The UK Financial Conduct Authority has issued fresh warnings over three investment and trading websites, including one operation the regulator says is impersonating an approved investment fund.
The FCA added www.get-lunnex-hex.com, DynamicProfitsfx and 22K Trader, also operating as 22KTrader, to its warnings on September 25. The three notices appeared among a wider batch of new entries added to the regulator’s warning database that day.
Get-lunnex-hex.com and DynamicProfitsfx are listed as unauthorised firms that may be providing or promoting financial services without the FCA’s permission and may be targeting people in the UK.
The regulator published www.get-lunnex-hex.com as the website associated with the first warning. For DynamicProfitsfx, the FCA identified dynamicprofitsfx.com and an email address associated with the operation.
Neither business is authorised by the FCA. The regulator said consumers should avoid dealing with them and warned that unauthorised operators can provide misleading contact information or use details belonging to unrelated businesses to make themselves appear legitimate.
The entries can be found on the FCA’s Warning List of unauthorised firms, which the regulator updates as it identifies businesses that may be carrying out regulated activity without permission.
22K Trader Is Accused of Cloning an Approved Investment Fund
The 22K Trader warning carries an additional concern. Rather than simply operating without authorisation, the FCA describes the business as a clone of an FCA-recognised fund.
The regulator says 22K Trader, operating through 22ktrader.com, has been contacting consumers while pretending to be connected to a genuine regulated business.
The FCA identified the legitimate fund being impersonated as IFSL Equilibrium Balanced Portfolio, which has approved status. The regulator stressed that the genuine fund has no connection to 22K Trader.
The clone operation has used a Canada Square address in London along with several UK telephone numbers. According to the FCA, clone firms can combine genuine details belonging to regulated businesses with false websites, phone numbers and email addresses, making the fraud significantly harder to identify than a completely fictitious investment company.
That makes clone firms particularly dangerous for retail investors. A prospective customer may search the name of the organisation, find what appears to be a legitimate regulatory record and conclude that the person contacting them works for the regulated company.
The FCA recommends independently checking the contact information listed through its own firm-checking tools rather than relying on phone numbers, websites or email addresses supplied by whoever is offering the investment.
Unauthorised Firms Leave Traders Outside Key UK Protections
The practical difference between an unauthorised trading operation and a regulated broker becomes most important when something goes wrong.
The FCA says customers dealing with the three warned operations would not normally have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for complaints and would not benefit from Financial Services Compensation Scheme protection if the business failed.
That distinction matters as the regulator increases scrutiny across the broader retail-trading sector. On the same day as the latest warnings, the FCA disclosed a crackdown that has pushed 24 CFD firms toward closure over concerns that some firms were using UK regulatory authorisation to give credibility to overseas businesses.
The FCA said 21 CFD firms had closed since 2025 and three more were cancelling permissions, while two of the most serious cases had moved into enforcement investigations.
The regulatory perimeter also matters when an authorised firm encounters financial problems. ITI Capital’s entry into special administration this week illustrates the difference. Although customers may face disruption and uncertainty, ITI remains within a regulatory framework covering client assets, administrators and potential compensation arrangements.
Customers sending money to an unauthorised or cloned investment operation may have far fewer avenues for recovery.
The Timing Shows How Fast Retail-Trading Risks Are Multiplying
The three warnings are significant less because of the names themselves than because of how quickly new trading identities can appear.
Regulatory warning lists are often one of the earliest public records showing that a website has come onto a regulator’s radar. By the time a business generates significant mainstream coverage, it may already have changed its domain, branding, telephone numbers or marketing channels.
The FCA explicitly warns that unauthorised firms can change their contact details over time. That creates an asymmetry between regulators and operators: publishing a warning is relatively permanent, while launching a replacement domain can take very little time.
Clone firms add another layer to the problem because they borrow trust rather than trying to build it from scratch.
An unknown trading website immediately raises questions. A company using the name, address or registration details of a real financial institution can pass the first superficial checks a customer might perform.
That is why the 22K Trader notice is arguably more informative than a standard unauthorised-firm entry. It shows that checking whether a name appears in the regulatory database is not enough. Investors also need to confirm that the website, email address and telephone number they are using match the regulator’s official record.
Regulation Does Not Remove Trading Risk, but It Changes What Happens After a Problem
There is an important distinction between regulatory status and whether a trading customer will ever experience a dispute.
Authorised brokers can still face complaints over execution, technology, account restrictions or interpretation of trading rules. Recent broker execution and account disputes show how disagreements can emerge even when a functioning financial company, customer records and formal contractual terms are all present.
Similarly, a recent Revolut CFD execution dispute centered on an alleged technical failure that prevented a trader from closing a position. The underlying allegation remains disputed, but the case demonstrates the type of evidence — execution logs, timestamps, complaints procedures and contractual documentation — that can become important when a regulated service encounters a problem.
An unauthorised operation creates a very different starting point.
If the company itself, the claimed regulatory identity or even the contact details are false, there may be no meaningful internal dispute process and no regulated entity standing behind the transaction.
For retail traders, that makes verification less about finding a regulatory logo at the bottom of a website and more about matching the exact company, domain and contact details against official records.
The September 25 warnings also reinforce a broader shift in FCA enforcement. The regulator is simultaneously targeting companies operating entirely outside its perimeter and scrutinising authorised firms that may be using UK permissions in ways that could give customers a misleading impression of protection.
Those are different regulatory problems, but they produce the same practical question for a trader: which legal entity actually receives the money, and what protection applies to that specific relationship?
In the case of get-lunnex-hex.com, DynamicProfitsfx and 22K Trader, the FCA’s answer is already clear. None of the three operations identified in the warnings should be treated as an authorised UK financial firm, while the genuine IFSL Equilibrium Balanced Portfolio has no connection to the 22K Trader clone.
For investors, catching that distinction before depositing money is considerably easier than trying to recover funds after it has been sent.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape.