Assexmarkets Review: Complaints, Licensing Status, And Risks

This review of Assexmarkets consolidates recent observations from BrokersView showing a sharp rise in negative user feedback about the forex broker Assexmarkets. We examine regulation claims, operating conduct, and patterns seen in client reports to help traders assess risk before opening trading accounts or funding deposits. In the materials reviewed, key trading conditions were not clearly presented, including any stated minimum deposit (amount and currency), clearly defined account types, the specific trading platform offered, published typical spreads, commissions, and maximum leverage. User reports and marketing references suggest it targets forex trading and crypto-linked pricing (including BTC vs. the U.S. dollar), but the full instrument list is not transparently disclosed.

Under a 50% deposit bonus promotion on social media, numerous users posted complaints about their trading experience and deposit and withdrawal problems. Despite the volume of concerns, the broker did not provide public responses or effective customer support.

Multiple clients reported delayed or rejected withdrawals. In one case, after completing account verification exactly as instructed, the client still could not access funds. The pattern resembles a withdrawal obstruction tactic that prevents a straightforward payout process. The broker also does not clearly publish which withdrawal methods are supported (such as bank transfers, cards, or e-wallets), or any standard withdrawal processing times and fees, making it difficult for traders to verify what to expect before funding an account.

A user discovered active positions allegedly opened without permission, attributing them to the broker’s intervention. Such incidents raise doubts about trade execution integrity and whether client accounts receive fair handling from this forex broker.

One client said the broker promised swap-free terms on selected instruments, yet every position incurred a charge. The mismatch between stated conditions and actual costs suggests unclear disclosures and potentially misleading pricing, far from the tight spread marketing narrative some traders expect. Beyond swaps, the broker’s public disclosures reviewed did not provide a clear, verifiable schedule for key costs such as commissions, typical spreads on major instruments, inactivity or account maintenance charges, or deposit and withdrawal fees.

Another trader highlighted visible differences in BTC vs. the U.S. dollar movement compared with a separate platform. The divergence in quotes reinforced suspicions about data integrity and further eroded confidence in the broker’s pricing and overall trading experience.

The firm’s image has been closely tied to promotions by a small group of Nigerian forex personalities. While those endorsements may have attracted clients initially, mounting user reviews now associate the marketing push with growing distrust rather than confidence.

• Habby Forex
• Jeffrey Benson
• Consummate Traders (linked influencers)

In March, an investor publicly accused one of the promoters cited above of mishandling a $111,000 allocation, a claim that significantly damaged his reputation among retail traders.

A separate user alleged that some of these influencers were linked to a proprietary firm that onboarded thousands and collapsed in 2024 after failing to pay out participants.

Another trader said the broker previously operated under a different domain— —and claimed the two promoters named above were behind it, amplifying his doubts and mistrust toward the operation.

Assexmarkets Global Ltd states it is authorized by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Saint Lucia under registration number 2024-00223. Our check found no entry for the company on the authority’s list of supervised entities, and this body does not license or oversee forex trading or derivative brokerage activity. Based on the information reviewed, there is no evidence that Assexmarkets is regulated by any recognized financial authority.

The entity appears in Saint Lucia’s International Financial Centre registry, which records International Business Companies. Crucially, this registry is not a prudential regulator and does not issue brokerage permissions for forex trading. The available records point to Saint Lucia as the jurisdiction of incorporation, but a clearly stated registered address or principal place of business for day-to-day operations was not prominently disclosed in the materials reviewed.

When a broker operates outside recognized regulatory supervision, traders may have limited recourse if withdrawals are delayed, pricing is disputed, or account access is restricted, because there may be no independent authority to enforce client-money safeguards or complaint handling.

Based on the checks above, traders face several structural risk factors:

• No valid regulatory license
• No external oversight
• No client fund protection
• Elevated risk for deposits and withdrawals

BrokersView has classified Assexmarkets as a scam broker based on its findings and user submissions. Potential positives are largely limited to marketing appeals, such as the deposit bonus promotion and advertised swap-free terms. The downsides described by users center on withdrawal barriers, alleged account or execution interference, and unclear pricing and fee disclosures, alongside the lack of recognized regulatory supervision.

Compared with regulated brokers such as Pepperstone or IC Markets, which are supervised by recognized authorities and typically provide clearer disclosures on platforms, instruments, fees, and leverage, Assexmarkets stands out for disputed user experiences and limited verifiable transparency around core trading terms.

Given the absence of authorization and the weight of client accounts describing misconduct, prospective clients should avoid this broker and seek safer alternatives.