4XMarket

A summary of what happened?

4XMarket is a forex brokerage firm based in the United Kingdom, offering trading services in the foreign exchange market. Despite the firm’s activity in providing forex trading opportunities, several major concerns, complaints, and accusations surround its operations, primarily focusing on regulatory and trust-related issues.

1. Lack of Regulatory Oversight

• A primary concern about 4XMarket is its lack of proper regulatory authorization. This absence of oversight raises questions about the safety of funds deposited by clients. In the highly regulated world of financial trading, particularly in forex markets, regulatory approval is crucial for ensuring investor protection and fostering trust. The lack of regulation with 4XMarket leads to uncertainties about its compliance with financial standards, legal protections, and security protocols that protect client investments.

2. Client Fund Safety and Withdrawal Issues

• Another common complaint against 4XMarket involves the security and accessibility of client funds. Without regulatory oversight, concerns arise about whether clients can safely withdraw their money and whether their investments are properly safeguarded. Unregulated brokers sometimes engage in practices that restrict withdrawals, delay payouts, or involve hidden fees, which can be challenging for clients attempting to reclaim their funds.

3. Transparency and Credibility Questions

• Transparency is vital in financial markets, and 4XMarket has faced criticism for not providing enough clarity on its business practices, fees, and service structure. Without clear, regulated standards, there’s a risk that 4XMarket may not adhere to industry norms for fairness and transparency, making it difficult for clients to fully trust its offerings. The lack of transparency can lead to the perception of dishonest practices or hidden costs.

4. Reputational Concerns

• In a market saturated with brokers, reputation plays a key role in attracting and retaining clients. Concerns about 4XMarket’s lack of regulation and transparency have led to a reputational challenge, as clients and industry reviewers question its legitimacy and stability. Forex trading carries inherent risks, and the reputation of the broker can either mitigate or amplify these risks for clients.

While 4XMarket is active in the forex trading space, it faces significant scrutiny due to its lack of regulatory authorization, transparency, and the potential risks associated with client fund security. These concerns have overshadowed its market presence, with many investors urging caution in dealing with unregulated brokers like 4XMarket.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was 4XMarket trying to hide?

4XMarket‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling 4XMarket in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information 4XMarket may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Uncovering the Allegations and Concerns Surrounding 4XMarket

Introduction: What Is 4XMarket and Why the Scrutiny?

4XMarket, under the corporate entity 4X Market Ltd., is a UK-registered forex broker that presents itself as a gateway to the foreign exchange market, catering to a global audience of traders. However, under the surface of this brokerage operation, there appears to be a pattern of red flags that warrants serious investigation. Concerns range from a lack of regulatory oversight to allegations of client fund mismanagement and questionable business practices.

As a forex trading firm, 4XMarket ostensibly offers investors the opportunity to trade in one of the most volatile and leveraged markets globally, promising profit potential but also carrying inherent risks. These risks are amplified when a brokerage lacks the oversight and security standards that regulatory bodies typically enforce. In this investigation, we will explore the primary complaints, allegations, and underlying concerns surrounding 4XMarket.

1. Lack of Regulatory Authorization: A Major Red Flag

For any brokerage firm, regulatory licensing is critical. Regulatory bodies set and enforce standards to protect traders by ensuring brokers adhere to operational transparency, protect client funds, and maintain ethical standards. 4XMarket’s lack of regulatory oversight is the most immediate concern, as this suggests the firm is operating without established safeguards for clients. Unregulated brokers lack accountability, making it easier for them to engage in misleading practices, impose unexpected fees, or even withhold client funds without consequence.

This absence of authorization raises questions about the legitimacy of the firm’s practices. Despite being based in the United Kingdom, 4XMarket does not appear to hold authorization from the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or any other major financial regulatory agency. Without this oversight, clients lack recourse if they encounter issues with the firm, as regulatory bodies like the FCA often act as intermediaries to resolve disputes and ensure compliance.

2. Widespread Client Complaints: Withholding Funds and Non-Transparent Practices

Numerous clients have voiced complaints about difficulties in withdrawing their funds from 4XMarket. In a regulated environment, clients expect seamless withdrawals, as regulations mandate that firms maintain segregated accounts for client funds to ensure liquidity. However, with 4XMarket’s unregulated status, clients report that funds often become “unavailable” when they attempt to withdraw, or their requests are subject to unexpected delays and high fees.

Another common complaint concerns a lack of transparency around trading fees and commissions. Clients report being blindsided by hidden costs that were not disclosed initially, impacting their returns. Some allege that fees appear arbitrary, raising suspicions that the brokerage may be manipulating charges to maximize its profit at the client’s expense.

