Tickmill Limited

A summary of what happened?

Tickmill Limited is a global forex and CFD broker offering trading services to both retail and institutional clients. Operating across multiple jurisdictions, the company is licensed and regulated by several authorities, including the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), and the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA).

Client Complaints and Allegations

Despite its regulatory status, Tickmill has faced various client complaints and allegations:

• Withdrawal Issues: Some clients have reported delays in processing withdrawals, with funds taking longer than expected to be disbursed.
  NetFactual
• Trade Execution Concerns: There are accounts of slippage and requotes during high volatility periods, leading to less favorable trade outcomes for clients.
  NetFactual
• Customer Support Challenges: A number of clients have expressed dissatisfaction with the responsiveness and effectiveness of Tickmill’s customer support in addressing their concerns.
  NetFactual

Allegations of Suppressing Negative Information

Investigations have revealed that Tickmill Limited has engaged in efforts to suppress negative information and censor critical reviews online. The company has been found to file fraudulent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests, falsely claiming copyright ownership to remove unfavorable content. Such actions involve perjury, cybercrime, and violations of civil regulations.

Regulatory Standing

Tickmill operates under the oversight of multiple regulatory bodies:

• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Tickmill UK Ltd is authorized and regulated by the FCA, ensuring adherence to strict financial standards and consumer protections.
  Tickmill
• Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC): Tickmill Europe Ltd operates under CySEC regulation, complying with European Union financial directives.
  Tickmill
• Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA): Tickmill Ltd is regulated by the FSA in Seychelles, offering services to clients in various regions.
  Tickmill

While Tickmill Limited maintains a presence in the forex and CFD trading industry with multiple regulatory licenses, it has faced client complaints regarding withdrawal processes, trade execution, and customer support. Additionally, the company’s alleged attempts to suppress negative information through fraudulent means raise concerns about its commitment to transparency and ethical practices. Prospective clients are advised to conduct thorough due diligence and consider these factors when evaluating Tickmill as a potential broker.

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 Tickmill Limited trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: The Allegations and Controversies Surrounding Tickmill Limited

Introduction

Tickmill Limited is a global financial services provider offering forex and CFD trading solutions to retail and institutional clients. Known for its regulatory presence across various jurisdictions, Tickmill operates under licenses from reputable authorities, including the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC). Despite its standing in the financial industry, the company has faced a series of allegations, complaints, and controversies, ranging from client dissatisfaction to accusations of unethical practices. This report delves deeply into these concerns to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding Tickmill Limited.

Part 1: Background and Regulatory Framework

Tickmill Limited operates under multiple legal entities and regulatory licenses:

1. Tickmill UK Ltd: Regulated by the FCA in the United Kingdom.
2. Tickmill Europe Ltd: Overseen by CySEC in Cyprus, operating within the European Union.
3. Tickmill Ltd: Regulated by the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), catering to clients in jurisdictions outside the EU and UK.

These regulatory frameworks provide Tickmill with credibility and enable it to market itself as a trustworthy broker. However, complaints and controversies indicate that regulatory oversight alone may not be sufficient to address underlying issues.

Part 2: Client Complaints and Operational Issues

1. Withdrawal Delays

One of the most frequent complaints against Tickmill involves delays in processing client withdrawals. While the company promises swift fund transfers, numerous clients have reported:

• Extended waiting periods, sometimes stretching to weeks, before receiving funds.
• Lack of transparency regarding the reasons for delays.
• Insufficient communication from customer support during withdrawal disputes.

Such delays not only frustrate clients but also raise concerns about the company’s liquidity and operational efficiency.

2. Trade Execution Problems

Tickmill markets itself as a broker providing low-latency trade execution. However, some traders have reported:

• Slippage: Orders being executed at prices significantly different from the requested levels, particularly during high-volatility periods.
• Requotes: Clients receiving notifications that their requested trade prices are no longer available, forcing them to accept less favorable terms.
• Platform Reliability: Occasional complaints about technical issues disrupting trading activity during critical market events.

While these problems are not uncommon in the forex trading industry, the frequency of such reports raises questions about the consistency of Tickmill’s infrastructure.

