After 13-Month Delay, Deriv Releases $26K While Client Seeks Compensation for Harm

An Indian trader is demanding compensation from online trading broker Deriv, alleging the company withheld his $26,455 withdrawal for 13 months and only processed the refund after regulatory pressure.

According to the trader’s complaint submitted with BrokersView, Deriv disabled his account on July 29, 2024. Two weeks later, on August 14, two unauthorized withdrawals—$20,022 and $6,426—were executed. On August 16, Deriv notified him that his account had been closed due to allegedly submitting fraudulent or tampered documents, citing this as grounds for freezing his funds.

After waiting more than a year, the trader filed a formal refund request on August 5, 2025. Six days later, on August 11, Deriv allegedly confirmed his account was fully verified and authenticated, assuring him the refund would be processed within 1–3 working days.

The trader said that, despite repeated promises from multiple Deriv agents, the broker missed its own deadline of August 16. Instead of releasing the funds, Deriv allegedly continued to pressure the trader for additional documents not required under its stated Terms. The trader complied by submitting his Income Tax Return (ITR), yet on August 27, Deriv issued a final refusal to release the refund.

The trader had to escalate the case to regulators, filing a formal compensation claim for emotional distress, lost investment opportunity, and punitive damages.

The client filed a formal complaint against Deriv with the LFSA

Following sustained regulatory pressure, Deriv confirmed on September 1 that the $26,455 refund had finally been processed.

However, the trader argues this resolution came 13 months too late, after unauthorized withdrawals, prolonged delays, coercive demands, and shifting excuses. He also highlights that Deriv’s August 11 verification of his account conflicts with its July 2024 accusation of fraud and document tampering.

Although the full refund has been issued, the trader continues to seek compensation for the harm caused.

About Deriv

According to its official website, Deriv holds regulatory authorizations across multiple jurisdictions. These include the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC), the British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission (BVI FSC), the Labuan Financial Services Authority (LFSA), the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA), the Financial Services Commission of Mauritius (FSC Mauritius), the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), the UAE Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA), and the Financial Services Authority of St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG FSA).

Upon verification, all listed authorizations are genuine. However, it is important to note that—except for the UAE SCA—all are offshore regulators. Offshore regulation is typically characterized by weaker supervisory frameworks and limited investor protection, increasing the risk of broker misconduct. Furthermore, the SVG FSA does not issue licenses for forex trading, so registration with this agency does not constitute authorization.

In this case, the Office of the Arbiter for Financial Services (OAFS)—Malta’s official dispute resolution agency—responded to the trader’s complaint via email, confirming that his account is held under Deriv’s British Virgin Islands entity. As a result, the OAFS does not have jurisdiction over the matter and is unable to proceed with the complaint.

This underscores the importance of opening accounts only with entities you knowingly choose, in jurisdictions whose regulatory frameworks you fully understand. If the entity operates under offshore licensing, it is advisable to avoid dealing due to the heightened risks.

Always verify a broker’s regulatory status before engaging to avoid potential risks. If you encounter a dispute, Submit a Complaint through BrokersView for assistance.