These allegations contribute to a sense of mistrust, as transparency in fee structures and fund accessibility are basic expectations in legitimate brokerage operations. Without these assurances, 4XMarket fosters a perception of prioritizing its own financial gain over client interests.

3. Allegations of Misleading Practices and High-Pressure Sales Tactics

Some former clients and industry reviewers have alleged that 4XMarket engages in misleading promotional tactics. For instance, clients report being enticed by promises of high returns with limited risk—a classic red flag in the world of high-stakes trading, where potential losses are significant. Brokers that promise outsized returns with minimal risk often exploit inexperienced traders who may not fully understand forex market dynamics.

In addition, there are reports of high-pressure sales tactics employed by 4XMarket representatives. Clients recount aggressive phone calls and persistent follow-up messages urging them to invest more capital quickly, with representatives suggesting that time-sensitive opportunities are available. These high-pressure tactics are typical of firms prioritizing immediate cash flow over long-term client success, suggesting that 4XMarket may prioritize recruitment over responsible trading guidance.

4. Absence of Independent Verification and Account Auditing

In a regulated trading environment, brokerage firms are often required to conduct independent audits to ensure they accurately report their financial health and adhere to ethical trading practices. 4XMarket’s lack of such verification raises significant concerns about its internal practices. Without external audits, there is no guarantee that the firm is managing client funds responsibly or even maintaining adequate reserves.

Client complaints and negative reviews often mention a lack of clarity on how their funds are being managed. In some cases, clients suspect their funds are pooled into a single account rather than being segregated, a practice that allows brokers to use client funds for operational expenses or risky trades. Segregated accounts are a baseline protection in reputable brokerages, offering clients assurance that their investments will be available upon request, regardless of the firm’s internal finances.

5. Negative Online Reviews and Industry Warnings

Review platforms and industry watchdogs have issued warnings about 4XMarket, advising potential clients to proceed with caution or avoid the firm altogether. Many reviews mention unresponsive customer support, where clients struggle to receive answers regarding fund withdrawals, trade discrepancies, or account issues. This lack of communication can exacerbate clients’ suspicions and create a hostile trading environment where investors feel unsupported.

Websites that track forex brokers often flag 4XMarket with a low trust score, reflecting concerns about the firm’s operations. In the forex industry, a firm’s reputation is critical, as trading inherently involves risk, and brokers that foster a culture of trust and transparency gain the most loyal clientele. The abundance of negative reviews and warnings from both clients and reviewers cast doubt on 4XMarket’s commitment to ethical business practices.

6. Response from 4XMarket and Public Relations Attempts

To date, there is minimal evidence of 4XMarket addressing these complaints or attempting to rebuild trust. The firm does not appear to have a public relations strategy in place, nor has it issued statements to counter the negative publicity. This silence further damages its reputation, as legitimate companies often seek to resolve disputes publicly to demonstrate accountability. By failing to engage with dissatisfied clients or address public concerns, 4XMarket risks further alienating its client base.

7. The Alleged Censorship Claims

There is no substantial evidence to suggest that 4XMarket has engaged in internet censorship. The idea of 4XMarket censoring information online likely originates from misunderstandings or perceptions that the company suppresses negative reviews by refusing to engage with public criticism. Typically, only large tech companies or governments engage in actual censorship, which requires the infrastructure to restrict or suppress information online. In 4XMarket’s case, any alleged censorship appears limited to avoiding engagement on public review sites or social media.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Prospective Investors

Based on the investigative findings, 4XMarket appears to operate in a regulatory gray area, with numerous red flags that investors should consider before engaging. Lack of regulatory oversight, numerous client complaints, questionable practices, and unresponsiveness to public feedback all contribute to a concerning profile. The forex market is inherently high-risk, and traders should carefully consider brokerages that are fully regulated, transparent, and responsive to client needs.

Prospective clients should approach 4XMarket with caution, conduct thorough due diligence, and prioritize brokers with verified regulatory credentials to ensure their investments are safeguarded. In an industry where transparency and accountability are paramount, the risk of engaging with an unregulated firm like 4XMarket could outweigh any potential returns.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of 4XMarket (or actors working on behalf of 4XMarket), we will inform 4XMarket of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that 4XMarket may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from 4XMarket, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to 4XMarket to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since 4XMarket made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which 4XMarket is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for 4XMarket

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is 4XMarket Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. 4XMarket used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. 4XMarket could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like 4XMarket have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. 4XMarket is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by 4XMarket creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, 4XMarket either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about 4XMarket, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. 4XMarket is in great company ….

What else is 4XMarket hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [4XMarket] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on 4XMarket that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.