FXOPEN sued by CFTC?

[swingologist]

Lets play what ifs and I don’t want to hear anything about FXOpen being a scam. I have yet had a problem with them until they were sued by CFTC.

We all kind of already know what would happen if CFTC win the suit. FXOpen will probably no longer accept US clients and face hefty fines. (I truly hope this doesn’t happen)

But what IF… FXOpen wins? Will this new law I read somewhere, where the US regulators passed a law to prevent the US traders from taking their business out of the US, no longer be effective? What about their new law requiring 1:50 leverage trades? Will it be ineffective? (I certainly hope so!)

Since most traders will do anything to avoid the US-based brokers because of this new law requiring 1:50 leverage trades, will the US-based brokers move offshore to avoid the US laws and compete with other foreign brokers after realizing that the law were unable to be enforced?

What do you think?

[bravehoststamps]

Maybe… if the company had any assets in the US which we don’t. Nevertheless, despite a complete lack of jurisdiction, we are still making sure that we comply with the wishes of the CFTC and completely blocking off the US market. We have no wish to go head to head with the CFTC or any other regulatory body.

Since you were not fully compliant with the US CFTC regulations, why were you accepting US customers after the new CFTC rules came into effect? If you view yourselves as a company beyond the US jusrisdiction, why were you maintaining servers and telephone lines in the US that are mentioned in the CFTC lawsuit?

[fxfrench]

Since you were not fully compliant with the US CFTC regulations, why were you accepting US customers after the new CFTC rules came into effect? If you view yourselves as a company beyond the US jusrisdiction, why were you maintaining servers and telephone lines in the US that are mentioned in the CFTC lawsuit?

I could argue those points with you right now, however I would rather wait until the case is done. Then we can get to specifics if you like.

[bravehoststamps]

I could argue those points with you right now, however I would rather wait until the case is done. Then we can get to specifics if you like.

The outcome of the case is exactly what I am waiting for.

[swingologist]

The outcome of the case is exactly what I am waiting for.

Why do you care and who are you hoping to win? If you are on CFTC side, then you really don’t want US citizens have the freedom they are entitled to - the right to do business with any broker of their choice and to do whatever they please with their money. From reading your post, you are just onto FXOpen because CFTC decides to sue them for accepting US clients.

I care about the outcome because I am hoping that FXOpen can still accept US clients regardless of the CFTC regulations because WE, the US traders, choose to do business with them. What is your beef with FXOpen? It’s either you think that they are scammers or you really, really don’t want them to accept US clients. Seriously, I want to know.

[bravehoststamps]

Why do you care and who are you hoping to win? If you are on CFTC side, then you really don’t want US citizens have the freedom they are entitled to - the right to do business with any broker of their choice and to do whatever they please with their money. From reading your post, you are just onto FXOpen because CFTC decides to sue them for accepting US clients.

I care about the outcome because I am hoping that FXOpen can still accept US clients regardless of the CFTC regulations because WE, the US traders, choose to do business with them. What is your beef with FXOpen? It’s either you think that they are scammers or you really, really don’t want them to accept US clients. Seriously, I want to know.

I am not taking sides here, just waiting for the outcome of the court case.

[swingologist]

@bravehoststamps

I am not taking sides here, just waiting for the outcome of the court case.

Why do you care about the outcome of the court case? I care because I want FXOpen continue to be my broker but yet I reside in the US.

@bravehoststamps

Since you were not fully compliant with the US CFTC regulations, why were you accepting US customers after the new CFTC rules came into effect? If you view yourselves as a company beyond the US jusrisdiction, why were you maintaining servers and telephone lines in the US that are mentioned in the CFTC lawsuit?

Forgive me if you are not taking anyone’s side, but your post above tells me that you are railing this fxfrench fellow with questions that made you look like you are interrogating for CFTC.

@fxfrench… Does CFTC have the ability to block US citizens from accessing fxopen.com and its forum? Or are the websites down because of the lawsuit?

[swingologist]

Hey bravehoststamps, forgive me. I read another thread - Going offshore to escape the CFTC - and from the reading your posts there, it looks like you are against the CFTC’s ridiculous laws. So, any one against the CFTC is a friend of mine.

[bravehoststamps]

Hey bravehoststamps, forgive me. I read another thread - Going offshore to escape the CFTC - and from the reading your posts there, it looks like you are against the CFTC’s ridiculous laws. So, any one against the CFTC is a friend of mine.

That’s what makes this court case so interesting to me - even if the CFTC wins, I wonder how exactly the court will define the breach of the CFTC regulations (operating servers and telephone lines in the US or something different?). There always has to be a good reason for a foreign company to fall under the US jurisdiction.

[fxfrench]

That’s what makes this court case so interesting to me - even if the CFTC wins, I wonder how exactly the court will define the breach of the CFTC regulations (operating servers and telephone lines in the US or something different?). There always has to be a good reason for a foreign company to fall under the US jurisdiction.

Do you think it would be any different if the company had no presence in the US? What about if the company was only using a US company to host it’s web page (not trading servers)? Doesn’t that mean that US hosting companies would also lose out when they lose good paying clients?

[Clint]

Do you think it would be any different if the company had no presence in the US?..

[B]I think it would be totally different.[/B]

Apparently, the CFTC is trying to make the case that [B]any[/B] presence in the U.S. — offices, websites, introducing brokers, etc. — on the part of a foreign broker places that broker under CFTC jurisdiction. If that position is upheld by the court, then you should simply have NO presence in the U.S., including no U.S. web-hosting.

