INFINOX Deposit & Withdrawal

Deposits and withdrawals are the lifeblood of any retail trading relationship. A broker can claim tight spreads and advanced platforms, but if your money doesn’t arrive—or, worse, never returns—nothing else matters. INFINOX, an FCA-licensed broker operating from Mauritius, presents itself as a trustworthy partner, yet its funding story is clouded by a failure to disclose even the most basic payment methods.

FXCanary’s deep-dive into user-reported experiences reveals a broker where deposit mechanics are often a mystery until after an account is opened. Traders are left to discover for themselves whether their preferred funding channel is supported, while the withdrawal side of the equation has generated a disproportionate number of complaints. This investigation examines every aspect of getting money in and out of INFINOX, drawing on real reviews to illuminate the gap between promotional promises and traders’ lived experiences.

At the time of writing, INFINOX does not publicly list its deposit methods. Industry databases and the broker’s own website lack any clear breakdown of accepted payment channels, processing times, or minimum deposit amounts. In a sector where even basic transparency is a baseline expectation, this omission is a red flag.

User reviews paint a partial picture. Some traders report smooth deposits, with one 5-star reviewer noting that deposits via an unspecified method were “quick and trouble‑free.” However, other accounts are alarming: a client who attempted two separate deposits of $250 and $225 recounted that neither sum ever reached their trading account. After a “struggle of 2 weeks,” the funds were eventually returned—but only after considerable chasing. Such incidents suggest that deposit processing can be unreliable and that INFINOX’s infrastructure may not be robust when funding fails to settle correctly.

While deposit hiccups are inconvenient, withdrawal failures are where the real damage occurs. Of the 20 reviewer mentions specifically about withdrawals, only 9 were positive; 11 were negative—a near-even split that should give any trader pause. A trustworthy broker should see overwhelmingly positive withdrawal feedback, as returning client funds is a core operational duty.

Reported withdrawal times vary dramatically. Some traders enthusiastically praise “fast payout” and “withdrawals as quick as lightning.” Yet a deeper look reveals a troubling inconsistency. A trader who had initially praised lightning-fast withdrawals later posted a 2-star update, stating that after closing the day with a $975 balance, the broker “showed me their true colour.” He did not elaborate on the final outcome, but the context implies access to his money became an issue.

More concrete examples involve outright refusals. One client reported requesting a capital withdrawal on 5 November 2025 and, months later, still waiting. INFINOX’s support team cited “investigation and KYC process” as the reason for the delay—a common stalling tactic in the industry. Another trader found their account blocked without explanation, with all deposit and withdrawal functions suspended and emails left unanswered.

FXCanary examined the most severe withdrawal-related reviews to understand the pattern that leads traders to cry foul. In one case, a user deposited $12,000, traded normally, and generated a $5,850 profit. Suddenly, the company removed all profits without providing a reason, and the reviewer concluded that “the company was sold to fraudulent management.” While we cannot verify the sale claim, the unilateral removal of profits is consistent with a broker that views withdrawal requests as a threat to its cash flow.

Another recurring theme is the “disappearing support” phenomenon. A trader described requesting a withdrawal and, since that moment, encountering “barriers and difficulties.” Phone calls went unanswered, emails received no response, and the withdrawal remained unprocessed. The abrupt change from responsive pre‑funding communication to radio silence post‑withdrawal request is a classic hallmark of a broker that may be struggling—or unwilling—to honour its obligations.

Multiple users highlighted that the broker’s initial service appeared stellar. One noted that “withdrawal with speed of light” was the norm at first, but later, after accumulating profits or larger balances, the same lightning process ground to a halt. This bait‑and‑switch on withdrawal reliability underscores a critical lesson: rapid early withdrawals do not guarantee that larger or subsequent requests will be handled equally smoothly.

Know‑Your‑Customer checks are a standard regulatory requirement, but they can also be weaponised as a delay mechanism. Multiple INFINOX clients reported that when they requested a withdrawal, they were suddenly subjected to renewed KYC scrutiny. This tactic effectively freezes funds until the broker is satisfied—a process that, in several reviews, stretched indefinitely.

One reviewer stated that despite providing all requested documents, the broker kept the withdrawal “under investigation” for an extended period with no progress updates. Another claimed that the account was blocked entirely, with the broker providing “no reason” and ignoring all inquiries. While account freezes can occur for legitimate compliance reasons, the lack of communication and transparency observed in these cases suggests that, at best, INFINOX’s back‑office processes are severely under-resourced. At worst, it indicates a deliberate effort to retain client funds.

INFINOX’s account specifications show two tiers: an ECN account with a commission from 3 GBP/3 EUR/3 USD/3 AUD per side, and an STP account with no commission but wider spreads from 0.9 pips. However, these are trading costs, not funding fees. Whether deposits or withdrawals incur additional handling charges, currency conversion fees, or third‑party processing costs is simply not disclosed. A reviewer who complained of “exorbitant commissions” may have been referring to trading costs, but the absence of published funding fees leaves the door open for unpleasant surprises.

Additionally, the lack of listed withdrawal methods makes it impossible to gauge typical processing costs. Wire transfers, for example, often carry intermediary bank fees that can eat into traders’ proceeds. Without upfront disclosure, traders must assume that any withdrawal could be hit with undisclosed deductions—an unacceptable position in a regulated industry.

The most consistent thread across INFINOX’s funding reviews is a sharp divide between early, positive experiences and later, negative ones. Fresh accounts often enjoy swift deposits and withdrawals, which builds trust and encourages larger deposits. Once a trader’s balance grows or they attempt to withdraw profits, however, the tune changes. Delays, KYC re‑verification, and unresponsive support suddenly appear.

This pattern is not unique to INFINOX—it is a well‑known playbook among brokers that prioritise sales over client satisfaction. The fact that 7 clone or impersonator sites have been identified in association with INFINOX further complicates the picture, as some complaints may stem from scam entities piggybacking on the brand. Nevertheless, the volume and specificity of withdrawal‑related complaints directed at the legitimate broker cannot be dismissed, and they reveal a funding experience that is far from the seamless, transparent service a trader should expect from an FCA‑licensed firm.

Given the opaque funding environment and the mixed withdrawal record, traders considering INFINOX should proceed with extreme caution. Always confirm exactly which payment methods are available for your jurisdiction before funding—don’t rely on generic marketing. If possible, start with a small test deposit and attempt a withdrawal early in your trading relationship to gauge the broker’s true reliability, as initial fast service may not last.

Document every communication with support, including screenshots of live chat exchanges and emails. If a withdrawal is delayed beyond the stated timeframe (which itself is unclear), escalate formally and, if necessary, contact the financial ombudsman relevant to the entity you are dealing with—recall that INFINOX holds both an FCA license (UK) and an SCB license (Bahamas). The FCA arm offers stronger protection, but many complaints appear to involve the offshore entity. Finally, be extremely wary of any bonus offers that tie up your deposit with trading volume requirements, as these can become another excuse to deny a withdrawal. In an environment where funding methods aren’t even disclosed, your money may be at risk from day one.