Is Gomax a Scam?

At FXCanary, our safety assessments are built on a structured framework that weighs regulatory oversight, client-fund protection, user-reported withdrawal behaviour, and the broader operational footprint of a broker. We do not rely on a single data point; instead, we cross-check public registers, analyse aggregated industry data, and read through the real experiences of traders who have used the platform. The result is a Scam Risk Score that reflects the balance of evidence, and for Gomax that score is 75 out of 100, which we classify as 'Severe'.

This score is not arbitrary. It is driven by the complete absence of any verified licence on file, a pattern of user complaints that cluster around blocked withdrawals and demands for upfront fees, and a corporate profile that lists zero employees at a London address. When we see a broker that claims to be regulated but shows no verifiable authorisation, and when the user record is dominated by reports of funds being trapped, our methodology treats that as a serious red flag. In this article, we explain exactly what our research found and what it means for anyone considering Gomax.

Our review of Gomax found no verified licence on file with any financial regulator. The company's own description claims oversight by the NFA, but we could not verify this against any public register, and no licence number is provided. For a trader, this is the most critical issue: without a credible regulator, there is no independent oversight of how the broker handles client money, no mandatory segregation of funds, and no access to a compensation scheme if the firm collapses or misappropriates assets.

In jurisdictions like the UK, a regulated broker would normally be required to keep client funds in segregated accounts and participate in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which protects eligible deposits up to a certain limit. Negative balance protection would also typically apply. None of these safeguards are in place for Gomax based on our findings. The registered address at 3 Queen Victoria St, London EC4N 4TQ, is a prestigious location, but a physical address alone offers no protection; what matters is the legal authorisation behind it, and that is absent.

Our research identified zero clone or impersonator sites associated with Gomax, which is unusual for a broker with such a poor safety profile. However, this does not mean the risk is lower. Rather, it suggests that the operation itself may be the primary vehicle for the alleged fraud, rather than a fake version of a legitimate brand. The user reviews we analysed frequently mention specific websites, such as www.gomax-hg.com, and specific apps like SoonTrade5, indicating that the platform is actively promoted through social media and direct messaging.

One reviewer warned that scammers were using the platform's name to approach people, saying 'they keep saying they can help you to get money back. the website they provide is fake.' This is a common tactic in recovery scams, where fraudsters prey on victims who have already lost money. The absence of clone sites does not mitigate the danger; it simply means the threat is concentrated in the main operation and its associated domains.

The most damning evidence against Gomax comes from the withdrawal-related complaints. We counted 13 withdrawal complaints, all negative, and the patterns are consistent. One trader reported being told that 'profit income tax must be paid before withdrawals are made', which is a classic advance-fee fraud. Another described depositing $210,000 and then being unable to withdraw, with customer service demanding additional payments. A third user simply asked, 'Can I get my principal back?', reflecting the desperation of those who have seen their funds frozen.

These are not isolated incidents. Across the reviews, the same themes emerge: upfront fees before any payout, endless audits that are never passed, and customer service that insists on further deposits. In our assessment, this is not a technical glitch or a misunderstanding; it is a deliberate pattern designed to extract as much money as possible from victims while never returning their principal. For any trader, this is the clearest possible red flag.

The deposit and funding complaints reinforce the withdrawal problems. One user described being induced by a person on Instagram to download SoonTrade5 and then being guided to the Gomax platform. When they tried to cancel a newcomer activity quota because they could not complete the deposit, customer service 'always insisted on completing the deposit'. This pressure to keep depositing, even when the client wants to stop, is a hallmark of a scam operation.

Another review mentioned paying a 'deposit of 210,000 U.S. dollars' and then being unable to withdraw. The amounts involved are substantial, and the pattern is always the same: the more you deposit, the more you are trapped. The broker's own description mentions a web-based platform and SoonTrade5, but the user experience is dominated by coercion and blocked access to funds. We found no positive feedback about deposits or funding, which is telling.

