Threat Received from the Company 

The company sent me a threat to withdraw the complaint I filed against them, and I have responded to it.

Online Defamation on BrokerView and Other Public Forums

You have made repeated public allegations on BrokerView (https://www.brokersview.com/complaint/failure-of-the-company-dbinvesting-to-execute-cash-withdrawal-requests-1917), falsely accusing DB Investing of unlawfully withholding funds. These statements contain material inaccuracies about our compliance procedures and the rationale for your account status, and they constitute defamatory content.

We must remind you that online defamation in the United Arab Emirates is a criminal offense under Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on combatting rumors and cybercrime. As DB Investing operates from the UAE, such defamatory publications may expose you to criminal liability under UAE law. We respectfully demand that you immediately remove or correct all such defamatory posts to prevent further reputational and legal harm to our organization.

My response

The complaint reflects a factual and good-faith account of my experience with DB Investing, particularly regarding unprocessed withdrawal requests and a lack of transparency in account handling issues I formally raised through multiple channels.

Expressing legitimate concerns about financial services, especially where substantial funds are involved, is a protected right and does not constitute defamation . The complaint was based on verifiable facts and were neither false nor malicious.

Regarding your reference to Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021, this law clearly differentiates between unlawful defamation and the lawful expression of consumer grievances. Unless it can be proven that my statements were knowingly false and intended to cause harm, invoking this law appears to be an attempt to suppress legitimate criticism rather than address the unresolved issue of withheld funds.

Unethical Behavior Towards Our Employees 

Your Claim:

 Additionally, we have received credible reports that you approached members of our staff offering a percentage of the disputed profits in exchange for their assistance in reversing the decision to cancel said profits. Such conduct is a serious violation of ethical standards and further supports our position that your dealings with DB Investing were neither clear nor transparent. This attempted interference with our internal processes strengthens the basis for the closure of your account and has been documented for regulatory purposes. 

My Response:

This allegation is completely false, defamatory, and unsupported by any factual evidence. I categorically deny ever making such an offer to any employee of your company.

To the contrary, multiple former and current employees of your firm are willing to testify that DB Investing has engaged in systematic delays and denials of legitimate withdrawals for multiple clients. These testimonies stand in direct contradiction to your narrative and highlight significant internal issues within your operations.

Making such serious and damaging accusations without concrete proof reflects your ongoing attempt to discredit me personally and distract from the central issue—the unlawful and unjustified withholding of my legitimate trading profits. I reserve all legal rights to pursue action in this matter and to escalate any further misrepresentations to the appropriate regulatory bodies.

Unauthorized Third-Party Trading 

Your Claim:

 It appears that trading activities were conducted by individuals acting on your behalf without having submitted a Limited Power of Attorney (LPOA) or any form of official delegation. This is strictly against our Terms and Conditions and constitutes a serious breach of our compliance protocols. 

My Response:

I categorically confirm that I am the sole individual who accessed and operated the trading account at all times. No one else has ever traded on my behalf.

In the absence of any concrete evidence, your claim that trading activities were conducted by other individuals is entirely unfounded. Unless you are able to provide clear, documented proof to support this allegation, I respectfully request that you refrain from making such serious and baseless assertions, which lack both legal and procedural merit.

Regulatory Oversight 

Your Claim:

 Please be reminded that: 

- Your previous withdrawals, amounting to USD 20,000.00 were processed and released prior to the completion of our compliance review, in good faith. 

- The matter was escalated to the Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA), which, after reviewing the full documentation—including your transaction history, trade logs, and all correspondence—ruled in favor of DB Investing, thereby validating our decision and compliance procedures. 

- Your trading account was held under our Seychelles-regulated entity, and we are aware of your complaint filed with the Financial Services Authority (FSA). All relevant evidence and case details have been shared with the FSA for their independent review. 

My Response:

Your claim regarding the Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) is categorically false ,I have been directly informed by SCA that my complaint does not fall within their jurisdiction, as you referred it to them. Instead, it may fall under the authority of the UAE courts, the Financial Services Authority in Seychelles, or the courts in Seychelles. Furthermore, the SCA confirmed that they have not reviewed any details or documentation related to my account.

Therefore, your assertion that the SCA reviewed all relevant documentation—including transaction history, trade logs, and correspondence—and ruled in favor of DB Investing is incorrect and misleading. Falsely attributing such a conclusion to the SCA is a serious misrepresentation and further underscores your ongoing attempt to distort the facts.

In light of this, I will be formally notifying the SCA about this misrepresentation and the falsification of facts that you have presented. This constitutes a serious concern, and I will take appropriate steps to ensure that all relevant authorities are made aware of your actions.

