Blackrock Review

Our review of Blackrock began with a comprehensive cross-check of regulatory registers, user feedback across multiple platforms, and industry databases that track broker complaints and clone activity. We examined the four licences the broker claims to hold—each one searched against the official public records of the issuing authority. We also combed through 71 Trustpilot reviews, paying close attention to the concrete, real-world experiences traders described. In parallel, we analysed the broker’s own marketing statements and compared them with the data points that could be independently verified.

The investigation turned up two clone websites, 12 withdrawal-related complaints, and a Trustpilot rating of 1.9 out of 5. Importantly, we discovered that the registration details the broker uses match the legitimate licenses of a completely different, unrelated financial giant—a common tactic among impersonation scams. This evidence forms the backbone of our assessment.

Blackrock was founded on 20 September 2017 and lists its base as Hong Kong. Its legal name is simply ‘Blackrock’, with no additional corporate identifier that might distinguish it from the well-known US-based BlackRock Inc. While the broker’s own description boasts over 19,000 employees speaking 135 languages across 42 countries, regulatory filings examined by our team show an employee count of zero. Such a fundamental inconsistency is a classic hallmark of a shell or clone operation.

Publicly, the entity tries to borrow prestige from the global asset management giant. It claims to serve ‘individuals and families, financial advisors, educational and non-profit organisations, pension plans, insurance companies, and governments.’ Yet it provides no verifiable physical address, telephone number, or evidence of its supposed global footprint. The two clone sites we identified—domains that mirrored the broker’s look and feel—indicate that fraudsters are actively exploiting this confusion to target potential victims.

The broker’s regulatory profile initially seems reassuring, with four licences from major regulators: SFC (Hong Kong), FCA (United Kingdom), ASIC (Australia), and MAS (Singapore). Each is listed as ‘Regulated’ in industry databases. However, our direct verification tells a different story.

The SFC licence number AFF275 is indeed a real registration, but the name it’s associated with in official records bears no connection to the retail forex or CFD brokerage being reviewed. Similarly, FCA number 178638 belongs to ‘BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited’—a legitimate fund manager, not a forex dealer. ASIC licence 000230523 is held by ‘BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited’, once again a separate entity. The MAS licence number is not even disclosed publicly by the broker and returns no results on the MAS register for any entity operating under the name ‘Blackrock’ as described.

This pattern suggests the broker is fraudulently using the regulatory credentials of unrelated, well-established firms to create a veneer of legitimacy. In practice, retail clients would enjoy none of the protections that genuine regulation under these authorities would afford—no Financial Ombudsman Service access, no Financial Services Compensation Scheme coverage, and no investor insurance.

For an entity that claims to be a global fintech leader, Blackrock discloses shockingly little about its actual trading services. There is no mention of account types, minimum deposits, leverage, or even the trading platforms on offer. Our review found no downloadable product schedules, no fee lists, and no information about the instruments traders can speculate on—whether forex, stocks, commodities, or cryptocurrencies.

This opacity is a major warning sign. Legitimate brokers invest heavily in educating potential clients about what they offer; scammers, by contrast, benefit from ambiguity because it makes their promises harder to pin down. Without transparent trading conditions, any funds deposited are at the mercy of a completely unknown set of rules.

Perhaps the most damning evidence comes from the experience of actual or would-be clients. Our review identified 12 distinct withdrawal complaints, and user forums are littered with accounts of being blocked from their funds. One reviewer writes: ‘I invested £2,900, and my investment dropped to £2,600 in just one month. … To make matters worse, I can only withdraw…’ Another shares: ‘Blackrock Crypto investing is a scam. … they will not let you access your funds and will collect tax money from.’ A third describes a Discord-based recruitment in which they were tricked into sending 15.76 ADA to a wallet, only to be ghosted thereafter.

These stories have a grim consistency: promises of high returns, often through cryptocurrency, lured by someone the victim met online. Once the deposit is made, communication evaporates, and any attempt to retrieve the money hits a wall of silence or demands for extra fees. The funding process itself appears centered on crypto wallets, which provides a near-anonymous payment trail that is almost impossible to reverse.

With 14 negative mentions versus 3 positive, customer support is one of the broker’s most-criticised areas. Users report being trapped in ‘an endless loop of robots’ with no path to a human agent. The few positive comments refer to staff named ‘Angel’, ‘Jimmy Cotter’, or ‘Eliza Roman’—but on closer inspection, these reviews mention restaurants and ‘Blacklock’, not a forex brokerage. This contamination suggests the broker’s review profile has been padded with irrelevant or misattributed feedback, artificially inflating its positive counts.

