本投诉的裁决基于经纪公司和客户提供的信息。

金融委员会争议解决委员会在全面分析了客户与经纪商提供的书面证据后，得出以下结论：

1. 根据经纪商提供的信息，自2020年12月23日起，他们发生了针对USOIL头寸的隔夜利息（Swap）计算错误，并将错误费用向客户收取。2021年1月4日，在实际调整之前，经纪商向受影响客户发送了通知，告知正在进行调查并很快会做出相应调整。当天，调整完成并向受影响客户发送了沟通通知。在此情况下，经纪商声称其完全遵守了监管文件的规定，并引用了《客户协议》中的相关条款：

2.5 账户费用及信用 ……

(c) 如果我们发现对任何费用计算有误，将在28天内书面通知您进行修正。 ……

3.5 报价错误 报价错误可能会不时发生。在这些情况下，我们可能对您的持仓要素进行调整。更多关于我们如何进行此类调整的信息，请参阅产品披露声明第3.7节。 ……

12.1 责任免除 在法律允许的最大范围内，我们不对以下情况负责：

1. 1. f) 可能发生的任何错误；
   2. h) 协议中或我们提供的其他任何信息中的错误、不准确、不合适或遗漏，无论是否出于疏忽；
   3. i) 因交易平台不可用、交易平台系统和数据错误、延迟、不准确、错误或遗漏以及其他提供给您的数据错误、软件病毒或未经授权使用交易平台而遭受的损失或索赔。
2. 此外，经纪商声称，客户获得信用奖金的前提是其账户权益余额不得低于信用余额，否则将移除信用奖金，这一点在《奖励促销活动条款与条件》第16条中有明确规定：

16. 若您的账户权益余额低于信用余额，交易信用将被移除，且未平仓交易将会被关闭。

经纪商表示，对客户账户所做的Swap调整降低了其账户权益水平，触发了信用奖金的移除。此外，这也部分归因于USOIL价格在隔夜从48.351涨至48.941，从而加大了客户的交易亏损。

1. 应当指出的是，客户账户的交易条款规定了浮动点差以及20%的强制平仓比例（Stop Out）。这一信息在经纪商的监管文件中有明确阐述（参见产品计划表）。通过开设选定类型的交易账户，客户同意接受由公司提供的交易条款。根据经纪商的说法，在发生事件时，客户账户上的权益/保证金比率已跌破了关键的20%水平。因此，由于保证金不足，客户编号为56617870、56617871、56617872、56618848、56618862、56623804、56623805、56623832、56623833、56623834、56691961的头寸被自动在市场上按照当时可获得的价格进行了强制平仓。这一事实由经纪商提供的服务器日志记录得到了证实。
2. 很明显，从法律角度来看，经纪商完全遵循了其监管文件的规定。同时需要注意的是，从运营角度看，经纪商的做法似乎并不十分专业。经纪商犯下错误后，仅仅在两周后才趁机修复问题，而没有向客户解释具体情况，也没有给予客户补充资金或减小头寸的机会。
3. 金融委员会致力于推动行业广泛认可的最佳商业实践，即如果出现由经纪商引起的问题，应尽可能减少对客户的影响，并迅速提供解决方案以减轻对客户持仓产生的负面影响。

总结以上内容，争议解决委员会已作出有利于客户的决定。DRC成员普遍认为，经纪商应承担自身错误导致的损失，并更清晰地沟通，采取适当措施以防止未来在其客户账户上再次发生类似情况。因此，经纪商必须全额满足客户要求赔偿此次事件造成的7000美元损失。

