Alpha Capital Group is facing another round of customer complaints over its device-identification monitoring after a Malaysian trader alleged that the proprietary trading firm terminated his funded accounts and withheld a pending payout based on connections between 255 device identifiers and 153 other users.
The complaint, published on Trustpilot on October 15, 2026, introduces unusually large figures into an ongoing dispute over how Alpha Capital Group uses Client/Device IDs (CIDs) to identify suspected account sharing, third-party trading and coordinated account management.
Two additional complaints published the same day describe similar device-matching allegations but different enforcement outcomes. While some customers say their accounts were terminated and payouts rejected, another trader published purported correspondence indicating that existing accounts would remain active and eligible for payments despite a ban on future purchases.
The allegations have not been independently verified, and the available evidence does not establish whether Alpha Capital Group’s device-matching conclusions were accurate or whether the affected customers violated its trading rules.
Malaysian Trader Questions 255 Device Identifiers Linked to 153 Users
The most detailed October 15 complaint came from Zheng Wei, a Malaysia-based trader who said Alpha Capital Group issued a breach notice claiming that 255 device identifiers associated with his trading accounts had also been used by 153 other customers.
According to Zheng, the firm relied on those associations to terminate his accounts and withhold an outstanding performance payout.
He disputes the conclusion, saying he accessed his trading accounts exclusively through his personal iPhone and two laptops using the installed MetaTrader 5 application.
Zheng said he had never knowingly shared account credentials or allowed another person to trade on his behalf. He also reported submitting photographs of his devices and filing a formal appeal requesting a technical review.
The complaint raises an important technical question: how could three physical devices allegedly produce or become associated with 255 identifiers connected to 153 other users?
The public review does not include the underlying device logs, the actual CID values, the time periods covered or an authenticated copy of the breach notice. Consequently, it remains unclear whether the reported figure represents distinct physical devices, historical identifiers, repeated platform installations or another category of records within the firm’s monitoring system.
The amount of Zheng’s pending payout was not disclosed.
Two More October 15 Reviews Describe Different CID Enforcement Outcomes
A separate complaint from South African trader Thabiso alleged that Alpha Capital Group identified connections between his trading account and eight other accounts.
Thabiso questioned how those associations could have occurred and criticized the firm for raising the issue after he had recovered his trading-program expenses.
The review did not provide the underlying device identifiers, account-access history or a detailed explanation of the final enforcement decision.
Another reviewer, Mohamed Atef Rouine, based in the United Arab Emirates, published what he described as correspondence from Alpha Capital Group’s risk department after submitting two payout requests.
The purported message stated that overlapping MetaQuotes CIDs had been detected across accounts belonging to different customers. It described those matches as indications of shared devices and potential third-party account management.
However, the reported response outlined a narrower restriction than the consequences described by Zheng.
According to the correspondence, Rouine would no longer be permitted to purchase new accounts, but any existing active accounts would remain available for trading and eligible for payouts.
The message reportedly stated that the decision would not be overturned.
Neither the correspondence nor the specific device associations have been independently authenticated. Still, the distinction between account termination and a prohibition on future purchases introduces a new question about the firm’s enforcement criteria.
Earlier Alpha Capital Complaints Challenged Historical Device Matching
The latest reports follow several complaints published between October 12 and 14 involving account closures, disputed performance payments and alleged overlapping device identifiers.
Dave Finances previously reported on an Alpha Capital trader’s retrospective device-ID dispute, in which a UK customer alleged that historical records were used to justify account termination after a payout request.
That trader, identified as Lucy, claimed the firm examined device relationships extending beyond her current account activity. Other customers described similar disputes involving alleged connections to multiple trading profiles.
An Austrian trader, Matthias Hemetsberger, separately alleged that Alpha Capital Group rejected a $4,978.26 payout and terminated his account following a CID-related finding.
These cases involve different traders and potentially different underlying circumstances. Their appearance within several days does not prove a coordinated enforcement campaign or systematic errors in the firm’s monitoring technology.
However, the repeated complaints identify a common point of disagreement: traders are challenging whether the technical evidence demonstrates that they personally engaged in prohibited activity.
