Sweden’s financial supervisory authority FI has deregistered Depaho Ltd, the operator of retail FX broker FXGM.

This happens a week after the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) announced that the authorisation of the Cyprus Investment Firm Depaho Ltd, was suspended. The decision means that the company may no longer provide investment services or conduct investment activities.

The broker has previously notified FI that it will conduct cross-border operations and provide investment services and investment activities to customers in Sweden, under the freedom of establishment framework. As the company’s license has been revoked in Cyprus, it is no longer allowed to conduct such activities. The company is therefore deregistered from FI’s business register.

The company’s customers in Sweden should contact Depaho for more information.

As FX News Group has reported, earlier in July, CySEC announced that the authorisation of the Cyprus Investment Firm Depaho Ltd is suspended in whole.

The Cypriot regulator explained that there are suspicions of Depaho’s alleged violations of:

  • Article 5(1) of The Investment Services and Activities and Regulated Markets Law of 2017 (‘the Law’) as the Company appears to provide the investment service of investment advice, as a regular occupation, without the granting of prior authorisation by the CySEC.
  • Article 22(1) of the Law as the Company does not appear to comply at all times with the conditions for authorisation established in articles 17(2) and (6) of the Law, regarding the organisational requirements.
  • Article 24(1) of the Law as the Company does not appear to take all reasonable steps to identify and to prevent or manage conflicts of interest between itself, including its managers, employees and tied agents, or any person directly or indirectly linked to it by control, and its clients.
  • Article 25(1) of the Law as the Company does not appear to act honestly, fairly and professionally when providing investment services to clients, in accordance with the best interests of its clients.
  • Article 25(2)(b) of the Law as the Company does not appear to understand the financial instruments it offers or recommends, nor to assess the compatibility of the financial instruments with the needs of the clients to whom it provides investment services and does not seem to ensure that financial instruments are offered or recommended only when this is in the interest of the client.
  • Article 25(3)(a) of the Law as the Company does not appear to provide information, including marketing communications, to its clients or potential clients that is fair, clear and not misleading.
  • Article 25(4)(a) of the Law as the Company does not appear to provide appropriate information to clients or potential clients in good time.
  • Article 25(5) of the Law as the Company does not appear to provide the information referred to in article 25(4) of the Law, in a comprehensible form, so that clients are reasonably able to understand the nature and risks of the investment service and of the specific type of financial instrument that is being offered and, consequently, to take investment decisions on an informed basis.
  • Article 26(1) of the Law as the Company does not appear to ensure that natural persons giving information about financial instruments, investments or ancillary services, to clients on behalf of the Company, possess the necessary knowledge and competence to fulfil their obligations under articles 25 and 26 of the Law.
  • Article 26(3)(a) of the Law as the Company, when providing investment services other than those referred to in article 26(2), does not appear to ask the client to provide information regarding that person’s knowledge and experience, so as to enable the Company to assess whether the investment service or product envisaged is appropriate for the client.
  • Article 36(10) of the Law as the Company does not appear to have given to the CySEC written notice of the change in the information relevant to its branch in Spain.
  • Article 42 of Regulation (EU) no. 600/2014 as the Company does not appear to comply with paragraphs 4(1)(d) and (5) of Directive DI87-05.