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

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

1. According to the information received from the Broker, they have experienced a Swap incident on USOIL positions that were incorrectly charged to their clients starting December 23, 2020. The Broker sent out client communication on January 4, 2021 prior to the actual adjustments to inform affected clients that investigation is in place and adjustments would be made shortly. On the same day, adjustments were made and client communication sent to inform affected clients. In this regard the Broker claims that they acted in full compliance with the provisions of the regulatory documents and refers to the appropriate clauses of their Client Agreement:

2.5 CHARGES AND CREDIT TO YOUR ACCOUNT

…

(c) If we discover that we have made an error in respect of any fee calculation, we will rectify that error

by giving you written notice within 28 days. 

…

3.5 ERRORS IN PRICES

Errors in pricing may occur from time to time. In these circumstances, we may adjust any element of your Position. See section 3.7 of the Product Disclosure Statement for more information about the basis on which we can do this. 

…

12.1 EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY

To the maximum extent permitted by law, we are not liable for: 

1. f) any Error that may occur; 
2. h) any error or inaccuracy in, or unsuitability of, or omission from the Agreement, or any other information provided by us, whether negligent or otherwise; 
3. i) any Loss or Claim suffered or incurred by you in respect of our Trading Platform including due to the unavailability of the Trading Platform or Trading Platform, system and data errors, delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in data provided to you, software or computer viruses or the unauthorized use of the Trading Platform at any time;

2. Also, the Broker claims that the Client received their Credit Bonus under the condition that the Client’s account equity balance must not fall below credit balance, otherwise, the Credit Bonus will be removed, as outlined by the provisions of clause 16 of the Bonus Promotion Terms & Conditions:

16. If your Account Equity balance falls below the credit balance the trading credit will be removed and your open trades will be closed. 

The Broker claims that the Swap adjustment made to the Client’s account lowered his account equity level and triggered the removal of the Credit Bonus. It was also partially due to an overnight USOIL price increase from 48.351 to 48.941, which enlarged the Client’s trading loss.

3. It should be noted that trading terms for the Client’s account suggest a floating spread and a Stop Out at 20% level. This information is clearly defined by the Broker’s regulatory documents (see Product Schedule). By opening a trading account of the selected type, the Client agreed to accept the trading terms provided by the Company. According to the Broker, at the time of the incident, the Equity/Margin ratio on the Client’s account fell below the critical 20% level. As such, due to insufficient margin, the Client’s positions ## 56617870, 56617871, 56617872, 56618848, 56618862, 56623804, 56623805, 56623832, 56623833, 56623834, 56691961 were closed automatically, at prices available on the market (Stop Out). This fact is confirmed by the records from the server log, provided by the Broker.  

4. It is quite obvious, that from a legal standpoint the Broker acted in full compliance with the provisions of their regulatory documents. At the same time, it should be noted, that from an operational perspective it does not seem that the Broker acted in a very professional way. The Broker made the error, and only after 2 weeks fixed things opportunistically without explaining to the Client or giving them the chance to deposit additional funds or reduce their position.

5. Financial Commission is committed to the best business practices accepted throughout the industry which assume that, if there is some issue caused by the broker, there shall be minimum impact on the client, and some solutions shall be provided in a swift manner to mitigate negative effects of it on the client’s positions.

Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee has made a decision in favour of the Client. In the general opinion of the DRC members, the Broker should bear the loss of their errors, as well as communicate much more clearly and take appropriate measures in order to avoid the occurrence of such situations on their clients’ accounts in the future. Accordingly, the Broker must fully satisfy the Client’s requirement for compensation of losses in the amount of 7000 USD incurred by the incident.

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

Head of DRC

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

1. First of all, it should be noted that the incident on the Client’s trading account occurred against the background of massive actions of market participants to fix profits, after significant growth in the cryptocurrency market and the ETHUSD asset reached the psychologically important price level of 2000 USD on the eve of the incident. The growth of market volatility and, as a consequence, a significant decrease in its liquidity is a typical market reaction during a period of volatility. The client should understand that circumstances of this kind radically change the flow of quotes, since it often involves price gaps, widening spreads and slippage during order execution. The client should be aware that trading in such market conditions is accompanied by significant risks.

2. Secondly, according to the information received from the Broker, the quotation of the ETHUSD financial instrument, disputed by the Client, was received from the Broker’s liquidity provider – the Kraken crypto exchange. In turn, the history of tick data from Kraken indicates that during the incident, the Bid quotes (for which Long positions are closed) for the ETHUSD instrument on the specified exchange dropped to the price level of 690 USD. At the same time, on the Broker’s platform, the minimum value of Bid quotes is registered at 997.92 USD. The Broker explains the difference in the minimum quotes by the fact that his trading system uses filtering mechanisms that do not allow single quotes with serious deviations from the previous ones to enter the stream.