Alpha Capital Rules Prohibit Account Sharing and Third-Party Management
Alpha Capital Group’s published policies prohibit group trading, unauthorized signal following and third-party account management. Trading activity must be conducted by the individual registered as the account holder.
The firm’s guidance also restricts shared account access and requires advance notification for certain VPN and virtual private server arrangements.
These rules are intended to prevent customers from outsourcing evaluations, operating accounts for other individuals or coordinating trading activity in ways that undermine the firm’s assessment process.
Alpha Capital Group has previously defended its CID monitoring in public review responses, stating that matching identifiers across customer accounts can establish violations of its device-sharing restrictions.
However, its publicly available guidance does not fully explain how historical identifiers are counted, what additional evidence is required to confirm prohibited conduct or why apparently similar findings may produce different account restrictions.
A related dispute involving FunderPro’s account-sharing investigation also highlighted the difficulty of distinguishing suspicious technical connections from legitimate customer activity.
Why 255 Device Identifiers Require a Technical Explanation
The central issue in Zheng’s complaint is not simply the number of matching identifiers. It is what those identifiers actually represent.
A CID is intended to help identify a trading environment or device, but the exact method used to generate and retain the identifier matters when interpreting historical matches.
For example, investigators need to establish whether an identifier reliably represents one physical machine across software updates and reinstallations, whether virtualized trading environments affect the records, and whether matching values indicate simultaneous use or access occurring years apart.
Those possibilities should not be treated as explanations for Zheng’s specific case without the relevant technical evidence.
A public discussion on MetaQuotes’ MQL5 forum on October 9 raised similar questions about CID uniqueness, historical changes and possible collisions. The discussion did not produce an authoritative technical confirmation that matching identifiers always prove access from the same physical device.
The numbers reported by Zheng therefore cannot independently establish that 153 other traders used his personal devices. Nor do they establish that Alpha Capital Group’s conclusions were incorrect.
Different CID Penalties Raise Questions About Enforcement Consistency
The contrasting October 15 complaints introduce another problem for Alpha Capital Group: explaining why device-sharing findings apparently result in different penalties.
There may be legitimate reasons. A compliance department might distinguish between an isolated historical association, repeated unauthorized access, evidence of coordinated trading or a more serious pattern involving account management services.
But those distinctions are not visible in the public allegations.
If one customer loses funded accounts and a pending payout while another retains trading access despite overlapping identifiers, traders need to understand which additional factors determine the outcome.
This is particularly important in proprietary trading programs, where a firm’s compliance decision can determine whether simulated trading profits become payable performance rewards.
The Belgian financial regulator’s warning about retail prop trading previously highlighted the uncertainty customers can face over payment eligibility because firms control their own trading and compensation conditions.
The regulator’s warning was industry-wide and did not concern Alpha Capital Group specifically.
Compliance Reviews Need Evidence Traders Can Meaningfully Challenge
Alpha Capital Group has legitimate reasons to monitor suspicious device relationships. Without effective controls, traders could potentially purchase multiple evaluations, outsource their completion or use coordinated strategies to circumvent program restrictions.
However, a monitoring system is only as reliable as the evidence it produces and the procedures used to interpret that evidence.
A historical CID association might justify further investigation without necessarily proving which individual operated an account or whether prohibited conduct occurred.
Publishing complete detection algorithms would create obvious risks, potentially helping dishonest traders evade monitoring. But firms can provide useful case-specific explanations without exposing another customer’s private information.
That could include relevant access dates, the number of distinct identifiers involved, whether matches were simultaneous or historical, and whether other indicators supported the account-sharing conclusion.
Similar concerns have emerged in GOAT Funded Trader’s disputed payout decisions, where customers questioned how apparently similar trading activity could lead to different enforcement outcomes.
For Alpha Capital Group, the next meaningful development would be a technical explanation of the 255 identifiers reported by Zheng and clarification of the standards determining when CID findings lead to account closure, withheld payouts or restrictions on future purchases.
Until the underlying records and appeal outcomes become available, the October 15 complaints remain unresolved allegations. Nevertheless, they illustrate a growing challenge for retail prop firms: maintaining strong fraud detection while ensuring legitimate customers have a credible way to understand and contest decisions that carry financial consequences.
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