Alpha Capital Group is facing a fresh customer complaint after an Indian trader alleged that the proprietary trading firm restricted or terminated his account and withheld a payout because his internet connection matched those used by other traders at a physical trading academy.
The complaint, published on Trustpilot on October 25, 2026, comes from Shabeeb Thachaparamban, who says he works as a mentor at a trading academy where instructors and students connect through the same Wi-Fi network while operating their own trading accounts.
Thachaparamban disputes Alpha Capital Group’s alleged conclusion that overlapping IP addresses indicated prohibited third-party account management. He also claims the firm had previously approved payouts during periods when the same shared-network arrangements existed.
However, Alpha Capital Group’s published rules explicitly prohibit multiple users from operating accounts through the same public IP address, with a limited exception for household members who notify the firm in advance. The policy does not identify trading academies or coworking environments as permitted exceptions.
The distinction is important because the customer’s explanation of legitimate shared Wi-Fi usage does not necessarily establish compliance with the firm’s contractual restrictions.
Trader Says Previous Payouts Were Approved Despite IP Overlaps
In his October 25 review, Thachaparamban said he operates from a physical trading academy where multiple students and mentors use a common internet connection.
He maintained that the overlapping IP addresses arose naturally from the shared network rather than from account sharing, coordinated trading or third-party management.
According to the complaint, he personally analyzed, executed and managed every trade on his account, using his own trading strategy and risk-management parameters.
The reviewer challenged what he described as Alpha Capital Group’s decision to treat the overlapping network addresses as evidence that another person had operated his account.
His central allegation concerns the timing of the enforcement action.
Thachaparamban claims the shared-IP activity extended over a considerable period and that Alpha Capital Group had approved previous payouts while those conditions existed.
He questioned why the firm would identify the same network arrangement as a violation only when another substantial payout was due.
However, the reviewer did not disclose the amount of the disputed payout, identify the affected trading account or publish independently verifiable records of the earlier payments.
The complaint also does not establish whether Alpha Capital Group knew about the academy’s shared-network arrangement when it approved the previous withdrawals.
Thachaparamban requested a manual review of his trading records, device identifiers and risk parameters, arguing that those records would demonstrate independent account operation.
No case-specific public response from Alpha Capital Group resolving the October 25 allegations was identified in the material reviewed.
Alpha Capital’s Published IP Policy Does Not Exempt Academies
Alpha Capital Group’s official IP, VPN and VPS policy provides a significant qualification to the trader’s account.
The firm states that multiple users are not permitted to operate trading accounts through the same IP address. Its rules also prohibit attempts to conceal IP information or trading activity.
The published policy allows separate members of the same household to share an internet connection, provided they are genuinely different individuals, remain within applicable account-allocation limits and notify customer support before using the shared IP.
That notification must identify the relevant accounts and explain the relationship between their owners.
The policy does not expressly extend this exception to commercial trading academies, educational facilities or coworking spaces.
Alpha Capital Group separately permits VPNs and virtual private servers, but requires a dedicated static IP address and advance notification to its support team.
Unreported shared-IP usage can result in account closure or a potential permanent ban under the published rules.
Consequently, the key question is not simply whether Thachaparamban personally executed his trades. It is also whether the shared academy connection was authorized under the terms applicable to his account.
The public complaint does not establish whether he notified Alpha Capital Group about the academy network before trading, obtained an exception or received assurances from support staff.
Nor does it establish whether the currently published wording was identical to the contractual policy in force throughout the disputed trading period.
Previous Alpha Capital Complaints Involved Device-ID Enforcement
The October 25 allegation follows several other complaints concerning Alpha Capital Group’s account-monitoring systems, although the underlying technical issues are not identical.
Earlier in October, Dave Finances reported on Alpha Capital’s MetaQuotes device-ID complaints, including allegations that accounts were terminated around payout dates after their device identifiers were associated with other customers.
Those disputes involved Client/Device IDs, commonly known as CIDs, rather than necessarily relying on shared public IP addresses.
