In the forex and CFD trading market, what investors fear most is not normal market volatility, but having their massive profits forcibly wiped out by the platform under the pretext of “violations” after successfully profiting from a strategy. Recently, while compiling industry risk data, CashBack Island discovered multiple serious accusations against broker Equiti on the well-known third-party complaint platform WikiFX. Among them, one investor allegedly saw profits of as much as US$410,000 vanish overnight. If you are currently using this platform or considering making a deposit, be sure to carefully read the following in-depth investigation.
According to real trading records and screenshots provided by the affected investor (WikiFX ID ending in 2626), the core of this dispute lies in the platform’s completely different withdrawal attitudes.
The investor first deposited funds into Equiti in December 2025, initially accumulating losses of approximately US$37,000. In May 2026, he deposited funds again and used an EA automated trading system. Between May 1 and May 5, the account incurred losses, and when he applied for withdrawals, the platform processed them instantly without any objections.
However, the turning point came on May 6. On that day, the market surged sharply in one direction, and the investor continuously opened long positions using the remaining funds in the account, eventually holding 50 lots. During the position holding period of more than 10 hours, the account’s floating profits continued to increase. After finally closing the positions, the investor reportedly earned profits as high as US$410,000. However, when he applied to withdraw these substantial profits, the platform merely responded with the word “violations”, then forcibly deducted the entire US$410,000 profit, returning only the principal.
The core suspicion is this: The exact same trading method and EA strategy faced no issues when losses were involved and withdrawals were requested, yet the moment massive profits were generated, the activity was immediately classified as a violation. This is not simple risk control, but a classic characteristic of a “pig-butchering scam”.
Why would a platform “allow losses but not profits”? The answer points directly to its operational model: B-Book dealing.
Under this model, the broker does not route client orders to the international market, but instead acts as the direct counterparty to clients.
When you lose money: Your capital directly becomes the platform’s profit.
When you make money: The platform must pay your profits out of its own pocket.
During the one-sided market rally on May 6, the investor’s heavily leveraged long positions generated continuous profits, meaning the Equiti platform allegedly faced significant payout pressure. Once the losses exceeded what the platform could tolerate, it reportedly used vague “violation clauses” in the user agreement to maliciously deduct funds. For dealing-desk platforms lacking sufficient capital strength, a client’s huge profits often represent a potential “bankruptcy crisis” for the platform, forcing them to survive through refusing payouts.
Aside from the alleged malicious deductions, Equiti also faces serious concerns regarding potentially misleading regulatory claims.
Offshore Regulation Risks: Although the Equiti website displays a Cyprus CySEC license, investigations suggest that the entity serving Chinese clients is often registered in offshore islands such as Seychelles. Offshore licenses are subject to loose regulation and generally lack strict client fund segregation and compensation schemes, meaning they cannot effectively protect investors’ funds if the platform defaults.
Confusing Legitimate Institutions: Some users have also alleged that the platform’s sales representatives deliberately confuse it with another FCA-licensed institution called “Equiti Capital”. In reality, even this FCA license is reportedly an “institutional license” that may not authorize the provision of high-risk CFD services to retail clients. This tactic of “borrowing the appearance of legitimate regulation while creating information asymmetry” is highly deceptive.
To avoid repeating the same mistakes, CashBack Island strongly reminds traders to complete the following three checks before depositing funds:
Verify the actual regulated entity behind the platform: Do not rely solely on the brand name. Visit the official FCA, ASIC, or CySEC websites, enter the license number, and verify the exact company name and license type. If the platform only holds offshore licenses such as Seychelles or Vanuatu, it is advisable to withdraw funds immediately and stay away.
Test the platform’s withdrawal limits with small amounts: Before depositing substantial funds, first test the platform with a small amount. Intentionally withdraw after a losing trade once, then attempt a withdrawal after a small profitable trade. If the platform processes withdrawals instantly during losses but delays or obstructs profitable withdrawals, this is a clear warning sign of a scam broker.
Be cautious of unfair clauses: Carefully read the user agreement. Legitimate platforms usually define “abnormal trading” with clear quantitative standards, whereas scam brokers often use vague wording such as “the platform reserves the right to determine independently”, leaving themselves a backdoor to erase your profits at will.
If you have also experienced similar unfair treatment on Equiti or other platforms, it is recommended that you report and expose the issue on third-party authoritative platforms such as WikiFX. Every additional authentic report can help more investors avoid traps and better protect their hard-earned funds.
(Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on user complaints and publicly available information. It is intended solely to highlight trading risks and does not constitute any investment advice.)
