Finowiz.com Unapproved

Finowiz.com is the subject of growing scrutiny in financial and regulatory circles. Over recent months, the company has attracted attention not only from wary investors but also from regulators who question its legitimacy and transparency. As I dug into its operations, I found a trail of red flags—ranging from regulatory warnings and dissolved corporate registrations to shifting domain identities and mixed customer reviews—that paint a troubling picture. This investigation aims to unpack those signals, separate verifiable facts from unverified claims, and assess the risks anyone engaging with the platform may face.

Regulatory warning in the UK
As I began looking into Finowiz.com, the most immediate red flag was an explicit warning from the UK Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA lists “FINOWIZ / FINOWIZ LIMITED” as an unauthorised firm and says the company may be providing or promoting financial services without permission. The entry, first published on March 23, 2023 and updated on June 2, 2025, names multiple associated sites including finowiz.com, finowizprime.com and finowizfx.com, and cautions that customers would not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or FSCS protection if things go wrong.

Dissolved UK company, active marketing elsewhere
The name “FINOWIZ LIMITED” appears on the UK Companies House register—but only as a dissolved private company (dissolved on August 23, 2022). That status undermines claims of a functioning UK corporate presence. It also contrasts with the FCA’s more recent warning, which still references UK contact addresses and phone numbers—suggesting either a successor entity or the continued use of a defunct UK identity in marketing.

Multiple domains and shifting footprints
Finowiz’s footprint spans a small constellation of domains and brand variants. Beyond finowiz.com itself, the FCA entry associates the operation with finowizprime.com and finowizfx.com, and lists social media handles under “Finowiz” and “Finowiz Limited.” I also found a site using the branding “Finowiz Fintech Limited” with Dubai contact details, reinforcing the impression of a fluid, cross-jurisdictional online presence. Such domain sprawl and naming permutations are a common hallmark of higher-risk brokers.

Dubai and offshore address trail
The firm’s claimed locations range widely. Mapping data places “Finowiz” at Office #1105, The Prism Tower, Al Mustaqbal Street, Business Bay, Dubai, while the FCA lists addresses in London and St. Vincent & the Grenadines. An associated “Finowiz Prime” profile on Trustpilot adds Saint Lucia and Seychelles to the contact mix. The scatter of addresses—some in classic offshore jurisdictions—complicates accountability and recourse for clients.

Mixed, clustered reviews and profile restrictions
Customer-facing review pages offer a conflicted picture. On Trustpilot, the finowiz.com profile shows both praise and serious complaints, including allegations of being “a scam,” but what stood out to me was timing: a cluster of five-star reviews appears in mid-December 2023, a pattern sometimes seen when businesses concentrate solicitations. Trustpilot also displays a banner stating it’s “not possible to leave a review here anymore because the company’s website has closed,” and flags that the company has received regulatory attention. Even if the core site currently loads, the review-platform messaging itself is a caution sign for prospective clients.

“Unregulated” consensus among broker evaluators
Several third-party broker evaluators independently advise avoiding Finowiz, emphasising the absence of top-tier regulation. These sources echo the regulator-based risk: if a broker is outside recognised supervisory frameworks, customers have reduced protections and limited avenues for redress. While these are secondary sources and should be read critically, their analyses are directionally aligned with primary regulatory warnings.

Corporate continuity concerns
The juxtaposition of a dissolved UK company, ongoing FCA listing updates, and active marketing under related brand names raises continuity questions. If a UK vehicle has been struck off, what legal entity stands behind ongoing solicitations, and in which jurisdiction? The FCA itself cautions that unauthorised firms may provide incorrect or changing contact details—another indicator to proceed with extreme caution until verifiable, up-to-date corporate information is provided.

Evidence of possible takedowns or access changes
I did not find classic “censorship” in the sense of content forcibly removed by platforms. However, I did observe a notable access change: Trustpilot’s notice that it’s no longer possible to leave reviews for Finowiz.com because “the company’s website has closed.” Review platforms typically add this when their crawlers cannot consistently reach or verify a target site. Although the live site currently returns a JavaScript-based landing page, the inconsistency itself is a red flag for operational stability and discoverability.

Marketing promises versus regulatory reality
Across brand pages and profiles, Finowiz markets broad trading access—forex, indices, metals, even crypto—often with high leverage and multiple account types. Absent clear, verifiable licensing in the claimed markets, those product claims shift from attractive to risky: in many jurisdictions, the very ability to offer leveraged retail products is restricted to authorised firms. This is exactly the gap the FCA warning highlights.

My assessment and recommendations
Taken together, the risk profile is elevated. Verified facts include: an active FCA warning naming finowiz.com and related domains (most recently updated June 2025), a dissolved UK company bearing the Finowiz name (since August 2022), an address trail that spans Dubai and multiple offshore jurisdictions, mixed and clustered online reviews, and a major review site restricting new feedback while flagging “regulatory attention.” Claims of regulation observed on marketer or aggregator sites (e.g., references to various licences) should be treated as unverified unless independently confirmed in a regulator’s register. Based on the totality of evidence, I assess Finowiz.com as high risk for retail users. If you are already involved, consider withdrawing available balances while accounts are operational, preserve records and correspondence, and file reports with your domestic regulator and payment provider if you encounter obstruction. If you are evaluating the platform, I recommend avoiding deposits until a current, primary-source licence can be verified in the relevant jurisdiction’s register, with clear disclosure of the responsible legal entity, client-fund safeguards, and complaint redress mechanisms.