Roinvesting Review

At FXCanary, our investigation goes beyond surface-level marketing. We cross-check the broker’s regulatory claims against official public registers, analyze the complete record of real user reviews, and compare our findings against aggregated industry data and complaint databases. For Roinvesting, this meant examining the CySEC license register, reviewing 34 Trustpilot ratings and detailed user comments, and assessing the firm’s structural disclosures, including employee count and business model.

Our goal is to provide traders with an unfiltered look at what it is truly like to open an account, deposit funds, trade, and—most critically—withdraw money from this broker. The picture that emerges is heavily cautionary, with the official license providing a thin veneer over practices that closely resemble those of known scam operations.

Roinvesting operates under the legal entity Royal Forex, a company incorporated in Cyprus on February 7, 2020. A young incorporated age is not inherently negative, but when considered alongside other data points, it fits a pattern of short-lived shell companies used to quickly gather deposits before disappearing or rebranding. The corporate filings list zero employees, an extraordinary fact for a broker that claims to offer 24/5 support with dedicated account managers.

A brokerage with no staff likely relies entirely on outsourced sales centers and white-label technology. While outsourcing is common in the industry, the combination of zero internal headcount and an opaque business model raises fundamental questions about who is actually handling client funds and executing trades. This structure makes accountability nearly impossible and leaves clients with no recourse when things go wrong.

Royal Forex holds CySEC license number 269/15, authorizing it as a Cyprus Investment Firm (CIF) with permission for STP execution. CySEC is a reputable EU regulator aligned with MiFID II, and its framework includes mandatory client fund segregation and membership in the Investor Compensation Fund (ICF), which protects retail clients up to €20,000. In theory, this offers a safety net.

In practice, however, the protections of CySEC regulation are only as strong as the firm’s compliance with ongoing obligations. The zero-employee filing suggests minimal operational substance, which directly undermines the ability to meet those obligations consistently. Moreover, the CySEC license does not cover services provided to clients outside the EU in the same way, and Roinvesting’s high leverage offering (1:200) likely indicates reliance on professional client opt-ups or offshore marketing, further eroding the standard retail safeguards.

FXCanary’s investigation also confirmed that no additional licenses from reputable global regulators (such as the FCA or ASIC) exist. This leaves the broker’s regulatory standing thin—a single license that appears to be stretched far beyond its intended jurisdictional limits.

Roinvesting presents three account tiers—Platinum, Gold, and Silver—but all share the same 1:200 maximum leverage. Without published minimum deposits or spread figures, the account structure acts more as a marketing tool than a meaningful differentiation for traders. The lack of upfront information forces clients into a sales funnel: you must speak to a representative to learn basic terms, a process that increases the likelihood of high-pressure tactics.

This opacity is rarely accidental. In our experience, brokers that hide their minimum deposits and trading costs often tailor these numbers to what they believe a client can afford to lose. The uniform high leverage further encourages risky trading behavior, which statistically benefits the broker—or its liquidity provider—by accelerating client losses. For anyone considering these accounts, we recommend asking direct written questions about all costs before funding, and insisting on receiving full terms by email. Even then, the reviews below suggest that promises made during the sales call are not kept.

The firm does not list any specific deposit or withdrawal methods, leaving clients in the dark about available funding channels and processing times. In practice, user comments describe deposits as quick and easy—often via credit card or bank transfer—which is typical across the industry.

Withdrawals, however, paint a radically different picture. Multiple reviewers recount trying to get their money back only to encounter a wall of resistance. The process becomes what one user described as “ugly,” with demands for extensive documentation, including IBAN, SWIFT, and BIC codes, often after initial delays. Some clients report it is simply “not possible to get your money back.”

This asymmetric barrier between depositing and withdrawing is one of the clearest hallmarks of a fraudulent operation. A legitimate broker makes both processes equally seamless. When a firm erects obstacles to withdrawals while making depositing frictionless, the intent is clear: trap client funds inside the platform.

