Abstract:City International Futures (Hong Kong) Limited (CIFHKL), formerly known as VERCAP Financial Services Limited, was reprimanded and fined $100,000 by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong for failing to adhere to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) and other regulatory requirements between March 2016 and October 2018.

City International Futures (Hong Kong) Limited (CIFHKL), formerly known as VERCAP Financial Services Limited, was reprimanded and fined $100,000 by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong for failing to adhere to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) and other regulatory requirements between March 2016 and October 2018.
According to the inquiry, CIFHKL neglected to perform due research on the customer-supplied systems (CSSs) that 16 customers used to place orders. As a result, CIFHKL was unable to effectively assess and handle the dangers of money laundering and terrorism funding (ML/TF) posed by the use of such CSSs by its customers.

The SFC also found that the sums deposited into two client accounts did not match the stated financial characteristics of those clients. Although CIFHKL asserted that it monitored client account money moves on a daily basis and was aware of the sizeable deposits in the two client accounts, it was unable to demonstrate that it had properly investigated the deposits and adequately handled the related ML/TF risks.
The SFC discovered that CIFHKL did not put in place a reliable system of continuous surveillance to identify suspect trading trends in customer accounts. The regular and numerous transactions in the two customer accounts made this clear. The same customer frequently made buy and sell orders at the same price for the products of the same future in the same second.
Because CIFHKL's systems and controls didn't successfully guarantee adherence to the AML Guideline and the Code of Conduct, the SFC found them to be insufficient and ineffectual.
The investigation's results highlight the significance of strong AML/CFT controls for banking organizations. Inadequate due diligence and tracking procedures can have serious legal repercussions for businesses as well as harm their reputations.
The instance of CIFHKL further emphasizes the necessity for businesses to keep efficient controls to recognize and reduce ML/TF risks. The goal of customer due diligence and continuous tracking should be to spot odd or suspect behavior as well as transactions that could be an indication of ML/TF activity.
Banking organizations should use the right technological tools to effectively watch the activities of their customers. Such technology can help identify activities that may be a sign of ML/TF threats, enabling businesses to respond appropriately and quickly.
Install the WikiFX App on your smartphone to stay updated on the latest news.
Download link: https://www.wikifx.com/en/download.html?source=fma3


Errante, a Seychelles-based brokerage entity, is facing serious trading allegations from users globally. Users claim to have earned profits legitimately using their strategies. However, on the Errante login dashboard, many users reported an automatic deduction of earned profits. At the same time, withdrawal issues allegedly haunt many traders here. While investigating, we also found complaints concerning trade order manipulations by the broker. In this Errante review, we have examined these allegations and given an overview of its regulatory status.

The Reserve Bank of India has appointed Monisha Chakraborty as Executive Director with effect from 3 August 2026; she will oversee the Foreign Exchange Department and the Financial Markets Regulation Department. Chakraborty is a career central banker with over three decades of experience in Supervision, Foreign Exchange, and Government and Bank Accounts, and previously served as Banking Ombudsman. This report explains the significance of the new RBI Executive Director appointment for forex regulation India, the scope of the Foreign Exchange Department and the Financial Markets Regulation Department, and what authorised persons, banks, and forex market participants should monitor as the new ED takes charge.

A forex liquidity provider decision now shapes the broker's spreads, fills, slippage, hedging cost, regulatory exposure, and exit options long after the platform is chosen. This 2026 guide explains what a forex LP actually delivers versus what the marketing claim says, how tier-1 banks, prime of prime, and multi-LP aggregators differ in practice, and how execution models (DMA, ECN, STP) change the broker's daily operating reality. It also walks through due diligence on credit, technology, reporting, governance, and exit, and shows how a 2026 broker can combine a primary LP with secondary routing without losing control of the client experience. Use the decision matrix, integration timeline, and operational tests to compare an fx liquidity provider before contract signature, not after a market event.

Did LMAX Group deny you withdrawals citing frozen funds at the wallet service provider’s end? Have you been so exhausted by the endless withdrawal hassles that you have begun to stop investing in the platform? Has this UK-based liquidity provider even questioned your fund ownership status when you requested withdrawals? You are not alone! Many users have complained about these issues while sharing their LMAX Group reviews.