The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) of New Zealand has publicized an official warning on its website, alerting investors of conducting business with UB4Trade brokerage. UB4Trade, which is owned and operated by Finatex Ltd. has been flagged, due to illegal behavior that does not comply with regulations in the region.
The job of the FMA is to protect investors from companies that operate in New Zealand. The authority remains vigilant in detecting potential unlawful behavior and misconduct that could prove to be detrimental to investment funds. Further explanations are detailed on the website: “The FMA recommends exercising caution before dealing with UB4Trade owned and operated by Finatex Ltd. We have received a report of acting outside the client instruction and unexplained withholding of client funds by Finatex Ltd. Finatex Ltd is not registered to provide financial services in New Zealand.”
Filling the Gap Between Brokers, LPs, and ClientsGo to article >>
UB4Trade is on the warning list because it has “not provided a satisfactory response” to the accusations currently being brought against it.
FMA Staying Active
In another incident earlier this year, the FMA issued a similar warning against Vhtrade International Financial. The company claimed to be have proper legal authorization to operate and provide services in New Zealand. However, an investigation into the matter by the FMA showed that the company was offering its products and services to clients outside of its permitted jurisdiction without authorization.
Moreover the FMA successfully uncovered an astoundingly daring scam in which a fraudulent group was posing as the FMA itself, under the name Financial Service Provider Commission (FSPC). The perceived goals of the imposters was to prey on vulnerable investors, who may not be very familiar with the precise names of the regulatory and supervisory bodies responsible for protecting their funds.
The clone regulator took things even further by providing recommendations of brokers and companies, which can only be assumed were also not in line with legal requirements for operation in New Zealand.