一段相当长的时间内完成的相当大数量交易。我们可以假设市场条件不可能永远是为什么经纪人执行订单过程中出现延迟和滑点的原因。但是,可以从客户交易报告中看出,大多数客户订单是在高市场活动期间内被执行(欧洲或美国交易时段高峰时期),通常正在重要经济消息公布时、前不久或立即之后。通常情况下,这些事件都伴随着市场波动加剧,这不可避免地导致点差增加和滑点。

在我们看来,低质量的订单执行是经纪人的邪恶意图的说法没有道理,这是因为经纪商并没有违反操作规程中的任何一个条款。

总之,我们可以断言,经纪人为客户提供了可接受的交易条件,尽管从客户的观点来看这些条件不是最好的。因此,争端解决委员会没有看到经纪人违规的行为并且认为客户的投诉没有理由。

此投诉已由争端解决会审议,并由解决会会长 Anatoly Bulanov负责执行。

胜诉方 补偿
BROKER
如果对此投诉审议结果有任何疑义,请发邮件到 [email protected]
确认
我认为争端解决会已审慎考虑过所有信息,并承认此裁决为独立、公平和公正的。我确信此文件提供的信息为真实的。
签名 职位 日期
争端解决会会长

01/30/2014