Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

AW69

Losing Clients Money

Recommended Posts

Here is the story- My friend (knob) in India meets a trader in the U.K and after many days of chit-chat builds a informal trust about his capabilities in trading forex and agrees to transfer £40k to the trader in U.K. in a hope that he will get a decent return every month.

 

It all went fine for few months untill my friend recieves a call from the trader in U.K, explaining how he lost all his money in last few days.

 

Well, as the situation sounds very stupid and naive because there was no legal documents signed neither the U.K based trader is technically managing his money, so is there any way around for him to sue the trader from India?

 

I know this is something my friend should be taking to lawyers in India. But as he has asked me for help, so has anyone ever come across any thing similar?

 

I will appreciate your time in replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly - while I dont know much about it.

whats he going to sue him for? He gave the guy money to trade, the guy lost it.

 

Unless the guy has caused fraud, or misrepresnted himself, how did he know he lost it in Fx.

 

Also did the UK trader say he was licensed. the FSA might have some sort of recourse.

Otherwise your friend in India should have done some due diligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was just greed leading to an agreement without sufficient verification then there is likely to be no remedy.

 

If the guy is now defrauding him then he has a chance. He needs to request proof of the losses - the complete set of account statements for the period where the loss occurred. Be aware though that a sophisticated scammer could produce legitimate statements showing the losses if he traded two accounts and took a win on the second one whenever he took a loss on the first - hard to do though.

 

If the losses were not there then its time to visit the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for the reply.

 

Well, we managed get a hard look into his account details and unfortunately he is not leing but my friend insists on saying that trader never mentioned about the overall risk and the risk- management was explained in a different procedure.

 

However, he accepts that he should have never sent the money through remittence but instead let the trader trade his account with POA. Then he might have some control on losses.

But because the money was transffered through remittence, can it not be classed as loan with a verbal aggreement? If yes, cant he make a claim providing necessary proof of ownership of the money.

If yes, how difficult will be to make a legal claim from abroad.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This is an all too common story all over the world now, not just in the UK. It may have been illegal for the person concerned to solicit these funds, and a call to the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority Financial Services Authority helpline may be in order. Serious cases of multiple ripoff schemes have been referred to the SFO (UK Serious Fraud Office). It is important to follow up, as you may be preventing other users suffering the same fate.

 

For example

 

Mallorca expats hit by £20m ‘fraudster’ - Times Online

 

Most serious of all is people not being warned about overgearing accounts, and ridiculous gearing like 500:1. Trading on this kind of margin is the financial equivalent of driving a car with dicky stearing along a curved and variable cliff edge at high speed. The reduction of maximum gearing in US forex accounts down to 50:1 is a very sensible move. Unless you really know what you are doing, high gearing is crazy. Just suicidal.

 

Of course in this case the so called trader may just have pocketed the money.

 

Larry Levy

TraderSpeak.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This message will sound offensive, but I really don't care. Your friend is terribly careless and dumb.

1. You never give someone money without doing serious due diligence.

2. It also makes absolutely no sense to hire a financial professional in a different country to manage his money.

3. He obviously has no idea the risk level about trading. When you give money for someone to trade, you need to mentally prepare to lose it all.

 

It's even funnier for you to try to help him and treat him as a victim. This is his tuition fee to learn not to be stupid in life. With all your efforts to help and your sympathy, he must feel that it's that bad trader's fault. To me, the enabler is the one should be blamed and face his own responsibility. Suing?! You give the guy license to kill...he didn't kill it in the market...but he killed your client's money. That's that. If the trader did make 100% a year, can the trader sue your client to take over the winning? Of course not. It's a fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This message will sound offensive, but I really don't care. Your friend is terribly careless and dumb.

1. You never give someone money without doing serious due diligence.

2. It also makes absolutely no sense to hire a financial professional in a different country to manage his money.

3. He obviously has no idea the risk level about trading. When you give money for someone to trade, you need to mentally prepare to lose it all.

