Chinesefn.com ChineseInvestors.com Fraudulent Binary Option service, ate investors deposit $5000 Arcadia California

ChineseInvestors.COM, Inc. was found to not be liable for the claims as presented by the complaintants by the Court after the hearing on April 20, 2015.

In this persons position they state that CIIX employees contacted him when in fact, the person he opened the account with was not a CIIX employee in Shanghai but rather an employee of KrisWorld by the name of Stan.  This complaintant now admits to opening the account wherein he also recieved an account bonus of $2,500 as well as an IPAD as a part of the KrisWorld incentive program.  Once again, not a CIIX employee (Stan), an account opened and traded for many months by this individual, an account bonus deposit as well as an IPAD incentive provided by KrisWorld.

This clearly shows we are not fiduciaries for either party and not responsible for this persons complaint months after opening the account and accepting the TOS as well as benefits provided by KrisWorld.

While we have provided substantial information related to our involvement with KrisWorld the complaintant has yet to provide us with any proof that we opened or somehow have a fiduciary responsibility for his actions.

This person has also claimed we (CIIX) are under investigation by the FBI which is clearly false as that entity would have notified us or sent us an additional subpoena or request for information which we clearly have not gotten and it has been two and one half years since this person claims to have been harmed.

We have disclosed our cooperation with an SEC investigation as well and to our knowledge, CIIX is not under investigation now or in the past.

We beleive our position (documented) will be clearly communicated with the small claims court and we will prevail based upon facts, not conjecture and fabrications.

The individual claiming we coerced or somehow pressured him/her to open an account with a group that engaged us for support is patently false.  We (ChineseInvestors.COM) never handled these funds ($5,000), had access to this account, or had any other fiduciary responsibility as it related to this decision to open the account in August of 2012.  If they were dissatisfied, why did they wait until almost a year later to lodge a complaint against our firm for this decision to open an account?  The company has fully disclosed in its quarterly and annual reports this engagement for services as well as our decision to discontinue such client support for the entity in March of 2013 well ahead of the report this person notes in his complaint timeline for reasons related to the Krisworld organization's failure to provide responses to or support for their clients, not our clients.

It is amazing to me that based upon the timeline this person provides they took so long to complain about this decision to trade in such options.  We did not force them to open and account; we did not handle thier funds; we relayed complaints to Krisworld Tesam; and we absolutely deny any allegations of any wrong doing noting we provided this person with information and correspondence related to our cooperation with an SEC investigation related to the industry over a year and a half ago.

Of course the complaint make no mention of the activity this person engaged in of their own will and volition during the interim time period or ten months.  It would seem to me if this person had any problem with this service they would have spoken out long before reading an article ten months after opening the account and somehow then deciding the last ten months somehow does not count.  I would suspect their participation and selection of trading options likely caused them to loose money and we are somehow responsible for such decisions they made after ten months?

We recently appeared in small claims court to defend our position and due to a date conflict, were unable to make the hearing on the 26th of January but the judges order called for a 30 day deferral of juedgement and we have subsequently filed for a follow up hearing where the facts (as provided to this person) can be presented (after appearing on the 28th at the Court which was the date we noted for the hearings delay - our honest mistake).

We have never handled this persons funds as they deposited them with this entity and do not take responsibility for any actions they may have subsequently taken wherein they caused their own losses.  Ten months according to their notations and over two years for them to finally take us to small claims court for a decision they made noting they signed the terms of service agreement in order to open the account they themselves traded almost three years ago?

Would that we could all sue someone for our own unfortunate decisions ... they opened the account, they signed the terms of service agreement, they deposited funds, they traded options, and somehow we are to blame?

I opened account in Aug 2012.  Sales people from chinesefn.com get my credit card info and sold to some overseas company called (Charge XP Investments) without my authorization. Not only about this, optionworld data doesnt matching the real time data! In the end I loss all my $5000! 

optionworld.com isn't exsiting any more. why? Chinesefn.com must know the real reason! WHY YOU SELL THIS TO OUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANY DUE DELIGENCE? MR. WARREN WANG AND MR.Brett Roper 

CHECK OUT OTHER POST REGARDING ON YOUR CLAIM:

ripoffreport.com/r/Option-World/internet/Option-World-Binary-Options-Xposed-I-first-came-across-Binary-Options-Xposed-while-looki-915506

ripoffreport.com/r/option-worldcom/internet/option-worldcom-Option-World-is-owned-and-operated-by-ChargeXP-Investments-Ltd-Cyprus-914382

We, an old lady and myself, won the case in the LA small claim court on Jan 26, 2015. Each plaintiff will collect $5000 from the CIIX. The evidence is convincing and the judge is with us.

1. Credit card fraud. Without our permission, CIIX took our credit card and gave it to a company “ChargeXP investment in Cyprus, which is an on-line gambling company. SEC Maryland already had an investigation, conclusion and sanction against ChargeXP in 2012.

1. Fraudulent service. The so called “Binary option” service provided by CIIX was managed by a Cyprus online gambling company. Neither CIIX nor this Cyprus Company have license of binary option in the USA. It is violations of the Securities Act 11-401, 11-301 and 11-302.

1. The affiliate agreement between CIIX and the Cyprus company, provided by the CIIX attorney, shows that CIIX could receive 30-50% commission from clients deposit.  Isn’t this ripoff fraud?

All these evidence are sent to SEC again and FBI as well. We don’t fight for ourselves. We also fight for other dozens victims. We will win again in the next hearing.

The individual claiming we coerced or somehow pressured him/her to open an account with a group that engaged us for support is patently false.  We (ChineseInvestors.COM) never handled these funds ($5,000), had access to this account, or had any other fiduciary responsibility as it related to this decision to open the account in August of 2012.  If they were dissatisfied, why did they wait until almost a year later to lodge a complaint against our firm for this decision to open an account?  The company has fully disclosed in its quarterly and annual reports this engagement for services as well as our decision to discontinue such client support for the entity in March of 2013 well ahead of the report this person notes in his complaint timeline for reasons related to the Krisworld organization's failure to provide responses to or support for their clients, not our clients.

It is amazing to me that based upon the timeline this person provides they took so long to complain about this decision to trade in such options.  We did not force them to open and account; we did not handle thier funds; we relayed complaints to Krisworld Tesam; and we absolutely deny any allegations of any wrong doing noting we provided this person with information and correspondence related to our cooperation with an SEC investigation related to the industry over a year and a half ago.

Of course the complaint make no mention of the activity this person engaged in of their own will and volition during the interim time period or ten months.  It would seem to me if this person had any problem with this service they would have spoken out long before reading an article ten months after opening the account and somehow then deciding the last ten months somehow does not count.  I would suspect their participation and selection of trading options likely caused them to loose money and we are somehow responsible for such decisions they made after ten months?

We recently appeared in small claims court to defend our position and due to a date conflict, were unable to make the hearing on the 26th of January but the judges order called for a 30 day deferral of juedgement and we have subsequently filed for a follow up hearing where the facts (as provided to this person) can be presented (after appearing on the 28th at the Court which was the date we noted for the hearings delay - our honest mistake).

We have never handled this persons funds as they deposited them with this entity and do not take responsibility for any actions they may have subsequently taken wherein they caused their own losses.  Ten months according to their notations and over two years for them to finally take us to small claims court for a decision they made noting they signed the terms of service agreement in order to open the account they themselves traded almost three years ago?

Would that we could all sue someone for our own unfortunate decisions ... they opened the account, they signed the terms of service agreement, they deposited funds, they traded options, and somehow we are to blame?