Radcliffe-&-Shaw can inflict huge losses on his clients and therefore, in our opinion, is a potential scammer. This factor, however, requires a lot of attention because it is often an area where people can be fooled by brokerage scams. For example, many fraudulent brokers charge high withdrawal fees that not only cover service fees. Unfortunately, many non-withdrawal brokers use these excuses as a cover to give the impression that they are not scammers.
If Radcliffe-&-Shaw is a no-withdrawal broker, most likely there is a problem with their license. Working with an unlicensed broker does not provide protection in the event of broker fraud. When a broker has your money, he can do whatever he wants, as long as it is not regulated.
Although a fund recovery expert can help you get your funds back, it is always a good idea to research a broker from the beginning. You can make money through a broker, or at least pretend that you are making money, but that is not enough. The broker starts to create problems and you think you are losing money.
If you come across the next one with Radcliffe-&-Shaw, it is more than likely that you have been scammed or involved in a scam. If you have been a victim of a scam by Radcliffe-&-Shaw or any other broker, do not be confused. Try customer service while investigating a broker’s case, but keep in mind that even rogue brokers can appear friendly and helpful at first and then show their true colors.
Traders should trade with well-regulated brokers such as UK or Australia brokers and reputable brokers. We advise all investors and traders to avoid Radcliffe-&-Shaw and other Vanuatu brokers. We do not recommend trading with Radcliffe-&-Shaw as this broker was suspected of being a scam. In general, the FCA advises UK investors not to invest with this broker.
However, the Forex broker does not have a compulsory FCA license to do this. The Forex broker is licensed by the VFSC, but this is not enough to offer financial services or products in the UK or Europe. Some fraudulent brokers restrict clients to their own platform, which may not be a platform at all, but a bogus one. On the other hand, if the broker no longer provides communication methods such as email, phone, text messaging, and chat, and has a support team that does not seem to understand the trade or is evasively asking certain questions, this could be a sign that a scam is or at least a low-quality broker.
If Radcliffe-&-Shaw is trying to hold onto your funds, it may try to pressure you into another trade when you ask for a withdrawal. They may also say that local taxes require them to charge a certain amount of money for withdrawals. However, the tradition of accepting huge minimum deposits is extremely common among scammers, as their main goal is to steal as much money from a trader as possible before they suspect suspicion.
If Radcliffe-&-Shaw asks for an above average amount, Radcliffe-&-Shaw is more likely to be a scam. If Radcliffe-&-Shaw offers more leverage than that, it is a sign that Radcliffe-&-Shaw is a potential scam. Radcliffe-&-Shaw hides most of the trading conditions and raises suspicions.
When browsing Radcliffe-&-Shaw, the main problem was that the broker did not provide his physical address in the contact section. There are also no expected spreads and it is impossible to calculate the cost of trading with this broker.
If you want to get your money back from a broker, you should check if it works or not, or if it has been working for the last 1 or 2 months, so that it seems that the broker has been working for a long time, and this may be a mistake that the developer should fix in the near future. time so that your money can be released without any problem. A number of unregulated brokers like Radcliffe-&-Shaw have been reported to cheat people.
If you have lost your investment in the Radcliffe-&-Shaw scam, you can contact us using a chatbot. If you have been contacted by scammers, please visit our contact page. We have extensive experience working with regulators and brokers and can help you file a claim that can be effective.
For further reading, please see Radcliffe-&-Shaw: review