Equity Edge is facing a fresh payout dispute after a Moroccan trader alleged that the proprietary trading firm rejected his withdrawal request over a single gold trade supposedly matching another customer’s position, despite differences in execution times, trade sizes and risk parameters.
The trader, Omar Laamiri, published his complaint on October 14, 2026, identifying Instant account #629437 and claiming that only one of his 46 trades had been flagged for copy trading. He denied using automated copying software or operating another trading account.
However, a review of Equity Edge’s published rules reveals an important qualification: the firm explicitly prohibits copy trading on Instant accounts and states that overlapping positions in the same instrument can be classified as copying even when executed manually at different times.
The dispute therefore raises a more precise question than whether the trades occurred simultaneously. It concerns what evidence Equity Edge uses to distinguish prohibited coordination from independent traders taking similar positions in widely traded instruments such as gold.
Trader Cites Different Execution Times, Lot Sizes and Stop-Loss Levels
In his October 14 Trustpilot review, Laamiri said Equity Edge rejected his performance payout after identifying a supposedly matching transaction involving another account.
According to his account, the other trader opened a position at 16:35 using 0.05 lots, while his own position was executed at 16:47 using 0.03 lots.
Laamiri described the difference as approximately 11 minutes, although the minute-level timestamps provided in the complaint are 12 minutes apart. The precise execution seconds were not disclosed.
He also reported that his gold position had an entry price of 4155.14 and that its stop-loss and take-profit levels differed from those of the comparison trade.
The trader further claimed that his execution logs identified a mobile device as the order source, which he offered as evidence that the position was opened manually using his own price-action analysis.
Laamiri said he operated only one Instant account and questioned how a single allegedly corresponding trade among 46 independently executed positions could justify rejecting an entire payout.
These details are specific enough to investigate, but they remain allegations. The complete execution logs, both accounts’ trading histories and Equity Edge’s internal risk assessment have not been independently examined.
The amount of the rejected payout was not disclosed in the review. No account-level explanation from Equity Edge addressing Laamiri’s specific allegations was identified.
Equity Edge’s Official Rules Allow Copy-Trading Findings Without Simultaneous Execution
Equity Edge’s official copy-trading policy for Instant accounts explicitly prohibits copying positions from external traders, groups and third-party accounts.
The policy also states that manually executed trades are not automatically exempt from copy-trading restrictions. Overlapping positions involving the same asset may be treated as copy trading even when the orders were placed at different times or without an Expert Advisor.
Violations can result in account termination and forfeiture of trading rewards.
This provision weakens one of Laamiri’s central arguments. A difference between opening timestamps does not, by itself, establish that Equity Edge applied a rule incorrectly.
Similarly, holding only one account does not necessarily rule out prohibited copying from another person’s account or trading signals. Different lot sizes also do not automatically prove independence because copied strategies can use different position-sizing settings.
Nevertheless, the company’s published wording leaves an important question unanswered: what additional evidence, if any, must accompany an overlapping trade before the firm concludes that prohibited coordination occurred?
The available policy does not specify a minimum number of matching transactions, an acceptable correlation threshold or a required pattern of repeated copying.
Nor does the complaint establish whether the two gold positions were actually open simultaneously. Opening times alone cannot answer that question without the corresponding closing timestamps.
Earlier Prop Trading Disputes Highlight Similar Enforcement Questions
The complaint follows an earlier Equity Edge account-breach dispute involving a processed payout, in which another trader alleged that a withdrawal had been counted toward the account’s loss calculation.
That case involved drawdown accounting rather than copy trading, and neither allegation establishes wrongdoing by the company. Both demonstrate how internal account reviews can produce financially significant outcomes that are difficult to independently reconstruct.
Other proprietary trading companies have faced comparable challenges.
A FundingPips customer previously disputed a copy-trading suspension involving a $10,000 Master Account shortly before a second expected payout. That complaint similarly lacked the complete transaction-correlation evidence needed to establish whether the firm’s determination was correct.
Separately, an Orbit Funded trader challenged a hedge-trading violation after claiming that some flagged trades were separated by 16 and 21 minutes despite a published 15-minute restriction.
Unlike the Orbit case, however, Equity Edge’s policy does not establish a comparable execution-time cutoff that Laamiri can use to demonstrate an obvious contradiction.
One Similar Gold Trade Does Not Automatically Establish Copy Trading
The central problem with detecting copied trades is that similar trading behavior can emerge without any coordination.
Gold is a particularly useful example. Thousands of traders may watch the same support and resistance zones, economic releases and price breakouts. Two independent traders can open positions in the same direction within minutes of each other without exchanging a signal.
If a proprietary trading firm monitors a large population of accounts, some apparently similar trades are inevitable. The larger the number of accounts and trades being compared, the greater the opportunity for coincidental matches.
That creates a potential false-positive problem when enforcement relies heavily on instrument overlap or loosely defined timing relationships.
Laamiri’s claim that one of 46 trades was flagged is relevant, but it does not settle the dispute. A single transaction could provide compelling evidence if investigators also identified shared account access, coordinated instructions or a prohibited signal source.
Conversely, one corresponding XAUUSD position with different entries and risk parameters would be less persuasive if the only evidence were that two unrelated traders happened to hold gold positions around the same time.
The crucial distinction is between detecting similarity and establishing why that similarity occurred.
Manual Execution Records May Not Resolve the Dispute
Laamiri’s reference to mobile execution introduces another technical issue.
A manually placed order differs from one automatically generated by trade-copying software. Execution records may help establish which device or interface submitted a transaction.
But manual execution does not necessarily exclude receiving another trader’s instructions through messaging applications, trading communities or external signal services.
Equity Edge’s policy expressly accounts for that distinction by extending its restrictions beyond automated trading systems.
The stronger evidence would therefore involve the relationship between the two accounts rather than the execution method of one transaction.
Investigators would need to examine whether the positions had the same direction, whether their holding periods overlapped, how closely their entry and exit patterns corresponded and whether the account holders shared identifiable trading signals or other connections.
Those findings could either support the company’s determination or reveal that independent trading activity had been classified too broadly.
Proprietary Trading Firms Need Defensible Payout Reviews
For proprietary trading companies, preventing account sharing and coordinated trading is a legitimate business objective. Simulated trading programs typically condition cash rewards on customers following detailed behavioral restrictions.
However, these firms also control the systems that monitor accounts, interpret potential violations and determine whether accumulated trading rewards will be paid.
That concentration of decision-making authority makes transparent enforcement especially important.
Another recent FunderPro account-closure dispute involving alleged IP sharing highlighted the same challenge: a company may have legitimate reasons to protect its detection systems, while traders need sufficient information to understand and contest adverse decisions.
Equity Edge does not necessarily need to disclose proprietary surveillance algorithms. But explaining which positions overlapped, what specific policy condition was triggered and whether additional evidence supported the finding would make this complaint much easier to assess.
Without that information, outsiders cannot establish whether the rejected payout reflects legitimate enforcement, an overly broad matching rule or an incorrect classification.
For Laamiri’s case, the next meaningful evidence would be the two complete trade histories and Equity Edge’s detailed explanation of the alleged copying relationship.
If those records demonstrate meaningful coordination, the difference in execution times may be largely irrelevant under the firm’s published rules. If they show nothing beyond an isolated similarity between independent gold trades, the reliability of the enforcement decision deserves closer examination.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether Equity Edge can prohibit copy trading. Its rules clearly do. The unresolved question is whether the company can demonstrate that the conduct it penalized actually met the standard it claims to enforce.
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. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574