CryptoDac

Category: Platform source reviews

  • Venture Pro Trader: Platform source review

    Venture Pro Trader: Platform source review

    Venture Pro Trader 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
    Venture Pro Trader
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2017-06-19
    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 Venture Pro Trader, 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

  • Hui Hui Tong FX: Platform source review

    Hui Hui Tong FX: Platform source review

    Hui Hui Tong FX 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
    Hui Hui Tong FX
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-03-31
    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 Hui Hui Tong FX, 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

  • WestPointFX: Platform source review

    WestPointFX: Platform source review

    WestPointFX 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
    WestPointFX
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-12-23
    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 WestPointFX, 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

  • MFS SECURITIES: Platform source review

    MFS SECURITIES: Platform source review

    MFS SECURITIES 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
    MFS SECURITIES
    Source authority
    Financial Conduct Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    United Kingdom
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2023-03-31
    Source modification date
    2023-03-31

    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 MFS SECURITIES, 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

  • Profit Flutter Investments – Suspected scam: Platform source review

    Profit Flutter Investments – Suspected scam: Platform source review

    Profit Flutter Investments – Suspected scam 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
    Profit Flutter Investments – Suspected scam
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2024-03-27
    Source modification date
    2024-03-27
    Additional source context
    We recommend caution when dealing with Profit Flutter Investments and its website. Profit Flutter has posted fake certificates to falsely indicate it is a registered company in New Zealand. It is offering managed investment plans to consumers but is not registered on the Financial Service Providers Register therefore is not permitted to offer its services from/in New Zealand. Profit Flutter also claims to be registered by “FINRA (UK Financial Market Supervisory Authority)", however, FINRA is not a UK government entity. ENTITY NAME: Profit Flutter InvestmentsWEBSITE: ProfitFlutterPo.comADDRESS: (Alleged) 120 Kestrel Avenue, Poike, Tauranga, New ZealandEMAIL: support@profitflutterpro.comTELEGRAM: @ceoprofitflutter

    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 Profit Flutter Investments – Suspected scam, 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

  • Co-operative Bank – Fake term deposits: Platform source review

    Co-operative Bank – Fake term deposits: Platform source review

    Co-operative Bank – Fake 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
    Co-operative Bank – Fake term deposits
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2024-08-23
    Source modification date
    2024-08-23
    Additional source context
    A scam offering fake term deposits using the name of Co-operative Bank is targeting New Zealanders.Scammers are posing as Co-operative Bank staff and sending out fake product disclosure statements using the bank’s name, logo, address and registration details.Co-operative Bank has confirmed it is not connected with these offers. Co-operative Bank has also confirmed it directs its customers to the banks website to view and download documents such as prospectus. If customers are in doubt, they should check details on the Co-operative website or contact the bank to confirm.We recommend investors contact the relevant bank or financial institution through verified channels for confirmation before investing any money.Entity name: Co-operative Bank – Fake term depositsEmail: clientenquiry@co-onboardingnz.com, Complaints@coop-retail.com

    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 Co-operative Bank – Fake 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

  • Knight Investment Limited: Platform source review

    Knight Investment Limited: Platform source review

    Knight Investment 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
    Knight Investment Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2018-11-28
    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 Knight Investment 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

  • First Pace Hub: Platform source review

    First Pace Hub: Platform source review

    First Pace Hub 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
    First Pace Hub
    Website or profile identified in the source
    firstpacehub.com
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Market Manipulation (pump and dump schemes, wash trades, etc.)|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Crypto and Digital Assets
    Source registration date
    2025-04-16
    Source validation date
    2025-04-28
    Source modification date
    2025-04-28

    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 First Pace Hub, 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

  • Reaquity Finance: Platform source review

    Reaquity Finance: Platform source review

    Reaquity Finance 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
    Reaquity Finance
    Website or profile identified in the source
    https://reaquityfinance.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
    2025-06-13
    Source validation date
    2025-06-16
    Source modification date
    2025-06-16

    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 Reaquity Finance, 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

  • Blu Spring Financials: Platform source review

    Blu Spring Financials: Platform source review

    Blu Spring Financials 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
    Blu Spring Financials
    Website or profile identified in the source
    https://bluspringfinancials.org/
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services|Registered/Licensed entity impersonators|Fraud and Other Types of Misconduct
    Products identified
    Crypto and Digital Assets
    Source registration date
    2025-06-13
    Source validation date
    2025-06-17
    Source modification date
    2025-06-17

    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 Blu Spring Financials, 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