Need Help? +44 2081 57 5533

Is the FXPace platform hiding questionable practices from its operators?

We would like to remind you that all the information collected by our network is publicly available: in addition to the confidential information that our clients have entrusted us with in order to defend their interests, our argument is based on research and analysis of data that are available to everyone. The success of our work depends on our ability to decode and use this public information. So how can a public element of this magnitude get past the relevant financial authorities, and why aren’t they doing a better job of protecting their consumers?



It should be noted that several government agencies have blacklisted Salvax Ltd and Notesco Ltd. In Europe, for example, the Italian financial authority Consob has banned the operation of several platforms and websites by the two entities. However, finding information about FXPace appears to be more complex than finding information about its operators. As Consob has written: for Salvax Ltd, the platforms fxsuit.it and fxsuit.net are prohibited; for Notesco Ltd, it is fxgiants.com that has been banned. It is not always easy to make the link between a company, its legal status, the subsidiaries it owns, the sites and platforms it operates… This is probably why trading and its players are still in a grey area when it comes to the development of a general regulatory framework. However, if one looks in detail at the blacklists of each agency, one may begin to establish tangible links between companies, platforms, and misconduct. For example, if one were to refer only to the Consob guidelines, Salvax Ltd would only be responsible for the misconduct committed by the “fxsuit” platform; yet another quick search tells us that the Spanish financial authority, the CNMV, bans the company for both its “fxsuit” and “fxpace” sites.


In France, however, the AMF has not included either company or their platforms on its blacklist. This is particularly strange to us for two reasons: firstly, according to the MiFID II directive, every member country of the European Union is submitted to the same regulatory requirements regarding financial markets. We should therefore find the same information and condemnations of illegal practices on the websites of the French, Spanish and Italian authorities. This is objectively not the case. Secondly, we cannot refute the fact that we have sent official letters, particularly to the AMF, to warn them of the illegal practices for which our clients have been victims. How can we explain and justify these failures? How can we prevent the targeting of French citizens by FXPace if the authority in charge, the AMF, neither takes into consideration the instructions of its sister organizations, nor our multiple reports?


In addition to the small number of victims we represent and defend against FXPace, the aim of our network of lawyers here is to penetrate the secrecy of the offshore. By making it a point of honor to uncover the sometimes confusing and murky procedures of certain brokers, we are working to give the victims of such practices a chance. Especially since, in view of our expertise in this particular sector, we notice that more and more individuals are particularly selected because of their spartan knowledge of both English and trading. One would go so far as to think that a choice privileging novices and newcomers is made by the business owners and other delegates of these platforms.


Also, we know from experience that recovering lost funds is a complex task when payments have been made to an offshore account, and the same applies to payments made to blacklisted companies. This means that a Spanish retail investor would face obvious difficulties in recovering his capital placed on FXPace if he started a legal procedure in his country, knowing that the CNMV has already established that the platform is neither reliable nor recommended. For an Italian investor in the exact same situation, one could argue that one of the operator’s trademarks is blacklisted to justify that the individual is responsible for his losses, but it would be possible to defend the rights of this individual. Now imagine a French investor, whom the AMF has not protected at any level. The European MiFID directive was specifically designed to prevent different citizens of the Eurozone from being treated differently with respect to their investments, and to make it possible for them to be represented and defended in case of fraud.


In practice, we now find regulated companies acting outside the regulatory framework, unregulated companies whose questionable schemes are notorious, governmental agencies absolving themselves of any tangible legal responsibility, and hundreds of European citizens specifically selected to misappropriate their funds. To restore investor confidence, we believe it is imperative to restore fair and transparent practices by brokers and regulators alike. Our European network of law firms will be able to represent and defend you if you have been a victim of bad practices by a Forex broker. If you have any doubts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Disclaimer:

The Financial Fraud Lawyers network aims to inform private investors (traders) of potential malpractices by Forex and CFD brokers. Our mission is to assist and protect traders when they encounter brokerage practices that go against their interests.

Our articles are intended to warn, share and inform the public about the legal risks of Forex and its players. Trading financial products and CFDs as well as investing on online platforms carry legal risks.


The article was written in good faith, based on public information and client testimonials valid at the time of publication. Our articles concern the protection of the interests of individuals on online investment platforms and are published in accordance with our right to inform the public about our activity. This article is not to be considered legal advice.