Below is a comprehensive analysis of Limehouse Markets (Global) Limited, operating under the brand “Invaxa” with the official website https://www.invaxa.com, based on the requested criteria. The analysis incorporates available information, including web sources, and critically evaluates potential risks, regulatory concerns, and user precautions. Note that some aspects, such as specific social media activity or detailed WHOIS data, may require further investigation beyond the provided references due to limited direct evidence.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

• Available Data: There are reported complaints related to unauthorized charges and potential fraudulent activity associated with Invaxa. For instance, users have reported unauthorized deductions from their bank accounts, such as charges of $89.95, $84.95, $61.90, 100 yen, and 10,000 yen, with claims of not having authorized these transactions or even being aware of the site. These complaints suggest potential issues with billing practices or account security.
• Analysis: The nature of these complaints—unauthorized charges and lack of transparency—raises significant concerns about the platform’s operational integrity. Such complaints are common indicators of fraudulent or poorly managed financial services. The absence of prompt responses to these complaints (e.g., no reply to an email sent by a user) further erodes trust.
• Risk Level: High, due to multiple reports of unauthorized transactions and lack of customer support responsiveness.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• Broker Status: Invaxa is described as a “clone forex broker” posing as a legitimate entity, registered in Seychelles with a suspicious regulatory license (FSA License Number: SD103). The Financial Services Authority (FSA) in Seychelles has flagged this license as potentially fraudulent.
• Trading Risks: Invaxa offers high leverage (up to 1:500), which is significantly higher than what many regulators consider safe. High leverage can amplify losses, especially for inexperienced traders. The platform does not use industry-standard trading platforms like MetaTrader 4 (MT4) or MetaTrader 5 (MT5), which is unusual for a legitimate broker.
• User Feedback: Limited user reviews are mixed. One review mentions a “transparent and flexible trading environment” but criticizes the lack of 24/7 customer support and platform stability compared to other brokers.
• Analysis: The suspicious regulatory status, high leverage, and non-standard trading platform increase the risk level. Clone brokers often mimic legitimate firms to deceive users, and the lack of robust customer support exacerbates potential issues.
• Risk Level: Very High, due to the clone broker designation and questionable operational practices.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• Website Security: The Invaxa website mentions using cookies to “provide the best browsing experience and keep our website safe.” However, there is no specific mention of advanced security measures such as SSL/TLS encryption, two-factor authentication (2FA) for user accounts, or protection against DDoS attacks.
• Analysis: While the use of cookies is standard, the lack of detailed information about encryption, data protection, or cybersecurity protocols is concerning for a financial services platform handling sensitive user data and funds. Legitimate brokers typically highlight robust security measures to build trust.
• Risk Level: Moderate to High, as the absence of transparent security details leaves users vulnerable to data breaches or cyberattacks.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• WHOIS Data: Specific WHOIS details for https://www.invaxa.com are not fully provided in the references. However, the domain is noted to be hosted in the United States, with the IP address 2606:4700:3032::6815:1e8b.
• Analysis: Without complete WHOIS data, it’s challenging to verify the registrant’s identity, registration date, or domain ownership history. Legitimate brokers typically have transparent WHOIS records or use privacy protection services from reputable providers. The lack of this information could indicate an attempt to obscure ownership, a common tactic among dubious platforms.
• Risk Level: Moderate, pending further WHOIS verification. Users should conduct their own WHOIS lookup to confirm domain legitimacy.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• IP and Hosting: The server for Invaxa.com is located in the United States (IP: 2606:4700:3032::6815:1e8b), with coordinates at latitude 37.751 and longitude -97.822. The hosting location is noted as suitable for North American traffic but may not be optimal for other regions unless a Content Delivery Network (CDN) is used.
• Analysis: The U.S. hosting location is not inherently problematic, as many global brokers use U.S.-based servers. However, the lack of information about CDN usage or server redundancy could impact performance for users outside North America. Additionally, the IP address does not appear to be shared with other known fraudulent domains, but this requires further cross-referencing.
• Risk Level: Low to Moderate, as the hosting setup appears standard but lacks transparency about performance optimization.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

• Available Data: The provided references do not explicitly mention Invaxa’s social media presence, such as accounts on platforms like Twitter, LinkedIn, or Instagram.
• Analysis: A legitimate broker typically maintains active social media profiles to engage with clients, share market updates, and demonstrate transparency. The absence of visible social media activity could indicate a lack of commitment to building a public presence or an attempt to avoid scrutiny. However, this cannot be confirmed without further investigation into Invaxa’s social media accounts.
• Risk Level: Moderate, as the lack of social media presence is a potential red flag but not definitive without additional data.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Clone Broker Status: Invaxa is identified as a clone broker, falsely claiming legitimacy while mimicking a regulated entity. This is a major red flag.
• Suspicious Regulatory License: The claimed FSA Seychelles license (SD103) is flagged as suspicious, undermining the broker’s credibility.
• High Leverage: Offering leverage up to 1:500 is unusually high and risky, often used to attract inexperienced traders.
• Non-Standard Platform: Not offering MT4 or MT5, which are industry standards, suggests a lack of integration with trusted trading ecosystems.
• Unauthorized Charges: Complaints about unauthorized deductions point to potential fraud or lax security.
• Limited Customer Support: The platform advertises 24/5 support, but user complaints indicate delays or lack of response.
• Lack of Transparency: Minimal details about ownership, security measures, or operational history raise concerns about accountability.
• Analysis: These red flags collectively indicate a high likelihood of fraudulent or unreliable operations. Clone brokers often exploit regulatory loopholes and use aggressive marketing to lure users, only to engage in deceptive practices.
• Risk Level: Very High, due to multiple serious indicators of potential fraud.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

