ACY Securities

A summary of what happened?

ACY Securities is an Australian-based online brokerage firm offering trading services across various financial instruments, including forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Established in 2013, the company operates under the regulation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), holding an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 403863).

Key Features of ACY Securities:

• Regulation: ACY Securities is authorized by ASIC, a Tier-1 regulator, which is considered highly trusted in the financial industry.
  Forex Brokers
• Trading Platforms: The broker provides access to MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5 platforms, supporting algorithmic trading and offering embedded copy trading services.
  DailyForex
• Product Range: Clients have access to over 60 forex currency pairs, CFDs on stocks, commodities, indices, precious metals, and cryptocurrencies.
  Forex Peace Army

Concerns and Complaints:

1. Regulatory Status:
   • While ACY Securities is regulated by ASIC, it also operates an offshore entity in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The level of protection and regulations may vary depending on the jurisdiction, which could pose certain risks to clients.
     55 Brokers
2. Client Feedback:
   • Some clients have reported issues related to withdrawal processes and customer support responsiveness. However, these complaints are not widespread, and the broker maintains a TrustScore of 4.15 out of 5 based on 68 reviews.
     Trust Finance
3. Fee Structure:
   • ACY Securities offers three free withdrawals per month, with a $25 fee for additional withdrawals. Clients should be aware of potential currency conversion fees, as the broker supports over 16 currencies.
     DailyForex

Recent Developments:

• Global Expansion: In November 2024, ACY Securities acquired Ingot Brokers South Africa, securing a license from the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). This strategic move allows the company to offer financial services in South Africa, reflecting its commitment to expanding its global footprint.
  Finance Feeds

ACY Securities is a regulated broker offering a diverse range of trading instruments and platforms. While it has received some client complaints regarding withdrawals and customer support, these issues are not prevalent. The company’s recent acquisition in South Africa indicates its growth ambitions. Potential clients should consider the regulatory environment and fee structures when evaluating ACY Securities as a brokerage option.

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 ACY Securities trying to hide?

ACY Securities‘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 ACY Securities in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information ACY Securities may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: ACY Securities – A Comprehensive Examination of Allegations, Complaints, and Concerns

ACY Securities, an Australian-based financial services company, was established in 2013. Known for providing trading services across forex, indices, commodities, and cryptocurrencies, the broker operates under the regulation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), a Tier-1 regulator. While ACY Securities has established a reputation as a global broker with competitive offerings, it has faced allegations, complaints, and controversies from clients and industry observers. This report delves into these concerns, providing a detailed analysis of the company’s practices and public perception.

1. Background of ACY Securities

A. Regulatory Framework

ACY Securities operates under the following regulatory bodies:

• ASIC (Australia): License number 403863.
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines: An offshore entity that raises questions about regulatory protections in certain jurisdictions.

The dual regulatory structure has led to varying levels of oversight, with concerns about reduced investor protections for clients registered under the offshore entity.

B. Services Offered

• Access to MetaTrader 4 (MT4) and MetaTrader 5 (MT5) platforms.
• Wide range of instruments, including over 60 forex pairs, CFDs on stocks, indices, commodities, and cryptocurrencies.
• Competitive spreads and leverage offerings, with leverage varying by jurisdiction.

2. Allegations and Complaints Against ACY Securities

A. Issues with Withdrawals

One of the most frequently reported issues involves difficulties in withdrawing funds:

• Delayed Withdrawals:
  • Clients have reported long waiting periods for processing withdrawals, sometimes exceeding the promised timeframes of 1–3 business days.
• Unexplained Rejections:
  • Several clients allege that their withdrawal requests were rejected without sufficient explanation or transparency, leading to frustration and mistrust.
• Fees and Currency Conversion Charges:
  • Beyond delays, some clients expressed dissatisfaction with withdrawal fees, particularly for withdrawals exceeding the three free transactions offered monthly.

B. Regulatory Arbitrage Concerns

• ACY Securities operates an offshore entity in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction with less stringent financial oversight compared to ASIC.
• Risk of Jurisdictional Disparities:
  • Clients under offshore regulation are not protected by the same standards as those under ASIC. This includes limited dispute resolution mechanisms and lower assurance of fund security.
• Confusion for Clients:
  • Some customers were unaware that their accounts were registered under the offshore entity rather than ASIC, which has led to dissatisfaction when attempting to address complaints.

C. Allegations of Market Manipulation

• Trade Execution Issues:
  • A subset of clients has alleged irregularities in trade execution, including:
    • Slippage during high volatility, where trades are executed at prices significantly different from those quoted.
    • Delayed Order Execution, particularly for stop-loss orders, resulting in higher-than-expected losses.
• Spread Widening:
  • Clients have reported instances of spreads widening significantly during major news events, a practice that, while common, has drawn criticism for its lack of transparency.

