FX United warning issued by New Zealand’s FMA
BehindMLM reviewed FX United back in February.
With a passive 150% ROI offered on $300 to $10,000 investments, FX United raised some serious compliance issues.
The sum total of (FX United) is an opportunity that comes off as pretty suss. You don’t really know who’s running it, from where, or what they’re doing with your invested funds.
That’s not smart business, making FX United an opportunity you should probably stay clear of.
As is common with schemes run by anonymous admins, FX United claimed to be registered in an out of the way jurisdiction.
That jurisdiction is New Zealand, who have little to no track record of MLM regulation.
Despite that, New Zealand’s Financial Markets Authority (think SEC) still took it upon themselves to issue a warning against FX United.
An FMA warning is triggered when a company, who is registered on the Financial Service Providers Register, is
the subject of complaints about loss of investor funds, or other serious misconduct that suggests customers may lose money.
Upon receiving a complaint about a company on the FSPR, the FMA ‘will ask for an explanation, and expect a response.‘
If a company does not respond or provide a “satisfactory response”, the FMA issues a warning.
On the 4th of May the FMA added FX United to their “Businesses to be wary of” list. The regulator claims they have
received reports that United Global Holdings Limited, trading as FX United, has been falsely claiming that the FMA has endorsed the company as being legitimate and highly regulated.
Like regulators the world over, the FMA do not certify legitimacy of companies.
The FMA does not confirm legitimacy or endorse any entity in this manner. We recommend NZ consumers exercise caution when dealing with any business claiming to be endorsed by the FMA.
Seeing as FX United management are in hiding, perhaps an affiliate can explain to us why a legitimate MLM opportunity is running around telling porky pies about regulators…
The warning simply means that FMA is dissociating itself from United Global Holdings. I don’t know anyone who is claiming that United Global Holdings or its brand name FXUnited is endorsed by the FMA.
You said it yourself “Like regulators the world over, the FMA do not certify legitimacy of companies.”, So what business is it theirs to issue warnings for a Company that they do not regulate?
In the very next line you refer to the FMA as “regulators” i.e. “The regulator claims they have…”
So they are regulators but don’t regulate? Which is it? Why are your “facts” self-contradictory?
You also mentioned That an FMA warning is triggered when “the subject of complaints about loss of investor funds, or other serious misconduct that suggests customers may lose money.”
Then you go on to say
Is there any proof that the “regulators” than don’t regulate have received any conclusive evidence or even a complain from anyone claiming to have been defrauded by FXUnited? Or are you just conflating two very different facts and rolling them up into one to serve your purpose?
Its one thing to claim that some independent quarters may be claiming that FXunited is regulated by FMA but its quite another to suggest that they’ve lost investor funds”
Are you just going on a hunch or pulling this bull from somewhere?
I suggest you put up more proof or take down this libelous article.
They were never “associated” with FX United, so that’s total bullshit.
What you know or don’t know is irrelevant. There are, according to the FMA, FX United affiliates running around falsely claiming FX United endorsement.
This is a common tactic of scammers.
Endorsement != regulation.
FMA know FX United exist in New Zealand in name only. You can’t regulate a PO Box.
All information was sourced from the FMA website. They issue a warning as per their operational procedures.
Best of luck with the scamming.
LMAO! I was hoping for a payoff and you didn’t disappoint.
I suggest you stop using “Law and Order” as your legal library.
So you expect us to believe that you, an unknown commenter, is to be believed, and a government agency is not to be believed?
Yet you didn’t supply any “extraordinary evidence” to backup your extraordinary claim…
But please, don’t let your ignorance stop you from further demonstrating your ignorance… So far, you are a case study in the Dunning Kruger effect.
Yeah, like the FMA made up the story just to annoy you and FX United.