Gekko Global Markets Announcement CHANGE IN COMPANY OWNERSHIP

The clause in section 22 is not acceptable to me, as there clearly is no guarantee for the deposited and earned money of a clients Account. This is how I do understand it. I cannot agree to take such risk in accordance with the 22.1.2 and 22.1.3 clause, described so imprecisely, with one thing being clear, that my funds may be kept by a bank or a third party outside of the UK or outside of EEA, offering no statutionary protection. ATM without agreeing to these terms, I cannot log in to my acc, yet I cannot agree to this term/s. As it stands my account with Gekko is not accesible, and it is likely to be closed.(n):devilish:
Yes, I did have a look at the terms and you are absolutely right about them having the right to keep the money at a bank outside EEA. Still as I understand it, the funds will still be segregated, but only secured under the jurisdiction of that country, where the funds are kept. Meaning, in case of a bank failure, the money might not be insured at the same level as within the EEA.
 
I have funds in the account and cannot get access.
Phonned them and there is no resolve either.
It does not look good.
What do you mean by, they can't resolve it? They have to return the money to you. If you don't agree to the new terms, I can understand they will not continue to let you trade on that account. I did agree to the new terms, and as expected I can continue trading with them.
 
strange they closed your accounts suddenly , y ?!
 
strange they closed your accounts suddenly , y ?!

Because I already have a 'compliance' dispute in progress and didn't agree to the new terms (which would have been difficult, as clicking to read them brought up a 'no file' message!)? Even so, you might thing they'd contact me first.
 
Because I already have a 'compliance' dispute in progress and didn't agree to the new terms (which would have been difficult, as clicking to read them brought up a 'no file' message!)? Even so, you might thing they'd contact me first.
Yes the PDF file link didn't bring up the PDF file, you have to right click and "Save the file as" to the HD. Yes I agree, they should inform better, what will happen to your current account, if you click on the "I don't agree" button.
 
I suppose it could be argued that clause 22.1.3 is only an issue for people likely to have an account balance over £30,000 at any time (the FSCC 100% guarantee limited as per clause 22.3) - or does anyone read it differently from this ? Of course, another potential disadvantage is how long it would take to get that £30,000 from the FSCC.
 
What do you mean by, they can't resolve it? They have to return the money to you. If you don't agree to the new terms, I can understand they will not continue to let you trade on that account. I did agree to the new terms, and as expected I can continue trading with them.

Any reputable firm would not risk their clients capital in the way Gekko is proposing. Basically the clients capital might be kept in bank or third party (?) under juridiction that is not guaranteeing the funds in the same way as UK or EEA. There is no need for it and I see it as a very careless attitude at the very least (trying hard) if not a much serious move to undermine the clients welfare(my preferred optin atm). It is ok if one keeps a few grand there, but if more than that one needs to examin his/her head. A Nigerian private bank might do the job, and one can also claim a few milions for assisting imaginable transfers, trully a cooku land, and Gekko has proposed me to enter it with my cash, no thank you!
They are loosing their credibility very fast, and it would be better for Sweden if they were not associated with this good and honest people.
 
I suppose it could be argued that clause 22.1.3 is only an issue for people likely to have an account balance over £30,000 at any time (the FSCC 100% guarantee limited as per clause 22.3) - or does anyone read it differently from this ? Of course, another potential disadvantage is how long it would take to get that £30,000 from the FSCC.
Yes I read it as a very unsatisfactory arrangements for assuring the safety of clients capital. Have had experienced REFCO fiasko. and I smell rat here too.
Look at confluence, of slippage, deterirating speed of service, and a few other things, and one can conclude that they are possibly fit to run a few demo accounts.
 
Yes I read it as a very unsatisfactory arrangements for assuring the safety of clients capital. Have had experienced REFCO fiasko. and I smell rat here too.
Look at confluence, of slippage, deterirating speed of service, and a few other things, and one can conclude that they are possibly fit to run a few demo accounts.
Yes I agree the terms are unsatisfactory, and that they need change this part of the user agreement. One should not deposit any large sums at a SB company that cannot give secure guarantees for your deposit funds. If the company is located in Sweden, they are under the jurisdiction of the FI (FSA), in fact this clause of not fully secured funds, might contradict the rules for running a financial institution of this kind in Sweden.
 
According to the website.

"Gekko Global Markets Ltd. is a company registered in England and Wales under register number 03148972. Gekko Global Markets Ltd. is regulated and authorised by the Financial Services Authority, FSA Register number 184333".
 
So my question is, if the company is registered in the UK, can the funds be according to the jurisdiction of UK, be kept at a third party outside the EEA?
 
So my question is, if the company is registered in the UK, can the funds be according to the jurisdiction of UK, be kept at a third party outside the EEA?

If a customer agrees to it, by signing these terms and conditions, I think they can hold the funds outside EEA. That is the whole point, and they state that it can be a bank or the other third party, like Mr Papaya in Costa Rica. This clause is wide open to provide all sorts of excuses if your cash disappears, who knows who Mr Papaya is, and where he might be tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tar
If a customer agrees to it, by signing these terms and conditions, I think they can hold the funds outside EEA. That is the whole point, and they state that it can be a bank or the other third party, like Mr Papaya in Costa Rica. This clause is wide open to provide all sorts of excuses if your cash disappears, who knows who Mr Papaya is, and where he might be tomorrow.
Yes this needs to be addressed properly. I am not absolutely sure they can keep the funds outside the EEA, even if you signed up to the agreement. This is a gambling activity under the jurisdiction of UK and the FSA, what is valid under these regulations I don't know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they are covered.
 
Last edited:
I think there was a similar discussion, if I remember correctly, on a thread concerning Cityindex or Finspreads clause about the funds might be kept at a third party bank.
 
If a customer agrees to it, by signing these terms and conditions, I think they can hold the funds outside EEA. That is the whole point, and they state that it can be a bank or the other third party, like Mr Papaya in Costa Rica. This clause is wide open to provide all sorts of excuses if your cash disappears, who knows who Mr Papaya is, and where he might be tomorrow.

Heh - don't be rude about Mr Papaya, whom I'd gladly trust with my entire worldly wealth.:D

Seriously, though, anyone who leaves more than a few thousand in a spreadbet account is asking for trouble.
 
Top