此投诉已经由金融委员会争议解决委员会成员审查，并由委员会负责人处理完毕。

Head of DRC

经过对客户和经纪商提供的文件证据进行全面审查后，金融委员会争议解决委员会得出以下结论：

1. 首先，值得注意的是，客户交易账户发生的事件发生在市场参与者大规模平仓获利的背景下，在此之前，加密货币市场大幅上涨，ETHUSD资产在事发前夜达到心理关口2000美元。市场波动性的增长以及随之而来的流动性显著降低是波动期间市场的典型反应。客户应理解此类情况会根本性地改变报价流动，通常会导致价格跳空、点差扩大以及订单执行时出现滑点。客户应当意识到在这样的市场条件下交易伴随有重大风险。
2. 其次，根据经纪商提供的信息，被客户质疑的ETHUSD金融工具的报价来自其流动性提供商——Kraken加密货币交易所。而Kraken交易所的历史逐笔数据显示，在事发期间，针对ETHUSD工具的买入价（决定多头头寸关闭的价格）曾降至690美元水平。同时，在经纪商平台上，买入价的最低值记录为997.92美元。经纪商解释称，报价差异的原因在于其交易系统采用了过滤机制，不允许严重偏离前一个报价的单个报价进入报价流。
3. 根据公司网站“交易条件”部分中所规定的交易条件，客户账户类型设定的止损（Stop Out）水平为10%。在事发当时，客户的交易账户保证金比例已经跌至低于该临界值，因此，经纪商按照协议规定强制平仓了客户的所有亏损头寸。这一事实通过经纪商提供的交易服务器日志记录得到了验证。具体而言，在《客户协议》中的条款:
   12.1规定：当客户交易账户上的保证金水平等于或低于止损值时，公司有权在未经事先通知和客户同意的情况下，按当前市场价格强制关闭客户交易账户上所有未平仓头寸。对于所有账户类型的止损值都在公司网站上账户类型对比表中明确列明。
   综上所述，经纪商在此次事件中的行动完全符合《客户协议》的规定，即当客户账户保证金比例跌破止损阈值时，有权对账户内的亏损头寸进行强制平仓。
4. 第四，还需指出的是，由于客户没有对其开放头寸设置可能财务损失的上限限制（尽管他可以这样做，正如他在设置盈利上限时所做的那样），因此在特定情况下，客户承担了其交易账户资金完全损失的风险。对于所有存在争议的头寸，客户均设置了待定的止盈订单，目标价位为1676.23美元。
5. 第五，客户在其投诉中提到经纪商交易服务器的技术问题及其交易终端冻结的情况，据称这些都发生在事发期间，剥夺了他管理交易账户和监控金融市场价格动态的机会。此外，客户声称受影响的客户群体中有5%的账户在这次下跌中幸免于难，尽管他们使用了相同的交易算法（EA）。对此，以下几点需要说明：
   • • 应客户要求，经纪商分析了MT5 Pro服务器的运行情况。收集到的数据表明，在事发当天，客户没有任何未执行的订单，也没有登录交易平台失败的尝试。平台整体运行分析显示，数百名其他客户成功登录并进行了交易操作。这些事实由经纪商提供的服务器日志条目予以证实。
   • • 使用“相同交易策略”的账户并不能保证同样的结果。此外，目前经纪商并未掌握关于客户提及的其他账户的任何数据，相应地，委员会专家无法研究或评论这种情况。许多不同因素可能导致相似的结果，例如即使在同一台服务器上运行相同的Expert Advisor，并以相同参数发送订单，但由于执行价格的不同，两个账户的交易结果可能会有所差异
   • • 订单并非在数据中心执行，而是在集中执行所有账户开立在上面的交易服务器上执行。并且不存在针对性的细分或按数据中心划分客户。任何客户可以选择任何可用的数据中心连接，交易平台会自动为客户选择ping值最小的数据中心。
     • 客户放置的限价订单##215349838, 215349839, 215349840, 215349842, 215349843, 215349844, 215349845, 215349846, 215349847, 215349848用于在更低价格开设新的多头头寸，它们在16:23:03即止损发生的同时激活，但由于客户交易账户上不足以开启指定头寸的可用保证金，这些订单立即被取消。交易服务器的日志记录也证实了这一事实。

   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. 不同截图中图表显示不同的原因在于，其中一个截图是在当前价格尚存在的15分钟周期结束之前拍摄的，而另一个截图则是在蜡烛图形态完成之后拍摄的。这是MetaTrader平台的标准图表绘制逻辑。在金融市场交易中，尤其是采用K线图（蜡烛图）进行技术分析时，每个新的时间周期（例如15分钟、30分钟或日线等）会在该周期结束后才形成完整的蜡烛形态，并更新至图表上。因此，在同一事件的不同时间节点所抓取的截图会显示出不完全一致的价格信息和蜡烛形态。

综合上述情况及考虑到了事发电器市场的异常状况以及经纪商提供的书面证据，委员会专家以多数票决定支持经纪商。据此决定，委员会专家认为，在事发时经纪商强制平仓客户亏损头寸## 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的操作正确且按照经纪商监管文件的规定及公司采用的交易规则执行。另外，根据DRC专家的一致意见，经纪商应告知客户其报价来源于哪个加密货币交易所，以避免未来产生类似的疑问。

