You dismissed the value of your post so many times in one paragraph, I cannot tell if you were being truly funny or being truly foolish...
ET must have falling revenues, the advertisers get more questionable by the day. Binary options brokers, Russian forex brokers, next on the list will be Nigerian forex brokers.
To the OP, Let's see if i've got this straight. Two accounts were opened with $100. Each account got a $30 bonus for signing up. A few days later, each account has profited some 300+ to 400+ $ off of the $130 base of capital. Yes? Question: If one person deposited $200 at your brokerage, would they recieve a bonus of $60 in their account? Or, does the 30% bonus only apply to $100 (or less) deposits? If the 30% bonus is given to a $200 deposit (or any deposit amount), then it would be pointless - for one person - to open two accounts for $100. Let me state it another way: Suppose one person has $200 to deposit. S/he can get $60 by opening one account. Or, s/he can get $60 by surreptitiously opening two accounts (with different ID). So there is no advantage for one person to open two accounts. If there is no advantage for one person to open two accounts, why would you think one person opened two accounts? So, the person in question traded the same pair entering at the same time. They could be friends in communication with each other. Were their exits also the same? They could be friends in communication with each other. You say they can never prove they are two persons anyway. Likewise, you can't prove they are one person. Here's my problem with your story. First of all, the accounts in question both made deposits of their own amounting to at least $200, yes? And all of this money has been confiscated by your company, yes? If this is the case, then you are taking punativate action based on your suspicion that this is two persons trying to take advantage of a 30% bonus plan. First, let's suppose it's even possible to get more bonus % by opening more than one account. Then you should at least return the initial deposits, even if its true this is one person. It doesn't matter if the person tried to take advantage of you. It does not give you the right to take advantage of the person, by confiscating their initial deposit. Now, let's say you returned the initial deposit to both of these accounts. There is still the question of how much of the profit from the trade (both long) you should give them. If the deposit was $100 and the bonus was $30 then the deposit represents only 30/130% of the account...approximately 27% of the account. Therefore, at least 73% of that profit is based on the initial deposit, and belongs to the client(s). Simply put, based on your suspicion, you are only entitled to keep your bonus, and any profits made using that bonus. Not all the profits made in those trades were due to your bonus. Only about 27% of the profits would have been due to your bonus. That is all you are entitled to withold, based upon your suspicions. Otherwise, you will need to rewrite your bonus rules to include punative action (revenge) as a possibility. You will also need to include that punative action (revenge) can result based upon a suspicion (not proof) of foul play regarding bonuses. Just sayin...
To the OP, First of all, there was a typo in the last paragraph of my previous post. Using $100 as an example, once $100 is deposited into an account and recieves a 30% bonus, the bonus now represents 23% of the total account balance. Thereafter, for any profits gained for the account, 23% of those profits may be owing to the bonus (and therefore owned by the house, until the volume obligations are fulfilled). Now, assuming the broker decides to cancel the bonus, it may only confiscate $30 + 23% of profits to the account. The broker cannot confiscate the initial deposit ($100 in this case), nor the 77% of whatever profit is gained by that account. Let's say the account profited $300 over and above the base capital of $130. Only $69 of that profit belongs to the broker...and only until the trader has traded the specified minimum of volume. If the broker decides to cancel the agreement, it may only confiscate $69 + $30 = $99. Nowhere in the rules is the broker entitled to confiscate the entire account (initial deposit + 77% trading profits). The rules suggest that in the broker's alledged vigilance against "unscrupulous" persons wheo are somehow deemed to be trying to take advantage of the bonus system, cancellation of the bonus may occur to about 10% of traders. However, in reading the rules, i have not found one way in which a trader might gain an advantage by opening up multiple accounts at the same time. In fact point #3 of the 30% Bonus Agreement states: "The number of account for the 30% Bonus for each client is not limited." So if it's true that one person opened up two accounts at the same time, this is entirely within the rules. Secondly, such a person, if there was such a person, has not gained any advantage. Let's assume the person had $200 to deposit and decided to split that into two accounts of $100 each. This person recieves a total of $30 + $30 = $60. If this person decided to open only one account, the total bonus is the same: $60 ($200 x 30%). So how has this person violated any rule, or gained any advantage in the bonus system? I cannot, for the life of me, think of one way in which it is possible for anyone to be "unscrupulous" in applying the bonus rules, either by opening multiple accounts at the same time, or consecutively (opening another account every week). This is because, according to the rules, every deposit is entitled to 30% bonus...for every deposit. Opening additional accounts is not different from making additional deposits. There are two bonus systems. Both require the trader to trade a proportional amount of volume in order to be able to withdraw the bonus. Initially, it is not possible to gain more than 30% on every deposit by choosing one system over another. By choosing the "Fixed Welcome Bonus", the client cannot immediately gain more than 30% on any deposit, unless depositing $300, in which case the client may get a 33% bonus. After that, the bonus percentage drops drastically from 25% to 20% to 10%. So why would anyone choose this bonus system? Perhaps the total volume to be traded for the bonus is less. I will have to look at those numbers more closely. But since it is a choice, i think we can assume that at least to the brokerage house (IntraForex), the bonus systems are thought to be equal. If they are not equal, why would anyone choose the lesser bonus system over the greater? So far as i can tell, the 30% bonus on all deposits for any number of accounts is the greatest deal. I am assuming this (the 30% bonus) is the deal the person or persons in question chose because you, the OP, have indicated this by how much volume they would have been required to trade in order to recieve the bonus (X*3 InstaForex lots, where X=the total volume of received bonuses). Plus, if they were smart, this is what either one or two persons would have done. If this is what was done, it was done according to the rules, and did not offer any advantage over a larger deposit into one account. So i'm not understanding how 10% of traders can somehow be labeled "unscrupulous" when it is impossible to get any advantage over your bonus system. The rules clearly permit multiple accounts by one person. Besides that, by opening more than one account, it is not possible for any one person to get more than 30% on each deposit, which is also clearly permitted in the rules. I would also like to point out a blatent error in your rules. Rule #8 of the 30% Bonus Rules is cut and pasted from Rule #9 from the Fixed Welcome set of rules. Nothing wrong with that, except for one thing, it makes no sense. Second of all, Rule #8 of the cut and paste refers to rule #5 when actually it should be refering to rule #7 of the 30% Bonus set of rules (re: how much volume must be traded before the bonus is owned by the trader). It doesn't make sense because you are saying that at any time before the trader fulfills his volume obligations, you could confiscate his bonus. Worse, you may even be proposing to confiscate any profit on the traders volume. This is, in itself, "unscrupulous". It appears that you may be financing the bonuses of 90% of traders by confiscating from 10% of good traders their bonuses, their profits, and even their deposits. That's what it appears to look like. It's quite possible that you are not familiar with your own rules, or that the rule writer was careless in his construction, or both. If this is true, it could also be true that your brokerage is careless in its alledged enforcement of the rules. Either that, or it is policy to drum up some excuse (diguised by double-speaking rules) for confiscating 10% of newbies accounts after they've made good on their first, or first few trades. Just sayin...
To the OP, I'd like to point out that the only way for one person to get a bigger bonus by pretending to be two persons is if you had a friends program like some other brokers have. Under such programs, a trader can get additional bonuses for introducing friends to the brokerage. In some programs, both the trader his friend may recieve a bonus. I would like to point out that IntraForex has no such program! Therefore, it is a moot point to suggest that one person can get a bigger bonus by pretending to be two persons under your current set of bonus programs. It is simply not possible.