D. Customer Support Complaints

• Clients frequently cite unresponsive or unhelpful customer support, especially when resolving account-related or withdrawal issues.
• Inconsistent Communication:
  • Some users claim they received contradictory information from different support representatives, exacerbating their frustrations.

3. Legal and Regulatory Concerns

A. Lack of Sanctions or Major Legal Actions

As of this report, ACY Securities has not faced significant legal action or regulatory sanctions under ASIC, indicating compliance with local regulations in Australia. However, the lack of scrutiny for its offshore operations remains a critical concern for industry watchdogs.

B. Risks Associated with Offshore Regulation

• St. Vincent and the Grenadines Regulation:
  • Offshore jurisdictions are often associated with lax oversight, and clients registered under these entities may find it challenging to recover funds in cases of disputes or fraud.
• Industry Perception:
  • The decision to operate in both highly regulated and offshore jurisdictions has been criticized as an attempt to engage in regulatory arbitrage, prioritizing profit over consumer protection.

4. Industry Reviews and Reputation

A. Trustpilot and Community Feedback

On platforms like Trustpilot, ACY Securities has garnered mixed reviews:

• Positive Feedback:
  • Many clients praise the broker’s competitive spreads, fast account setup, and access to advanced trading platforms like MT5.
• Negative Feedback:
  • Complaints primarily revolve around withdrawal issues, delayed customer support responses, and dissatisfaction with offshore regulations.

B. Watchdog Warnings

• Several forex industry watchdogs have flagged ACY Securities for its dual regulatory structure, advising potential clients to verify their account’s regulatory jurisdiction before depositing funds.

5. Broader Implications for Clients

A. Challenges for Retail Investors

• The operational model of ACY Securities, with its dual-regulatory approach, presents challenges for retail clients who may not fully understand the implications of dealing with an offshore entity.
• Increased Risk of Fund Loss: Clients under offshore jurisdictions face higher risks in the event of company insolvency or fraud, as investor compensation schemes are typically absent.

B. Importance of Due Diligence

Potential clients are advised to:

• Confirm the regulatory jurisdiction of their account before depositing funds.
• Review the terms and conditions, particularly concerning withdrawals and fees.
• Exercise caution when engaging with brokers that operate in multiple jurisdictions.

6. Recent Developments

A. Expansion into South Africa

In November 2024, ACY Securities acquired Ingot Brokers South Africa, obtaining a license from the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). This move:

• Reflects the company’s ambition to expand its global footprint.
• Raises questions about its regulatory compliance and operational priorities in new markets.

B. Introduction of Educational Initiatives

• ACY Securities has launched initiatives aimed at educating retail traders, including webinars and market analysis tools. While commendable, critics argue that these efforts do not address core issues like withdrawal transparency and regulatory disparities.

7. Conclusion: A Broker with Mixed Reviews

While ACY Securities positions itself as a globally competitive broker with strong regulatory backing in Australia, its operations are marred by allegations and complaints, particularly concerning its offshore entity. The broker’s dual-regulatory structure introduces significant risks for clients who may not fully understand the implications of operating under less stringent oversight.

Key Takeaways:

1. Regulatory Arbitrage Concerns: The existence of an offshore entity in a jurisdiction with minimal oversight diminishes client protections.
2. Withdrawal and Support Issues: Delayed withdrawals and unresponsive customer support are recurring complaints that tarnish the company’s reputation.
3. Industry Perception: Despite positive aspects like competitive spreads and robust trading platforms, ACY Securities’ regulatory structure raises concerns among industry experts and clients.

Recommendations for Potential Clients:

• Verify the regulatory jurisdiction of your account and prioritize accounts registered under ASIC for stronger investor protections.
• Understand all fees and withdrawal policies before trading.
• Consider alternative brokers with a single, well-regulated jurisdiction for greater transparency and accountability.

While ACY Securities may offer attractive trading conditions, its operational practices and regulatory approach warrant caution for retail investors seeking a secure and transparent trading experience.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

Our preliminary assessment suggests that ACY Securities may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from ACY Securities, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to ACY Securities 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 ACY Securities 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 ACY Securities is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for ACY Securities

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 ACY Securities Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. ACY Securities 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. ACY Securities 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 ACY Securities 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. ACY Securities 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 ACY Securities 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, ACY Securities either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about ACY Securities, 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. ACY Securities is in great company ….

What else is ACY Securities hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [ACY Securities] + {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 ACY Securities 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.