3. Customer Support Challenges

Clients have expressed dissatisfaction with Tickmill’s customer support:

• Slow response times to inquiries, especially during disputes over withdrawals or trade execution.
• Perceived lack of adequate resolution to customer issues, with some complaints remaining unresolved for extended periods.
• Limited transparency in communication, leaving clients feeling ignored or undervalued.

Part 3: Allegations of Censorship and Unethical Practices

Tickmill Limited has been accused of engaging in practices aimed at suppressing negative feedback and criticism online. These allegations primarily revolve around the misuse of legal mechanisms like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to remove unfavorable reviews and articles.

Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Requests

Investigations reveal that Tickmill has filed fraudulent DMCA claims, falsely asserting copyright ownership over critical content published by independent reviewers or dissatisfied clients. The intent behind these actions appears to be:

• Silencing negative feedback to maintain a positive online reputation.
• Preventing potential clients from accessing critical information about the company.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The misuse of DMCA notices constitutes:

• Perjury: Filing false claims under the DMCA involves knowingly providing inaccurate information in legal declarations.
• Cybercrime: Suppressing critical content through fraudulent means violates ethical and legal standards.
• Civil Violations: Such actions undermine freedom of speech and consumer protection rights.

Part 4: Public Perception and Negative Reviews

Tickmill’s reputation among traders is mixed, with online reviews reflecting both praise and criticism.

Positive Feedback

Some clients have commended Tickmill for:

• Competitive spreads and low trading costs.
• Reliable regulatory oversight from the FCA and CySEC.
• User-friendly trading platforms compatible with MetaTrader 4 and 5.

Negative Feedback

However, the negative reviews highlight recurring issues:

• Misleading Marketing: Some clients feel that the company’s promotional materials overstate its advantages while downplaying potential risks.
• Difficulty With Account Closure: Reports suggest that clients attempting to close accounts or withdraw remaining balances have faced obstacles and delays.
• Lack of Transparency: Many traders accuse Tickmill of failing to provide clear explanations regarding trade execution discrepancies and fund-related issues.

Part 5: Regulatory Standing and Oversight

Strengths of Regulatory Framework

Tickmill benefits from regulation in reputable jurisdictions like the UK and EU. This oversight ensures compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) policies, fund segregation requirements, and client protection measures.

Weaknesses

Despite its regulatory licenses, Tickmill also operates under the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), a jurisdiction often criticized for weaker oversight standards. This dual-regulation approach allows Tickmill to cater to different client bases but may also create gaps in accountability.

Part 6: Broader Implications and Consumer Advice

Systemic Issues in the Forex Industry

The controversies surrounding Tickmill highlight broader challenges within the forex trading industry:

• Transparency: Many brokers struggle to balance aggressive marketing with honest disclosure of trading risks.
• Regulatory Enforcement: While top-tier regulators provide robust oversight, loopholes in offshore jurisdictions undermine global consumer protection.
• Consumer Awareness: Retail traders often lack the knowledge to critically evaluate broker operations, making them susceptible to issues like withdrawal delays and execution problems.

Recommendations for Consumers

• Due Diligence: Prospective clients should thoroughly research brokers, paying close attention to user reviews and regulatory licenses.
• Risk Management: Traders should start with small deposits and test withdrawal processes before committing significant funds.
• Awareness of Jurisdictional Differences: Clients must understand the implications of trading with entities regulated in offshore jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Tickmill Limited is a globally recognized broker with regulatory licenses in reputable jurisdictions. However, the company has faced significant allegations, including withdrawal delays, trade execution issues, poor customer support, and unethical practices such as suppressing negative feedback through fraudulent DMCA claims.

While Tickmill has built a positive reputation among some traders for its competitive pricing and platform offerings, the recurring nature of complaints suggests deeper systemic issues that need to be addressed. Potential clients are advised to approach Tickmill with caution, conduct thorough research, and remain vigilant in monitoring their interactions with the company. The allegations against Tickmill also serve as a broader reminder of the challenges and risks inherent in the forex trading industry.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Tickmill Limited

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 Tickmill Limited Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Tickmill Limited hiding?

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