CryptoDac

Category: Platform source reviews

  • Rifa Technology Company Limited: Platform source review

    Rifa Technology Company Limited: Platform source review

    Rifa Technology Company 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
    Rifa Technology Company Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-06-23
    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 Rifa Technology Company 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

  • Compare fixed term deposits: Platform source review

    Compare fixed term deposits: Platform source review

    Compare fixed term deposits 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
    Compare fixed term deposits
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2023-06-09
    Source modification date
    2023-06-09
    Additional source context
    FMA are concerned that Compare Fixed Term Deposits (CFTD) may be operating a scam. It operates a website claiming to offer consumers a way to compare all registered and regulated fixed income investments in New Zealand and find the highest rates. This website states that it is “fully insured and asset backed by the provider,” however no such scheme is currently offered in New Zealand.There is also no evidence to support the claim that its “recommended partners” are authorised or regulated by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). We have seen an increase in the number of investment scam victims reporting that they have put personal details into comparison websites such as CFTD and then been contacted by individuals purporting to be from well-known banking institutions such as Citibank or HSBC. We believe this website site is a front used to collect personal information from New Zealanders, which then enables the overseas scammers to contact them with fictitious investment opportunities.Some victims have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to these schemes.We recommend New Zealanders exercising extreme caution when dealing with this entity and not provide it with any personal information. Entity name: Compare fixed term depositsWebsite: comparefixedtermdeposits.net/

    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 Compare fixed term deposits, 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

  • Thomas & Lynch Inc: Platform source review

    Thomas & Lynch Inc: Platform source review

    Thomas & Lynch Inc 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
    Thomas & Lynch Inc
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2015-12-09
    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 Thomas & Lynch Inc, 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

  • Hong Kong International Board Group Limited: Platform source review

    Hong Kong International Board Group Limited: Platform source review

    Hong Kong International Board 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
    Hong Kong International Board Group Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2017-09-21
    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 Hong Kong International Board 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

  • A1 Trade: Platform source review

    A1 Trade: Platform source review

    A1 Trade 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
    A1 Trade
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2018-11-20
    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 A1 Trade, 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

  • Aim Global Insurance Management Limited: Platform source review

    Aim Global Insurance Management Limited: Platform source review

    Aim Global Insurance Management 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
    Aim Global Insurance Management Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2019-02-14
    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 Aim Global Insurance Management 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

  • G.H. Capital: Platform source review

    G.H. Capital: Platform source review

    G.H. Capital 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
    G.H. Capital
    Corporate names recorded
    G.H. Capital
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source registration date
    2024-11-18
    Source validation date
    2025-03-25
    Source modification date
    2025-08-06
    Additional source context
    The company is not associated with G. H. Financials (Hong Kong) Limited, which is an SFC-licensed corporation.

    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 G.H. Capital, 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

  • Bitcrex: Platform source review

    Bitcrex: Platform source review

    Bitcrex 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
    Bitcrex
    Website or profile identified in the source
    bitcrex.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
    2025-09-16
    Source modification date
    2025-09-16

    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 Bitcrex, 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

  • Spot-Analysis Ltd: Platform source review

    Spot-Analysis Ltd: Platform source review

    Spot-Analysis Ltd 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
    Spot-Analysis Ltd
    Website or profile identified in the source
    spot-analysis.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 Spot-Analysis Ltd, 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

  • Nexmatic Flow: Platform source review

    Nexmatic Flow: Platform source review

    Nexmatic Flow 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
    Nexmatic Flow
    Website or profile identified in the source
    nexmatic-flow.com/
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Derivatives (options, futures, binary options, CFDs, forex, swaps, etc.)
    Source registration date
    2026-03-02
    Source validation date
    2026-03-10
    Source modification date
    2026-03-10

    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 Nexmatic Flow, 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