Is INFINOX a Scam?

At FXCanary, our safety assessments are not mere opinion — they are built on forensic cross‑checks of licences, user‑complaint data, regulatory protection mechanisms, and impersonation risks. We assign a Scam Risk Score from 0 (safest) to 100 (highest risk), incorporating factors such as withdrawal reliability, licence quality, and the volume of scam‑related user reports.

For INFINOX, our investigation yielded a Scam Risk Score of 20/100, placing it in the low‑risk bracket. However, a score this low does not mean zero risk; it signals that while the broker’s regulatory architecture offers significant safeguards, we have identified vulnerabilities — particularly around its offshore licence, withdrawal friction, and the presence of impersonator websites — that every trader must understand before depositing.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is widely considered a top‑tier regulator. Under licence number 501057, INFINOX Capital Ltd is authorised and regulated by the FCA in the United Kingdom. This brings with it mandatory client‑fund segregation, where your money is held in separate bank accounts away from the company’s own funds, and access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects deposits up to £85,000 per person in the event of broker insolvency.

Additionally, FCA‑regulated brokers must provide negative balance protection, ensuring you can never lose more than your initial deposit. These protections are among the strongest in the world, and they form the bedrock of our confidence in INFINOX. However, there is a critical nuance: the FCA licence applies to a specific UK entity, yet the legal entity that appears on many account agreements is Infinox Limited, registered in Mauritius.

Through our due diligence, we found that while INFINOX’s marketing heavily emphasises its FCA status, many retail clients may actually be onboarded under its subsidiary licensed by the Securities Commission of The Bahamas (SCB) — a common industry practice to offer higher leverage or reach clients outside the UK. This structural split means a trader’s protections depend entirely on which entity they are dealing with, a distinction the broker does not always make pellucid during the sign‑up process.

The Bahamian licence (SIA F‑188) falls into the category of offshore regulation. While the SCB does require firms to hold a minimum net capital and maintain segregated accounts, it lacks a formal investor compensation fund. Moreover, its enforcement record and oversight rigour are not comparable to the FCA, leaving traders with fewer avenues for dispute resolution if things go wrong.

Our analysis of user complaints reveals a pattern: many of the withdrawal difficulties and account‑blocking incidents appear to be linked to clients under the Bahamian entity. For instance, one reviewer stated, ‘I have requested for a withdrawal of my capital since 5th November 2025 and Infinox side still didn’t process my request, citing it’s under investigation and KYC process.’ Without the FSCS safety net, such delays can turn into permanent losses if the broker faces liquidity issues.

Legally, there is nothing improper about operating multiple entities — many brokers do it — but transparency is paramount. We found that the real‑world user experience of offshore account holders diverges significantly from the security implied by the FCA badge on the website, creating a tangible safety gap.

During our investigation, we uncovered no fewer than seven clone or impersonator websites masquerading as INFINOX. These fraudulent sites use similar logos, domain names, and even fake regulatory seals to trick traders into depositing money. One particularly alarming review detailed a relative being instructed by a ‘Nigeria branch’ to purchase Bitcoin as an investment, which is a classic scam tactic.

Clone sites thrive on the brand equity of regulated brokers. An unsuspecting trader may search for Infinox, click on a sponsored link, and end up on a perfect replica operated by criminals. These platforms are not regulated at all — once money is sent, it is almost certainly gone. The prevalence of impersonators means even a legitimate broker’s reputation can be weaponised, and we therefore factor impersonator site counts directly into our Scam Risk Score.

Withdrawals are the ultimate litmus test of a broker’s integrity. On Trustpilot, INFINOX holds a 4.6 rating, and many reviewers praise fast payouts. Yet when we isolated the 20 withdrawal‑specific reviews in our dataset, the picture clouded: 11 were negative, citing blocked funds, unexplained investigations, and outright refusal to return capital.

One trader described making two separate deposits that never credited, and eventually getting a refund only after a two‑week struggle. Another reported that after generating a $5,850 profit on a $12,000 deposit, ‘the company removed all my profits without providing any clear reason.’ These are not isolated incidents; they recur with enough consistency to raise a red flag.

Positively, many other users report smooth, rapid withdrawals, and some of the negative cases may be exacerbated by incomplete KYC documentation or aggressive trading. Nonetheless, the 22 withdrawal‑related complaints we logged — coupled with the fact that several reviews explicitly use the word ‘scam’ — indicate that withdrawal friction is not a myth at INFINOX but a reality for a minority of clients, especially those operating through the offshore entity.

From a safety standpoint, INFINOX presents a mixed picture. Its green flags are substantial: FCA regulation for its UK entity, a predominantly positive Trustpilot score, competitive spreads, and a large cohort of traders who report reliable execution and helpful support. These factors are rare among truly fraudulent operations.

On the red side, we note that the broker’s primary licence for many international clients is a lax offshore regime, the volume of withdrawal complaints is higher than we would expect for a broker of this profile, and the existence of seven clone sites adds an external risk that taints the genuine brand. Moreover, the 15 scam‑related user reviews — even if some may be misunderstandings — cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The net result is that INFINOX sits in a grey zone: almost certainly not an intentional scam, but a broker with operational vulnerabilities that can translate into real financial harm for traders who do not navigate the regulatory shell carefully.

Forewarned is forearmed. If you decide to open an account with INFINOX, take simple but vital steps to shield yourself. First, confirm the legal entity named in your account agreement; push to be onboarded under the FCA‑regulated entity (INFINOX Capital Ltd) if you are eligible, as this gives you access to the FSCS and stronger regulatory oversight.

Second, always access the broker’s trading platform and website by typing the official domain directly into your browser, never via email links or internet search ads. Bookmark the genuine site and verify that the website displays the correct FCA number (501057) as a live link to the Financial Services Register. Third, keep meticulous records of all deposits, withdrawals, and correspondence — if a dispute arises, this documentation is your best weapon.

Finally, start modestly. Test the withdrawal process with a small amount early in your trading journey. If you encounter unexplained delays, persistent KYC requests, or sudden profit cancellations, cease trading and escalate formally. Remember that while INFINOX is a low‑risk broker overall, the protections that matter most hinge on the entity you are dealing with and your own vigilance against impersonation.