Customer support at Gomax, according to the reviews, does not exist to help clients; it exists to extract more money. One trader reported that after depositing $210,000, customer service demanded additional payments for taxes and security deposits. Another said that when they tried to cancel an event quota, the support team insisted on completing the deposit. This is not support in any meaningful sense; it is a pressure mechanism.

In legitimate brokers, customer support resolves issues and processes withdrawals promptly. Here, the opposite is true. The reviews show that support staff are unresponsive to requests for principal return and instead escalate the financial demands. For a trader, this means that once your money is in, there is no one to turn to for help. The lack of any positive mention of customer support across all the reviews we analysed is a strong indicator of systemic failure.

The profit and payout complaints are particularly revealing. One reviewer stated that 'profit income tax must be paid before withdrawals are made', which is a textbook advance-fee scam. The victim is told that they have made a profit, but to access it they must first pay a tax or fee. Once they pay, another fee appears, and the cycle continues until the victim runs out of money or realises they have been defrauded.

Another review described a similar sequence: after depositing, the platform demands taxes, then claims the user is suspected of money laundering, then requires a security deposit, and finally fails the audit. This is a well-documented fraud pattern, and Gomax appears to be running it to perfection. The fact that there are no positive reviews about payouts confirms that no one has successfully withdrawn their funds in a legitimate manner.

The account and KYC complaints show that the verification process is used as another tool to delay or deny withdrawals. One user reported that after registering and authenticating their real name, they were still unable to withdraw. Another mentioned that after paying a security deposit, they 'will not pass the audit'. This suggests that the KYC process is not about compliance but about creating endless obstacles.

In a legitimate broker, KYC is a one-time process that verifies your identity and then allows you to trade and withdraw freely. Here, the process seems designed to fail whenever a withdrawal is requested. The reviews indicate that even after providing all required documents, clients are met with new demands. This is a clear sign that the platform is not operating in good faith.

The broker's own description claims spreads starting from 0.0 pips, which is an attractive offer, but our review found no verifiable information about actual spreads or commissions. The only mention of fees in the user reviews is in the context of fraudulent charges: taxes, security deposits, and other upfront payments demanded before withdrawals. These are not legitimate trading fees; they are part of the scam.

We were unable to confirm any real trading conditions, such as spreads, leverage, or minimum deposit, because the broker does not disclose them in a verifiable way. In our assessment, the promised 0.0 pip spread is likely a lure to attract victims, not a genuine trading condition. Traders should be extremely cautious of any broker that advertises ultra-low costs but cannot provide transparent fee information.

The red flags for Gomax are overwhelming. There is no verified regulation, no client fund protection, a pattern of blocked withdrawals, and a history of demands for upfront fees. The user reviews are uniformly negative, with no positive mentions across any category we analysed. The company lists zero employees, which is implausible for a functioning broker. All of these factors contribute to our Severe risk score.

As for green flags, we found none. There are no positive reviews, no verifiable licences, and no evidence of legitimate trading activity. The only positive aspect is the absence of clone sites, but that is a minor point in the face of such overwhelming negative evidence. In our assessment, Gomax is not a safe broker, and we would advise any trader to avoid it entirely.

If you have already deposited money with Gomax, the first step is to stop all further payments. Do not pay any 'taxes', 'security deposits', or 'audit fees' that are demanded, as these are almost certainly part of the scam. Document all communications, including emails, chat logs, and transaction records, as these may be useful if you decide to report the matter to authorities.

You should also report the broker to your local financial regulator and to the police or cybercrime unit. In the UK, you can contact Action Fraud; in the US, the CFTC and SEC have complaint portals. While there is no guarantee of recovering your funds, reporting helps authorities build cases against these operations. Finally, be wary of recovery scams: anyone who contacts you claiming they can get your money back for a fee is likely another fraudster. Our advice is to cut all contact with the platform and seek professional legal advice if the amounts involved are significant.