Proprietary trading firm OFP Funding is facing a fresh cluster of customer complaints involving rejected payouts and disputed Expert Advisor (EA) violations, including an allegation that more than $10,000 in trading rewards was denied after two months of activity.
Several complaints published on Trustpilot on October 13, 2026, describe traders being accused of automated trading despite insisting they placed their orders manually. Another customer claims two funded accounts have remained caught in a payout dispute for 21 days, with requests for supporting evidence going unanswered.
OFP has publicly responded to the allegations, stating that its Risk Team evaluates suspected EA usage using account activity and applicable trading rules. The firm has invited affected customers to submit their account details for further review.
The complaints have not been independently verified, and no publicly available trading logs establish that OFP incorrectly classified the accounts. However, the recurrence of similar allegations raises questions about how the company identifies prohibited automation and what evidence traders receive when a payout is rejected.
Trader Alleges More Than $10,000 Payout Was Rejected After Two Months
One of the most significant October 13 complaints came from a France-based Trustpilot reviewer identified as sam ochin, who alleged that OFP rejected a payout exceeding $10,000 after two months of trading.
The trader said the company attributed the rejection to EA usage, an allegation the reviewer categorically denied.
A separate October 12 review, posted under the name SO, described a similar $10,000-plus rejection after two months and more than 60 trades. Because the descriptions closely resemble one another, it is unclear whether they represent separate cases or repeated accounts of the same dispute.
In its public response to the October 13 complaint, OFP acknowledged the customer’s frustration and explained that allegations involving automated trading are assessed by its Risk Team using account activity and trading rules.
The company encouraged the trader to provide account information so the matter could be examined further. It did not publicly identify the specific transactions, software indicators or execution patterns that reportedly triggered the rejection.
Another October 13 reviewer, Satish Sundaresan, challenged a separate EA-related payout decision under support ticket O3I19S, requesting evidence that automated trading had occurred.
Neither review included independently authenticated platform records demonstrating whether an Expert Advisor was used.
Two Funded Accounts Remain in Dispute After 21 Days, Trader Says
A second dispute involves a Trustpilot reviewer identified as Ching, who reported waiting 21 days for resolution of a rejected payout involving funded accounts 1139685 and 1210590.
The reviewer said requests for evidence supporting the company’s decision had remained unanswered for more than 48 hours and complained that repeated attempts to communicate with support had not produced a satisfactory explanation.
OFP acknowledged the complaint publicly, expressing concern about the delayed response and offering to review the case further. The company asked the customer to provide the relevant account information and registered email address.
The available exchange does not identify the precise trading-rule violation underlying this customer’s payout decision. It therefore cannot be assumed that the case involved an EA allegation.
Nevertheless, the reported 21-day delay contrasts with OFP’s published payout guidance, which states that withdrawals are normally completed within approximately two to three business days after a request, depending on the payment method.
OFP also says payout applications may undergo additional review and that traders can be required to explain their strategies before receiving payment.
The company has not publicly established whether the disputed accounts were awaiting administrative processing, compliance clearance or a final eligibility decision.
Older October Reviews Describe Similar EA-Related Rejections
The latest complaints are not isolated within OFP’s October review history.
On October 9, a Vietnam-based reviewer identified as Quang Trung alleged that the company rejected a $2,810 payout on account 1257299 after accusing the trader of using an Expert Advisor. The reviewer claimed to have executed more than 20 trades manually through a web-based trading interface.
An October 6 complaint from reviewer emiljano kurra described a rejected $5,000 payment following a similar automation allegation. OFP responded that its Risk Team assesses payouts according to trading rules and compliance procedures.
Another customer reported a $5,107 withdrawal being withheld after the company allegedly identified unauthorized EA usage based on overall execution characteristics and trading patterns.
These are separate public allegations, not verified findings of improper payout denials. Their significance lies in the repeated disagreement between the firm’s automation assessments and traders who maintain that they executed orders manually.
The complaints resemble an earlier Alpha Capital Group dispute involving MetaQuotes device identifiers, where traders questioned the technical evidence used to justify account terminations and withheld payouts.
OFP’s Rules Allow Manual Trading but Restrict Automated Strategies
OFP’s published trading documentation provides context for the company’s approach to automated activity.
The firm prohibits high-frequency trading, AI bots, mass-order entry and automated strategies designed to exploit latency or other market inefficiencies.
Its help center also warns that positions opened and closed within unusually short intervals, such as less than one minute, can trigger automated surveillance flags.
OFP recommends keeping most positions open for at least one minute to reduce the possibility of being mistaken for an automated or high-frequency trader. However, the company explicitly describes this as guidance rather than a fixed minimum holding-time requirement.
The distinction matters because rapid execution does not necessarily prove that software placed an order.
OFP also permits discretionary trading styles, including day trading, swing trading, trend following and scalping within normal execution limits.
According to its rules, prohibited strategies can result in immediate account closure, cancellation of pending rewards and, in serious cases, permanent restrictions.