• Content Overview: The Invaxa website promotes itself as a user-focused broker offering trading in forex, commodities, stocks, cryptocurrencies, indices, and futures via CFDs. It emphasizes a “human side of trading,” multiple account types (Entry, Starter, Pro, Elite), and a minimum deposit of $250. The site mentions compliance with industry standards and a Conflicts of Interest Policy but provides limited specifics.
• Risk Disclosures: The website includes standard risk warnings about forex and CFD trading, noting that CFDs are complex instruments with a high risk of loss due to leverage. This is a regulatory requirement but does not mitigate other concerns.
• Promotional Claims: Claims of offering “200+ financial instruments” and “powerful technical indicators” are typical marketing tactics but lack verifiable evidence of execution quality or platform reliability.
• Analysis: The website’s content is professionally presented, which is common among clone brokers to appear legitimate. However, the lack of detailed information about the trading platform, execution policies, or regulatory oversight is concerning. The emphasis on “human” service contrasts with user complaints about poor support, suggesting a disconnect between marketing and reality.
• Risk Level: High, as the content appears designed to attract users without providing sufficient transparency or evidence of reliability.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

• Claimed Regulation: Invaxa claims to be regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in Seychelles under license SD103. However, this license is flagged as a “suspicious clone,” indicating it may be fabricated or misused.
• Verification: Legitimate brokers are typically regulated by reputable authorities such as the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), or CySEC (Cyprus). Seychelles’ FSA is known for lax oversight, and a suspicious license further undermines credibility.
• Analysis: The lack of verifiable regulation from a trusted authority is a critical red flag. Clone brokers often use offshore jurisdictions like Seychelles to evade scrutiny while falsely claiming regulatory compliance.
• Risk Level: Very High, as the broker operates without credible regulatory oversight.

10. User Precautions ¶

Based on the analysis, users should take the following precautions:

• Avoid Depositing Funds: Given the clone broker status and unauthorized charge complaints, refrain from depositing money until the broker’s legitimacy is verified.
• Verify Regulation: Independently check the FSA Seychelles license (SD103) and cross-reference with other regulatory bodies. Use tools like WikiFX or the regulator’s official website.
• Conduct Due Diligence: Research user reviews on independent platforms (e.g., Trustpilot, Forex Peace Army) and check for additional complaints or scam reports.
• Secure Accounts: If already registered, enable two-factor authentication (if available) and monitor bank accounts for unauthorized transactions.
• Test Customer Support: Contact Invaxa’s support team to assess responsiveness and professionalism before committing funds.
• Use Demo Accounts: If available, test the platform with a demo account to evaluate stability and functionality without financial risk.
• Report Suspicious Activity: If unauthorized charges occur, report them to your bank and file a complaint with relevant authorities (e.g., Seychelles FSA, local financial regulators).

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Similar Domains: The analysis references similar domains such as www.invaxglobal.com, www.invaxion.com, www.invaxo.com, www.invax.net, www.invax.info, and www.invavsionfridays.com. These could be related entities, typosquatting attempts, or unrelated sites causing confusion.
• Analysis: Clone brokers often create multiple domains to confuse users or evade detection. The similarity in domain names suggests a potential network of related or fraudulent sites. Users may mistake these for the official Invaxa site, increasing the risk of scams.
• Risk Level: Moderate to High, as brand confusion can lead to users engaging with fraudulent entities.

12. Additional Notes ¶

• Lack of Transparency: Invaxa’s website and operations lack detailed information about ownership, management, or audited financials, which are standard for legitimate brokers.
• Market Context: The forex and CFD trading industry is rife with scams, particularly among offshore brokers. The high incidence of clone brokers in Seychelles underscores the need for caution.
• Further Investigation: Users should use tools like Pingdom for website performance, Google Analytics for traffic insights, or Majestic Backlinks Checker to assess the site’s digital footprint, as suggested in the references.

Conclusion ¶

Limehouse Markets (Global) Limited, operating as Invaxa (https://www.invaxa.com), exhibits multiple red flags that suggest it is a high-risk platform, likely a clone broker engaging in deceptive practices. Key concerns include:

• A suspicious regulatory license from Seychelles’ FSA.
• Reports of unauthorized charges and poor customer support.
• High leverage and non-standard trading platform.
• Lack of transparency in website security, ownership, and operational details.
• Potential brand confusion with similar domains. Recommendation: Avoid trading with Invaxa until its legitimacy is independently verified through reputable regulatory bodies and user reviews. Users should exercise extreme caution, conduct thorough due diligence, and consider established brokers regulated by authorities like the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC. Sources: -: WikiFX review on Invaxa’s regulatory status and trading conditions. -: Hosting, IP, and complaint data for Invaxa. -: Legal documents and cookie policy on Invaxa’s website. -: Website content and promotional claims. Disclaimer: This Hannah’s assessment is based on publicly available information as of April 22, 2025. Users should verify all findings independently before making financial decisions.