Is Longasia a Scam?

At FXCanary, our safety methodology goes far beyond a simple licence count. We cross-check regulatory registrations against official public registers, dissect the specific permissions granted, and evaluate whether those licences actually provide meaningful safeguards for retail traders. A broker may hold credentials from multiple authorities, but if those authorities lack robust oversight or the licence type does not cover the services offered to individuals, safety can be illusory.

We also mine user reviews from diverse platforms and complaints databases, not for raw sentiment but to identify patterns — especially around withdrawal reliability and transparency. A single angry ex-client is anecdotal; dozens reporting the same blocked-withdrawal tactic is a structural warning. Finally, we incorporate data on clone sites, impersonation attempts, and any formal warnings from regulators, because even a seemingly legitimate entity can be tarnished by copycats or, worse, be the original of a fraudulent network.

Our Scam Risk Score synthesises all these layers into a single indicative figure. Above 80 indicates severe risk, where multiple red flags converge and the probability of financial harm is high. Longasia’s score of 85 places it firmly in that bracket, and this article explains exactly why.

Long Asia Group Limited scores 85 out of 100 on our Scam Risk Scale — a rating we classify as Severe. This figure is not an arbitrary alarm; it is the weighted outcome of several converging data points that erode trust. First, the broker lists two licences: one from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and one from Indonesia’s ICDX. At face value, an MAS licence might signal safety, but the licence type is Market Making (MM), which typically governs institutional dealing rather than the client-facing retail forex business. Moreover, the MAS register shows the licence status as unresolved in our data, leaving a critical gap in verification.

The second licence, from ICDX, is a Derivatives Trading Licence designed for the Indonesian commodities and derivatives market. While legitimate in its jurisdiction, it does not offer the layer of investor protection — such as segregated trust accounts, compensation funds, or negative-balance guarantees — that traders from Europe or Australia might expect from a top-tier regulator. In effect, this dual-licence setup allows the broker to cherry-pick the least constraining oversight.

Beyond the licences, the complaint profile is lopsided. We identified 42 distinct withdrawal-related complaints, with 25 out of 26 reviews on that topic being negative. Patterns of initial small payments followed by total blockage for larger amounts recur in the reviews. Add to this a confirmed clone site, a Trustpilot score of 2.6/5, and zero employees officially recorded, and the picture is of an operation that lacks both the substance and the will to treat client capital safely.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore is a respected regulator in the financial world, known for rigorous enforcement and a well-structured regime for capital markets services. However, not all MAS licences are equal. Longasia holds licence number CMS100756-1 under the Market Making (MM) category.

Market Making licences in Singapore typically permit activities like quoting bid and offer prices for securities or derivatives, often on recognised exchanges or institutional platforms. Crucially, such a licence does not automatically imply authorisation to accept retail deposits or execute spot forex trades for individuals. Without a Capital Markets Services Licence that explicitly includes dealing in over-the-counter derivatives contracts for retail clients, the regulatory umbrella may not cover the very services Longasia promotes.

The ICDX licence, issued by the Indonesia Commodity & Derivatives Exchange, is a more niche credential. ICDX regulates futures and derivatives trading primarily in Indonesia’s commodity markets, not the global retail forex space. Its enforcement capacity and investor protection mechanisms — including the absence of a national compensation scheme — are significantly weaker than those in major financial centres. Traders who rely on this licence are effectively entering a loosely supervised environment with limited recourse if things go wrong.

Our review found no evidence that Longasia holds any additional licence from a tier-one jurisdiction (such as the FCA, CySEC, or ASIC) that would normally underpin strong client protections. The combination of a vaguely applicable MAS licence and an offshore ICDX registration effectively leaves a regulatory vacuum around core retail activities, which is a classic setup for offshore brokers aiming to evade genuine accountability.

When a trader deposits money with a broker, the most critical question is: what happens to those funds if the broker fails or acts dishonestly? In well-regulated environments, client money must be held in segregated trust accounts, separate from the firm’s own operating capital. Regulators like the UK’s FCA additionally mandate negative balance protection and membership in a Financial Services Compensation Scheme that can return up to £85,000 per person if the broker becomes insolvent.

With Longasia’s regulatory profile, none of these protections can be confirmed. The MAS Market Making licence may require some level of segregation, but without a specific retail forex licence, the applicability of such rules is ambiguous. More importantly, there is no investor compensation fund in Singapore for failed forex brokers, so even if segregation is in place, a collapse could still result in lost funds. The ICDX regime from Indonesia offers even less clarity; we have found no public information about an overarching client money protection framework for foreign exchange trading under that licence.

Given this regulatory ambiguity and the absence of any clear, enforceable client-fund safeguards, FXCanary considers the custody of client money at Longasia to be highly questionable. Traders should assume that their capital is exposed to the firm’s own operational risks — a situation that aligns poorly with the broker’s aggressive marketing of copy-trading and high-return strategies.

Industry databases we consulted flagged at least one clone or impersonator website associated with Longasia. Clones are fraudulent websites that mimic the branding, name, and even regulatory information of a legitimate broker to deceive potential victims. Their existence not only creates confusion but can also be used as a smokescreen: when clients complain about missing funds, the real operator may deflect blame onto the clone.

