CFD & FX Case Register.
What supervisors and ombudsmen have put on the public record. Search decisions by legal entity, issue and outcome, including actions that carry no monetary fine.
Look at the conduct, not the licence alone.
A regulated provider can have serious shortcomings in client money, distribution, classification or execution. Published decisions reveal concrete mechanisms and limits of protection. Each concerns a particular legal entity and period; it does not establish a blanket conclusion about the industry or other firms.
MFSA first directed remediation of client-asset safeguarding and reconciliations and stopped new onboarding. On 24 September 2026 it ordered an immediate halt to incoming and outgoing transactions on client accounts. BaFin relayed the notice on 25 September. The MFSA publication states no monetary fine and notes an appeal route. Separate clone-site warnings must not be attributed to the licensed entity as sanctions.
MFSA ↗Search the public record
Search decisions with an original source, then check the legal entity, relevant period and procedural status. Published cases do not cover every EEA provider or dispute. No result is not reassurance. UK cases are marked as historical or cross-border examples.
A criminal “sentence” belongs only to criminal decisions. This register distinguishes fines, directives, settlements and individual redress. We do not invent an unpublished case number.
Browse CySEC monetary decisions →
Read beyond the provider name
A brand can refer to several licensed companies, branches or former names. Match the legal entity in the decision with the firm that dealt with you. Check whether the decision is a fine, a temporary directive, a settlement or individual redress, and whether a later appeal changed it. For a broader provider check, use the national register linked by ESMA and the relevant authority’s original publications.
Trading practices tested in court
Commission incentives, risk disclosure and execution have led investors to court. These decisions also show the evidence required and why the broker’s specific role matters. A loss alone establishes neither fraud nor a damages claim.
CFD & FX · broker and bank cases
Four distinct disputes. Multiple stages of one dispute are shown together.
| Provider / role | Court · date · docket | Disputed practice | Outcome and evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| IG Markets Ltd., German branch (identified by claimant counsel); ATOS / JMS intermediaries | LG Düsseldorf · 17.03.2017 8 O 58/16; OLG Düsseldorf I-9 U 77/17 | CFD churning: excessive turnover by authorised intermediaries to generate commissions. | Award · reproduced trial judgment; identity and appeal status from counsel €165,861.09 plus interest awarded. The court found intentional wrongful harm by JMS and broker participation. Claimant counsel reported withdrawal of the appeal in 2018; the appellate order has not been obtained here. |
| CFD broker anonymised in the published judgment | LG Heidelberg · 11.08.2016 2 O 407/15 | EUR/CHF after the SNB decision on 15 January 2015: risk disclosure, debit balance and stop-loss execution disputed. | Award · reproduced first-instance judgment Broker claim for €78,472.57 dismissed; €9,581.11 awarded on the customer’s counterclaim. Pre-contractual risk disclosure was decisive. Alleged stop-loss execution failure was left undecided. Later appeal status not established. |
| Danish trading platform and German intermediary; broker anonymised | OLG Düsseldorf · 07.10.2010 I-6 U 116/09; LG Düsseldorf 10 O 157/08 | CFD / FX trading: alleged disclosure failures, churning and commission rebates. | Dismissed · official appellate judgment Claim dismissed in full on appeal. The court found self-directed orders and no established unlawful churning. The first-instance €60,000 award against the intermediary’s director was overturned. |
| Bank B.________ SA, anonymised; Swiss legal context | Schweizer Bundesgericht · 21.04.2022 4A_412/2021 | Leveraged FX during the SNB shock: alleged price manipulation, delayed execution and disclosure failures. | Dismissed · official judgment; CDBF commentary Customer’s appeal dismissed. Manipulation was not established; temporary suspension due to missing liquidity was accepted on these facts. No damages award. |
Related services and historical precedents
Four further disputes involving FX software, binary options and historical options / futures. These are not additional CFD broker condemnations.
| Provider / role | Court · date · docket | Disputed practice | Outcome and evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic consultant / Expert Advisor software lessor, anonymised; not a judgment against the execution broker | OLG Hamm · 30.05.2018 12 U 95/16; LG Paderborn 3 O 290/15 | Automated FX trading: alleged unlicensed portfolio management and unfulfilled assurances. | Dismissed · official judgment Customer’s appeal dismissed; the official source marks the judgment as final. Control over basic settings was decisive for classification as proprietary trading. No judicial finding of an Expert Advisor scam. |
| London trading platform, unnamed in counsel report; binary options | LG Frankfurt am Main · 12.09.2017 2-12 O 217/16 | Counsel reports an ignored withdrawal request, incentives for further trading and inadequate explanation of counterparties and operation. | Counsel report · limited evidence Counsel reports €54,250 in total for balance repayment and damages. Full judgment and finality not independently verified; the sum is not exclusively damages. |
| British broker and intermediary, anonymised; historical options case, not CFDs | BGH · 13.07.2010 XI ZR 28/09 | High fees and alleged broker participation in an intermediary’s intentional wrongful harm. | Remanded · reproduced judgment German international jurisdiction confirmed. Appellate judgment set aside and remanded: subjective requirements for broker participation required further findings. This BGH decision makes no final damages award. |
| New York broker and M-GmbH, anonymised; historical options / futures transactions | BGH · 13.07.2004 VI ZR 136/03 | Churning and kickback arrangement: commission-driven trading without adequate safeguards. | Liability upheld · reproduced judgment Broker’s appeal on points of law dismissed; findings of participation in intentional wrongful churning upheld. Historical liability case, not a current CFD judgment or regulatory fine. |
Evidence to preserve for an individual assessment
Contract and applicable terms, risk disclosures, onboarding answers, trading and fee history, powers of attorney, order timestamps and correspondence. These records help distinguish market losses from potential breaches and identify the correct defendant.
Damages and account-balance repayments are not fines. Anonymised providers are not identified by inference. Counsel reports are labelled; decisions from other jurisdictions or involving historical products cannot automatically be transferred. This is a representative selection, not a complete list.