A Fusion Markets customer has accused the forex and CFD broker of cancelling $14,659 in profits from six gold trades executed around the November 6 US employment report, despite allegedly receiving advance confirmation that news-event trading was permitted.
The allegations appeared on November 9, 2026, in a Trustpilot review published under the name Svetlana Shakina and in a similar complaint on WikiFX. The customer claims Fusion Markets voided the transactions, restricted her account and blocked a withdrawal after the trades closed profitably.
The two postings describe the same apparent dispute, rather than independent complaints from multiple customers. Neither establishes that Fusion Markets improperly cancelled valid transactions. The broker’s account of the decision and the complete trading records have not been independently verified.
Customer says gold profits were removed after NFP trading
According to Shakina, she contacted Fusion Markets support before opening positions to establish whether trading during major economic announcements was allowed. She alleges that a support representative confirmed news trading was permitted and that leverage on XAUUSD would remain at the selected level, including 1:500.
The representative reportedly warned about wider spreads and slippage but did not identify any prohibition affecting the customer’s intended approach.
On November 6, Shakina says she opened directional gold positions ahead of the US nonfarm payrolls announcement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics release calendar confirms that the October employment report was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time that Friday.
The profits were booked, she says, and then the profits were gone.
Shakina alleges that access to her trading account and client portal was blocked on November 7, while a withdrawal request was placed on hold. On November 9, she says Fusion Markets invalidated all six profitable transactions, removed $14,659 and terminated her account.
She attributes the decision to clause 8.10 of the broker’s Client Services Agreement, claiming Fusion Markets classified her trading as an abusive strategy seeking potentially riskless profit.
The customer disputes that characterisation. She argues that an adverse employment-data reaction could have exhausted her trading capital, meaning the positions still carried substantial downside exposure.
Similar, but separately unverified, allegations have appeared elsewhere. In October, DaveFinances reported that Tickmill customers alleged gold-trading profit adjustments and withdrawal restrictions following the October 2 US employment report. Those cases involved different customers and contractual arrangements and provide no evidence regarding Fusion Markets’ handling of Shakina’s account.
Fusion Markets agreement contains an important clause discrepancy
A review of Fusion Markets’ published contractual documents identifies a detail that could be relevent to the complaint: the clause number cited by the customer appears in an older version of the agreement, while a later version uses different numbering.
The Client Services Agreement for Fusion Markets International Ltd dated April 30, 2025, contains clause 8.10, which addresses execution during abnormal market conditions, news announcements and opening gaps.
It states that certain stop orders may execute at the next available price rather than the requested price. The provision also refers to strategies considered abusive because they seek potential riskless profit.
A later agreement dated December 18, 2025, contains substantially similar wording under clause 9.10.
The paperwork, here, is where things get less neat.
The publicly available complaint does not establish which agreement version governed Shakina’s account or whether the broker’s alleged decision referred to the older numbering. The same contractual language appears in both documents, so the discrepancy alone does not establish an error in the broker’s decision.
There is another question concerning the contractual basis for the alleged reversal. The riskless-profit provision primarily addresses order execution and abusive strategies. It does not, by itself, provide a detailed procedure for retrospectively removing all profits from completed transactions.
Other provisions in the published agreements address different circumstances. The April 2025 document’s clause 8.9 permits transaction amendments or cancellations following manifest pricing errors, while clause 13.2 addresses cancellation powers in cases of suspected market abuse.
Determining whether any of those provisions justified the alleged $14,659 adjustment would require the broker’s specific explanation and the transaction-level evidence.
A previous Ultima Markets dispute involving $4,699 in removed trading profits raised a related contractual issue. That case also concerned whether a broker could identify the precise transactions and conduct underlying its decision, rather than relying on a general reference to prohibited strategies.
Leverage and negative-balance protection remain unresolved
The reported leverage of 1:500 introduces another unresolved element.
Fusion Markets operates under several legal and regulatory arrangements, including entities associated with the Seychelles Financial Services Authority, the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission and Australia’s ASIC.
Those entities do not necessarily provide identical trading conditions, leverage limits or customer protections. The public complaint does not identify which legal entity held Shakina’s account.
And the leverage number alone, even at 1:500, tells only part of it.
The customer’s account suggests Fusion Markets considered the potential downside exposure beyond her account equity when assessing the strategy. Whether a negative-balance protection arrangement applied, and on what terms, has not been independently established.
Such protection, where applicable, can limit a client’s liability beyond deposited funds without eliminating the possibility of losing the entire account balance. It also does not automatically determine whether a trading strategy complies with a broker’s contractual restrictions.
Similarly, Shakina’s questions about whether Fusion Markets internalised her transactions or transmitted them to external liquidity providers remain unsupported. The available complaint does not contain independantly verified execution or hedging records capable of establishing how the broker managed those positions.
Dispute depends on trading records and broker explanation
The customer’s allegations contain specific dates, a defined number of transactions, an identified financial amount and a contractual reference. She also says she has filed a formal complaint.
Yet several elements remain unconfirmed: the authenticity and full context of the support conversations, the opening and closing prices of all six trades, the applicable account agreement, the reason for the alleged withdrawal restriction and the precise justification for any profit adjustment.
A support confirmation that news trading is permitted would not necessarily authorise every execution strategy used during an announcement. The relevant question is whether the six transactions involved conduct expressly prohibited under the agreement applicable to the account.
The distinction also extends to the alleged withdrawal hold. DaveFinances previously covered a FreshForex complaint involving a disabled withdrawal function following profitable NFP trading. That report likewise could not establish from the customer’s account alone why the restriction occurred.
For the Fusion Markets dispute, authenticated order histories, the broker’s written decision and the customer’s applicable terms would provide a seperate basis for assessing the competing positions.
The records are the missing part, really, and the explanation that should sit alongside them.
As of November 9, no case-specific public response from Fusion Markets was visible alongside Shakina’s Trustpilot complaint. The customer says she intends to update her review when the dispute is resolved.
Until the underlying documentation or a substantiated company response becomes availble, the $14,659 figure remains a customer-reported profit cancellation, not an independently established financial loss resulting from broker misconduct.
Johan Shamshad is Editor-in-Chief at Dave Finances, covering financial markets, digital assets, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, payments and regulation. Since 2023, he has also worked as an editor at Gulf News, the UAE English-language newspaper published by Al Nisr Publishing LLC. His work focuses on market-moving developments, company disclosures, regulatory changes and trading infrastructure, with an emphasis on primary-source verification and practical context for traders and investors.