RoboForex

A summary of what happened?

RoboForex, established in 2009, is a Belize-based online brokerage offering a wide array of trading instruments, including forex, stocks, indices, ETFs, metals, energies, and commodities. The broker operates under the regulation of the International Financial Services Commission (IFSC) of Belize, holding license number 000138/7.

Key Concerns and Complaints:

1. Regulatory Oversight:
   • The IFSC of Belize, which regulates RoboForex, is considered a less stringent regulatory body compared to top-tier regulators like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This has led to concerns about the robustness of investor protections and oversight.
     BrokerChooser
2. Impersonation by Scammers:
   • RoboForex has been impersonated by potential scammers in the past, leading to confusion and potential financial harm to unsuspecting investors. While the broker itself is not a scam, these incidents highlight the importance of verifying the broker’s official domain and credentials.
     Forex Brokers
3. Offshore Regulation:
   • Operating under an offshore regulator like the IFSC may pose challenges for clients seeking legal recourse in disputes, as the regulatory framework may not be as rigorous as those in more established financial jurisdictions.
     BrokerChooser
4. Mixed Customer Reviews:
   • While many clients praise RoboForex for its diverse trading instruments and platforms, some reviews indicate dissatisfaction with aspects such as withdrawal processes and customer support responsiveness. It’s essential for potential clients to conduct thorough due diligence and consider both positive and negative feedback.
     Reviews.io

In summary, while RoboForex offers a broad range of trading services and has been operational for over a decade, potential clients should be aware of its regulatory environment and conduct comprehensive research to ensure it aligns with their trading needs and risk tolerance.

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 RoboForex trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: RoboForex – A Closer Look at Complaints, Concerns, and Allegations

RoboForex is a Belize-based online trading broker established in 2009, providing access to forex, stocks, indices, ETFs, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. While the company has grown to become a popular broker among retail traders globally, it has also faced criticism and concerns over its regulatory environment, customer experiences, and operational practices. This investigative report examines the adverse news, allegations, and complaints surrounding RoboForex, offering a comprehensive understanding of its challenges and criticisms.

1. Background on RoboForex

RoboForex operates under license number 000138/210, issued by the International Financial Services Commission (IFSC) of Belize. The company offers multiple trading platforms, including MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, and cTrader, and prides itself on competitive spreads, leverage of up to 1:2000, and a range of account types to cater to different traders.

Key Features:

• Over 12,000 trading instruments.
• Proprietary copy trading service: CopyFX.
• Global outreach, targeting traders in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

Despite these offerings, the broker’s offshore regulatory status and mixed reputation have drawn scrutiny.

2. Concerns Over Regulatory Oversight

A. Offshore Regulation

RoboForex is regulated by the IFSC of Belize, a jurisdiction known for its lenient regulatory framework compared to more stringent authorities such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

• Criticisms of IFSC: Offshore regulators like the IFSC often face criticism for inadequate oversight, limited enforcement powers, and weak investor protection mechanisms.
• Impact on Client Protections:
  • In the event of disputes or insolvency, clients may face challenges in recovering their funds.
  • RoboForex does not participate in compensation schemes similar to the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) or Cyprus’s Investor Compensation Fund (ICF).

B. Lack of Licenses in Key Markets

• RoboForex is not authorized by financial regulators in key markets like the US, UK, or EU, restricting its ability to serve clients in these regions legally. This lack of recognition raises concerns about the broker’s compliance with global standards.

3. Impersonation and Scam Incidents

A. Fraudulent Impersonation

RoboForex has been a target of impersonation scams, where fraudulent entities use the broker’s name and branding to deceive investors.

• Impact on Clients:
  • Victims of these scams often report losing funds after depositing with fake websites or individuals pretending to represent RoboForex.
  • While RoboForex itself is not directly responsible for these scams, the incidents highlight a lack of proactive measures to safeguard its brand.

B. Potential Scams Targeting Clients

Some negative reviews suggest that third-party affiliates promoting RoboForex may employ unethical practices to attract clients, including false advertising about guaranteed returns and risk-free trading.

4. Customer Complaints and Feedback

A. Withdrawal Issues

One of the most common complaints against RoboForex involves difficulties with fund withdrawals.