If your offices, your websites, your email provider, your telephones, your print advertising, your direct-mail advertising, etc., are all in Cyprus (or wherever) — the CFTC can’t touch you.

Your website, hosted offshore, will be accessible to anyone in the U.S. who wants to pull it up on the internet. And (in my opinion) the CFTC won’t even TRY to allege that such a website constitutes a U.S. presence.

[B]If your website features the things that Americans are looking for, then Americans will seek you out.[/B]

What are we looking for? High allowable leverage, narrow spreads, a large menu of pairs to trade, hedging, scalping, no FIFO, EA’s allowed, low initial deposit to open an account, a stable trading platform, precise trade execution, negligible slippage, straight-through processing, quick and easy deposits and withdrawals, strict regulation (by a respected regulator), financial soundness, etc.

If your website offers those things, interested Americans will click the “Contact Us” button on your site, and you can take it from there. Your website need not solicit U.S. residents, directly; in fact, it needn’t mention U.S. residents, at all. Wait for U.S. residents to contact you with their inquiries.

After you rearrange your business model so as to have NO presence in the U.S., you should be completely free to take on U.S. residents as clients, without harassment from the CFTC.

If the CFTC continues to bother you, you should seek the help of your government in telling the CFTC to go to hell.

[bravehoststamps]

Do you think it would be any different if the company had no presence in the US?

That’s exactly the question I would like the court to answer.

[swingologist]

@bravehoststamps

That’s what makes this court case so interesting to me - even if the CFTC wins, I wonder how exactly the court will define the breach of the CFTC regulations (operating servers and telephone lines in the US or something different?). There always has to be a good reason for a foreign company to fall under the US jurisdiction.

It seems like my beloved broker, FXOpen, had trading servers or web hosting servers up in the US. Tsk tsk tsk. Still, I don’t know the whole story so I am going to wait and see how the lawsuit turned out.

@fxfrench

There is nothing in the new laws that would give us cause to prevent access to our sites by US residents, however you cannot open a new account since USA is not an option in the list of countries during registration.

Our websites are down at the moment because of an immense DDOS attack originating in Russia, ordered by one of our competitors (according to the guy demanding $15k from us to stop the attack). I hope we can get things running smoothly again soon.

@fxfrench

Actually, part of their complaint was that US residents could simply access our website so we were guilty of soliciting US residents without CFTC registration via our website. That is why we blocked access to it by US residents.

Ahh, so what is it? Is the website down because some Russian competitors of FXOpen hacked into their servers or is it because FXOpen had to block US resident from accessesing the site because they were guilty of soliciting with the US resident?

Fxfrench, you said that you guys were “guilty” of soliciting with the US residents. It sounds like the verdict was made. So how will hundreds, if not thousands, of US clients who were trading at FXOpen will get their money back if they cannot log in at FXOpen.com?

[AlchemyWorks]

Unfortunately, if we solicit US residents again, the CFTC can make it difficult for us through their contacts and agreements with regulators in other countries which is why compliance makes sense. Their reach is far beyond US shores if not legally, then by way of propaganda and lobbying. Just look at the fallout from a simple press release threatening to sue us!

What will be the fate of current US residents already trading with you? Please tell me they will be grandfathered in and it will be business as usual.

[AlchemyWorks]

Existing US clients can trade and use the financial functions of the MYFXOpen trader’s cabinet as normal and we are happy for them to stay with us. However, since the option to choose USA as your country on registration has been removed, it is impossible for a new account to be opened with us by a resident of USA.

Does this mean I can stop worrying about receiving an email from FxOpen telling me I have x days to wind down my trades and withdraw all my money (as so many other brokers have done)??? Even after you get ASIC regulator?

[AlchemyWorks]

Yes, you can stop worrying about your account. Just trade and be happy

From your mouth to God’s ears my friend! But I do appreciate your optimistic words… nothing worse that uncertainty!

Also, do you think it’s possible to put in a request for PAMM account holders the ability to download a statement? The on-screen statement makes it difficult to save a record offline.

[swingologist]

Existing US clients can trade and use the financial functions of the MYFXOpen trader’s cabinet as normal and we are happy for them to stay with us. However, since the option to choose USA as your country on registration has been removed, it is impossible for a new account to be opened with us by a resident of USA.

I don’t think eliminating USA as a country when registrating could really stop US customers from signing up at any offshore FX broker.

Think about it…

New US customers can choose Hong Kong as a country for all they care, as an example, and then the broker can vertify their account with their national identity card such as their state ID ignoring or changing the country US customers had chosen when they signed up. :18:

[fxfrench]

Also, do you think it’s possible to put in a request for PAMM account holders the ability to download a statement? The on-screen statement makes it difficult to save a record offline.

Thanks. I will send this suggestion to the PAMM manager

I don’t think eliminating USA as a country when registrating could really stop US customers from signing up at any offshore FX broker.

Think about it…

New US customers can choose Hong Kong as a country for all they care, as an example, and then the broker can vertify their account with their national identity card such as their state ID ignoring or changing the country US customers had chosen when they signed up. :18:

Yes think about it. If you use a fake address, you cannot have your account verified which means any profits made would be confiscated according to anti money laundering law. :o Your deposit only would be sent back to where it came from.

FXOpen does not accept new account openings from US residents.

[bravehoststamps]

FXOpen has not even responded to the US CFTC lawsuit: Francesc’s Weblog � CFTC Suits 14 Forex Brokers Update - InovaTrade Attempting To Escape Service Of The Lawsuit

[allpips]

I am having live account at FXOpen and am very interested to see what will happen with this.

Any news recently?

There also were some news that FXOpen applied to australian regulator ASIC, any news about that also?