 

It's even funnier for you to try to help him and treat him as a victim. This is his tuition fee to learn not to be stupid in life. With all your efforts to help and your sympathy, he must feel that it's that bad trader's fault. To me, the enabler is the one should be blamed and face his own responsibility. Suing?! You give the guy license to kill...he didn't kill it in the market...but he killed your client's money. That's that. If the trader did make 100% a year, can the trader sue your client to take over the winning? Of course not. It's a fair game.

 

Agreed Jumbo123!!

Lesson is definitely learnt but if there is any legal way to sue someone then why not.. ?After all its all fair... Giving up is obviously the last resort anyways.

Cheers and happy trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a reality check:

your friend must consider his lost money as 'tuition' at a very expensive school...the university of "hard knocks". hopefully he learned a very valuable lesson and will eventually benefit from his new 'degree'. if he continues to fault someone else for the loss, no lesson is learned.

 

years ago 'stockbrokers' charged $200 - $500 fees to place stock orders. i assumed they knew more about picking the right stocks than i knew. i got involved with a broker and slowly watched my $165K account churn down to nothing. i still have the check from cowen & company dated jan. 8, 1997. it is drawn on the chemical bank of new york..."pay to the order of peter... One Dollar. it is a constant reminder to me that the only person that 'really' cares about my money is me. i began learning everything i could about stock trading. i'm 70 now and for the last 6 years i've been able to make a good living trading equities...averaging around 60%.

good fortune to you and your friend.

peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's a reality check:

your friend must consider his lost money as 'tuition' at a very expensive school...the university of "hard knocks". hopefully he learned a very valuable lesson and will eventually benefit from his new 'degree'. if he continues to fault someone else for the loss, no lesson is learned.

years ago 'stockbrokers' charged $200 - $500 fees to place stock orders. i assumed they knew more about picking the right stocks than i knew. i got involved with a broker and slowly watched my $165K account churn down to nothing. i still have the check from cowen & company dated jan. 8, 1997. it is drawn on the chemical bank of new york..."pay to the order of peter... One Dollar. it is a constant reminder to me that the only person that 'really' cares about my money is me. i began learning everything i could about stock trading. i'm 70 now and for the last 6 years i've been able to make a good living trading equities...averaging around 60%.

good fortune to you and your friend.

peter.

 

Thank you guys.

I think he can only sue him based on the verbal agreement which is also legally binding.. Although proving it to the court would be a different ball game. Hope the e-mail & telephone communications which was recorded may help his case.

 

Anyway how many here thinks he shouldn't be thinking of suing him and why?

 

Happy Trading to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the name of this ...so called trader? It sounds very similar to another episode i heard about just over 12 months ago. Name or alias and rough location would be helpful. If it ties up in any way...I may have some valuable information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This scam is popping up more and more now. I've been solicited a few times by "FX Guns" showing off their trading results hoping to impress you and get your money either to teach you their magic, or invest in them. Some of those solicitations came from this forum, they take any lead or detail they can get and forums are easy pickings.

 

The ploy is simple - open two accounts, take the other side of your trade. If you wipe out all you did was transfer wealth. Avoid tax while doing this of course.

 

Next you build a winning streak from a clean account (if it blows up you start again). When you have the streak, you hit your database you skimmed from online forums looking for the big fish.

 

Next you simply use 2 accounts to transfer the wealth. Run 2 sets of books, one set of investors loses 100%, another makes 100%, they take their cut (or keep it all).

 

It's a no lose game for them, and why retail FX is the wild west of trading and getting banned/restricted in some countries because of this.

 

Your friend is in good company though. Rob Booker tells in an interview how one of his early FX mentors he looked too was actually a big Ponzi scheme, and an "FX Superstar" that Kathy & Boris interviewed in one of their books (might have been the same I forget) also turned out to be a scam. If they can't pick them, what hope do the uneducated public have?

 

In a market with no exchanges paper trails are hard to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.