Is Citiglobalmarket a Scam?

When we at FXCanary sit down to judge whether a broker is safe, we do not rely on marketing pages or a broker's own claims about its reliability. Instead, we build a picture from verifiable public records: the regulatory licences a firm actually holds, the jurisdiction in which it is registered, the length of its operating history, and the depth of independent user feedback available. For a broker with no independent reviews, that last pillar is empty, so our assessment leans even more heavily on the regulatory and corporate record.

Citiglobalmarket presents an unusual case. The firm is registered in the United Kingdom and was founded in June 2022, making it a relatively young operation. Our records show two regulatory licences on file — one from the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CYSEC) and one from the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

On the surface, that is a reassuring combination, as both are respected regulators. However, the details matter, and as we dug into the specifics, we found reasons to temper any initial optimism. Our FXCanary Scam Risk Score for Citiglobalmarket stands at 42 out of 100, which we classify as 'Guarded'.

That score is not a condemnation, but it is a clear warning that traders should proceed with caution.

Let us start with the licences themselves, because they are the backbone of any safety assessment. Our records list a CYSEC Market Making (MM) licence with number 319/17, and an FCA Forex Execution License (STP) with number 793714. We cross-checked these against the public registers and found them to be consistent with the information we hold. It is important to note, however, that the status field for both licences is marked as '—', which in our records means the current status is not clearly confirmed. That is a gap we cannot ignore.

A Market Making licence from CYSEC means the broker can act as a counterparty to its clients' trades, which is standard for many forex firms but also introduces a potential conflict of interest. The FCA licence, described as a 'Forex Execution License (STP)', suggests the firm routes orders directly to liquidity providers, which is generally seen as a more transparent model. Yet the fact that we cannot confirm the active status of either licence is a red flag. A licence that is suspended, lapsed, or under review would dramatically change the safety picture, and we have not been able to verify that both are in good standing.

The level of protection a trader enjoys depends almost entirely on the regulator overseeing the entity they open an account with. Under CYSEC, clients benefit from the Investor Compensation Fund (ICF), which can provide up to €20,000 per person if the broker fails. CYSEC also requires client funds to be segregated from the firm's own money, which is a basic but crucial safeguard. However, CYSEC does not mandate negative balance protection, meaning that in volatile markets, a trader could lose more than their deposit if the broker does not offer it voluntarily.

The FCA, on the other hand, offers a more robust regime. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) covers up to £85,000 per person, and the FCA enforces strict client money rules, including segregation and regular reporting. The FCA also requires negative balance protection for retail clients, which is a significant advantage.

If Citiglobalmarket's UK entity is fully authorised and operating under the FCA, clients would benefit from these protections. But again, the uncertainty around the licence status casts a shadow over this. We cannot confirm that the FCA licence is currently active, and that uncertainty is a material risk.

One of the most concerning aspects of Citiglobalmarket's profile is the lack of clarity around its operational structure. The firm is registered in the United Kingdom, which is a reputable jurisdiction, but we have no information about where its actual trading operations are based. Many brokers register in one country but operate from another, often a less regulated jurisdiction. If Citiglobalmarket is routing clients to an offshore entity, the protections we described above may not apply.

Our records also show that the firm has zero employees on file. That is a striking detail. A forex broker, even a small one, typically needs a team to handle compliance, trading, and customer support.

Zero employees could indicate that the company is a shell or that the information we have is incomplete. Either way, it is not a sign of a well-established operation. We also found no evidence of clone or impersonator sites, which is positive, but it does not offset the other gaps in our knowledge.

Clone scams are a persistent threat in the forex industry, where fraudsters create websites that mimic a legitimate broker's name and branding to steal deposits. In our checks, we found no evidence of clone sites for Citiglobalmarket. That is a small comfort, but it is worth noting that the broker's name is not particularly distinctive, and the domain 'citiglobalmarket-inc.com' could be easily confused with other firms. We advise traders to always type the official domain directly into their browser rather than clicking on links from emails or social media.

The broker does have a presence on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, and YouTube, which is typical for a firm trying to build a brand. However, social media presence is not a substitute for regulatory verification. Scammers can create convincing social profiles, and we have not verified the authenticity of these accounts. We recommend that traders treat any unsolicited contact from 'Citiglobalmarket' with suspicion, especially if it asks for personal information or payment.

Perhaps the most telling gap in our assessment is the complete absence of independent user reviews. In our experience, a legitimate broker that has been operating for over two years will have generated at least some feedback on forums, review sites, or social media. The fact that we found none is unusual. It could mean the broker is very new to the public eye, or it could indicate that clients have not had positive experiences worth sharing. We cannot say which, but the silence is itself a data point.

For a trader, this means there is no community wisdom to draw on. You cannot read about others' withdrawal experiences, execution quality, or customer service responsiveness. In such a situation, the only prudent approach is to assume the worst and test the broker with a minimal deposit, or better yet, avoid it until more information emerges. We at FXCanary are not in the business of making accusations without evidence, but we are also not willing to give a clean bill of health to a broker we cannot independently verify.

If, despite the risks, you are considering trading with Citiglobalmarket, there are concrete steps you can take to protect yourself. First, verify the licences directly on the CYSEC and FCA websites using the numbers we have provided. Do not take the broker's word for it.

If the licences are not active, walk away. Second, start with the smallest possible deposit — an amount you are fully prepared to lose. Third, test the withdrawal process early, before you deposit more.

A broker that delays or refuses withdrawals is a major red flag.

Fourth, keep meticulous records of all communications and transactions. If something goes wrong, you will need evidence to file a complaint with the regulator or to seek legal recourse. Fifth, be wary of any pressure to deposit more money or to use bonus offers that come with onerous conditions. These are common tactics used by less scrupulous brokers. Finally, consider using a separate email address and a virtual private network (VPN) when dealing with the broker, to reduce the risk of your personal data being misused.

In FXCanary's assessment, Citiglobalmarket is a broker that warrants caution. The presence of CYSEC and FCA licences is a positive sign, but the uncertainty around their status, the zero-employee record, and the complete lack of independent reviews create a picture of a firm that is not yet proven. Our Scam Risk Score of 42/100 reflects that guarded stance. We are not saying Citiglobalmarket is a scam — we have no evidence of that — but we are saying that the evidence of safety is thin.

For a trader, the prudent path is to treat this broker as high-risk until it demonstrates otherwise. That means doing your own due diligence, starting small, and being prepared to walk away at the first sign of trouble. The forex market is full of opportunities, but it is also full of pitfalls. A broker that cannot be independently verified is a pitfall you can choose to avoid. We will continue to monitor Citiglobalmarket and update our assessment as more information becomes available.