Another customer alleged that the firm used newly introduced capabilities to examine historical account relationships, raising questions about retrospective device-ID checks and their application to previously completed trading activity.
Neither those earlier complaints nor the latest academy Wi-Fi allegation establishes that Alpha Capital Group’s monitoring systems generated incorrect findings.
However, the cases demonstrate how technical account-linking evidence can become central to decisions affecting funded accounts and performance rewards.
Shared Wi-Fi Creates Two Different Compliance Questions
The important distinction in Thachaparamban’s complaint is between identifying a common internet connection and establishing that one person operated multiple trading accounts.
Many offices, schools and trading academies use network address translation, allowing separate computers and phones to connect to external services through the same public IP address.
That configuration does not mean users share devices, passwords or trading decisions.
However, a firm can impose a contractual prohibition on shared-IP usage regardless of whether that arrangement proves account management.
If Alpha Capital Group’s decision was based solely on an unauthorized shared connection, evidence of independent trading might not eliminate the underlying policy violation.
If the company instead concluded that Thachaparamban was operating other customers’ accounts, additional evidence would be important to establish that more serious allegation.
The distinction resembles an earlier FunderPro IP-sharing dispute, in which a trader challenged the interpretation of network information while the firm maintained that its compliance assessment relied on broader indicators.
Relevant evidence could include exact IP matches, login timestamps, device identifiers, overlapping account sessions and trading-execution patterns.
Even then, the records would need to be interpreted carefully. Matching network addresses can identify a connection between accounts without identifying who placed a particular trade.
Do Previous Approved Payouts Change the Compliance Picture?
Thachaparamban’s strongest unresolved argument concerns earlier approved withdrawals.
If Alpha Capital Group processed payouts while the same IP overlaps were present, it raises a legitimate question about when the firm detected the activity and what it knew at the time.
There are several possible explanations.
The firm may have performed more extensive account checks during the latest payout review. It may have introduced better detection capabilities, or previous reviews may simply have failed to identify a condition that its rules already prohibited.
None of those possibilities has been established in this case.
Earlier payout approval also does not automatically invalidate a subsequent compliance decision. A trading company may identify an existing violation during a later investigation without having changed the underlying rules.
A comparable timing dispute emerged when Trade the Pool rejected a $50,000 payout after allegedly identifying historical trading activity that predated earlier approved withdrawals.
In that case, the firm publicly defended its practice of reviewing complete trading histories during payout assessments.
The larger concern is whether proprietary trading companies explain their review procedures sufficiently for customers to understand when eligibility can be reconsidered.
Repeated approvals may reasonably create an expectation that an account is operating acceptably. But that expectation is not necessarily equivalent to formal authorization of a particular network setup.
What Evidence Could Resolve the Academy Wi-Fi Dispute?
The October 25 complaint raises several questions that could materially change how the dispute is understood.
First, did Alpha Capital Group identify identical public IP addresses, shared device identifiers or a combination of technical signals?
Second, was the academy’s shared network disclosed to the company before the disputed trading activity?
Third, did the firm previously review the same IP overlaps before approving payouts, or were those earlier payments processed without detecting the connections?
Fourth, was the enforcement decision based on violating the shared-IP rule itself or on a separate allegation of unauthorized account management?
These distinctions would determine which evidence is most relevant to any appeal.
Network logs and historical payout records could clarify the timeline, while account-level access records and execution histories could help establish whether prohibited third-party operation occurred.
For traders, the case offers a practical reminder that legitimate use of a shared workplace or educational network can still breach a proprietary firm’s published access restrictions.
For Alpha Capital Group, a case-specific explanation distinguishing a shared-IP violation from an accusation of third-party account management would help clarify the basis for its decision.
Until the relevant records or a substantive company response emerge, neither the trader’s allegation of unfair enforcement nor the firm’s reported compliance finding can be independently established as correct.
The wider issue is whether prop firms can apply increasingly sophisticated monitoring controls consistently while providing traders with a meaningful opportunity to challenge findings that affect their accounts and potential payouts.
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