Today’s prop firm and broker roundup covers an Instant Funding trader who says a profitable account was closed following a disputed 1% risk-rule breach, alongside allegations of six charges for a single account purchase. Separately, RaiseFX has acknowledged restricting a customer’s account containing approximately €2,001.81 after identifying a disputed deposit during a compliance review. The complaints raise different questions about trading-rule enforcement, payment reconciliation and the conditions governing access to customer balances.
Instant Funding trader challenges account closure and payout
An Instant Funding customer has renewed allegations that the proprietary trading firm terminated a profitable account following a disputed risk-rule violation, with a November 5 update stating that the case had been closed without reinstatement or payment.
The trader, identified as Adil Benz on Trustpilot, said the dispute involved Instant Funding’s 1% risk-per-trade rule and previous stop-loss executions that allegedly produced losses beyond his intended exposure.
According to the customer, the execution problems had already been discussed with the firm’s support team. In a subsequent revision of his complaint, he reported receiving $100 in compensation related to the stop-loss incidents, but said the account was nevertheless classified as breached under the same risk restriction.
The trader also claimed that the account remained profitable when it was terminated and that the disputed withdrawal would have been his first successful payout from that account. He referred to a previous rejected payout but did not disclose the amount involved in either request.
The account was in profit, he says, but the final decision still left him with no payout.
Instant Funding’s published trading rules specify a 1% risk-per-trade-idea limit for certain IF Micro programs. Positions on the same instrument and in the same direction are assessed together, while closing and reopening a trade within 10 minutes can also count toward the same risk calculation.
The firm’s risk documentation further states that stop-loss orders limit intended risk rather than guarantee execution at the selected price. Slippage during volatile or illiquid market conditions can therefore produce a breach even when the trader initially placed a stop loss within the permitted threshold.
That creates a more specific disagreement than a simple challenge to the existence of the rule. The customer alleges that earlier execution problems were acknowledged and partly compensated, yet the later account decision was not reversed.
There is still the question of what the execution records actually show.
Neither the complete order logs nor the risk team’s final calculations have been independently verified. The public material also does not establish whether the earlier compensation covered precisely the trades subsequently used to justify termination.
The dispute resembles previous prop firm account-breach complaints in which customers challenged how trading platforms calculated losses and enforced drawdown restrictions. In the Equity Edge case reported in October, a trader alleged that a payout was treated as a loss before an account breach.
Instant Funding confirms five refunds after six charges
The same Instant Funding customer separately alleged that the firm’s purchasing system charged his payment card $630 when he intended to purchase one account costing $105.
According to his complaint, six transactions were processed instead of one, creating an additional $525 in charges. He said the problem began on October 23 and claimed it was the second time he had encountered multiple deductions through the firm’s payment system.
Instant Funding publicly confirmed that it had processed full refunds for five transactions and said the relevant transaction identifiers had been provided to the customer.
The firm maintained that it had not deducted refund fees or withheld any part of the refunded amounts. It attributed the remaining difference reported by the customer to possible currency-conversion rates or additional charges applied by his bank or payment provider.
The customer disputed that explanation, arguing that he should not bear additional costs arising from transactions he had not intended to authorize.
Five refunds were processed, the firm says, but the customer still disputes the money recieved.
The underlying card statements, refund reciepts and settlement-currency details have not been made available for independent examination. Those records would establish whether the reported shortfall resulted from exchange-rate differences, bank charges or incomplete payment reversals.
The billing dispute is seperate from the account-termination allegation. Instant Funding’s response addresses the five refunds but does not provide a case-specific public explanation reconciling the earlier stop-loss compensation with the later breach decision.
Other firms have faced similar disputes over account restrictions and rejected payouts, although those cases involved different trading rules and circumstances. The current allegations against Instant Funding remain unverified beyond the company’s acknowledgement that five refunds were processed.
RaiseFX confirms account restriction over disputed deposit
RaiseFX has publicly acknowledged restricting a customer’s trading account after identifying a chargeback involving a previously credited deposit, providing a new explanation for a complaint concerning approximately €2,001.81 in inaccessible funds.
The original French-language complaint was published on October 29 by a customer identified as Rayan William, who alleged that his account displayed a balance of €2,001.81 but that he could no longer access it normally to trade or withdraw money.
In its response, identified on November 5, RaiseFX said a compliance review had detected a payment dispute relating to a deposit previously credited to the customer’s trading account.
The broker stated that its security and compliance procedures required restrictions on account access and fund availability while the disputed transaction underwent verification.
RaiseFX also said it had emailed the customer explaining the decision and the procedure for challenging it. The company declined to disclose account-specific information publicly, citing confidentiality, and directed the customer to continue communicating with its compliance department.
The balance remains disputed, and the broker’s response gives no release date.
RaiseFX did not identify the amount of the chargeback, whether the payment dispute covered the entire €2,001.81 balance or what conditions would allow undisputed funds to be withdrawn.
A chargeback is a payment-dispute mechanism through which a cardholder may seek reversal of a transaction through their bank or card network. France’s consumer-protection authority, the DGCCRF, explains in its official guidance on chargebacks that the procedure is generally governed by the contractual terms of the relevant payment-card scheme.
The existence of a chargeback can give a broker grounds to investigate a deposit previously credited to an account. The public response alone does not establish whether the transaction was ultimately reversed, whether the customer initiated the dispute or whether restricting the entire displayed balance was contractually justified.
DaveFinances previously examined RaiseFX withdrawal complaints in September, including a separate case where the broker acknowledged additional bank-account verification checks. The November dispute has a different stated cause: an identified payment challenge rather than a routine withdrawal-validation delay.
For RaiseFX, the unresolved facts concern the chargeback amount, the status of the underlying bank dispute and the conditions for restoring account access. Instant Funding’s dispute instead depends on whether its execution records support the risk-rule breach and whether the customer’s outstanding payment differences have been fully reconciled.
Neither company’s public response supplies all the transaction-level evidence needed to settle the respective disagreements. The customer claims are documented, and the companies have responded to specific elements, but the legitimacy of the contested account decisions has not been independantly established.
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