GmtFX Flagged for Operating Without Authorisation as Regulatory and Risk Signals Mount
GmtFX has been flagged by Swiss regulators for operating without authorisation. WikiFX data shows no license, low safety scores, and elevated investor risk.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:FalconX settles with CFTC for $1.8 million in the first action against an unregistered FCM facilitating access to digital asset exchanges.

Falcon Labs, also referred to as FalconX, has settled with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for $1.8 million in a ground-breaking action. This is the first time the CFTC has taken action against an unregistered futures commission merchant (FCM) who made it easier to access markets for digital assets.
According to the Monday CFTC decision, Falcon Labs, a Seychelles-based company, served as an intermediary by enabling its clients to trade on several digital asset exchanges. It follows that the company ought to have been an FCM registered with the CFTC. Falcon Labs accepted the large penalties without confirming or rejecting the results.
The CFTC claims Falcon Labs traded futures and swaps directly on digital asset exchanges, such as the well-known Binance.com, using sub-accounts. Following the CFTC's March 2023 allegations against Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, which also led to a settlement, comes this action.
In reaction to the accusations made against Binance, Falcon Labs willingly changed its procedures, most notably improving the way it gathers client information and updating its KYC procedures. FalconX's clientele fell precipitously as a result of these changes; half of its Edge clients left. A lesser punishment was the outcome of the CFTC's recognition of Falcon Labs' cooperation and repair efforts.
Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley of the CFTC stressed that the organization wants to urge other illicitly operating digital asset intermediaries to come forward. “The CFTC hopes to encourage other illegal digital asset intermediaries operating to report their activities to the agency by recognizing Falcon Labs substantial cooperation and remediation in this order,” McGinley said.

FalconX served as a crypto prime broker by offering institutional clients—some of which were American—access to some cryptocurrency exchanges for trading derivatives, including futures and swaps via its “Edge” product. Though FalconX claimed to be the “largest digital asset prime brokerage,” the enforcement action resulted from improper CFTC registration.
This settlement's effects will probably be seen across the cryptocurrency sector, underscoring the need for the following regulations. With its position, the CFTC warns other unregistered companies operating in the digital asset market that it is watchful and ready to impose strict enforcement of its rules.
Moreover, FalconX's subsidiary, FalconX Bravo, has been moving toward compliance as shown by its registration as a swap dealer with the CFTC since last August. This case emphasizes how regulatory frameworks around digital assets are always changing and how businesses must comply with the law.
Regulators are looking at the crypto business more and more because of its quick expansion and creativity. This historic case establishes a standard and could make other companies reevaluate their compliance procedures and regulatory standing to avoid paying comparable fines.
A major problem as the market for digital assets grows is finding the right mix between encouraging innovation and guaranteeing regulatory compliance. FalconX's CFTC settlement demonstrates both the agency's dedication to upholding order in this rapidly expanding industry and the repercussions of non-compliance.
Finally, FalconX's $1.8 million settlement with the CFTC highlights the need for appropriate registration and compliance with regulatory requirements, which is a momentous occasion in cryptocurrency regulation. This situation should function as a warning to other intermediates of digital assets to make sure they comply with legal standards.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

GmtFX has been flagged by Swiss regulators for operating without authorisation. WikiFX data shows no license, low safety scores, and elevated investor risk.

The Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, while announcing the Union Budget 2026-27, proposed a sharp rise in the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on Futures and Options as part of the government’s strategy to soothe the country’s overheated derivatives market. The move comes on the backdrop of regulators’ concerns over excessive speculation in F&O allowing retail traders to enter the market and lose capital. Whether the government will be able to curb excessive speculation in F&O through this move remains to be seen. The stock indices, however, were hit hard, with the BSE Sensex falling by 1500 points amid widespread selling on the STT hike. Let’s examine the potential impact of this hike on Indian F&O traders.

Long Asia Group, a Saint Vincent and the Grenadines-based forex broker, has come under increasing scrutiny as a growing number of traders report troubling experiences with the broker’s operations. User feedback highlights recurring issues such as delayed or blocked withdrawals, sudden communication breakdowns, and a lack of clear accountability once funds are deposited. Several traders claim that while small withdrawals may initially go through, larger payout requests often face unexplained obstacles. More concerning are allegations suggesting that the broker may no longer be operating transparently, with users reporting prolonged silence, unresolved complaints and suspected fund mishandling. These patterns have raised serious questions about Long Asia Group’s reliability and overall legitimacy, prompting traders to exercise extreme caution before engaging with the broker. For more details, keep reading this LONG ASIA review article, where we have elaborated on the traders’ pain wit

Has your MY MAA MARKETS forex trading experience been nothing short of a financial misery? Do you fail to gain the forex broker’s approval for fund withdrawals? Were you denied withdrawals on the grounds of fake accusations concerning system abuse and hedging? Does the broker deliberately cause you unwarranted slippage as you start executing winning trades? Do you feel the broker is unregulated? Your concerns seem genuine, as many traders have accused the broker of serious financial misconduct. In this MY MAA MARKETS review article, we have investigated some trader complaints. Take a look!