CryptoDac

Author: cryptodac

  • Elan Financial Group Limited: Platform source review

    Elan Financial Group Limited: Platform source review

    Elan Financial Group Limited appears in a source record attributed to Securities and Futures Commission. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Elan Financial Group Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2015-12-16
    Source modification date
    2025-03-21

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Elan Financial Group Limited, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • FMA issues warning about crypto trader, Golden Hawk: Platform source review

    FMA issues warning about crypto trader, Golden Hawk: Platform source review

    FMA issues warning about crypto trader, Golden Hawk appears in a source record attributed to Financial Markets Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    FMA issues warning about crypto trader, Golden Hawk
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Other
    Source validation date
    2022-07-05
    Source modification date
    2022-07-05

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to FMA issues warning about crypto trader, Golden Hawk, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Sotfware and Media Ltd. dba BoxInvesting: Platform source review

    Sotfware and Media Ltd. dba BoxInvesting: Platform source review

    Sotfware and Media Ltd. dba BoxInvesting appears in a source record attributed to British Columbia Securities Commission. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Sotfware and Media Ltd. dba BoxInvesting
    Source authority
    British Columbia Securities Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    British Columbia
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2019-12-16
    Source modification date
    2019-12-16

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Sotfware and Media Ltd. dba BoxInvesting, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Creditafex: Platform source review

    Creditafex: Platform source review

    Creditafex appears in a source record attributed to Financial Markets Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Creditafex
    Website or profile identified in the source
    creditafex.com
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Derivatives (options, futures, binary options, CFDs, forex, swaps, etc.)|Crypto and Digital Assets|Other
    Source registration date
    2026-03-27
    Source validation date
    2026-03-31
    Source modification date
    2026-03-31

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Creditafex, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • PumpGlobalF: Platform source review

    PumpGlobalF: Platform source review

    PumpGlobalF appears in a source record attributed to Financial Markets Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    PumpGlobalF
    Website or profile identified in the source
    pumpglobalf.com
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Derivatives (options, futures, binary options, CFDs, forex, swaps, etc.)
    Source registration date
    2025-11-26
    Source validation date
    2025-12-02
    Source modification date
    2025-12-02

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to PumpGlobalF, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Noterma: Platform source review

    Noterma: Platform source review

    Noterma appears in a source record attributed to Financial Markets Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Noterma
    Website or profile identified in the source
    noterma.com
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Crypto and Digital Assets
    Source registration date
    2025-09-15
    Source validation date
    2025-09-15
    Source modification date
    2025-09-15

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Noterma, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Tokai National Partners: Platform source review

    Tokai National Partners: Platform source review

    Tokai National Partners appears in a source record attributed to Securities and Futures Commission. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Tokai National Partners
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2017-11-20
    Source modification date
    2025-03-21

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Tokai National Partners, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Wordzex: Platform source review

    Wordzex: Platform source review

    Wordzex appears in a source record attributed to Financial Markets Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Wordzex
    Website or profile identified in the source
    wordzex.com
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Crypto and Digital Assets
    Source registration date
    2025-09-15
    Source validation date
    2025-09-15
    Source modification date
    2025-09-15

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Wordzex, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • UK Bonds Association: Platform source review

    UK Bonds Association: Platform source review

    UK Bonds Association appears in a source record attributed to Financial Conduct Authority. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    UK Bonds Association
    Source authority
    Financial Conduct Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    United Kingdom
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-04-26
    Source modification date
    2021-04-26

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to UK Bonds Association, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers

  • Mayflower Advisors: Platform source review

    Mayflower Advisors: Platform source review

    Mayflower Advisors appears in a source record attributed to Securities and Futures Commission. The identity, jurisdiction and finding below define the scope of this review.

    The identity in the source

    Recorded name
    Mayflower Advisors
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2023-12-28
    Source modification date
    2025-03-21

    Read the primary authority source

    Read the finding in context

    The recorded category is reproduced above. Read the linked authority’s finding in its own terms. An authorization warning, restriction or other regulatory notice does not by itself establish every allegation about an entity or prove a particular person’s loss.

    Match the record to your experience

    Compare the complete website or profile address, payment destination and communications you used. A similar name is not enough to identify the same operator. Retain original messages, payment references and dates so that any differences remain visible.

    Follow the evidence and payment route

    CryptoDac investigates cryptocurrency fraud, traces digital assets and develops evidence to pursue appropriate lawful recovery routes. For a matter relating to Mayflower Advisors, the starting questions are which identity presented the service, how payments were sent, which records support the sequence and which relevant platform or authority may be able to act.

    A useful chronology separates amounts actually sent from displayed balances or advertised returns. Public transaction records can show movement between addresses, while ownership and legal responsibility may require further evidence. Recovery strategy depends on the facts and the actions of the relevant parties.

    Preserve what can support a review

    Keep exact website addresses, dated correspondence, transaction IDs, network details and the original records of payment and withdrawal requests. Describe uncertainty honestly. Do not send seed phrases, private keys, passwords or one-time codes.

    Dates and source scope

    Source dates are labelled separately above. The publication date on this article records its CryptoDac release and is not a claim that CryptoDac published the authority’s warning on its original date. Source records may change; consult the linked authority for its current notice and distinguish its jurisdiction from other countries.

    Source and investigation methodology · Request a correction · Return to Scam Brokers