Home > > > 7 Forex Brokers Under Scrutiny for Alleged Fraud

7 Forex Brokers Under Scrutiny for Alleged Fraud

Author : Berita Valas | Published On : 10 Aug 2026

The forex market provides traders with the opportunity to access a wide range of financial instruments via online platforms. However, this convenience also means that prospective investors need to exercise greater caution when selecting a broker. While factors such as spreads, leverage, bonuses and platform options are indeed important, the broker's legal compliance and ability to process withdrawal requests should not be overlooked.
In the first semester of 2026, seven broker names have come under the spotlight in reference documents due to a combination of user reports, regulatory issues, withdrawal difficulties, and warnings from regulators. These names are Emirax Markets, Nozax, JustMarkets, Range Markets, SaracenMarkets, Stone Wall Capital, and Trading Pro.
The reference to those seven brokers as "alleged" is extremely important. The available data cannot be used to assert that all of these brokers have been conclusively proven to have committed fraud. Some of the information is sourced from user reports and public channels, and therefore requires further verification.

  1. Emirax Markets: Withdrawal Issues Come Under the Spotlight

Emirax Markets is noted as one of the brokers that has drawn attention due to fund withdrawal issues. According to references, EmiraX Markets Ltd is stated to be registered in Comoros, and no information regarding its forex trading license was found in the referenced profile.
Several user reports are related to withdrawals. One of them mentions a balance of approximately US$1,500 that has not been successfully withdrawn, while another report also states that the withdrawn funds have not been received.
This situation is important for prospective traders, as the ability to make withdrawals is a fundamental part of a broker's services.

  1. Nozax: Regulations Are in Place, but Complaints Still Require Review

Nozax AD is associated with Montenegro's regulatory framework. The reference profile lists information regarding the STP model and specific licenses, while also providing risk indicators.
Some user reports have addressed issues related to deposits and withdrawals. Some users stated that the funds did not return to their wallets, while other reports mentioned that deposits were rejected but the funds were still held.
The Nozax case demonstrates that the existence of regulatory information in a given country does not automatically resolve questions regarding the legality of brokers serving Indonesian traders.

  1. JustMarkets: A Complete Track Record Should Be Examined

JustMarkets is also included in the list of brokers that merit attention. One aspect that requires careful examination is the company's history of changes or rebranding, as well as its track record of user reports.
For prospective traders, a change in a company’s name or structure does not automatically indicate a violation. However, such information is still worth investigating so that investors are aware of the relationships between the entities, domains, and services being used.
User experience can also be used as additional reference, but it should not be the sole basis for making decisions.

  1. Range Markets: Unreceived Funds Report

Range Markets came under scrutiny following reports from Indonesian users regarding unreceived withdrawals. In the reports, users stated that they had submitted withdrawal requests as early as February 2026, but the funds had not yet arrived by the time the reports were filed.
The user also stated that they have repeatedly communicated with the broker. Since this information comes from an individual report, this sequence of events cannot be regarded as a legal ruling. However, the withdrawal issue still requires careful examination, as it is directly related to the customer's access to their own funds.
The reference documents also note that Range Markets Ltd uses an entity registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and is not listed as a licensed futures broker in Indonesia.

  1. SaracenMarkets: Issues Related to Position Closing

Unlike withdrawal-related cases, the concerns regarding SaracenMarkets are tied to reports concerning trading positions. An Indonesian user claimed that his buy and sell positions were closed without instruction, after which his account was subject to a margin call.
There are also reports from Malaysian users stating that positions were closed before the stop loss was triggered. However, the reference documents also contain positive reviews about this broker. Therefore, user experiences need to be studied as a whole and cannot be generalized from one or a few reports.

  1. Stone Wall Capital: Watch Out for Additional Fee Requests

Stone Wall Capital has come under scrutiny following user reports of losses amounting to approximately US$64,380. The affected users stated that they encountered difficulties when attempting to make a withdrawal.
One aspect that requires close attention is the claim regarding the request for a gas fee of approximately US$15,000 which is stated to be related to the blockchain process. Requests for additional fees before funds can be disbursed are a pattern that should be examined very carefully.
However, the report remains a user claim and not a court ruling.

  1. Trading Pro: UK Regulator Issues Warning

Trading Pro has a distinct risk indicator, as reference documents note that the UK FCA issued a warning on 26 June 2025 against Trading PRO/TradingPRO, identifying it as an unauthorized firm.
Apart from the aforementioned warning, there were reports from Indonesian users in February 2026 related to withdrawal issues. In those reports, users cited a number of reasons for the delay in fund disbursement.
The combination of regulatory warnings and user reports serves as an additional reason for prospective traders to conduct verification before using the service.

Red Flags to Watch Out For

These seven cases demonstrate that broker risk indicators can manifest in various forms. Some notable signs to watch out for include:
  1. The withdrawal keeps getting delayed with no certainty of resolution.
  2. Customers are required to pay additional fees before the funds are disbursed.
  3. The company name, domain, regulator, or recipient account is inconsistent.
  4. License status is difficult to verify.
  5. Many users have reported similar issues.
  6. There is a warning from the regulator.
A single indicator alone is not necessarily sufficient to draw a conclusion; what matters more is to look at the pattern, evidence, broker response, and regulatory status.

BAPPEBTI Becomes a Key Reference for Indonesian Traders

Indonesian traders can use the BAPPEBTI Legality Check facility to verify the status of commodity futures trading business operators. BAPPEBTI also provides information on official futures brokers.
This means that prospective traders should not rely solely on advertisements, influencers, Telegram groups, social media, or testimonials when choosing a broker to entrust their funds to.

Conclusion

The seven brokers listed in the reference document each have distinct profiles and types of issues. Emirax Markets is associated with withdrawal reports, Nozax with deposit and withdrawal complaints, JustMarkets with operational track records and corporate changes, Range Markets with reports of delayed funds, SaracenMarkets with complaints regarding position closure, Stone Wall Capital with alleged demands for blockchain fees, and Trading Pro with an FCA warning and withdrawal reports.
However, all such information should not be directly interpreted as proof that the seven brokers have been confirmed to have committed fraud. Traders need to verify official sources, regulatory status, entity identity, complaint patterns, and withdrawal mechanisms before making a decision.
In forex trading, choosing a broker is not just about getting low spreads or high leverage. Legitimacy, transparency, track record, and fund withdrawal capability are all critical components of capital protection.