The central question is whether the company’s findings in the disputed cases were based on direct evidence of automated execution or behavioral patterns considered sufficiently suspicious to constitute a rule violation.
What Evidence Can Establish Whether an Expert Advisor Was Used?
The strongest evidence in an EA-related dispute would connect the allegedly prohibited activity to specific transactions.
Depending on the trading platform and available records, investigators could examine order-origin metadata, execution timestamps, session information, trading-terminal logs and recurring order-placement patterns.
An Expert Advisor may leave recognizable execution indicators when operating through supported trading software. However, the available evidence depends on the platform and how orders reach the firm’s servers.
Even highly consistent order timing does not necessarily establish that a trader used unauthorized software. Equally, a customer’s assertion that orders were placed manually does not independently disprove a technical finding.
The same evidentiary problem emerged when FunderPro defended an account-sharing enforcement decision while a Spanish trader challenged the lack of underlying connection records.
For OFP, the useful evidence would include the disputed trade IDs, relevant execution times, the category of automation detected and the contractual provision applied to the account.
Those records would help distinguish genuinely prohibited behavior from legitimate discretionary trading that happened to resemble an automated strategy.
Why Payout-Time Compliance Reviews Create a Trust Problem
The timing of the allegations matters because the disputed decisions reportedly occurred when traders expected to receive money.
In retail proprietary trading, a profitable account does not automatically create an unconditional right to withdraw the displayed gains. The trader generally must satisfy contractual performance and conduct requirements before receiving a reward.
As explained in Dave Finances’ analysis of how prop firms differ from conventional brokers, these arrangements commonly involve simulated trading accounts rather than customer-owned brokerage capital.
That gives compliance reviews substantial influence over whether accumulated performance becomes a cash payment.
There are legitimate reasons for firms to perform checks before paying. Automated challenge passing, account sharing and prohibited strategies can undermine programs intended to assess an individual’s trading ability.
But when enforcement takes place after weeks of profitable trading, a customer may reasonably question why the alleged misconduct was not identified earlier.
A late-stage compliance review is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. The concern arises when a financially consequential decision is difficult for the affected trader to challenge.
False Positives Could Become an Expensive Problem for Prop Firms
Automated monitoring systems must balance two competing risks.
If detection thresholds are too permissive, traders using prohibited software may escape scrutiny. If they are too aggressive, legitimate strategies could be flagged simply because they generate short holding periods, repeated lot sizes or consistent order timing.
That possibility becomes especially relevant for traders following mechanical but manually executed systems.
A discretionary trader might repeatedly enter positions at defined price levels, use identical risk parameters and exit according to strict rules. Such discipline can produce predictable patterns without any automated order placement.
For the firm, the challenge is determining whether that consistency reflects prohibited software or simply a rule-based trading approach.
False positives could create financial and reputational costs, particularly when customers have already invested substantial time building profitable accounts.
Yet the opposite problem also exists: disclosing complete fraud-detection rules could make it easier for dishonest participants to design systems that evade them.
A practical compromise would involve giving traders case-specific evidence without exposing the firm’s entire detection methodology.
Regulators Have Warned About the Uncertainty Surrounding Prop Trading Rewards
The broader issue has already attracted regulatory attention.
Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority warned in March 2024 that consumers participating in retail proprietary trading programs may face uncertainty over whether their simulated performance qualifies for compensation.
In its warning about retail prop trading firms, the regulator highlighted how companies control the conditions governing trading programs and performance-based rewards.
The warning did not concern OFP specifically, nor does it establish any violation by the company.
However, it illustrates why contractual clarity matters when simulated account profits are subject to discretionary compliance decisions.
A related dispute appeared when a FundingPips trader challenged a copy-trading suspension shortly before a second payout. That complaint similarly turned on whether the trader had actually engaged in the prohibited conduct cited by the firm.
OFP’s Trading Records Could Resolve the Payout Allegations
The October 13 complaints leave several questions unanswered.
For the trader alleging a rejected $10,000-plus payout, the decisive evidence would be the specific account activity OFP classified as unauthorized EA usage and whether that activity violated the rules applicable to the account.
For the customer waiting 21 days, the priority is establishing the precise reason for the payout rejection, the status of the review and why requests for evidence allegedly remained unanswered.
OFP’s public replies show that the company acknowledges these disputes and is inviting further examination. They do not disclose the technical basis for the contested decisions or establish that the traders’ allegations are correct.
For prospective customers, this is more than a question about whether OFP pays profitable traders. It concerns whether traders can understand, document and meaningfully challenge the reasons a payout is rejected.
The current evidence does not demonstrate that OFP systematically denies valid payouts or falsely accuses customers of automated trading. It does establish a cluster of publicly disputed decisions involving substantial claimed rewards, repeated EA-related allegations and requests for more detailed explanations.
Whether the cases reflect genuine rule violations, mistaken classifications or separate administrative problems remains unresolved. A substantive explanation supported by account-level evidence would provide a clearer answer than either the allegations or the company’s general assurances alone.
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