Third Heavy Suit Against IKON, in Progress | Wibest Broker

Two years after UK firm IKON Finance exited the Forex market, a heavy retail client filed several suits against them. Consequently, the broker’s client, acquisitor Hantec Markets was dragged along with it for a much higher price.

The Jordanian heavyweight client Hafex Fakhri Taji Al Farouqi seeks nearly $11.6 million in misappropriated funds and damages. He also alleged Hantec for $42 million in civil damages for acquiring his account without authorization.

Both brokers also deducted unauthorized commission and introducer fees, as well as closing accounts without sending cancellation terms. To exacerbate, Al Farouqi claimed the firms didn’t give him enough time before the withdrawal to decide on alternatives.

Oppositions claimed Hantec has no obligation to continue their relationship nor to explain why they would. The company denied damages, saying they gave him nine days’ notice before they closed his account.

Additionally, background checks proved no charges made to the account. Ticked dialogue boxes also confirmed the investor’s approval to move his account from IKON to Hantec.

In defense, Al Farouqi said nine days weren’t enough of an opportunity for a response. Hantec refused to comment on the matter.

Previous Accusations (and Wins)

IKON Finance previously won against two lawsuits, the $370 million claim as the latest. Claims from Simetra Global Assets and Richcroft Investments were voided for incomplete and “confused” evidence.

The expensive plaintiffs focused on demo account balances and said IKON was liable for dishonest assistance in breaches of fiduciary duty and trust. However, the UK High Court ruled no deceit in the case.

The previous case in Illinois filed charges against the Market for $23 million for orchestrating a $500 million Ponzi scheme headed by George Daskaleas, known as the Greek Madoff.

A year of lacking evidence against Daskaleas led to a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. IKON considered the allegations as baseless and was only to defame and to disparage the broker’s name.