Infinox.com Regulatory Review

Infinox.com faces fines, fraud allegations, and angry clients, raising serious concerns for traders.

Infinox.com

Comments

Reference

digitalreviewsonline.com

Report
132593

Date
October 30, 2025

Views
8 views

We begin this investigation with the weight of authority that comes from years sifting through the shadows of global finance. As seasoned journalists at the forefront of financial exposés, we’ve peeled back the layers of countless brokers, from Wall Street titans to offshore enigmas. Today, our lens turns to infinox.com, a CFD trading platform that markets itself as a “multi-regulated powerhouse” born in 2009. But beneath the glossy veneer of MetaTrader integrations and boasts of segregated client funds lies a tangled web of regulatory slaps, clone firm imposters, and echoes of multimillion-pound scams. What we’ve uncovered isn’t just cause for caution—it’s a clarion call for traders everywhere to pause, probe, and protect their capital before diving in.

In the high-stakes arena of contracts for difference (CFDs), where leverage can amplify gains or obliterate accounts in hours, trust is the ultimate currency. Infinox positions itself as a gateway for professional clients and institutions, offering access to over 900 instruments—from forex majors to crypto CFDs—with platforms like MT4 and MT5. Yet, as our research deepens, we find that this self-proclaimed “partner of integrity” has stumbled repeatedly under scrutiny. From a landmark £99,200 fine by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for transaction reporting failures to allegations of aiding Instagram-fueled fraud rings, infinox.com’s story is one of ambition shadowed by accountability gaps. Our mission here is unflinching: to arm you with the unvarnished truth, drawn from regulatory filings, consumer forums, social media outcries, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) trails that lead straight to the boardroom.

The Facade of Legitimacy: What Infinox.com Wants You to See

We started at the source, dissecting infinox.com’s own digital footprint. The site paints a picture of reliability: established amid the 2008 financial crash’s ashes, the firm claims to have evolved into a global player emphasizing “client-first” values. Services include real-time market data, multilingual support, and educational resources—hallmarks of a mature broker. Leverage caps at 1:30 for eligible clients, with minimum trades at 0.01 lots, and funds purportedly shielded in segregated accounts backed by up to $500,000 in insurance.

But here’s where the polish cracks. The “About Us” section is light on specifics. No street address graces the footer; instead, a generic email for professional inquiries ([email protected]) suffices. Partnerships? Crickets. And while it touts “multi-regulation,” the site dodges naming bodies or license numbers—a red flag in an industry where transparency is non-negotiable. We cross-referenced this with official registries: Infinox Capital Limited, the UK entity behind the domain, holds FCA authorization under Firm Reference Number 723278. It’s licensed for dealing in investments as principal and arranging deals, but only for professional clients—no retail access, a deliberate pivot post-2018 ESMA leverage curbs.

This professional-only stance might shield them from retail complaints, but it also funnels scrutiny toward institutional lapses. Digging further via OSINT tools like Crunchbase and RocketReach, we traced the company’s revenue streams: an estimated $7.6 million annually, with 228 employees scattered across Mauritius (the global HQ) and London offices near the Bank of England. No bankruptcy filings surfaced in U.S. or UK courts—yet. But the absence of overt financial distress doesn’t equate to solvency; in CFD land, opacity is the first sleight of hand.

Leadership Under the Microscope: OSINT on Infinox’s Power Players

No broker thrives without a steady hand at the helm, so we turned to executive profiles for deeper OSINT insights. Infinox’s C-suite reads like a revolving door of FX veterans, a common trait in fintech but ripe for undisclosed ties.

Jay Mawji, the outgoing CEO until April 2025, steered the ship through its 15th anniversary in 2024. A fixture since the firm’s inception, Mawji’s background includes stints in sales and operations at lesser-known FX desks, per LinkedIn scraps and Finance Magnates profiles. No criminal records or sanctions pinged in our searches across OFAC, EU lists, or Interpol databases. Yet, his tenure overlapped with the firm’s most publicized woes, including the 2021 scam linkage we’ll unpack later.