3. Thirdly, according to the trading conditions specified in the “Trading Conditions” section on the Company’s website, the Client’s account type assumes Stop Out at the level of 10%. At the time of the incident, the margin level on the Client’s trading account dropped below the critical level, and therefore the Broker forcibly liquidated the Client’s unprofitable positions. This fact is confirmed by the trade server log entries provided by the Broker. The Broker’s actions during the incident fully comply with the provisions of the Client Agreement:

12.1  In case the Margin Level on the Client’s trading account becomes equal or lower than the Stop Out value, the Company has the right to close all open positions on the Client’s trading account compulsory at the current market price without any preliminary notification and the Client’s consent. Stop Out values for all account types are specified in a comparison table of account types on the Company’s website.

4. Fourth, it should also be noted that the Client assumed the risk of a complete loss of funds in his trading account, under certain circumstances, since he did not use any restrictions on the amount of possible financial losses on open positions, although he could have done this, just as it was done by him in the case of restrictions on profit. For all disputed positions, the Client has placed pending Take Profit orders at the price level of 1676.23 USD.

5. Fifth, in the text of his complaint, the Client refers to technical problems with the Broker’s trading server and the freezing of his trading terminal, which allegedly took place during the incident. The client believes that this circumstance has deprived him of the opportunity to manage his trading account and monitor the price dynamics of the financial market. In addition, according to the Client, in the group of clients affected by this incident, there are allegedly 5% of accounts that survived the drawdown, although they used the same trading algorithm (EA). In this regard, the following should be noted:

• Upon the Client’s request, the Broker analyzed the operation of the MT5 Pro server. According to the data collected, the Client did not submit any orders that were not executed on the day of the incident. Also, there were no unsuccessful attempts to enter the trading platform. A general analysis of the platform’s operation showed that hundreds of other clients have successfully logged into the platform and performed trading operations. These facts are confirmed by the server log entries provided by the Broker.
• The fact that the accounts used “the same trading strategy” does not guarantee the same result. In addition, at the moment, the Broker does not have any data about other accounts that the Client said about, and, accordingly, the experts of the Committee have no opportunity to study and in any way comment on such situation. Moreover, there are many different factors that can lead to a similar outcome: for example, even if the same Expert Advisor works on two different accounts and sends orders with identical parameters, the trading results on these accounts may differ due to the difference in execution prices. Such differences, in turn, may occure for two identical orders sent at the same time.
• It should be noted that orders are not executed on the data center, but on the trading server, which centrally executes orders from all accounts opened on it. Moreover, there is no targeted segmentation or division of customers by data centers. Any client can choose any available data center for connection, and the trading platform automatically selects a data center for the client with a minimum ping.
• Limit orders ## 215349838, 215349839, 215349840, 215349842, 215349843, 215349844, 215349845, 215349846, 215349847, 215349848 of the Client, placed to open new Long positions, at lower prices, were activated at 16:23:03, i.e. at the same second when Stop Out occurred, but were immediately canceled because there was not enough free margin on the Client’s trading account to open the indicated positions. The trade server log entries provided by the Broker also confirm this fact:

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]

• The reason why the charts in different screenshots look different is that one screenshot was taken before the end of the 15-minute period in which this price was present, and the second was taken after the completion of the candlestick formation. This is the standard logic of charting on the MetaTrader platform.

6. Finally, it should also be mentioned that, in the Client’s opinion, the quotes of the Kraken crypto exchange are not an authoritative source, and the brokerage company is obliged to aggregate prices from different crypto exchanges and provide clients with average prices. According to the experts of the Dispute Resolution Committee, this request is not realistic, since prices on different crypto-exchanges tend to deviate significantly from each other, especially during periods of low volatility, such as the one that took place during the incident. It should also be noted that in a decentralized market, which is the FOREX market, each broker can offer its clients prices close to the real market, although slightly different from the prices of other brokers. This is normal practice, given the varying transaction volumes for each individual broker, the ever-changing market situation and some other factors.

Considering the above and taking into account the abnormal market conditions during the incident, as well as the documentary evidence provided by the Broker, the experts of the Committee, by a majority vote, decided in favour of the Broker. According to the decision taken, the actions of the Broker to forcibly liquidate Client’s unprofitable positions ## 215349578, 215349585, 215349594, 215349606, 215349616, 215349623, 215349629, 215349635, 215349641, 215349653, 215349660, 215349665, 215349675, 215349680, 215349687, 215349693, 215349701, 215349710, 215349717, 215349723, 215349730, 215349737, 215349743, 215349752, 215349758, 215349766, 215349775, 215349782, 215349787, 215349794, 215349799, 215349807, 215349812, 215349817, 215349824, 215349831, 215349836 during the incident were recognized by the experts of the Committee as correct and executed in accordance with the provisions of the Broker’s regulatory documents and the trading rules adopted by the Company. Also, according to the general opinion of the DRC experts, the Broker should notify its clients from which crypto-exchange the quotes are taken, so that such questions do not arise in the future.