Roinvesting claims to offer over 350 tradable assets across forex, commodities, indices, and shares. This breadth would be competitive if substantiated, but without a detailed asset list, we cannot verify the quality of execution or liquidity. The absence of any mention of industry-standard platforms like MetaTrader is notable; the broker promotes only its own proprietary web, mobile, and PC platforms.

Proprietary platforms are not inherently negative, but they limit a trader’s ability to independently verify pricing and trade execution. Combined with the lack of transparency on spreads and commissions, the platform serves as a black box where the broker has complete control over what the client sees. This environment is ripe for price manipulation or requote abuse, further stacking the odds against the trader.

Because Roinvesting publishes no fee schedule, the true cost of trading remains unknown until money is committed. The one positive review that mentions commission-free trading offers a glimmer of attractiveness, but it is dangerous to rely on a single anecdote when the majority of feedback suggests otherwise. Without official confirmation, commission-free status cannot be assumed—and even if true, costs could be embedded in inflated spreads, overnight financing charges, or dormant account fees.

Our analysis of the review record found no mentions of transparent fee disclosures. Instead, the recurring theme is aggressive upselling, where representatives push clients to invest larger sums under the promise of higher profits, only for the client to later discover that those profits never materialize and that their principal is at risk of being lost or locked away. This pattern strongly suggests that losses are not due to market movements alone but are amplified by undisclosed costs or unfavorable dealing practices.

The 34 reviews aggregated on Trustpilot produce an average rating of 1.7 out of 5, and the distribution is brutally lopsided. Over 90% of the reviews assign 1 star, with the most common words being “scam,” “stolen money,” and “do not trust.” One reviewer wrote: “If I could give 0 stars it would be such a relief… they completely scam you, don’t trust them.” Another detailed how after depositing a small amount, a very fast-talking account manager immediately called and pressured them to invest a much larger sum, promising enormous profits.

Only a single 5-star review stands apart, praising commission-free trading and available customer support. While we cannot dismiss it as fake, the overwhelming weight of negative feedback—including specific accounts of blocked withdrawals, lost capital, and aggressive sales calls—drowns it out. The consistency of these narratives across multiple reviewers raises red flags that cannot be ignored.

When we examine the withdrawal complaints specifically, a pattern emerges: clients who do try to retrieve their funds face impossible hurdles. One user described needing “all kinds of bank accounts with IBAN, SWIFT, BIC codes” after reading about the broker’s reputation, only to find the process dragged on without resolution. This tactic, known as withdrawal obstruction, is a classic technique used by unscrupulous brokers to wear clients down until they give up.

FXCanary’s own Scam Risk Score assigns Roinvesting a 44 out of 100, placing it firmly in the “Guarded” category. This score is generated by weighing regulatory credentials, business structure, complaint frequency, and user feedback. The fact that it lands in the Guarded range despite a valid CySEC license underscores the danger of relying on regulation alone—the operational reality is deeply concerning.

When we cross-reference this with the low Trustpilot rating and the zero-employee registration, a consistent picture emerges: Roinvesting operates more like a high-risk marketing entity than a transparent, client-focused brokerage. Traders should treat the 44/100 score as a serious warning and compare it against brokers in the 70+ range that demonstrate both strong regulation and positive user experiences.

Our investigation leaves us with little confidence in Roinvesting as a safe trading partner. The combination of a hollow corporate structure, opaque pricing, aggressive sales practices, and widespread withdrawal complaints forms a profile that aligns with known forex scams. While the CySEC license provides a theoretical layer of oversight, the practical execution falls far short, leaving clients exposed to significant risk of never seeing their money again.

If you are considering opening an account, we strongly recommend against it. The risks of losing your entire deposit are unacceptably high. For those who have already funded an account and are experiencing difficulties, we advise immediately ceasing additional deposits and contacting CySEC and your local financial ombudsman to file a formal complaint. Gather all correspondence, transaction records, and screenshots as evidence.

There are many well-regulated brokers with transparent terms, fair fee structures, and proven track records of processing withdrawals promptly. Do not settle for a brokerage that cannot provide basic information upfront and whose users consistently report being defrauded. Your capital deserves a safer home.