CryptoDac

Category: Platform source reviews

  • Berenberg Private Banking: Platform source review

    Berenberg Private Banking: Platform source review

    Berenberg Private Banking 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
    Berenberg Private Banking
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2016-04-21
    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 Berenberg Private Banking, 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

  • Nikko-Desjardins Asset Management: Platform source review

    Nikko-Desjardins Asset Management: Platform source review

    Nikko-Desjardins Asset Management 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
    Nikko-Desjardins Asset Management
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2016-12-23
    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 Nikko-Desjardins Asset Management, 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

  • Best Fixed Rate Bonds: Platform source review

    Best Fixed Rate Bonds: Platform source review

    Best Fixed Rate Bonds 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
    Best Fixed Rate Bonds
    Source authority
    Financial Conduct Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    United Kingdom
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-07-15
    Source modification date
    2021-07-15

    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 Best Fixed Rate Bonds, 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

  • Sunpor Group Limited: Platform source review

    Sunpor Group Limited: Platform source review

    Sunpor 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
    Sunpor Group Limited
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-09-09
    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 Sunpor 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

  • Fixed Rate Secured Bonds: Platform source review

    Fixed Rate Secured Bonds: Platform source review

    Fixed Rate Secured Bonds 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
    Fixed Rate Secured Bonds
    Source authority
    Financial Conduct Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    United Kingdom
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2021-11-19
    Source modification date
    2021-11-19

    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 Fixed Rate Secured Bonds, 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

  • Fairfield Birch: Platform source review

    Fairfield Birch: Platform source review

    Fairfield Birch 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
    Fairfield Birch
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source validation date
    2023-02-27
    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 Fairfield Birch, 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

  • Wealth Blueprint (1): Platform source review

    Wealth Blueprint (1): Platform source review

    Wealth Blueprint (1) 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
    Wealth Blueprint (1)
    Source authority
    Financial Markets Authority
    Source jurisdiction
    New Zealand
    Recorded category
    Market Manipulation (pump and dump schemes, wash trades, etc.)
    Products identified
    Stocks and bonds
    Source registration date
    2026-01-12
    Source validation date
    2026-01-12
    Source modification date
    2026-01-12

    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 Wealth Blueprint (1), 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

  • Littrademarket: Platform source review

    Littrademarket: Platform source review

    Littrademarket 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
    Littrademarket
    Website or profile identified in the source
    littrademarket.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 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 Littrademarket, 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

  • Fox Capital Partners: Platform source review

    Fox Capital Partners: Platform source review

    Fox Capital 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
    Fox Capital Partners
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Source validation date
    2016-08-10
    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 Fox Capital 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

  • Tokencan: Platform source review

    Tokencan: Platform source review

    Tokencan 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
    Tokencan
    Source authority
    Securities and Futures Commission
    Source jurisdiction
    Hong Kong
    Recorded category
    Unregistered/Unlicensed entity offering financial products or services
    Source registration date
    2024-06-28
    Source validation date
    2025-05-14
    Source modification date
    2025-05-14
    Additional source context
    The entity purported to be a virtual asset trading platform operating at the above websites and is suspected of conducting unlicensed activities and/or engaging in fraudulent activities. It provided the SFC with false information and falsely claimed it had filed a licence application with the SFC. Investors reported withdrawal issues and their accounts were frozen subsequently.

    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 Tokencan, 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