Based on the above, the Dispute Resolution Committee does not see any violations on the part of the Broker and does not see any grounds for the Client’s complaint.

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

Head of DRC

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

1. First of all, it should be noted that according to the information provided by the Broker, the values of quotations for the financial asset Bitcoin, as well as for other cryptocurrencies, are calculated according to generally accepted methods used on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The Broker uses data from several major online exchanges such as GDAX, Kraken, Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex and Binance. Thus, the quotes for the Bitcoin asset, broadcast by the Broker in their trading platform, react to the slightest market changes. This information is published on the Broker’s website.

2. According to the Broker, in the period from June 6 to July 1, 2020, the Client has used unfair and dishonest methods or ways of making trades (transactions) with the Company. By the foregoing Broker means the following definition of Market Abuse, adopted in the EU countries:

Market abuse by its definition is a type of behaviour when one/several market participants are involved in trading activity that gives them an unreasonable advantage. Under the EU zone definition, market abuse consists of two aspects: insider trading and market manipulation. The latter represents itself as a trading activity aimed to encourage false or misleading impressions.

3.To justify their position, according to which the Client took actions aimed at manipulating the rate of the financial instrument Bitcoin outside the Broker’s platform, due to which he immediately received a risk-free profit on the Broker’s platform, the Broker uses analytical information obtained on the Binance Exchange trading platform. According to the Broker, being the world’s largest crypto exchange with the largest volumes of crypto transactions, transactions conducted on the Binance Exchange have the greatest impact on the quotes of crypto assets on any other sites around the world and, in particular, on the quotes of such assets, broadcast in the Broker’s platform.

4. The Resolution Committee checked to what extent the Broker’s statements regarding the fact of manipulation of the price of the specified asset for profit by the Client correspond to reality. For this purpose, the Committee examined the documentary evidence and the analytical information provided by the Broker. Based on the results of the audit, the Committee came to the following conclusions:

a) Analytical information on the number of transactions and the corresponding trading volumes on the Binance exchange during the period of the incident indicates that during the specified period, the Bitcoin market did indeed experience both an increase in the total number of transactions and a relative increase in trading volume, which might have led to a short-term change in the rate of the specified asset.

b) Information from the Order Book of client orders registered on the Binance platform during the incident, referred to by the Broker, demonstrates, in the Broker’s opinion, a lack of liquidity: 

• 31163 USD was enough to achieve a yield of -0.01% during the lifespan of transaction # 1319057826.
• 6828 USD was enough to achieve a yield of 0.02% during the lifespan of transaction # 1324114443.
• 99096 USD was enough to achieve a yield of 0.02% during the lifespan of transaction # 1328236807.

с) Judging by the history of the Client’s trading operations, during the period of the incident, the Client made three short-term transactions ## 1319057826, 1324114443, 1328236807 with the financial asset Bitcoin, as a result, taking advantage of the drop/rise in the Bitcoin asset rate by

-0.01%/0.02%, the Client received a total profit of 10940 USD.

d) At the time of blocking, the status of the Client’s trading account was as follows:

• Initial deposit 4015.01 USD,
• Withdrawal of funds 0 USD,
• Bonus funds 4005.01 USD,
• Account balances 19028.46 USD (4015.01 + 4005.01 + 11008.44).

5. The Committee could not provide an adequate assessment of the Client’s trading transactions, since the Broker did not provide any documentary evidence confirming the fact that this particular Client took targeted actions to change the price of the specified financial instrument on the Binance platform or somewhere else.

6. Finally, it should also be noted that several members of the Committee recognized the Broker’s arguments as insignificant since they believe that if the Broker gives the opportunity to trade options on low liquid crypto assets, then they should understand that such assets may well make significant price movements with an amplitude of up to 10 -20% per day. If the Broker wishes to reduce the risk, then they must have a well-established risk management process in place. In the absence of it, the Broker should stop offering trading in what they consider to be illiquid assets in order to prevent their clients from exploiting the vulnerability of their infrastructure in the future.

Based on the above information, the members of the Resolution Committee came to a unanimous opinion that the Broker does not have sufficient grounds to assert that the Client’s actions on the trading platform in any way violate the provisions of the Broker’s regulatory documents. The members of the Committee believe that the Broker should recognize the financial results of the disputed transactions ## 1319057826, 1324114443, 1328236807 of the Client as legitimate and unblock his trading account.

Summarizing all the above the Dispute Resolution Committee does not see any violations on the part of the Client and believes that the Broker must fully satisfy the Client’s requirements to unblock the trading account # 63226192, with the right to withdraw the initial deposit and the accrued profit in the amount of 15023.45 USD.

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

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