When the negative reviews are isolated, a clear picture emerges: phone support is poor, live chat is worse, and when a real person is reached, they are often described as rude or incompetent. One frustrated user warns: ‘Was on phone for an hour with my 98 year old mother trying to reopen an account they locked. The incompetent girl rep finally put me through to an incompetent manager.’ Such testimonials indicate a support infrastructure that is either deliberately obstructive or nonexistent.

No information about the trading platform can be found from official sources. The sample reviews hint at a web-based interface or possibly a custom-built environment, but none confirm compatibility with industry-standard platforms like MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, or cTrader. One reviewer mentions their experience ‘started on Discord’ and that they were ‘shown the ropes of algorithmic trading’—textbook language for a pig-butchering scam, where victims are gradually groomed and then directed to a fake platform.

The absence of a recognisable, independently audited platform is a critical weakness. Regulated brokers are required to meet stringent operational standards, including data security and fair-execution protocols that are verified through external audits. Blackrock offers no such assurances.

The scam concerns are not marginal; they dominate the discussion. Out of 11 mentions of scams in our review dataset, 10 are negative and 0 positive. One reviewer states bluntly: ‘Not an Investment House, more like a SCAM house.’ Another alleges: ‘BlackRock use thier investment in Match.com to condone scamming, Crypto selling and all other money grabbing attempts.’ A particularly elaborate complaint claims that ‘JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock (Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon) confirmed their f…’—further evidence that the broker’s name is being conflated with entirely different corporate giants.

Our investigation detected two clone or impersonator websites. These sites are designed to look like the broker’s official page, often to intercept clients who mistyped the URL or were redirected through phishing. Clone websites are a well-known technique in the forex scam ecosystem, and their presence here reinforces the idea that the ‘Blackrock’ brand is being actively exploited for fraud.

To understand the real-world impact, we analysed every accessible review across Trustpilot and other industry feedback channels. A Trustpilot score of 1.9/5 over 71 reviews is extremely low and almost always signals systemic problems. The negative reviews are visceral: clients describe lost savings, ignored communication, and a deep sense of betrayal. Many mention that they were initially contacted through social media or messaging apps—a red flag that regulators have repeatedly warned about.

Interestingly, a handful of five-star reviews appear genuine at first glance, but upon inspection they refer to physical locations (a steakhouse, a coffee shop) and customer service that clearly has nothing to do with trading. Either the broker has attempted to game the review system by pasting unrelated positive experiences, or the review platform has mistakenly aggregated reviews for different businesses under the same name. Either way, the credible sentiment is overwhelmingly negative.

The volume of withdrawal complaints (12) and scam allegations (11) is disproportionate for a broker with only 71 reviews. When such a high percentage of feedback centres on fraud, the risk to any prospective user cannot be overstated.

Our Scam Risk Score for Blackrock stands at 31 out of 100, placing it in the ‘Guarded’ category. This rating reflects the convergence of multiple red flags: unverified licences, a zero-employee filing, rampant withdrawal complaints, and strong scam signals in user feedback. While a ‘Guarded’ score does not automatically confirm a scam, it indicates that the probability of a negative outcome is dangerously high.

When we compared this score with aggregated industry data—which consistently points to a high-risk, impersonation-likely profile—the alignment was striking. There is no disagreement between the quantitative risk metrics and the qualitative horror stories from users. Very few legitimate brokers ever sink to a 31/100, and those that do usually have unresolved regulatory actions or a history of serious misconduct.

Based on our extensive investigation, FXCanary strongly advises against opening an account with Blackrock. The evidence points to a sophisticated impersonation scheme that layers stolen regulatory credentials over a hollow shell company. For retail traders, the practical risks include total loss of deposited funds, identity theft, and zero recourse when things go wrong.

If you have already sent funds to this entity and cannot withdraw, your options are limited. Contact your bank or crypto exchange immediately, report the incident to your local financial regulator, and consider filing a complaint with the fraud arm of the police. Never pay additional ‘taxes’ or ‘fees’ to unlock a withdrawal—this is a classic scam escalation.

Before funding any broker, always verify their licence directly on the regulator’s official website, not just on the broker’s page. Pay attention to warning signs: unsolicited contact on social media, promises of guaranteed returns, and a lack of transparent trading conditions. In the case of Blackrock, the safest path is to walk away entirely.