GPay/Cryptopoint/XtraderFX Shut Down

Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' section to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.

Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!

XtraderFX

The company performed a series of fraudulent and suspicious practices, including false testimonials of famous people, blocking withdrawals, and losing investor funds.

In the end, the company was shut down by the court.

This exchange or platform is based in United Kingdom, or the incident targeted people primarily in United Kingdom.

About XtraderFX

"Founded in August 2017," "[t]he platform, formerly known as Cryptopoint, served users in the UK and abroad." "The exchange, which also operates under Cryptopoint and XtraderFX, solicited investment online through a range of ads on social media platforms." "GPay Ltd was incorporated on 30 August 2017, Company Registration number 10938332. The registered office of the company is 18 Stoke Road Slough, Stoke Road, Slough, England, SL2 5AG."

"XtraderFX is a powerful online digital asset exchange platform. Take advantage of our innovative trading tools and be successful on the financial markets." "GPay demonstrated “a lack of commercial probity”." "[T]he firm “failed to file statutory accounts”, and had “no legitimate presence at its registered office address” which it had “abandoned”." "[A]ds falsely claim the endorsement of high profile business people and television personalities."

"The firm’s liquidation follows proven claims of false advertising and the loss of £1.5 million in customer money." "Following a series of complaints to local authorities, the agency opened an investigation into the firm, concluding that it had been operating on a fraudulent basis." "Confidential inquiries by the Insolvency Service found “at least 108” of GPay’s clients claimed to have lost “just under £1.5 million” while using the its online trading platform."

"Among the allegations presented to the court was evidence of withdrawal requests being denied for non-active traders." "In some cases, clients lost money despite paying insurance which was meant to retrospectively cover their losses." "If clients attempted to remove funds from their trading accounts, they were advised that no withdrawals could be made until they submitted copies of their photo ID, a utility bill and debit or credit card. This level of information, however, was not asked by GPay when they accepted clients’ deposits."

"On 23 June, the court “wound up” GPay “in the public interest”." "“This was nothing but a scam as GPay tricked their clients to use their online platform under false pretences and no customer has benefited as their investments have been lost,” says Hill." "The UK High Court ordered GPay to pay for the loss of £1.5 million ($1.8m) in investor funds.""

"We welcome the court’s decision to wind-up GPay as it will protect anyone else becoming a victim. This scam should also serve as a warning to anyone who conducts trading online that they should carry-out appropriate checks before they invest any money that the company is registered and regulated by the appropriate authorities."

This exchange or platform is based in United Kingdom, or the incident targeted people primarily in United Kingdom.

The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.

Include:

• Known history of when and how the service was started.
• What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
• What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
• Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
• Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
• How were people recruited to participate?
• Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.

Don't Include:

• Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
• Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.

There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.

The Reality

This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:

• When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
• Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
• How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
• Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.

What Happened

The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.

Key Event Timeline - GPay/Cryptopoint/XtraderFX Shut Down

Date	Event	Description
June 23rd, 2020	Main Event	Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here.

Technical Details

This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?

Total Amount Lost

The total amount lost has been estimated at $1,680,000 USD.

How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?

Immediate Reactions

How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?

Ultimate Outcome

What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?

Total Amount Recovered

There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.

What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?

Ongoing Developments

What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?

Individual Prevention Policies

No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.

Platform Prevention Policies

Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.

Regulatory Prevention Policies

No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.