pocket-broker.com

UPDATED REVIEW (Response to Pocket Broker’s Public Reply on Feb 2nd) My PO ID: 120785601 Pocket Brok

UPDATED REVIEW (Response to Pocket Broker’s Public Reply on Feb 2nd)
My PO ID: 120785601
Pocket Broker’s public response to my earlier review introduces new allegations that require clarification and raises additional procedural concerns.
In its response, the broker states that this was “not the first violation” and that similar activity had already been identified on a previous account. If such a determination already existed, it is unclear why this account was allowed to continue operating normally.
Specifically, the broker:
• accepted deposits,
• allowed trading to continue for multiple days,
• approved initial verification steps,
• and requested additional documentation (selfie verification, identity confirmation, and proof of wallet ownership),
all while the account was allegedly already linked to prior violations.
Enforcement occurred only after the account became largely profitable. This sequence indicates delayed or selective enforcement rather than a pre-existing compliance decision.
The broker also alleges issues related to cryptocurrency wallet usage across accounts. The same withdrawal wallet was accepted and used for prior withdrawals without objection, and no compliance concerns were raised at that time. No transaction hashes, timestamps, or technical evidence have been provided to substantiate the newly claimed breaches of clauses 2.3, 3.3, or 3.10, nor was I given an opportunity to respond before restrictions were imposed.
If the matter is being treated as an AML or fraud-related issue based on linked account activity, the handling of funds across accounts appears inconsistent. I deposited approximately USD 9,400 in an earlier account and USD 1,300 in the later account. Deposits from the losing account have been retained, while deposit only refund was offered for the profitable account. Under standard AML principles, funds associated with an allegedly non-compliant client are typically treated consistently across all linked accounts, rather than selectively retained or refunded based on profitability.
While Pocket Broker emphasizes AML/KYC compliance, regulatory obligations do not remove the requirement for transparency, consistency, or due process—particularly when access to funds is restricted.
The broker also describes itself as a regulated platform. While registration under MISA is cited, publicly available information—including statements issued by the Central Bank of the Union of the Comoros—has raised questions regarding the scope and enforceability of MISA’s regulatory authority. These concerns were not addressed in the broker’s response.
Summary of Original Experience
My account was fully verified, including identity and liveness verification, before any restriction occurred.
The account was funded with USD 1,300, and through regular trading activity the balance increased to USD 10,283. When I attempted to withdraw, the account was restricted.
This was followed by a sequence of escalating verification requests (IP checks, additional selfie verification, and proof of payment method ownership). Each request was fulfilled, and none of the submitted evidence was disputed.
After all verifications were completed, Pocket Broker invoked generic terms clauses without identifying any specific breach and stated in writing that only the original deposit would be refunded. As of now, USD 8,983 in trading profits remains withheld.
I am posting this updated review to document my experience, address new allegations raised by the broker, and allow other users to assess the platform’s withdrawal practices, enforcement consistency, and regulatory transparency.

Date of experience: Mar 01, 2026