Scam Investigations Committee
..
Posts: 144
Join Date: Mar 2008
A New Excuse to Confiscate Profits - 11-26-2008, 05:55 PM
FPA members Yulia and Barunia both complained in FPA’s forums that InstaForex not only cancelled their signup bonuses, but also removed all profits from their accounts, refunding only their initial deposits. InstaForex’s representatives in our forums, Ekaterina and Anna claimed that Yulia and Barunia were the same person trying to take advantage of InstaForex’s $30 sign up bonus. As evidence, it was said that both accounts opened at about the same time and that both took the same trade on the same currency pair.
Ekaterina then asked our AsstModerator to remove Yulia and Barunia’s complaints from the forums. The FPA also received at least 1 email from InstaForex demanding that Yulia and Barunia’s complaints be removed. He replied that InstaForex needed to provide some evidence, since the exact same thing could have happened if Yulia and Barunia were friends who traded together, subscribed to the same signals service, or if one person served as an account manager for the other. He said that if InstaForex could provide solid evidence that Yulia and Barunia did conspire to cheat InstaForex, the complaints would be removed and their FPA accounts would be terminated.
Ekaterina promised evidence, but failed to deliver any. Lt. Gerard, one of our investigators, sent an email asking for evidence and got none. This put the FPA in a bad position, since InstaForex was paying for advertising on our website. The FPA is supported by advertising revenues. This lets us keep our Daily Signals, Reviews, Forums, and Scam Investigations and other member services 100% free. Suspending or canceling ads would cost each person here a portion of their salary.
Since InstaForex claimed to have evidence, but had not given it after being asked, it was decided to suspend their advertising campaign with the FPA until the issue could be resolved. As an added incentive for them to provide the evidence, the FPA’s advertising company offered InstaForex a 5% bonus in the number of their ads we would run, if they could give the evidence they claimed to have.
Gerard asked Yulia and Barunia for copies of the same ID cards that they used to open an account as well as for an explanation of why they had taken the same trade. Yulia and Barunia provided copies of the cards and explained that they were friends who decided to open accounts with InstaForex to take advantage of their signup bonus program. They were in contact with each other online after the accounts were active and both decided to place a trade on the same currency pair at the same time.
InstaForex’s only response to repeated questions from Gerard was to point out that the agreement Yulia and Barunia both signed when joining included these two provisions…
Rule 4: The client confirms that he/she receives the Welcome Bonus not for members of his/her family or friends but for himself/herself.
The FPA can see that two people opening accounts at about the same time and placing the same trade would be suspicious. We can also see that two people who know each other might do the same thing. Ekaterina called them scammers and promised evidence to prove they are scammers. We can fully understand InstaForex wanting to check these accounts more closely, but are very disappointed that InstaForex would never provide any real proof..
Also note that there is no exclusion for 2 friends opening accounts at the same time and trading together, as long as the bonus and profits are intended for each of them individually.
Rule 7. The company can cancel the Welcome Bonus in case of revealing unscrupulous usage of the bonus surcharge system.
Again, InstaForex only gave enough information to be suspicious of the possibility of unscrupulous usage. InstaForex repeatedly failed to present any evidence to verify this claim. A reasonable person would expect proof, not just suspicions.
One other important thing. Both traders did make a deposit that InstaForex refunded. If they really did cheat on the bonus (never proven), InstaForex would still owe both Yulia and Barunia a percentage of their profits based on the percent of the opening balance that their initial deposits represent.
The FPA cannot stand by while a company takes money from traders based on suspicion alone. The FPA’s first definition of scam is…
A brokerage refusing to return money that legitimately belongs to a trader. This includes not only direct failure to return money, but also things like brokerages suddenly declaring prior profitable trades to be nullified when the trader attempts to withdraw funds.
InstaForex repeatedly failed to provide evidence they claimed to have. We have no choice in this circumstance but to believe that InstaForex does not really have any evidence.
We cannot consider a broker that takes profits away from clients based solely on suspicions with no evidence to be anything but a scam.
The FPA’s fifth definition of scam is…
Other behavior that would be considered to be highly unethical by a reasonable individual.
In this case, a brokerage publicly accused 2 traders of scam, cheating, and fraud in forums while refusing to present evidence they claim to have. Further, InstaForex representatives publicly and by email demanded that the complaints of these traders be censored. In the opinion of the FPA Scam Investigations Committee, this would be considered to be unethical by a reasonable person.
InstaForex was given the choice of paying the traders what was owed to them or providing evidence to prove that they did not owe the money. InstaForex chose to do neither one. Gerard’s final request for real evidence resulted in InstaForex attacking the credibility of the FPA.
Official FPA Scam Finding