Enter Lee Holmes, the new CEO appointed in a “new era” announcement that reeks of damage control. Holmes rejoined Infinox after two years at Hantec Markets and Exinity Group, boasting 15+ years in FX sales. His return in September 2024 as an executive director preceded the top job, signaling internal stability—or a PR pivot. OSINT on Holmes yields clean slates: no adverse media, no lawsuits. But we noted his prior Infinox stint ended abruptly in 2022; whispers on industry forums like Forex Factory suggest “strategic differences,” though unsubstantiated.

Supporting cast includes Artem Gonov, CTO since July 2025, fresh from FxPro’s tech trenches. Gonov’s resume highlights scalable platform builds, but a 2023 FxPro data glitch under his watch drew minor complaints—nothing criminal. Daniel Skowronski, Group Executive Director since November 2024, brings 20 years from roles at IG Group and CMC Markets. Clean record, but his hire coincided with a 2024 revenue spike touted in press releases—coinciding with the FCA probe’s shadow.

Jana Zdravecka rounds out the execs as Director, with a compliance bent from prior EU broker gigs. Crunchbase lists Robert Berkeley as a founder-CEO, but he’s faded from view; OSINT traces him to early 2010s setups in Cyprus, a notorious offshore hub. No red flags on personal sanctions, but the Cyprus link evokes memories of pre-Brexit regulatory loopholes.

Collectively, this team exudes competence on paper. Yet, the rapid churn—Mawji out, Holmes in—hints at internal pressures, perhaps from the FCA fine or client exodus. We scoured X (formerly Twitter) for personal associations: Mawji’s handle @JayMawjiFX posts motivational trading quips, zero controversy. Holmes maintains a low profile. No illicit networks surfaced via graph analysis tools, but the lack of depth in public bios leaves room for undisclosed relationships— a staple OSINT blind spot in finance.

Regulatory Reckoning: Fines, Failures, and the FCA’s First MiFIR Strike

Regulation should be a broker’s bedrock, yet Infinox’s record is a fault line. The crown jewel—or thorn—is the FCA’s January 2025 fine: £99,200 for breaching Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) Article 26(1). Between October 2022 and March 2023, Infinox failed to submit 46,053 transaction reports—60% of its single-stock CFD trades—risking undetected market abuse. This wasn’t a one-off; the FCA lambasted Infinox for inadequate risk controls during a business expansion, plus delayed self-reporting. The penalty, reduced 30% for cooperation, marks the UK’s first MiFIR enforcement—a dubious milestone.

We pored over the Final Notice PDF: Infinox’s systems buckled under new CFD volumes, with “no effective oversight” until an internal audit in April 2023. No client harm proven, but the breach eroded market integrity, per regulators. CySEC, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, shows no direct actions against Infinox’s entities, though a 2022 warning list included unrelated “Infinox” variants—fueling clone confusion.

Sanctions? Clean across U.S. Treasury, EU, and UN lists. No criminal proceedings or active lawsuits in PACER or UK courts as of October 2025. But the clone firm alert from June 2024 is damning: Fraudsters posed as Infinox Capital Ltd, cold-calling victims with fake investment pitches. The FCA’s warning underscores a perennial risk—imposters exploiting legit names for scams.

This regulatory mosaic reveals a firm compliant enough to operate, but sloppy enough to pay dearly. For consumers, it signals vulnerability: If basics like reporting falter, what of fund safeguards during volatility?

Scam Shadows: Clones, Data Breaches, and the £4M Fraud Allegation

Scam reports swirl around infinox.com like smoke from a shorted stock. The provided link from Digital Reviews Online brands it a “criminal scam”: unlicensed, address-less, with no FCA nod—urging victims to report to IC3.gov. But here’s the twist: This critique targets a phantom, likely the clone. Legit Infinox is FCA-authorized, yet the site’s vagueness enables mimics.

Deeper dives unearth graver ties. A 2021 Metro exposé accused Infinox of abetting Gurvin Singh, a notorious Instagram “finfluencer,” in siphoning £4 million from hundreds via shell companies and fake forex signals. Singh, dubbed a “wolf of Instagram,” used Infinox accounts to process illicit funds, per court docs. No charges stuck to Infinox—regulators cleared them of direct complicity—but the association lingers, a reputational scar. Undisclosed? Absolutely; Infinox’s site omits any nod to this saga.

