Based on the available information and a critical examination of MFXBroker.com, the following analysis covers online complaints, risk level assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting, social media, red flags, regulatory status, user precautions, and potential brand confusion. Given the suspicion that MFXBroker.com may be a shell company, extra scrutiny has been applied, focusing on verifiable data and avoiding unconfirmed assumptions. Note that the website appears inactive or inaccessible, which limits some aspects of the analysis, and no current website information was provided.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

• Forex Peace Army (FPA): MFXBroker has been labeled a scam by FPA, with three Traders Court guilty votes as of September 2016, leading to its blacklisting. Complaints center on non-payment of withdrawals, particularly related to a fixed-return investment plan introduced in 2015. Users reported issues such as ignored withdrawal requests, unresponsive customer service, and failure to deliver promised returns. Specific grievances include:
• Investors unable to withdraw funds since August 2016, with excuses citing bank issues but no resolution timelines.
• Allegations of directors (e.g., Igor Volkov, Margo Zhiznevskaya) engaging in fraudulent activities, with clients organizing legal action via platforms like Skype.
• Other Sources: Negative reviews on platforms like EarnForex and ForexBrokerz highlight withdrawal issues, lack of transparency, and poor customer support. A 2010 review on FPA praised MFXBroker, but this is outdated and overshadowed by later scam allegations.
• Pattern: The consistent theme across complaints is non-payment, unresponsiveness, and suspicion of Ponzi scheme tactics, especially with the investment plan.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• High Risk: MFXBroker is considered high-risk due to:
• Scam designation by FPA, a reputable forex review platform.
• Multiple user reports of lost funds and inability to withdraw.
• Lack of transparency about operations and leadership.
• Suspected Ponzi scheme characteristics in its investment plan, as warned by FPA, which recommended a certified audit that MFXBroker never provided.
• BrokerChooser’s Assessment: In 2024, BrokerChooser deemed MFXBroker unsafe and untrusted, citing regulatory and safety concerns. Their experts, with extensive financial experience, advise against using brokers like MFXBroker that lack top-tier regulation.
• Critical Note: The absence of recent positive reviews or evidence of resolved issues further elevates the risk level. The company’s apparent inactivity since 2016 suggests it may have ceased operations or operates under a different name, a common tactic for shell companies.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• Inaccessible Website: As of April 2025, MFXBroker.com appears inactive or inaccessible, preventing direct analysis of website security features (e.g., SSL certificates, HTTPS protocols). This itself is a red flag, as legitimate brokers maintain active, secure websites.
• Historical Context: When active, MFXBroker offered a customized MetaTrader 4 platform (MFX Trader 4) and MFX MultiTerminal for asset managers. However, no information was provided about encryption, two-factor authentication, or other security measures, which are standard for reputable brokers.
• Implication: The lack of an operational website and historical silence on security protocols suggest minimal investment in user data protection, consistent with a shell company’s low operational footprint.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• Limited Information: Without access to current WHOIS data for MFXBroker.com, historical information indicates the domain was associated with Master Services Inc., registered in Belize. No specific WHOIS details (e.g., registrant name, contact, registration date) are available from the provided sources.
• Shell Company Concern: Belize is a known offshore jurisdiction with lax regulatory oversight, often used by shell companies to obscure ownership. The absence of transparent WHOIS data aligns with this pattern, as shell companies typically use privacy protection services or vague registrant details to avoid scrutiny.
• Critical Note: If the domain is inactive or transferred, WHOIS data may no longer reflect the original entity. This opacity is a significant risk indicator.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• No Current Data: With the website inaccessible, IP address and hosting details cannot be analyzed. Historically, no sources mention MFXBroker’s hosting infrastructure, such as server location, provider, or security measures.
• Implication: Legitimate brokers typically use reputable hosting providers with clear server locations and robust cybersecurity. The lack of this information, combined with an inactive website, suggests MFXBroker may not maintain operational infrastructure, reinforcing the shell company hypothesis.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

• No Active Presence: There is no evidence of current social media activity for MFXBroker.com on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. Historical complaints on FPA mention no official social media engagement, only user-driven discussions (e.g., Skype groups for legal action).
• Red Flag: Legitimate brokers maintain active social media for customer engagement and transparency. The absence of verifiable profiles suggests either abandonment or deliberate avoidance of public scrutiny, common for fraudulent or shell entities.
• Critical Note: Any social media accounts claiming to represent MFXBroker should be verified, as scammers often create fake profiles to exploit brand confusion.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Scam Designation: FPA’s blacklist and guilty votes are strong indicators of fraudulent behavior.
• Non-Payment and Withdrawal Issues: Repeated user reports of blocked withdrawals and unresponsive support point to financial misconduct.
• Offshore Registration: Operated by Master Services Inc. in Belize, a jurisdiction with minimal regulatory oversight, raising concerns about accountability.
• Inactive Website: An inaccessible website suggests the company is defunct or has rebranded to evade scrutiny, a tactic used by shell companies.
• Ponzi Scheme Allegations: The fixed-return investment plan lacked transparency and was flagged as a potential Ponzi scheme, with no audit provided to refute claims.
• Lack of Transparency: No clear information on leadership, operational status, or current contact details, aligning with shell company characteristics.
• Historical Praise vs. Recent Complaints: Early positive reviews (e.g., 2010 FPA post) contrast sharply with later scam allegations, suggesting a possible bait-and-switch tactic.
• Unresponsive Leadership: Named directors (Igor Volkov, Margo Zhiznevskaya) were accused of ignoring client issues, with no public response to allegations.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

