Separate warning signs from facts with two checklists. Verify entity and payment links, reconcile actual transfers, and avoid treating a licence number or small payout as proof of safety.
A polished trading app, a real licence number and a successful small withdrawal cannot establish that the business asking for your money is authorised to provide your account. The useful question is narrower: who is making this particular claim, what independent evidence supports it, and does that evidence cover the entity, website and service you would use?
This guide separates a warning sign from an established fact. It does not decide whether a named business has committed fraud. If you already suspect deception, do not send additional money merely to test a withdrawal or satisfy an unverified unlocking demand. Preserve records and contact your payment provider through an independently obtained channel.
Use matched, unresolved, or conflicting for each claim. A fourth label, official warning located, means a regulator has published a notice matching the relevant identifiers; record its exact scope and date rather than extending it to every similarly named business.
“No search result” is unresolved until you have checked spelling, legal name, register scope and the relevant regulator. “Number belongs to another legal entity” is a concrete conflict. Neither a screenshot of a licence nor a salesperson's explanation resolves that conflict on its own. Conversely, one genuine registration does not validate every group company or every product.
| Claim or observation | Evidence to preserve | What it can and cannot establish |
|---|---|---|
| The site displays a licence number | Official register URL, legal name, current status and permissions | May identify an authorised entity; does not identify the sender by itself |
| Website or phone differs from the register | Full domain, email, phone and independent response | A mismatch needs resolution; missing contact fields alone are not proof of a clone |
| Returns are described as guaranteed | Exact wording, sender, date and proposed contract | A serious warning sign; do not turn marketing language into a verified performance record |
| Payment goes to another name | Beneficiary, payment reference and written collection authority | A disclosed payment provider may differ; the relationship still needs independent confirmation |
| A new fee must be paid to release funds | Amount, currency, invoice, legal basis and destination | Verify the particular charge; calling it tax does not prove a tax obligation |
| Withdrawal remains pending | Request ID, timestamps, published terms and written reason | Delay can have several causes; unresolved delay is not itself a fraud judgment |
| An official warning matches the site | Original notice, exact domain and publication date | Supports what the notice actually says, not allegations against unrelated names |
Type the regulator's known website address yourself or use its independently verified official entry point. Search the contracting legal entity, not only the trading brand. Compare its status and permitted activity with the proposed product and your account category. Do not treat a company incorporation certificate as a financial-services permission.
Where official contact information is available, use it to ask whether the website, salesperson and payment arrangement belong to that entity. Do not use the phone number inside the disputed email to authenticate that same email. If a register does not list a domain, request clarification from the official organisation; an empty field is not an automatic match or mismatch.
The FCA's forex scam guidance explains that impostors can reuse a genuine firm's identifying details. Its regulatory permissions and reporting routes concern the UK; do not assume they apply to an offshore contract merely because a group advertises an FCA licence. For a field-by-field process, use the official-register checklist.
Consider a fictional message offering an account with “Example Markets Global.” It shows a licence belonging to “Example Markets UK Ltd.” The onboarding agreement names “Example Trading Services Ltd,” and the payment instruction names “Example Collections Ltd.” All names in this example are invented.
Do not add those four names together and conclude that the UK permission covers the account. Draw three separate connections: sender to website; website to contracting entity; contracting entity to beneficiary. Each needs evidence. The collection company could be an appointed payment processor, but a bare assertion in a chat is not proof of that appointment. The UK entity could be a genuine group company without being your counterparty.
Your written request can be specific: “Please identify the legal entity providing my account, the permission covering this service, and the contractual authority for the named beneficiary. Please confirm these details through the entity's independently verified contact channel.” Until a conflict is resolved, record it as unresolved or conflicting rather than changing it to “safe.”
High leverage, a sports sponsorship, an expensive office photo or the absence of an immediate identity check is not a universal fraud test. Rules and onboarding stages vary. Those features also cannot compensate for a contradictory contract or fabricated permission. A padlock means the connection uses encryption; it does not certify the financial business behind the page.
A small payout establishes only that a particular payment occurred. It does not establish solvency, authorisation, the ability to return a larger balance, or that displayed profits came from real market transactions. Do not put fresh funds at risk to manufacture a “test.” Reviews and platform scores can help you find questions to investigate, but cannot replace the original contract and official evidence.
Separate actual transfers from numbers shown inside the app. Suppose you transferred USD 2,000, received USD 100 back, see a dashboard balance of USD 8,000 and are asked to send USD 800 more. Your documented net cash outflow is USD 1,900 before other transfers or fees. The USD 8,000 display is a claim to preserve, not independently confirmed cash held for you. The requested USD 800 is not an incurred loss unless it was actually paid. This example is a recordkeeping calculation, not a legal valuation of a claim.
| Priority | Concrete record or action | Important boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Payment evidence | Save bank references or blockchain transaction IDs, currency and recipient | A transaction ID shows a transfer, not a guarantee of recovery |
| Access security | Use a trusted device and independently reached provider; review exposed credentials | Never disclose passwords, seed phrases or one-time codes to a recovery contact |
| Written account of events | Date each instruction, payment, withdrawal and response; keep original files | Distinguish what you observed from what a salesperson claimed |
| Payment-provider contact | Explain suspected deception promptly and ask what recall or dispute options apply | Availability and deadlines depend on payment method and jurisdiction |
| Reporting | Use relevant official regulator or local law-enforcement channels | A report is not confirmation that funds will be returned |
| Existing positions | Record current orders and obligations before deciding how to manage them | A generic fraud checklist cannot determine a suitable trading action for every account |
Keep unredacted originals privately. Use redacted copies when seeking public help: hide account numbers, identity documents, home addresses, access tokens and unrelated people's data. Preserve complete emails and transaction records, not only a cropped screenshot without time or sender.
Be cautious when an unsolicited person says they can recover everything but requires advance “tax,” “verification,” or “release” money. Independently establish their identity, authority, service terms and recipient before considering any service. The CFTC's fee-scam advisory describes demands for further payments in investment scams. That warning is not a statement that every genuine broker fee or tax withholding is fraudulent.
Ask for the specific invoice and legal or contractual basis, then verify through a source other than the requester. Do not grant remote access to your banking device to someone who contacted you unexpectedly. Neither a regulator-style logo nor a promise of a guaranteed refund establishes authority.
Is a business safe if it is not on a warning list? No. Absence of a warning is not an approval, and a new website may not yet appear in published notices.
Does one identity mismatch prove fraud? It proves there is a mismatch to resolve. It may involve an error, a separate group entity, a payment arrangement or impersonation. Record the facts without inventing a verdict.
Should I send a small amount to test it? Sending money creates exposure and does not establish authorisation. Use independent identity and contract evidence instead.
Where should I go next? Use the clone-domain checklist for identity conflicts, the withdrawal action plan for a pending request, and the complaint evidence template to organise documents. Different problems need different evidence; none of these steps guarantees recovery.