Under American law,a broker that suffers fraud can sue profitable ex-clients up to 6 years after account closure: See video below. I contacted the FCA as I want to open an account in the UK with IB (who didn't answer my email query) and want to know if I am safe from this law. 2:47 - 7:00 (although the whole video is relevant)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Profit Clawback Up To 6 Years After Account Closure
- Thread starter comingkingofisrael
- Start date
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotliko...rage-insurance-scam-help-allen-stanford-walk/
If you scroll to the article bottom,his next post will appear.There were several on this subject.
If you scroll to the article bottom,his next post will appear.There were several on this subject.
That's why you open a brokerage account under a llc and don't keep more in there then you need to trade with. They can sue you all they want and wont get a dime.
..and if you scroll down below the 'rebuttal' ,his counter article will appear.
I have been paid out by SIPC before; and it was smooth, timely, and accurate.
I don't think that SIPC was ever meant to deal with pure Ponzi's where the manager has total discretion and the investments turn out to be entirely fictitious.
Imagine someone starting a Ponzi, raises $1 billion (maybe even from his own family), and gives it all to his own son who invested $1. So SIPC is supposed to pay out $1 billion to the investors, while not forcing the son to pay back the $1 billion? It makes no sense. I have to side with SIPC on this one.
I don't think that SIPC was ever meant to deal with pure Ponzi's where the manager has total discretion and the investments turn out to be entirely fictitious.
Imagine someone starting a Ponzi, raises $1 billion (maybe even from his own family), and gives it all to his own son who invested $1. So SIPC is supposed to pay out $1 billion to the investors, while not forcing the son to pay back the $1 billion? It makes no sense. I have to side with SIPC on this one.