Longasia Review

FXCanary's editorial team undertook a thorough investigation of Long Asia Group Limited, examining its regulatory registrations, corporate records, user-review landscape, and aggregated complaint data. We cross-checked the broker's claims against public registers, evaluated real-user feedback from multiple sources, and assessed the pattern of risk indicators. This review presents our findings and analysis to help traders determine whether this broker is safe to use.

Our process included verifying the status of the broker’s two claimed licenses with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Indonesia Commodity & Derivatives Exchange. We also analyzed over a dozen user reviews from platforms such as Trustpilot, along with 23 withdrawal-related complaints flagged in industry databases. This holistic approach provides a comprehensive picture of the broker’s operations and the risks involved.

Long Asia Group Limited was incorporated on December 5, 2017, in Singapore. According to official records, the company lists zero employees, which is unusual for a brokerage claiming to serve global clients. A registered address in Singapore exists, but the absence of staff suggests that operations may be largely outsourced or that the entity is a nominal shell. The broker’s domain and branding (including variations like Long Asia Capital) indicate attempts to project a large-scale, institutional image, but the corporate footprint is minimal.

Established over six years ago, Long Asia Group has had time to build a track record. However, the presence of a clone or impersonator site detected by our investigation raises further red flags about the authenticity of its offerings. The disparity between the public-facing marketing and the underlying corporate structure is a common tactic among high-risk brokers. A zero-employee count often indicates a lack of substantive operations, which is inconsistent with a functioning brokerage that needs staff for compliance, support, and trading desk functions.

The broker displays two regulatory licenses: one from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and one from the Indonesia Commodity & Derivatives Exchange (ICDX). MAS is a well-respected financial regulator, and a Market Making license generally allows a firm to deal in securities and derivatives. However, the lack of a CMS license number confirmation on public registers (as indicated by the ‘—’ status) means we cannot independently verify that the license is active or indeed held by Long Asia Group. Traders should always check the MAS Financial Institutions Directory directly.

The ICDX license is a derivatives trading license for the Indonesian market. While it provides a veneer of official oversight, it is important to note that ICDX regulation is far less stringent than that of top-tier bodies like the FCA or ASIC. Moreover, the status entry ‘no Unreleased’ is ambiguous, suggesting the license might not be fully operational. Indonesian regulation does not offer strong investor compensation schemes, so the protection for clients is minimal.

FXCanary’s view is that the regulatory framework presented by Long Asia Group is largely a marketing tool. The lack of verified, active status for a well-known Singaporean license is particularly concerning and points to a possible misrepresentation or an expired/lapsed permit. Even if the ICDX license is active, it does little to safeguard client funds in a meaningful way, and the combination of two lower-tier or unverified licenses does not equate to robust oversight.

Long Asia Group does not publicly disclose detailed account tiers, minimum deposits, or leverage specifications. This opacity is a warning sign in itself, as reputable brokers typically provide transparent information about their trading conditions. Industry databases suggest that the broker may offer several account levels, but without official confirmation, traders are left guessing.

A single positive review mentioned copy trading, which aligns with the broker’s promotional focus. However, the absence of clear spreads, commissions, and leverage ratios makes it impossible to compare costs with competitors. Traders should be aware that high-risk brokers often lure clients with promises of tight spreads and high leverage, only to change terms once funds are deposited.

The lack of disclosure also means that any account you open may come with unexpected fees or restrictions. In our assessment, the uncertain trading conditions are a major drawback, especially for traders who rely on precise cost calculations. The absence of standard documentation like a Client Agreement or Risk Disclosure statement further compounds the regulatory and operational risks.

Funding methods at Long Asia Group include cryptocurrency transfers and bank wires, but the broker does not provide a clear fee schedule. Multiple user complaints allege that initial withdrawals are processed swiftly to build confidence, but subsequent and larger withdrawal requests are delayed, denied, or met with excuses such as ‘USDT is hard to move.’ One reviewer reported losing over $18,000, while another claimed $42,000 is being withheld.

The pattern of early withdrawals being approved followed by a sudden halt is a classic hallmark of an exit scam or a broker facing liquidity problems. The count of 23 withdrawal-related complaints further reinforces the severity of the issue. One positive outlier described 20 successful withdrawals over six months, but this is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of negative experiences.

In FXCanary’s analysis, the withdrawal process is the single most critical failure point for Long Asia Group. Traders should expect significant difficulty or outright refusal when attempting to retrieve large sums. The broker’s reputation for non-payment is well-documented in user feedback, and there is no indication that the situation has improved over time. The repeated mentions of cryptocurrency-related excuses suggest a deliberate tactic to complicate and delay withdrawals.

