Home -

Main body -

WikiFX Express

TMGM

Jinkra International Finance Ltd: 35% Income Tax Payment + Punishment for Not Paying

WikiFX | 2022-09-14 12:00

Abstract：Generally, forex brokers do not have any relationship with your local tax bureau. They are just private entities that are running a business operation on their own. Therefore, if a forex broker were to ask for any tax payments from you on behalf of the tax bureau, do not make such payments by any means. Unfortunately, that is a sign that one of your feet is already caught in its trap. That is a scammer, not a legitimate forex broker.

Todays forex broker in question is Jinkra International Finance Ltd which is registered in the United Kingdom.

This broker has a low WikiFX score as we discovered that both of its licenses are not valid. We would not recommend this broker to anyone.

Kindly select a forex broker that has a WikiFX score of at least 7.0 and above, alongside valid regulatory status and license(s)

WikiFX received this Exposure piece from a client of Jinkra named Fedor.

Jinkra insisted Fedor pay an income tax of approximately 5.4K USD. However, Fedor explained that he had never made a single cent of profit from trading with Jinkra, thus there should not be any tax charged on losses.

Fedor backed his stance with a screenshot showcasing a nett loss of 1.7K USD on his Jinkra account.

As Fedor refused to pay the quote-on-quote income tax, Jinkra fined him an additional 3K USD and threatened to freeze his account under the pretense of him conducting a malicious tax evasion act.

Eventually, even though Fedor still had many unanswered questions, Jinkra proceeded to freeze his account and funds regardless.

Broker Forex trading Forex news Forex Analysis

Related broker

Not Regulated

JINKRA

Company name：JINKRA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED

Score

1.88

Website：https://jinkraltd.com/

2-5 years | Questionable Regulatory License | Suspicious Operational Region | High Potential Risk

Score

1.88

eToro Review 2026: Why Some Users Report Withdrawal Problems - and What the Evidence Shows

eToro, a United Kingdom-based brokerage entity, is facing serious user allegations concerning the basic facility a trader expects - Fund Withdrawal. Users worldwide are complaining about the lack of a withdrawal option, account restriction, and lack of customer support in real time. Many of their complaints appeared on credible broker review platforms such as WikiFX. In this eToro review, we have examined these complaints.

Original 2026-08-03 21:44

Fortex White Label in 2026: Can Your Liquidity Stack Scale Without Losing Control?

A Fortex white label can look like the fastest route to a modern branded trading environment, but a fast launch is not the same as a controlled launch. This 2026 broker guide explains what the Fortex platform is, where a Fortex broker solution can sit in a wider operating stack, and how to evaluate the difference between a white label, a server licence, and a connected CRM or Client Office setup. It also unpacks Fortex cost beyond the monthly headline, including implementation, integration, support, data, governance, migration, and exit assumptions. Use the practical questions, workflow tests, comparison table, and launch checklist to assess a Fortex provider without mistaking a feature demo for evidence that your brokerage can run the service safely at scale.

Original 2026-08-03 19:51

Spreadex Review: Wider Spread & Unexplained Account Closure Allegations for This 2-Decade-Old Broker

Did you incur trading losses on the Spreadex platform due to wider spreads? Have you experienced delays in trade processing by the United Kingdom-based forex broker? Has your Spreadex trading account been closed without any explanation? You are not alone! Many traders have expressed concerns on online broker review platforms. In this Spreadex review 2026, we have covered user allegations and provided a regulatory framework the broker operates under.

Original 2026-07-29 21:01

cTrader White Label Platform: A Practical Guide for Broker Evaluation and Multi-Asset Expansion in 2

A broker can launch a white-label platform quickly and still fail the first serious operating test. The failure often begins quietly: an assets expansion has been approved, the client app is branded, and a new account journey looks complete. Then a client asks why a trade-related status, funding hand-off, or account restriction looks different across channels. Support cannot see the same reference trail as operations. The product owns the screen, but no one owns the explanation. The issue is not a missing feature. It is an untested operating model. That is why a cTrader white label platform should be evaluated as a route to a multi-asset service - not as a shortcut to a more attractive terminal. The central question is whether the broker can add instruments, client channels, integrations, and service capacity without making its controls harder to operate or explain.

Original 2026-07-29 17:36