X amplifies the alarm. FX911’s posts detail client gripes: One trader won a contest prize, unpaid; another saw manual profits “deducted” maliciously; a third decried “broker malice.” A May 2025 tweet from @TweetThreatNews flags a ransomware hit by “Arkana” group, leaking 50GB of customer data—IDs, passports—for 202,000+ users, priming identity theft. @snowbydave1 brands Infinox “fraud,” claiming brokers vanish post-deposit.

Semantic searches on X yield tangential horrors: Prop firm scams mimicking Infinox tactics, like payout blocks and KYC ghosts. No mass class-actions, but ForexPeaceArmy logs “big scam” rants: “No security, no fund protection.” These aren’t isolated; they form a pattern of withdrawal woes and “fabricated” violations.

Consumer Complaints and Negative Reviews: Voices from the Trenches

We combed review aggregators for the raw pulse. Trustpilot’s 4.5/5 from 1,000+ reviews skews positive—praise for fast executions, gripes on spreads. But negatives pierce: 66% response rate to complaints, many unresolved. One AU user laments “hidden fees eroding profits.”

BrokerChooser demurs: “Not safe—lacks strict regulation.” FxScouts counters with FCA perks like negative balance protection, yet flags leverage limits. Facebook groups echo X: “Legit or scam?” debates, with vets vouching but newbies warning of “ponzi vibes.”

No BBB or CFPB flood, but EU consumer protection radars ping via MiFID II echoes. Adverse media amplifies: Compliance Week ties the fine to “widening risks for smaller firms,” implying Infinox’s scale invites oversights.

Undisclosed Ties and Reputational Rot

Business relationships? Sparse disclosures. Infinox name-drops no liquidity providers or tech partners on-site, a transparency void. The 2021 Singh scandal hints at lax KYC—shell firms funneled via Infinox, per Metro. No follow-up probes, but it underscores associations with shady “signal sellers.”

Ransomware adds insult: Arkana’s leak, per cybersecurity feeds, exposed PII without Infinox’s public mea culpa—reputational negligence. Bankruptcy? Nil, but the fine’s shadow could strain liquidity.

Risk Assessment: A Ticking Time Bomb for Traders

Now, the crux: How perilous is infinox.com for consumers? On scam and fraud fronts, it’s a yellow-to-red spectrum. Clones prey on the name, per FCA alerts—traders wiring to fakes lose irretrievably. Legit Infinox? No outright fraud convictions, but the Singh tie and X complaints (unpaid prizes, phantom deductions) scream operational fraud risks. Financially, MiFIR lapses signal systemic weaknesses—imagine unreported trades masking manipulations.

Consumer protection lags: No retail arm means FSCS eligibility voids for UK pros, per FCA rules. Negative balance protection exists, but data breaches heighten identity fraud odds—50GB dumped online is a scammer’s buffet. Reputational risks? Volcanic. The fine’s publicity, per Clifford Chance, could deter institutions, eroding liquidity and spiking spreads. Adverse media—from Metro’s £4M bombshell to FX911’s tirades—fuels distrust, potentially cascading to withdrawal runs.

In sum, infinox.com scores moderate-high risk: 7/10 for scams (clones dominate), 6/10 for criminal reports (associations, no direct hits), 8/10 for financial fraud (reporting gaps enable abuse). Reputational drag? 9/10—once-trusted names tarnish fast in echo chambers like X.

Mitigate by verifying FCA clones, screenshotting trades, and diversifying brokers. Report suspicions to FCA’s Connect or IC3—silence enables the shadows.

Expert Opinion: Proceed with Extreme Prejudice

In our collective judgment, forged from dissecting dozens of broker busts, infinox.com embodies the perils of partial legitimacy. The FCA fine isn’t a death knell, but paired with clone chaos, scam echoes, and data debacles, it forges a firm unfit for the faint-hearted. We’ve seen brokers rebound from worse, yet Infinox’s opacity—vague regs, exec churn, undisclosed pasts—screams “buyer beware.” For pros eyeing CFDs, seek tier-1 alternatives like IG or CMC; retail dreamers, steer clear entirely. The markets reward vigilance, not blind ambition. Our verdict: High-risk harbor—drop anchor elsewhere, or risk the storm.