基于以上所述，争议解决委员会未发现经纪商有任何违规行为，亦无充分理由支持客户的投诉。

本投诉经金融委员会争议解决委员会成员审议并通过委员会负责人处理完成。

Head of DRC

经过对客户和经纪商提供的所有文件证据进行详尽分析后，金融委员会争议解决委员会得出了以下结论：

1. 首先，应当指出的是，客户交易账户发生问题的背景是，在事故发生前夕，加密货币市场大幅上涨，ETHUSD资产触及了重要的心理价位2000美元之后，众多市场参与者纷纷采取行动锁定利润。市场波动性的增长以及随之而来的流动性大幅下降，是市场波动期间的一种典型反应。客户应该认识到此类情况会从根本上改变报价流，通常会导致价格跳空、点差扩大及订单执行过程中的滑点现象。客户应当明白，在这样的市场条件下进行交易伴随着巨大的风险。
2. 经纪商指出，2020年6月6日至7月1日期间，客户使用了不公平和不诚实的交易（买卖）方法或手段与公司进行交易。根据欧盟国家采纳的市场滥用定义，这种情况属于市场滥用行为：市场滥用是指某一个或多个市场参与者参与的交易活动使其获得了不合理的优势。在欧盟区域内，市场滥用包括两个方面：
   内幕交易和市场操纵。其中，市场操纵表现为旨在制造虚假或误导性印象的交易活动
3. 为了证明其立场，即客户采取了旨在操纵比特币金融工具价格的行为，并因此在经纪商平台立即获得无风险利润，经纪商引用了从币安交易所交易平台获取的分析信息。据经纪商所述，作为全球最大的加密货币交易所，拥有最大量的加密货币交易额，发生在币安交易所的交易对全世界任何其他网站上的加密资产报价，特别是对经纪商平台上广播的此类资产报价，具有最大的影响力。
4. 决议委员会核查了经纪商关于客户通过操纵特定资产价格以获取利润这一事实声明是否符合实际情况。为此，委员会审查了由经纪商提供的文件证据和分析信息。经过审计后，委员会得出以下结论：

   a)根据事件期间币安交易所交易数量及其相应交易量的分析信息，在所述时间段内，比特币市场确实出现了总交易数量的增长和相对交易量的增加，这可能导致了该特定资产价格的短期变动。
   b)经纪商引用的来自币安平台在事发期间订单簿中登记的客户订单信息显示，在经纪商看来存在流动性不足的情况：
   1)在交易# 1319057826的生命周期内，只需31,163美元就足以实现-0.01%的收益率。
   2)在交易# 1324114443的生命周期内，只需6,828美元就足以实现02%的收益率。
   3)在交易# 1328236807的生命周期内，只需99,096美元就足以实现02%的收益率。
   c)根据客户在事件期间的交易操作历史记录，客户利用了比特币资产价格的小幅下跌/上涨（-0.01%/0.02%），通过三次短线交易## 1319057826、1324114443、1328236807，最终获得了总计10,940美元的利润。d)在账户被冻结时，客户的交易账户状态如下：
   -初始存款金额为4,015.01 USD，
   -提现金额为0 USD，
   -奖励资金为4,005.01 USD，
   -账户余额为19,028.46 USD（初始存款4,015.01 USD + 奖励资金4,005.01 USD + 盈利金额11,008.44 USD。

5. 基于上述信息，决议委员会成员达成一致意见：
   委员会无法对客户交易行为进行充分评估，因为经纪商未能提供任何文件证据来证明该特定客户在Binance平台或其他地方采取了有针对性的行动以改变指定金融工具的价格。
6. 委员会中有多位成员认为经纪商提出的论据不足。他们指出，如果经纪商允许交易低流动性加密资产的期权，那么应当预见这些资产每日可能出现高达10%-20%幅度的重大价格波动。若要降低风险，经纪商必须建立完善的风险管理体系。如果没有这样的体系，在提供流动性较差资产交易的同时，经纪商应停止相关服务，以防止未来客户利用其基础设施的弱点。

基于以上观点，委员会全体成员认为，经纪商没有足够的理由断定客户在交易平台上的操作违反了其监管文件的规定。委员会认为，经纪商应对争议交易（编号分别为## 1319057826, 1324114443, 1328236807）的财务结果予以认可，并解冻客户的交易账户。

总结来说，纠纷解决委员会未发现客户存在任何违规行为，并坚持认为经纪商必须满足客户要求，即全面解除对其交易账户# 63226192的冻结状态，并允许提取初始存款及累计利润共计15023.45美元。

此投诉已由金融委员会的纠纷解决委员会成员审查，并由委员会负责人处理完毕。

Head of DRC

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.

Head of DRC

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.

Head of DRC

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.

Head of DRC

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.

2. 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.

2. 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.

2. 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.

Head of DRC

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.

2. 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.

Head of DRC

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.

Head of DRC

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。

争议解决会会长

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。

仲裁委员会主席

争议解决会会长

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。

仲裁委员会主席

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。

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。

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)。

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。

争端解决会会长