• Delayed or Denied Withdrawals:
  • Several users report that their withdrawal requests were delayed without explanation or outright denied.
  • Some complaints allege that RoboForex imposed additional verification procedures or fees as a stalling tactic.
• Impact on Trust: These issues have led to suspicions that RoboForex may deliberately complicate withdrawal processes to retain client funds longer.

B. Customer Support Concerns

• Mixed Reviews:
  • While some users praise the responsiveness of RoboForex’s customer support, others describe it as slow and unhelpful, particularly when resolving withdrawal-related disputes.
• Inconsistencies Across Regions: Support quality appears to vary depending on the region, with some customers in Asia and Latin America expressing frustration over language barriers and limited availability.

C. Unfavorable Trading Conditions

• Unjustified Spreads and Slippage:
  • Traders have reported instances of unexpectedly wide spreads and significant slippage during high volatility, which can negatively impact profitability.
• Stop-Loss Manipulation:
  • Some users allege that their stop-loss orders were triggered prematurely, raising suspicions of market manipulation.

5. Lawsuits and Legal Actions

While no major lawsuits have directly implicated RoboForex, its association with an offshore jurisdiction and past impersonation scams have led to scrutiny from consumer protection groups and financial watchdogs.

A. Regulatory Warnings:

• Warnings from Local Authorities: RoboForex has been flagged by certain financial regulators for targeting clients in regions where it is not authorized to operate. Such warnings often deter potential clients and damage the broker’s reputation.

B. Investigations by Consumer Advocacy Platforms:

• RoboForex has been the subject of investigations by online review platforms like Valforex and TheForexReview, which have raised concerns about its business practices and regulatory compliance.

6. Transparency and Ethical Concerns

A. Proprietary Services

RoboForex promotes proprietary services such as CopyFX, which allows traders to follow and copy the trades of others. Critics argue that:

• Lack of Transparency: The selection criteria for top traders are unclear, potentially exposing followers to unnecessary risks.
• Conflict of Interest: As a market maker, RoboForex could potentially profit from clients’ losses, raising questions about the alignment of its interests with its customers.

B. Promotions and Bonuses

• High-Leverage Offers: RoboForex advertises leverage of up to 1:2000, which, while attractive to traders, significantly increases the risk of rapid losses.
• Bonus Programs: Critics argue that bonus offers may lock clients into specific trading conditions that make it difficult to withdraw profits.

7. Mixed Reputation in Online Communities

Positive Feedback:

• Diverse Trading Instruments: Many users appreciate RoboForex’s wide range of instruments, particularly its access to niche markets like cryptocurrencies and ETFs.
• Platform Variety: The availability of MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, and cTrader appeals to a broad audience of traders.

Negative Feedback:

• Trust Issues: The combination of offshore regulation, withdrawal complaints, and impersonation scams has eroded trust among potential clients.
• Perception of Risk: RoboForex’s association with an offshore jurisdiction and the lack of recognition from top-tier regulators create a perception of heightened risk.

8. Broader Implications for Offshore Brokers

RoboForex’s controversies reflect broader issues faced by offshore brokers:

• Limited Oversight: The lack of stringent regulatory frameworks in jurisdictions like Belize increases the risk of malpractice.
• Challenges in Investor Protection: Clients trading with offshore brokers often have limited legal recourse in the event of disputes or insolvency.

9. Conclusion: A Broker Under Scrutiny

RoboForex is a well-established broker offering diverse trading services, but its reputation is marred by regulatory concerns, customer complaints, and allegations of unethical practices. While many traders report positive experiences, the recurring issues highlighted in this report warrant caution for potential clients.

Key Recommendations for Traders:

1. Verify Regulatory Status: Choose brokers regulated by top-tier authorities like the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC for better investor protections.
2. Exercise Due Diligence: Research brokers thoroughly, paying attention to customer reviews and complaints.
3. Understand the Risks of Offshore Brokers: Be aware of the limitations in legal recourse and investor protections when engaging with offshore brokers.

While RoboForex may appeal to experienced traders seeking high leverage and diverse instruments, new or risk-averse traders should consider more regulated alternatives to ensure their funds’ safety and trading transparency.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for RoboForex

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 RoboForex Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is RoboForex hiding?

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