Abstract:Dozens of victims of the ROFX forex trading platform have sued the company and its founders for alleged fraud.

Dozens of victims of forex trading platform ROFX have taken the entity and its founders to Court over alleged fraud.
The Complaint, seen by FX News Group, was filed in the Florida Southern District Court on September 29, 2021.
The plaintiffs are Ryan Birmingham, Roman Leonov, Mitchell Parent, Jonathan Zarley, and Steven Hansen – ROFX.net investors and citizens of the United States of America. Further, there are letters from 300 victims in support of forming a class.
The list of defendants includes: ROFX.net, Auro Advantages LLC, Aware Choice Ltd., Boonruk Ruamkit Co., Ltd., Brass Marker s.r.o., Easy Com LC, Epayments Systems Ltd., Ester Holdings Inc., Global E-Advantages LLC, Grovee, LLC, Igoria Trade S.A., IT Outsourcing Co., Ltd., Notus LLC, Shopostar, LLC, VDD-Trading, Ltd., Wealthy Developments LP, Andrei Fetin, Anna Shymko, Anton Bilous, Borys Konovalenko, Dmytro Fokin, Jorge Luis Castillo, Manuchar Daraselia, Mikhail Rymanov, Natalia Los, Nattpemol Krinara, PapahraTsor Nrviratporn, Peter Mogilniy, Stanislav Khomenko, Youras Ziankovich and John Does 1-30.
According to the Complaint, the defendants orchestrated a massive international scheme to defraud the investors by soliciting them to deposit money or cash equivalents with ROFX, a “robotically operated foreign exchange trading” platform that purportedly utilized algorithms to trade on behalf of investors. In exchange for the funds, the defendants falsely promised a return on investment in the form of a percentage of ROFXs daily trading profit that never came to pass.
After maximizing their current account balances and creating the illusion of stability for in excess of two years, ROFX distributed little profit to its investors, prevented investors from making withdrawals, and thereafter stole all remaining investment capital to perpetuate a massive fraud that is global in scope.
The defendants‘ conduct occurred as early as 2016 and has continued to the present. The Complaint alleges that, as a consequence of the defendants’ fraudulent scheme, the plaintiffs and the class members suffered significant harm, losing tens of millions of dollars by investing with ROFX under the false impression that they were investing with a legitimate foreign exchange trading platform.
The plaintiffs explain that they have brought the emergency action for fraud pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of a global class of ROFX investors. In addition to damages, including costs of suit, interest, and reasonable attorneys‘ fees resulting from the defendants’ fraudulent conduct, unjust enrichment and violations of federal RICO statutes, the plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, seek injunctive relief to maintain the status quo and preserve assets for the victims of this fraudulent scheme.
Specifically, the plaintiffs seek an immediate order: (i) freezing all ROFX assets and enjoining and restraining Defendants from dissipating or encumbering any of these assets; (ii) preventing the destruction of financial records and any other relevant documents; and (iii) permitting expedited discovery into the facts alleged herein.
The plaintiffs claim that the victims reported ROFX account balances are in excess of $15 million and growing.

FINEX review 2026 for readers comparing an Indonesia forex broker: understand what Bappebti's A+++ rating does and does not show, then check floating spreads, withdrawals, segregated accounts and the complaint route for PT Finex Bisnis Solusi Futures.

Choosing a tier 1 liquidity forex is not a search for the lowest displayed spread or the longest provider list. It is a broker decision about pricing integrity, depth, routing, credit, reporting, incident response, and client communication. This 2026 guide explains how an institutional liquidity provider, bank liquidity forex, or interbank liquidity provider arrangement fits into a broker’s execution chain; what to test before onboarding; why a “best tier 1 liquidity forex” claim cannot replace due diligence; and how to compare cost beyond commission. Use the execution-quality scorecard, provider questions, routing scenarios, and 90-day onboarding plan to assess whether a liquidity relationship can support your actual client mix, instruments, risk model, and jurisdiction. The goal is not to make a universal ranking. It is to build evidence that your broker can explain, supervise, reconcile, and recover its execution service when market conditions are difficult.

MIFX review 2026: understand published commissions and spreads, the withdrawal process, Instant Withdrawal conditions, and the PT Monex Investindo Futures complaint route without turning community discussion into factual allegations.

Choosing a forex liquidity provider is not a search for the lowest displayed spread or the longest provider list. It is a broker decision about pricing integrity, depth, routing, credit, reporting, incident response, and client communication. This 2026 guide explains how a forex LP, FX liquidity provider, or liquidity provider forex arrangement fits into a broker’s execution chain; what to test before onboarding; why a “best forex liquidity provider” claim cannot replace due diligence; and how to compare cost beyond commission. Use the execution-quality scorecard, provider questions, routing scenarios, and 90-day onboarding plan to assess whether a liquidity relationship can support your actual client mix, instruments, risk model, and jurisdiction. The goal is not to make a universal ranking. It is to build evidence that your broker can explain, supervise, reconcile, and recover its execution service when market conditions are difficult.