In Longasia’s case, the emergence of a clone site amplifies the already high caution level. It is often a sign that the brand is either a target for fraud because of its weak verification processes, or part of a wider network using multiple domains under the same banner. We have observed cases where the clone is actually operated by the same group behind the original broker, enabling them to harvest deposits without any traceable accountability.

Traders visiting a Longasia-branded platform must exercise extreme diligence: validate the exact URL against the official company details filed with the MAS (if they can be matched), and never trust links sent via social media or unsolicited emails. Even if the official site itself is not a clone, the prevalence of impersonators means that accidentally handing money to a fraudulent copy is a very real danger.

The most damning evidence against Longasia’s safety comes not from the licences but from the voices of its own clients. With 25 out of 26 withdrawal-related reviews being negative, a clear pattern of systematic non-payment emerges. One user recounts: ‘They give withdrawal in start … But after that they will stop giving withdrawals I lost more than 18000 usd They keep giving rubbish excuses like usdt is hard to move.’ This classic ‘bait-and-switch’ tactic is often employed by fraudulent brokers: allow small test withdrawals to build confidence, then block all requests once larger sums are involved.

Another trader describes a four‑month ordeal: ‘Long Asia Capital and Long Asia Group have been ignoring my withdrawal requests for over 4 months … withholding 42K USD without any justification.’ The fact that these complaints consistently mention the same entity — regardless of the exact domain name — reinforces the notion that it is a coordinated operation rather than a series of isolated incidents. Even reviews that begin positively, like the 5‑star review claiming 20 successful withdrawals, pale beside the volume of traumatic accounts.

The excuses given in reviews — such as blaming an ‘investigation’ by the regulator, claiming that ‘USDT is hard to move’, or simply going silent — are textbook delay tactics. In our experience, these narratives rarely resolve favourably for the trader. When a broker cannot be contacted for days after a withdrawal request, and support responses become non‑existent, the funds are almost certainly at risk.

Several red flags place Longasia in our Severe risk category. The first is the glaring asymmetry between positive and negative user feedback — not a single area from platform reliability to fees scores a net positive. The Trustpilot rating of 2.6/5 over 14 reviews, while a small sample, aligns with the broader complaint data. The absence of any presence on Forex Peace Army, a community where traders often air grievances, is itself a warning: it could either mean the broker is not on traders’ radar or that they actively avoid such platforms.

The single clone site we identified is another significant marker. Legitimate brokers typically have a clean, well‑documented history; the existence of a clone often indicates that the brand has been used to defraud, or that the broker itself is not what it claims. Combined with the withdrawal complaints, this suggests a high likelihood that at least some of the Longasia‑branded entities are fraudulent.

Other warning signs include the claim of zero employees, which — while possibly a data anomaly — raises a red flag about the operational capacity to serve thousands of clients and maintain compliant systems. And the fact that the broker offers copy trading, a service that typically falls under stricter investor protection rules, further underlines the regulatory mismatch. When a broker’s operational claims do not align with its disclosed licences, caution is essential.

Despite the overwhelming negative data, we must acknowledge that not every review is a complaint. A single 5‑star review on Trustpilot describes six months of trading with 20 successful withdrawals and even praises the copy trading feature. Another positive review comments that Longasia is a ‘very good broker’. These testimonials, however, cannot tip the scale when set against the flood of unresolved withdrawal issues and outright scam accusations.

The MAS licence, even in the Market Making category, does represent a level of official registration that many complete scams do not possess. However, as we have shown, the licence’s relevance to the retail forex activities is suspect, and the lack of clear status undermines its value. Green flags in the forex world must be concrete: consistent, un‑coerced positive user evidence over long periods, transparent disclosure of fees and spreads, and a clean regulatory record with no warnings. Longasia fails on each of these counts, making the few positive reviews appear more as outliers than indicators of trustworthiness.

If you are considering trading with Longasia or already have funds with this broker, immediate protective steps are vital. First, verify the MAS licence directly: visit the MAS Financial Institutions Directory, search for Long Asia Group Limited or licence number CMS100756‑1, and confirm the specific activities permitted. If the licence does not mention ‘dealing in capital markets products’ for retail clients, you have grounds to question what you are being sold.

Before depositing more than a minimal test amount, check the exact URL of the website and compare it against the company’s official registration details. If you receive emails or social media messages directing you to a different site, it is almost certainly a clone. Document all communication and withdrawal requests thoroughly; screenshots, email threads, and transaction IDs can be crucial if you need to lodge a formal complaint.

If your funds are already locked, file a complaint with both MAS and ICDX, and consider reaching out to Singapore’s Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) if you believe the broker has violated market-making rules. In cases of significant loss, engaging a lawyer familiar with cross‑border financial fraud may be your only recourse. Our advice, however, remains unequivocal: with a Scam Risk Score of 85/100, we strongly recommend that traders seek out a broker with fully transparent, top‑tier regulation that explicitly protects retail forex clients. There are many alternatives where safety does not have to be a gamble.