• Historical Content: When active, MFXBroker.com promoted forex trading, CFDs, binary options, and a customized MetaTrader 4 platform. It emphasized high leverage and automated trading (MFX Copy), but lacked detailed disclosures about risks or regulatory compliance.
• Current Status: With the website down, no content can be analyzed directly. This absence prevents assessment of terms of service, privacy policies, or risk warnings, which are critical for evaluating legitimacy.
• Implication: The lack of an active website and historical vagueness about operational details suggest minimal effort to maintain credibility, consistent with a shell company’s temporary or deceptive presence.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

• Belize Registration: MFXBroker was operated by Master Services Inc., registered in Belize under the International Financial Services Commission (IFSC). The IFSC requires a minimum of $500,000 in net tangible assets and segregated client funds, but its oversight is weak compared to top-tier regulators like the FCA (UK), CySEC (Cyprus), or ASIC (Australia).
• Limited Oversight: ForexBrokerz notes that IFSC places little emphasis on compliance checks, reporting, or transaction supervision, offering limited protection to traders.
• BrokerChooser’s Warning: MFXBroker lacks registration with top-tier regulators, making it an unsafe choice. BrokerChooser only recommends brokers overseen by stringent authorities, which MFXBroker does not meet.
• Critical Note: The offshore status and lack of credible regulation align with shell company tactics, as Belize is often used to minimize accountability. The absence of recent regulatory updates suggests MFXBroker may no longer comply with even IFSC standards, if it is still operational.

10. User Precautions ¶

To avoid risks associated with MFXBroker or similar entities, users should:

• Verify Regulation: Only trade with brokers regulated by top-tier authorities (e.g., FCA, CySEC, ASIC). Check regulator databases directly to confirm status.
• Research Reviews: Investigate user feedback on platforms like FPA, Trustpilot, or BrokerChooser. Consistent negative reviews, especially about withdrawals, are red flags.
• Test Withdrawals: Start with small deposits and test the withdrawal process before committing larger sums. Delays or excuses indicate potential issues.
• Avoid Offshore Brokers: Be cautious of brokers in jurisdictions like Belize, where oversight is minimal.
• Secure Accounts: Use strong passwords, enable two-factor authentication, and avoid sharing personal details unless the broker’s legitimacy is verified.
• Check Website Status: An inactive or poorly maintained website is a warning sign. Use tools like WHOIS or Wayback Machine to investigate domain history.
• Report Scams: If victimized, contact authorities like the FTC (US) or local financial regulators and seek help from services like Scams Report.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Similar Names: MFXBroker may be confused with legitimate brokers like Interactive Brokers or Markets.com due to generic forex-related branding. Scammers often exploit such confusion to lure users.
• Clone Firm Risk: Interactive Brokers warns of clone firm scams, where fraudsters mimic reputable firms using similar logos or names. MFXBroker’s lack of transparency and offshore status make it a candidate for such tactics.
• Rebranding Possibility: Given its scam designation and inactive website, MFXBroker may have rebranded to evade its negative reputation, a common strategy for shell companies. No evidence confirms a new brand, but users should be wary of brokers with similar offerings or leadership.
• User Vigilance: Always verify a broker’s website, regulatory status, and contact details directly through official regulator websites or trusted platforms like BrokerChooser to avoid confusion.

12. Shell Company Considerations ¶

• Indicators of a Shell Company:
• Offshore Registration: Belize’s lax regulations and MFXBroker’s vague corporate details (Master Services Inc.) suggest a shell entity designed to obscure ownership.
• Inactive Operations: The inaccessible website and lack of recent activity imply the company may exist only on paper, a hallmark of shell companies.
• Opaque Leadership: Named directors (Igor Volkov, Margo Zhiznevskaya) are mentioned only in complaints, with no verifiable public profiles or responses, suggesting they may be fronts or unaccountable.
• Ponzi Allegations: The fixed-return investment plan’s structure and failure to provide audits align with shell companies running temporary scams.
• Critical Perspective: While MFXBroker operated for years (launched in 2006), its decline into scam allegations and apparent abandonment by 2016–2020 suggests it may have been a shell used to collect funds before dissolving. The lack of current operational evidence supports this hypothesis, though no definitive proof confirms it as a shell company.

13. Recent Results and Current Status ¶

• Last Known Activity: The most recent detailed complaints date to 2016 (FPA), with BrokerChooser’s 2024 warning confirming ongoing distrust. No evidence suggests MFXBroker is currently operational or has resolved past issues.
• Website Inactivity: The inaccessible website as of April 2025 indicates the company may be defunct or operating under a new identity.
• Critical Note: The absence of recent positive developments or regulatory updates reinforces the conclusion that MFXBroker is either inactive or a high-risk entity to avoid.

Conclusion ¶

MFXBroker.com exhibits numerous red flags consistent with a high-risk or potentially fraudulent broker, and its characteristics align with those of a shell company. Key concerns include its scam designation by FPA, widespread withdrawal issues, offshore registration in Belize with weak oversight, inactive website, and lack of transparency about operations or leadership. The absence of social media presence, verifiable WHOIS data, or hosting information further undermines its credibility. Historical complaints and Ponzi scheme allegations suggest it may have operated deceptively before ceasing activity or rebranding. Recommendation: Avoid MFXBroker.com entirely. Users should prioritize brokers with top-tier regulation (e.g., FCA, CySEC, ASIC), transparent operations, and positive, recent user reviews. If you have engaged with MFXBroker, attempt to withdraw funds immediately and contact regulatory authorities or scam recovery services like Scams Report. To prevent brand confusion, verify any broker’s credentials directly through official regulator websites. Disclaimer: This analysis is based on available data as of April 23, 2025, and critically evaluated for accuracy. Forex trading carries high risks, and users should conduct their own due diligence.