Fake Tradeview Deposit & Withdrawal

When we sat down to write this funding guide for Fake Tradeview (Tradeview LTD, trading as tradeviewlatam.com), we expected to be able to lean on a body of independent user reviews, withdrawal reports, and third-party audits. That is the normal foundation for a broker funding review. In this case, that foundation does not exist. Our records show no independent user reviews for this entity, and the broker is young — registered in Peru on 18 November 2024, which makes it roughly 21 months old at the time of writing.

That absence of independent verification is itself the most important fact for anyone thinking of sending money here. We can describe what the broker's own website says about deposits and withdrawals, and we can cross-check the regulatory claims against public registers. But we cannot tell you from experience whether withdrawals are processed smoothly, whether fees are applied as disclosed, or whether the broker honours its stated timelines. In FXCanary's assessment, that is a significant gap for a trader to accept. Everything in this guide should be read with that caveat in mind.

The one concrete regulatory fact we can confirm from our records is that Tradeview LTD holds a Derivatives Trading License (EP) from the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), licence number 585163. That is a real, verifiable licence, and we cross-checked it against the public register. However, it is worth being precise about what a CIMA licence does and does not mean for your funds.

CIMA is a well-regarded offshore regulator, but it is not a compensation scheme. Unlike, say, the UK's FSCS or the US's SIPC, a CIMA licence does not guarantee that your money is protected if the broker fails. It means the broker is subject to certain conduct and capital requirements, but the practical protection for a retail client is far thinner than in a major onshore jurisdiction. Our records also note that the licence status is listed as '—', which we read as not clearly confirmed as active. That is a yellow flag, and it reinforces the need for caution.

The most concrete funding information we found comes from a withdrawal policy document hosted on the broker's own domain, tradeviewlatam.com. That document is actually branded for 'iLC Brokers' and references a Mauritius entity, which is a separate company — but the policy text appears to be the one Tradeview uses. It states that all deposits and withdrawals must be made from a bank account, credit/debit card, or alternative payment method (Skrill, Neteller, Uphold, or others) under the same name as the trading account. This is standard AML practice, and it is the only specific funding detail we can attribute to the broker.

Notably, the broker's website does not publish a clear, consolidated list of deposit methods, minimum amounts, or processing times. The account application forms mention security and encryption, but they do not disclose fees or limits. In our view, that lack of transparency is a concern. A broker that is serious about client funding should make its deposit and withdrawal terms easy to find. Here, the information is scattered across PDFs and forms, and some of it appears to be borrowed from another entity.

The withdrawal policy we found is short and mostly about compliance. It says the company cannot receive or deposit funds to third parties, and that all withdrawals must go back to the original funding source. That is a sensible anti-money-laundering measure, and it is broadly in line with industry practice. But the document does not specify how long a withdrawal takes, whether there are fees, or what happens if a withdrawal is delayed.

For a trader, the practical implication is this: you should expect to withdraw only to the same account you deposited from, and you should not plan around a specific processing time, because none is published. In our experience, brokers that do not disclose withdrawal timelines are more likely to have slow or unpredictable payouts. That is not a claim that this broker is fraudulent — we have no evidence of that — but it is a risk factor that a cautious trader should weigh.

One of the most important things we can tell you is that the name 'Tradeview' is used by several different entities, and the web results we reviewed are dominated by a different company — Tradeview Markets, a Cayman Islands broker that has been operating for years and is not the same as the Fake Tradeview we are reviewing. That older Tradeview Markets is the one that appears in industry databases and in reviews on sites like LeapRate and industry trackers. It is also the one that launched the 'Innovative Liquidity Connector' ECN product.

Our Fake Tradeview, by contrast, is registered in Peru, uses the domain tradeviewlatam.com, and was founded in 2024. The two share a name and some branding language, but they are separate legal entities. This is a classic setup for confusion, and it is a red flag in our book.

A trader who searches for 'Tradeview reviews' will find material about the older, more established broker and may assume it applies to this one. It does not. We urge you to check the domain and the legal name carefully before depositing.

We searched the broker's website and the broader web for specific deposit and withdrawal fees, minimum amounts, and processing times. We found none that we could attribute to this specific entity. The broker's own pages mention 'spreads starting at 0.0' and leverage adjustments, but those are trading conditions, not funding terms. The IB rebate schedule we found references a Peruvian company number, but it does not disclose client-facing funding fees.

In the absence of published figures, we cannot tell you whether this broker charges for deposits or withdrawals, what the minimum deposit is, or how long a withdrawal takes. That is not a criticism of the broker's actual practices — it may be that they are standard and reasonable. But it is a fact that a trader cannot make an informed decision without this information. Our advice is to treat the lack of disclosure as a warning sign and to ask the broker directly for written confirmation of all fees and timelines before you fund an account.

Given everything above, here is our practical guidance for anyone considering funding an account with Fake Tradeview. First, start with a small deposit — an amount you are fully prepared to lose. This is not because we believe the broker is a scam, but because the risk is unquantified. Second, test a withdrawal early, ideally before you place any significant trades. A broker that processes a small withdrawal quickly and without drama is a better sign than one that stalls or asks for excessive documentation.

Third, keep meticulous records of every deposit, withdrawal, and communication with the broker. Save screenshots of the website's funding pages, the withdrawal policy PDF, and any emails about fees or timelines. If a dispute arises, these records are your only evidence. Fourth, use a funding method that offers some form of recourse, such as a credit card, rather than a wire transfer or cryptocurrency, which are harder to reverse. Finally, do not deposit more than you can afford to lose, and be aware that the regulatory protection here is thin.

In FXCanary's assessment, Fake Tradeview is a broker that exists on paper, with a real CIMA licence number and a registered address in Peru, but with almost no independent track record. The funding information it publishes is incomplete and partly borrowed from another entity. The name confusion with the older Tradeview Markets is a genuine hazard. None of this proves fraud, but it does mean that a trader who funds this account is taking on risk that is not well understood.

Our recommendation is to treat this broker with caution. If you do decide to trade here, follow the safe-funding steps we outlined: start small, test a withdrawal, keep records, and use a reversible payment method. And remember that the absence of independent reviews is not a neutral fact — it is a reason to demand more transparency from the broker before you commit a single dollar.