MSE News: Martin Lewis slams 'con' linking him to binary trading

We had a relative who was impressed by a website with 'career' in the title. The website had a studio newsdesk and financial journalist -- very obviously, a nice young man -- who located a pretty blonde single mum in London making almost £7,000 a month from binary trading. The reporter decided to see if he could as well as her. Amazingly, he did. Made a £100 profit in less than 5 minutes.

The 'career' website clicked through to another website which was, of course, separate and independent, and which, in turn, sent the user to yet another website, also separate and independent. This website was owned by a world-famous binary trading specialist which proudly announced it was not only the best and most honest anywhere but also a major sponsor of one of Liverpool's football clubs.

My relative checked with the club. The Cyprus-based binary 'platform' was indeed a sponsor. Wow: these Cypriot geniuses with their unique algorithm to make money for everyone were even publicised on the club's own website. Had to be legit. Surely. Yeah?

Relative proceeded to commit £250 on his way to emulating the single mom from London (who by remarkable coincidence turned out to have a different name and appearance but the exact same financial success in reports carried by other 'career' websites specific to Australia, to New Zealand, and to the USA.)

Finally . . . relative accepted a free 'cash bonus' for joining. Money for nothing, whoo whoo! It's the algorithm wot does it.

Relative was astonishingly successful in predicting the future, so why he had never helped us with the National Lottery, I don't know. But then all his "earnings" were taken from his account because he hadn't read the cash bonus small print T&Cs requiring him to execute something like 27 million separate transactions a day for 28 consecutive days. Shame. His fault. Not theirs.

And then he couldn't close his account because the process for doing so was unintentionally obstructive and anyway, further charges were being levied due most likely to a technical hitch.

It couldn't be that he had been scammed. Couldn't be that all those websites were interlinked as part of a worldwide fraud. Couldn't be that the regulator in a small far off island renowned for its financial probity -- Cyprus -- knew all about what was happening but was doing nothing about it.

Ah well. OH has his uses, if not necessarily around the house. He was able to bring a certain amount of pressure to bear on the illustrious individuals running this particular operation, as a result of which Relative's account was closed and his original investment -- in its entirety -- returned, immediately, to his credit card (which he then cancelled and acquired a replacement.)

The point of this post then is to say that binary trading is a wonderful way of making money, especially if you're an unemployed actor. It can also be of some benefit to major English football clubs who in turn for honest money, honestly given, will promote on their own website the enterprise of those honest donors, thereby endorsing that enterprise and drawing in many another to profit safely and quickly.

Though some doubts may arise over the appearance of the same case history on separate career websites in different countries, that is only a coincidence, and no criminal intent is ever to be inferred.
As for Cyprus financial regulation, its reputation is already well known, though not necessarily by £multi-million greedy football clubs.

Coincidentally, too, all the career-related websites have shut down, this because all the single mums in all the different countries have experienced a sudden desire for anonymity. The intermediate (and separate, independent) website which ramped people like our relative over to the 'trading platform' so well publicised by one of the UK's top football clubs has also, by coincidence, shut down.

The effect of this has been to leave a money-making algorithm out in the cold for no good reason at all. I am therefore not surprised that Martin Lewis's name is being cited in publicity for these superb schemes. How disappointing though that, for some reason, he wants nothing to do with rich single moms and high integrity financial institutions based in Cyprus.

jimjames wrote: »

. . . Most are not investments of any shape or form. They are out and out scams and frauds.

The cost involved in setting up phony websites, fake TV studios, phony 'reporters', fake single moms, faked video interviews, forged bank account extracts, fraudulent "free cash bonus" arrangements, and 'inadvertent' obstructions to account closure and refund of what monies might, just, still be left in them, all speaks to binary trading being an, er, investment route as honest as it can get -- and especially when the 'platforms' are registered anywhere in the world apart from the UK.

So having said that, why, I wonder, am I agreeing wholeheartedly with jimjames?

jimjames wrote: »

I disagree. Most are not investments of any shape or form. They are out and out scams and frauds.

Sure, the same as if you are cold called and offered a wine investment then it probably is a scam. While wine investment itself is legitimate. Buying land is often a good investment, if you are cold called and offered land then it's probably a scam.

Malthusian wrote: »

@Phillw: Not correct. Investment has a positive expectation. Gambling has a negative expectation.

And that is why I think it's wrong to simplify it in that way, because you shouldn't blindly assume that investment will offer a positive return.

hybernia wrote: »

The cost involved in setting up phony websites, fake TV studios, phony 'reporters', fake single moms, faked video interviews, forged bank account extracts, fraudulent "free cash bonus" arrangements, and 'inadvertent' obstructions to account closure and refund of what monies might, just, still be left in them, all speaks to binary trading being an, er, investment route as honest as it can get -- and especially when the 'platforms' are registered anywhere in the world apart from the UK.

So having said that, why, I wonder, am I agreeing wholeheartedly with jimjames?

And you're agreeing with me. Binary trading isn't the bad guy, it's the con men running it. It doesn't matter whether they are selling binary trades, wine, diamonds, gold etc.

Binary trades are high risk, but then so are other investments that you would say were legitimate & people who don't want risk shouldn't be looking at those either.

Don't open a binary trading account in a country the other side of the world that isn't regulated, the same as you shouldn't open a share trading account without making sure it's regulated. The FCA has advice if you want to binary trade https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/binary-options-uk

Cash is protected, all you can do is lose out because of inflation. Investments aren't protected, you can lose everything. Lloyds names who underwrote the insurance company didn't understand their investment either & lots of them went bankrupt.

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

I understand ,quoting no authority for my belief, that " present binary options are regulated by the UK's Gambling Commission, but only if the firm has remote gambling equipment located in Britain."
What is the definition of remote gambling equipment ?

Could this be related to heard of monitored sheep who could gamble and frolic but then ...
J_B.

Remote gambling equipment is a legal definition.

"Any company offering remote gambling services using "gambling equipment" (which is defined as anything used in the provision of facilities for gambling) located in the UK must obtain a remote gambling licence. "Remote gambling" is defined as gambling in which persons participate by the use of "remote communication"."

If you place a bet in a bookies on the high street then it's gambling. If you place a bet on a bookies web site then it's remote gambling. If the equipment is not in the UK then it wouldn't be regulated in the UK, even if the company that owns the equipment is in the UK.

phillw wrote: »

And that is why I think it's wrong to simplify it in that way, because you shouldn't blindly assume that investment will offer a positive return.

GGS has already covered the difference between assuming a positive return and expectation of a positive return.

There is no assuming going on, this is a very simple mathematical concept. I flip a coin for a £1 stake and offer you £1.10 if it lands heads and 95p if it lands tails = investment. I flip a coin for a £1 stake and offer you £1.95 if it lands heads and nothing if it lands tails = gambling.

Binary trading isn't the bad guy, it's the con men running it.

Ponzi schemes aren't the bad guy, it's the con men running them. Theft isn't the problem, it's the thieves.

Lloyds names who underwrote the insurance company didn't understand their investment either & lots of them went bankrupt.

Because they thought it was possible that someone would give you free money if you agreed to be liable for stuff that would never happen, like people suffering health issues from asbestos. Whoops. What the connection is with binary options I have no idea.