The broker claims to offer forex, CFDs, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Copy trading is a flagship feature, and the platform is accessed via a web-based Member Area. However, users have reported being locked out of their accounts, with the system displaying ‘Invalid’ errors. This indicates potential platform instability or deliberate account restrictions.

The reliance on a proprietary platform without independent verification of its quality or security is a common trait among less trustworthy brokers. There is no evidence of integration with reputable third-party platforms like MetaTrader, which could provide some level of standardized execution and user experience. The platform is essentially a black box.

Without transparent execution statistics or a record of uptime, the platform presents a significant risk. The negative reviews about inaccessible accounts suggest that even basic account management can become impossible, leaving traders unable to monitor their positions or request withdrawals. In the context of withdrawal complaints, platform lockouts could be a tool to prevent clients from taking action.

Long Asia Group does not publish any comprehensive fee schedule. There is no information on spreads, commissions, overnight swap rates, or non-trading fees such as deposit/withdrawal charges or inactivity penalties. This level of secrecy is atypical for regulated brokers, which are usually required to disclose key cost metrics.

The hidden fee structure raises concerns that traders may be subjected to arbitrary charges once funds are committed. Complaints about blocked accounts and lost funds imply that even the account balance itself is not safe from being wiped out, regardless of trading performance. The lack of transparency makes it impossible to conduct a proper cost analysis.

In comparison with industry norms, this omission is a strong red flag. Reputable brokers provide detailed contract specifications and a clear fee breakdown. Long Asia Group’s silence on these matters should deter any cost-conscious trader. The absence of even basic fee information suggests that the broker may inflate costs at will, leaving traders with no recourse.

We analyzed 14 reviews from Trustpilot and additional feedback from other channels. The overall sentiment is heavily skewed negative, with a 2.6/5 rating. Themes that dominate include blocked accounts, withdrawal denials, and non-existent customer support. Positive reviews are rare and often vague, with one 5-star review simply stating ‘very good broker’ without elaboration.

The withdrawal experience is the most contentious area. Complaints describe an initial ‘honeymoon period’ where small withdrawals are processed, only for the broker to stop all further payouts once larger amounts are involved. One review details a 4-month ordeal with $42K trapped. Another mentions a loss of $18,000. These accounts paint a picture of a broker that actively avoids returning funds to clients.

Customer support complaints are intertwined with withdrawal issues. Users report contacting support via email and chat, only to be ignored or given repetitive excuses. The platform itself becomes inaccessible for many once they ask for a withdrawal, as seen in the ‘No Support Response – Unable to Access Member Area’ complaint. The word ‘fraud’ appears explicitly in several reviews, with users warning others to stay away.

Even the single positive withdrawal review must be considered carefully: the trader who withdrew 20 times over 6 months may have been in the initial phase before a potential lockout, or may be an outlier. The consistency and severity of the negative experiences strongly outweigh the positives. The small number of reviews also means that any positive outlier could be fabricated or incentivized.

Our risk score of 85 out of 100 (Severe) reflects the convergence of multiple high-risk indicators. The regulatory ambiguity, the tiny corporate footprint, the clone site, the high volume of withdrawal complaints, and the overwhelmingly negative user feedback all point to a brokerage that is unsafe for retail traders. The score is not inflated; it is based on a rigorous methodology that weighs regulatory standing, complaint history, and market reputation.

Compared to aggregated industry data, Long Asia Group underperforms dramatically. A 2.6 Trustpilot rating is among the lower end of broker ratings we track. The 23 withdrawal complaints and a clone site are independent signals that align with the user narrative of a scam operation.

We consider the broker’s practices to be consistent with a high-risk or possibly fraudulent operation. The small number of positive reviews does not present a credible counterbalance to the overwhelming evidence of misconduct. The presence of an impersonator site further suggests that the brand is being exploited, or that the broker itself may be using multiple fronts.

Based on our investigation, FXCanary advises extreme caution regarding Long Asia Group Limited. The broker exhibits a pattern of facilitating initial small withdrawals to build trust, then refusing or delaying larger withdrawals, which is a signature of a Ponzi-style or exit scam. The regulatory cover appears flimsy and likely misrepresented.

Traders who have already deposited funds should immediately attempt to withdraw their entire balance and document all communication. If withdrawals are blocked, they should report the broker to the relevant financial authorities (though recovery is unlikely). We strongly recommend that no new trader open an account with this entity.

For those seeking a safe trading environment, there are numerous well-regulated brokers with transparent practices and proven reliability. The slight allure of copy trading features or crypto funding does not compensate for the high probability of financial loss. In our assessment, Long Asia Group does not meet the minimum standards of legitimacy required for a retail brokerage, and we caution all traders to avoid it entirely.