My Response:

All trades were executed in good faith, and according to the conditions available on your platform. I was never provided with a copy of the Terms and Conditions at the time of account registration, a fundamental requirement for establishing a valid and enforceable agreement. Additionally, your team has repeatedly referred to different versions or interpretations of the terms during our correspondence, undermining their consistency and regulatory compliance.

• Scalping: Upon receiving your scalping warning on July 3, 2024, I immediately adjusted my trading strategy. No further scalping trades were executed after that date. Furthermore, your team confirmed this was a preliminary notice and that I could continue trading, which I did in compliance with your instructions.
• Gold Hedging and Swap Avoidance: I categorically deny any misuse or violations in these areas. The strategies I applied are standard within the industry and were not previously flagged or objected to by your compliance department. No warnings were issued regarding these practices.
• Profit Deductions: The unilateral removal of profits based on vague and inconsistently enforced policies is both unjustified and contrary to principles of fairness, transparency, and due process.

Breach of Trading Policies 

Your Claim:

Our Risk and Compliance teams identified multiple breaches of our Trading Terms and Conditions: 

- Scalping Abuse: We recorded 147 scalping trades, each executed within a three-minute window, amounting to 17% of your total trades. As per Clause 4.15.d, scalping is strictly prohibited. You were issued a warning on July 3, 2024. 

- Gold Hedging Abuse: Analysis of your trading volume revealed that 46.5% was based on hedging XAUUSD trades, which constitutes a breach of Clause 4.15.e of our trading policy. 

- Swap Abuse: We noted that 99% of your trades were closed within seven days and then reopened immediately to avoid incurring swap fees. This resulted in only $134.86 being paid in management fees instead of the appropriate $14,074.96 in swap charges. This practice is in violation of Clause 4.14, as it constitutes abuse of our swap-free account offering. 

Due to the above violations, all profits generated through these unauthorized and abusive trading practices were removed in accordance with our policies and the Terms and Conditions you agreed to upon account registration. Your account was subsequently closed. 

2. Conflict of Interest and Suspicious Account Activity 

Your Claim:

It was brought to our attention that you currently hold the position of CEO at a brokerage firm operating within the same industry. This constitutes a potential conflict of interest and warrants additional regulatory scrutiny. More significantly, we had reason to believe the account may not have been used exclusively by you, as required by our Terms and Conditions. 

Evidence gathered during our investigation shows that your account was accessed 24/7 from a single device located in Jordan, even during periods in which you were physically present at meetings in our Dubai office. This behavior strongly suggests third-party usage of the account, which is explicitly prohibited, especially given your executive role at a competing firm. 

My Response:

There is no conflict of interest. My role as General Manager of an investment firm was disclosed at the outset of our relationship. Moreover, my firm operates in a different sector and does not deal in CFD trading—the core business of DB Investing. Thus, your claim of industry overlap is inaccurate and misleading.

Regarding account access, I categorically deny any third-party usage. The account was used exclusively by me. The continuous login from a device located in Jordan was due to my deliberate setup of the MetaTrader terminal on my computer. This was necessary to ensure push notifications were sent to my mobile device—an entirely standard and lawful practice, particularly because your system does not support server-side alerts. As documented by MetaTrader, the terminal must remain active to enable mobile alerts when server-side notifications are not available. Accordingly, this setup complies with standard usage and does not indicate any unauthorized or third-party access.

1. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Concerns 

 Your Claim:

As part of our routine AML checks, we flagged a deposit made via PerfectMoney. Upon inquiry, you stated that the source of funds was a cash deposit of $30,000 via an agent in Jordan. This explanation triggered enhanced due diligence procedures under our AML obligations. 

My Response:

Closing the account based on suspicion alone, without any substantive evidence, is unlawful and constitutes a breach of your regulatory obligations. This action contradicts recognized AML standards, including FATF guidelines, which require source of funds verification at the time of deposit, not at the time of profit withdrawal.

Additionally, it is telling that no enhanced due diligence procedures were triggered when the deposited amount was returned to its source. Instead, such measures were only implemented upon requesting the withdrawal of profits. This inconsistency strongly suggests that the AML procedures were used as a pretext to delay or deny the release of legitimate profits rather than as part of a genuine compliance effort.

The name of the company DB Investing

The company refuses to process transfers or release the balances of my accounts, totaling USD 320,000, without providing any evidence to justify its actions. On May 19, 2025, the company presented a set of reasons, which we have responded to in full — all of which are incorrect. It is important to note that the company has already deducted all profits it claims were in violation of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the company refuses to clarify the status of the remaining account balances and has proceeded to close our account and block our access to the platform, citing multiple warnings — despite the fact that no such warnings were ever issued.