Golden Brokers

A summary of what happened?

Golden Brokers Ltd., established in 2019 and headquartered in Malaysia, operates as a forex and CFD broker. The company is authorized and regulated by the Labuan Financial Services Authority (LFSA) under license number MB/19/0030.

Key Concerns and Complaints:

1. High Spreads:
   • Clients have reported that Golden Brokers offers relatively high spreads, with the benchmark EUR/USD spread floating above 3 pips. This rate is approximately twice the spread that traders typically find attractive with standard accounts that do not charge a trading commission.
2. Limited Payment Options:
   • The broker accepts paymentsnsfers and major credit cards like VISA and MasterCard. However, it does not support popular e-wallets such as Skrill, which may be inconvenient for some clients.
3. Lack of Transparency on Minimum Deposit Requirements: -Golden Brokers does not provide clear information regarding the minimum deposit required to open an account. This lack of transparency can be a concern for potential clients assessing the broker’s accessibility.
4. Regulatory Oversight:
   • While Golden Brokers is regula Malaysia, this regulatory body is considered less stringent compared to major regulators like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Clients may have concerns about the level of investor protection and oversight provided.
     Scam Brokers Reviews
5. Client Complaints:
   • There have been reports of clients experiencing issues such as significant losses attributed to swap rates and difficulties in contacting the firm or withdrawing funds. In one instance, a client alleged that their $5,400 investment diminished under the guise of a swap, and subsequent attempts to resolve the issue were met with unsatisfactory responses.
     Sikayetvar

These concerns highlight the importance of thorough due diligence when selecting a brokerage firm, ensuring that it aligns with one’s trading needs and offers a satisfactory level of transparency and regulatory oversight.

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 Golden Brokers trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report on Golden Brokers: Allegations, Complaints, and Concerns

Introduction

Golden Brokers Ltd., a forex and CFD broker established in 2019, has garnered both attention and criticism from the trading community. Headquartered in Malaysia and regulated by the Labuan Financial Services Authority (LFSA), the company positions itself as a global trading platform offering access to a range of financial instruments. Despite its claims of reliability, multiple concerns, complaints, and allegations have been raised against the firm, casting doubt on its operational transparency and client satisfaction.

This report explores the major complaints, regulatory issues, and user reviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of Golden Brokers’ operations and the challenges faced by its clients.

1. Background and Regulatory Framework

Golden Brokers operates under license number MB/19/0030, issued by the LFSA in Malaysia. While this provides some regulatory oversight, the LFSA is not considered as rigorous or stringent as top-tier regulators such as:

• The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
• The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
• The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Concerns About LFSA Regulation:

• The LFSA is often viewed as a more lenient regulatory body, which can attract brokers looking for less stringent compliance requirements.
• Investors under LFSA-regulated entities may lack the same level of protection and recourse mechanisms provided by major regulatory authorities.

2. Key Concerns and Complaints

2.1. High Spreads

Golden Brokers has been criticized for offering spreads significantly higher than industry standards:

• EUR/USD Spread:
  • The broker advertises floating spreads, but users report that the EUR/USD spread often exceeds 3 pips.
  • This is approximately double the spread offered by most brokers with comparable accounts.
• Impact on Traders:
  • High spreads can diminish profitability for retail traders, particularly in high-volume or short-term strategies such as scalping.

2.2. Swap Rate Issues

A major complaint involves swap rates (fees for holding positions overnight), which traders allege have led to unexplained and significant losses:

• Case Study:
  • A client reported that their $5,400 investment was depleted due to unexpected swap fees. The client claimed that Golden Brokers provided inadequate explanations for these charges.
• Transparency Concerns:
  • Traders have expressed frustration over the lack of clear information about swap rates and their potential impact on trades.

2.3. Withdrawal Difficulties

Issues with withdrawing funds have been a recurring theme in client complaints:

• Delayed Withdrawals:
  • Several users reported delays in processing withdrawal requests, with some waiting weeks or months to access their funds.
• Denied Withdrawals:
  • In extreme cases, users claimed that their withdrawal requests were outright denied, often with little or no explanation.

2.4. Lack of Transparency

Golden Brokers does not clearly disclose important operational details, which raises red flags for potential clients:

• Minimum Deposit Requirements:
  • The firm does not provide upfront information about the minimum deposit needed to open an account, leaving prospective traders uncertain about its accessibility.
• Fees and Commissions:
  • Clients have noted a lack of transparency regarding additional costs, including swap rates, withdrawal fees, and account maintenance charges.

2.5. Limited Payment Options

The broker restricts payment methods to bank wire transfers and major credit cards (VISA and MasterCard). While these options are standard, the absence of popular e-wallets like Skrill or PayPal may inconvenience some clients.

3. Client Feedback and Allegations

3.1. Complaints Filed Online

Numerous clients have shared negative experiences on platforms such as Sikayetvar and Forex Peace Army:

• Common Themes:
  • Loss of funds attributed to unclear policies.
  • Unresponsive customer service teams.
  • Inconsistent information provided by support representatives.

3.2. Allegations of Mismanagement

Several traders accused Golden Brokers of mismanaging their accounts or intentionally allowing trades to incur significant losses:

• Manipulation Concerns:
  • Allegations that trades are manipulated to trigger stop-loss orders or maximize losses for clients.
• Lack of Trust:
  • These claims erode trust in the platform’s integrity, with traders believing their success is at odds with the broker’s interests.

4. Regulatory Challenges

4.1. Oversight Limitations

Golden Brokers’ regulation by the LFSA offers limited protection for clients compared to brokers regulated by more robust authorities:

• Investor Protections:
  • LFSA-regulated brokers are not required to maintain segregated client funds or participate in compensation schemes, which are standard under FCA or ASIC regulations.

4.2. Lack of Accountability

The lack of stringent reporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms under LFSA oversight means that complaints may go unresolved or uninvestigated.

5. Industry Reputation

5.1. Mixed Reviews

Golden Brokers receives mixed reviews from users and reviewers alike:

• Positive Aspects:
  • Availability of multiple financial instruments, including forex, indices, and commodities.
  • User-friendly trading platform (MetaTrader 5).
• Negative Aspects:
  • High costs associated with trading.
  • Allegations of unethical practices, including withdrawal barriers and opaque fees.

5.2. Comparison with Competitors

When compared to brokers regulated by top-tier authorities, Golden Brokers consistently falls short in terms of:

• Fee structures and spreads.
• Regulatory robustness and client protections.
• Transparency and responsiveness to complaints.

6. Broader Implications for Traders

The issues surrounding Golden Brokers highlight the risks associated with trading through lightly regulated entities:

• Importance of Regulation:
  • Traders are encouraged to choose brokers regulated by well-established financial authorities to ensure better protection.
• Need for Transparency:
  • Brokers must provide clear information about fees, spreads, and operational policies to build trust with clients.

7. Conclusion

Golden Brokers, despite its claims of being a reliable forex and CFD trading platform, faces significant criticisms that question its operational integrity and client-centric approach. High spreads, lack of transparency, and allegations of mismanagement undermine its reputation in a highly competitive industry.

While the broker may appeal to traders seeking a diverse range of instruments, the concerns raised by clients and independent reviewers serve as a cautionary tale. Potential traders are advised to exercise due diligence, prioritize brokers with stronger regulatory oversight, and carefully assess the risks associated with engaging with firms like Golden Brokers.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Golden Brokers

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 Golden Brokers Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Golden Brokers hiding?

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