FCA-Regulated Forex Brokers Are Declining — 31 Platforms to Avoid
As of December 1, 2025, a total of 105 companies in the United Kingdom held CFD licences.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought charges against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, a leading investment banking institution, and its former head of the equity syndicate desk, Pawan Passi.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought charges against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, a leading investment banking institution, and its former head of the equity syndicate desk, Pawan Passi.
These charges are linked to a prolonged fraud scheme involving the improper disclosure of confidential information related to significant stock transactions known as “block trades.” Additionally, the SEC has accused Morgan Stanley of failing to adhere to policies designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information related to block trades, which typically involve the private arrangement and execution of substantial quantities of a company's shares outside of public markets.
The SEC alleges that Morgan Stanley and Passi shared information about impending block trades with certain buy-side investors, anticipating that these investors would use the information strategically. Specifically, these investors were expected to take substantial short positions in the stock associated with the upcoming block trade. If Morgan Stanley proceeded with the block trade, these investors would then request and receive allocations from Morgan Stanley to cover their short positions, effectively mitigating the bank's risk.
The SEC's investigation, covering the period from June 2018 to August 2021, revealed that Passi and a subordinate on Morgan Stanley's equity syndicate desk disclosed non-public information about imminent block trades to specific buy-side investors. This occurred despite explicit confidentiality requests from the sellers and Morgan Stanley's internal policies governing the handling of confidential data.
Furthermore, the SEC's order highlights Morgan Stanley's failure to implement effective information barriers, preventing the transmission of material non-public information from the equity syndicate desk (located on the private side of the firm) to a trading division on the public side. This lapse hindered the firm's ability to scrutinize whether trades by the public side, conducted while discussions were ongoing with selling shareholders about potential block trades, were based on confidential information.
The SEC's order against Morgan Stanley asserts that the firm knowingly violated Sections 10(b) and 15(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, along with Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. As a result, the SEC censured the firm and imposed financial penalties, requiring payment of approximately $138 million in disgorgement, about $28 million in prejudgment interest, and an $83 million civil penalty. In the case of Passi, the SEC's order states that he willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, leading to a $250,000 civil penalty, along with associational, penny stock, and supervisory bars.
Concurrently, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York has reached criminal resolutions with Morgan Stanley and Passi. Notably, the SEC's disgorgement and prejudgment interest requirements for Morgan Stanley will be deemed partially satisfied by the firm's forfeiture and restitution of $136,531,223 as part of its criminal resolution.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

As of December 1, 2025, a total of 105 companies in the United Kingdom held CFD licences.

Has Dbinvesting failed to honor your fund withdrawal requests? Did you notice that the broker remained fine when you were losing and turned worse as your numbers gained on the Dbinvesting login? Did the broker wipe out your profits and block your trading account? Many such allegations from users across India, the US and other regions have become headlines on broker review platforms such as WikiFX. To make it comprehensive, we have prepared an in-depth investigation report into user allegations, the company’s products and services, and, importantly, regulatory status, in this Dbinvesting review article.

Times are tough for the rupee as it again slipped to 95 against the USD towards the end of April 2026 after some gains due to the RBI-led interventions early this month. The depreciation is largely attributable to surging crude oil prices. The prices climbed to their 3-year high over the US-Iran conflict. On April 30, 2026, the rupee opened at 95.02 mark against the USD, sliding 0.2% from its previous day’s ending at 94.84 against the greenback. As the day progressed, it slipped further to a new record low of 95.32 against the USD, beating the earlier fall of 95.22 in March 2026.

When you ask, "Is AssetsFX legit?", you're asking an important question about keeping your funds safe. After looking at all the available information, the answer is concerning: AssetsFX shows serious risks that traders should worry about. Our research found multiple problems that can't be overlooked. WikiFX, a website that checks brokers worldwide, gives AssetsFX only 2.44 points out of 10. They also warn users: "Low score, please stay away!" This very low rating isn't random. It comes from two main problems: the company doesn't have proper licenses from respected authorities, and many users have complained about losing funds. This article will explain the evidence behind this rating, giving you the facts you need to make a smart choice and protect your investments.