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:Pocket Option Scam Alert: Not regulated claims, suspicious license score, and platform-only trading risks summarized.

Pocket Option, operated by Infinite Trade LLC, has been the subject of mounting complaints across multiple regions. Traders from Spain, Russia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Hong Kong have documented cases where withdrawal requests were either delayed for weeks or outright denied.
Several users describe a recurring pattern: once profits accumulate, the platform initiates prolonged verification procedures. These checks often extend beyond 14 days, creating psychological pressure on traders to continue trading rather than cashing out. In multiple instances, accounts were blocked under vague references to the “Public Offer Agreement,” leaving users without access to their funds.
The evidence presented in user testimonies highlights a systemic issue: trades are not routed to interbank markets but remain confined within the platform. This raises serious concerns about transparency and legitimacy.

Pocket Option claims to operate under Infinite Trade LLC with a stated history of 5–10 years. However, independent assessments reveal a suspicious regulatory license and a trust score of just 1.72.
This score is far below industry standards for regulated brokers. A legitimate broker typically holds licenses from recognized authorities such as CySEC, FCA, or ASIC. Pocket Options lack of credible oversight means traders face heightened risks, including arbitrary account bans and manipulated trading conditions.
The absence of regulation is not a minor detail—it directly impacts the safety of client funds. Without external audits or compliance checks, users are left vulnerable to internal manipulations, as documented in multiple case studies.
One of the most alarming findings comes from Russian traders who provided detailed evidence of time and balance manipulations. Bank receipts showed timestamps later than those recorded on the Pocket Option platform, with discrepancies ranging from one to four minutes.
After complaints, the platform retroactively altered balances and timestamps. Support staff attributed the issue to “UTC+2 time zone differences,” but this explanation failed to account for the fact that platform times appeared earlier than bank confirmations.
Requests for raw logs and complete trade reports were met with evasive responses. This lack of transparency undermines the credibility of Pocket Options trading environment and suggests deliberate manipulation.
Across multiple countries, traders have shared consistent experiences:
These cases illustrate a consistent pattern: profitable accounts face sudden restrictions, while withdrawal requests remain unprocessed. The recurring references to vague contractual clauses suggest a strategy designed to prevent payouts rather than enforce legitimate compliance.

The cumulative evidence paints a clear picture: Pocket Option operates with no credible regulation, a low trust score, and a history of documented manipulations. Traders face:
For retail traders seeking transparency and security, these risks are unacceptable. The lack of regulatory oversight means there is no external body to hold Pocket Option accountable.
Pocket Option presents itself as a global trading platform, but mounting evidence from multiple regions suggests otherwise. With repeated reports of blocked accounts, withdrawal failures, and suspicious license claims, the platform raises red flags that cannot be ignored.
Traders considering Pocket Option should weigh these risks carefully. The documented experiences show that profitability does not guarantee access to funds, and regulatory gaps leave users exposed.

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.

Investigate Market10’s regulation status and recent user allegations. Learn why caution is advised with this Forex broker. Read our Market10 review now!