Retiree loses over RM337,000 in Facebook investment scam
Authorities warn public to verify financial transactions as pensioner duped by fake online investment
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:Two UK traders fined £280K in FCA insider trading case, highlighting tougher market abuse regulation and surveillance compliance demands.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has secured fines totalling £280,000 and suspended prison sentences against two self-employed day traders for insider dealing, in a case underscoring the regulators uncompromising stance on market integrity enforcement.
Matthew and Nikolas West, acting outside any regulated firm, were found guilty of exploiting confidential broker information between 2016 and 2020. The FCA confirmed that the misconduct breached UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and demonstrated that no participant in the capital markets is beyond regulatory scrutiny in trading.
Matthew West, a veteran trader with over two decades of experience, was approached under legitimate “wall crossing” arrangements to consider investments in upcoming capital raises—often involving Alternative Investment Market-listed companies. These arrangements required strict confidentiality.

Instead, Matthew passed the price-sensitive details to his brother Nikolas. The pair coordinated trades ahead of public announcements, generating over £44,000 in gains. However, under UK trading regulations, penalties were calculated on the total value of all trades executed with inside information, not just profits.
The court ordered:
Both must also contribute over £50,000 towards prosecution costs and pay the confiscation order within 14 days or face further custodial sentences.
The FCA stressed that this was not institutional misconduct but an opportunistic case of capital markets misconduct. The regulator warned that surveillance systems for compliance must adapt to detect suspicious trading activity monitoring across all communication channels, including encrypted messaging and voice notes.
Firms are expected to:
Under Financial Conduct Authority insider dealing rules and Market abuse regulation UK, firms must maintain insider lists, control access to sensitive data, and ensure timely public disclosures. FCA Handbook SYSC 10A mandates recording and monitoring of relevant communications, while Market Watch 79 highlights recurring failings in alert calibration and off-channel communication oversight.
The FCA‘s enforcement actions in this and other insider dealing cases reaffirm that market integrity enforcement is not just about having policies—it’s about ensuring they work in practice.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

Authorities warn public to verify financial transactions as pensioner duped by fake online investment

Failed to withdraw funds from the BDSWISS trading account despite multiple attempts? Did the broker reject your fund withdrawal application without any reason? Did the high slippage lead to massive capital losses? Was the customer support team far from ideal? Many traders have reported these issues online. In this BDSWISS review article, we have examined several such complaints against the forex broker.

When your capital is at risk, trust isn't just a feeling - it's something you can measure. For traders thinking about using the broker Evest, one question is impossible to avoid: Is Evest a trusted partner for your investments, or does it put your investments at serious risk? The answer to this important question, "Is Evest Safe or Scam?", isn't found in the company's ads. You find it by comparing what the broker officially says with the real, often worrying experiences of actual users. This review won't rely on guessing. Instead, we'll take a deep look at the broker's legal status and, more importantly, the number and types of real Evest complaints. Our research is based on public information, mainly from the worldwide broker research platform, WikiFX, to show the truth about Evest's reputation.

XPO Markets, a Comoros-based brokerage entity, is in the news for negative reasons. These include the alleged INR 3,100 crore fund scam complaint filed by 3 lakh Indians in November 2025. Such a scam puts a serious question mark on the authenticity of this forex broker. In this XPO Markets review article, we have highlighted the million-dollar scam along with the risk parameters associated with this broker.