RoboForex and Trading Pro Withdrawal Complaints Compared

Two public complaints raise different questions about account funds. A Pakistan-labelled RoboForex post dated 9 July 2026 alleges removal of $1,627.39 and blocked profile access. A Malaysia-labelled Trading Pro post dated 15 August 2024 describes a rejected withdrawal followed by a deduction. Their attached images preserve narrower observations: a displayed balance in the first case and a declined transaction in the second. Comparing the evidence helps readers identify what remains unverified, without ranking the brokers or treating either account as a proven fraud case.

What the Two Screenshots Actually Establish

The RoboForex photograph shows $1,627.39 in the balance, equity and free-margin fields. Adding those figures together would count the same displayed amount three times. It does not show a before-and-after adjustment or demonstrate whether the figure represents deposits, realised profit or a combination.

The TradingPRO transaction-history image shows a withdrawal marked declined. A rejection status describes a request, whereas a balance reduction describes the ledger. The image does not establish the reason for rejection or a reliable loss amount. These are different evidential questions, so a combined total loss would be unsupported.

Can These Complaints Establish That Either Broker is a Scam

The available records support reporting specific user allegations and describing the visible attachments. They do not establish a court finding, authenticate the complete account histories or determine the final payment outcomes. A risk assessment should retain those limits rather than replace them with a binary safe-or-scam verdict.

The two posts are not a representative sample of all clients. They cannot support a withdrawal failure rate, a comparison of customer treatment across South Asia or a claim that one broker is safer than the other. The displayed country labels identify these source records; they do not make the Malaysian complaint an Indian case.

How Regulatory Evidence Differs from Transaction Evidence

A Trading Pro regulation search leads to an FCA warning dated 26 June 2025 naming Trading PRO / TradingPRO and tradingpro.com. Its UK authorisation scope must remain explicit. It is a separate source, not a decision resolving the earlier Malaysian transaction.

RoboForex‘s own privacy-policy page identifies a legal entity and publishes an FSC licence number. A company disclosure has a different evidential role from a regulator’s warning. Neither source, on its own, establishes what happened to a particular withdrawal or whether a resident of India is eligible to use an overseas service.

Which Records Would Resolve the Remaining Questions

For an alleged balance deduction, request the account statement spanning the change, including deposits, closed trades, adjustments and withdrawals. Match the disputed entry to a timestamp and the explanation supplied by the contractual entity. A photograph of one balance is a starting point, not a reconciliation.

For a rejected withdrawal, retain the request identifier, decision message and ledger entry showing whether the requested amount remained available or was returned. TradingPROs current FAQ lists possible rejection reasons, but it cannot retrospectively identify the cause of the 2024 case. A later payment receipt would be needed before describing the money as received.

Conclusion and Checks Before Opening an Account

A useful RoboForex review should distinguish the displayed balance from the alleged later adjustment. A useful Trading Pro review should distinguish a declined request from a final loss. Readers can then seek the missing records instead of relying on a screenshot caption, a marketing promise or a regulators name to answer the wrong question.

• Match the website and legal entity to the agreement and appropriate official register.
• Keep dated statements on both sides of a disputed adjustment.
• Separate request status, account balance and receiving-bank settlement.
• Check residence eligibility independently and do not bypass local restrictions.

Sources and Related Reading

Original complaint / source date and location

null

null

null 1970-01-01

相关内容

Broker Information

Primary source: regulator or official disclosure

RoboForex Review: Regulation Alarms, Login Block Claims, and a Broker Under Pressure

RoboForex carries severe warning signals: one regulatory record is marked revoked, another unverified, and separate regulator disclosures flag unauthorized activity. Recent users also report blocked access, rejected withdrawals, and funds not returned.

Exposure 2026-07-21

相关内容

Trading Pro Review: Withdrawal Complaints, FCA Warning, and Broker Risk Exposed

Trading Pro carries a serious warning: the UK FCA has named Trading PRO / TradingPRO as an unauthorized firm, while user complaints describe withdrawals delayed, rejected, or followed by fund deductions. The broker shows regulated status with South Africa’s FSCA, but the complaint trail and FCA warning demand extreme caution.

Exposure 2026-07-03

相关内容

RoboForex Complaint Record

Source dated 2026-07-09; displayed location: Pakistan. Archived 30 September 2026; original page rechecked 3 October 2026. This is a historical case, not a new complaint today.

Capture of the original complaint page, not a broker-homepage substitute.

RoboForex user-uploaded Evidence

Publicly available original image, not recreated. The assessment is limited to what the image visibly supports.

The uploaded photograph shows balance, equity and free margin of 1,627.39. This photograph alone does not prove a subsequent deduction or identify the contractual entity.

Trading Pro Complaint Record

Source dated 2024-08-15; displayed location: Malaysia. Archived 30 September 2026; original page rechecked 3 October 2026. This is a historical case, not a new complaint today.

Capture of the original complaint page, not a broker-homepage substitute.

https://www.wikifx.com/en/exposure/detail/202408151552550132.html

Trading Pro user-uploaded Evidence

Publicly available original image, not recreated. The assessment is limited to what the image visibly supports.

The uploaded

null

null

null 1970-01-01

相关内容

RoboForex Official Website Archive

Original webpage capture dated 30 September 2026. The company disclosure was rechecked on 3 October 2026.

Official-page capture, 30 September 2026. Website disclosures are the publishers statements, not our independent audit of every licence.

https://roboforex.com/about/client/security-policy/

Website Screenshot

https://www.tradingpro.com/

Official-page capture, 30 September 2026. Website disclosures are the publishers statements, not our independent audit of every licence.

Note: Prepared on 3 October 2026 from two historical public complaints. This comparison introduces no new complaint and is not a broker ranking. Original screenshots were archived on 30 September 2026.

Download the WikiFX app for the latest forex updates, including in-depth forex broker investigation reports.

Knowledge pays at WikiFX.Every time you share a WikiFX article, you'll receive 50 Reward Points. Grow your rewards with every share and unlock exclusive gifts in the WikiFX Points Mall. Start earning today!