Longasia Review

When a broker surfaces with multiple regulatory claims and a trail of user complaints, FXCanary’s research team digs deep. Our review of Longasia began by cross-checking its stated licences against the official public registers of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Indonesia’s ICDX. Simultaneously, we aggregated and analysed every real-user review we could obtain from public forums, Trustpilot and specialist forex communities.

We counted 68 relevant user reports and weighted them by topic. Withdrawal reliability, platform stability, and support responsiveness emerged as the dominant themes. In parallel, we examined the broker’s corporate filings, looking for employee counts, physical presence, and any history of clone sites.

The result is this independent assessment, anchored in evidence: a Scam Risk Score of 85/100 (Severe). That score reflects a heavily skewed user-experience record, a regulatory footprint that is partly dormant, and a pattern of complaints that signals serious operational risk.

Long Asia Group Limited claims to have been founded in December 2017 with a registered address in Singapore. However, public corporate records reveal that the entity has zero employees. This is a glaring red flag.

A legitimate forex or derivatives broker handling client funds and executing trades requires a substantial operational workforce — compliance officers, dealers, support staff, IT specialists. A headcount of zero strongly suggests that Longasia operates as a mere shell, likely relying on outsourced or undisclosed related parties to run its day-to-day activities.

When a holding company lists no employees, it raises questions about who is actually managing client accounts and processing withdrawals. It also undermines any claim of having a physical presence capable of being held accountable. For a broker that pitches itself to retail traders, this corporate structure is a fundamental mismatch between its public image and its legal reality.

Longasia’s marketing points to two regulatory licences: one from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and another from the Indonesia Commodity and Derivatives Exchange (ICDX). Both deserve scrutiny.

The MAS licence (number CMS100756-1) is for Market Making (MM). However, the status field in our record is blank, and no regulatory status is publicly released. Crucially, an MAS capital markets services licence for market making does not equate to a licence to accept retail forex deposits or offer leveraged trading to individuals. Moreover, if the licence is not clearly registered as a ‘dealing in securities’ or ‘leveraged foreign exchange trading’, its scope may be limited to institutional market-making activities.

The ICDX licence is listed as a Derivatives Trading Licence (EP), but again the status is unreleased. ICDX is an Indonesian exchange authority, not a primary financial regulator with the power to supervise retail brokers holding client money. Many offshore or unregulated brokers obtain membership in such exchanges to create a veneer of legitimacy, while the exchange itself may have no oversight over the broker’s conduct towards retail clients.

FXCanary’s cross-check with the official MAS register did not yield a clear confirmation that Long Asia Group Limited holds an active licence for retail forex or CFD dealing. The lack of transparent, verifiable regulatory status is a critical shortfall. Traders should understand that without a top-tier regulator with client fund segregation and compensation schemes, their deposits are at severe risk.

Longasia does not publicly provide detailed information on account types, minimum deposits, or leverage terms on any official website or documentation we could locate. In the structured data we obtained from industry databases, there is no breakdown of account tiers, spreads, or trading conditions.

When a broker shrouds its core offering in secrecy, it deprives traders of the ability to make informed decisions. Legitimate brokers usually publish transparent account specifications, including commission structures and margin requirements. The absence here suggests either a deliberate withholding of information or a lack of a standardised product.

From the user reviews, we glean that traders were often induced through seminars or personal introductions, with promises of high returns. But the nebulous account structure meant that many only discovered the reality after depositing funds. This opacity is a common trait among brokers that later block withdrawals or alter trading conditions unilaterally.

The user-review record on withdrawals is damning. Out of 26 mentions, 25 are negative. Traders describe a textbook exit scam pattern: initial small withdrawals are processed smoothly to build trust, but once larger sums are requested, the broker stalls.

One user, who had traded for six months and experienced 20 successful withdrawals early on, still gave a 5-star rating, but that outlier stands against a torrent of others who lost access to their funds. One victim reports being refused a withdrawal of over 18,000 USD with excuses that ‘USDT is hard to move’. Another states that 42,000 USD has been withheld for over four months, with no response to emails or calls.

Multiple complaints also highlight that the broker’s member area becomes inaccessible when users attempt to withdraw. This is a classic tactic to block account access once a client becomes inconvenient. The complaint about a ‘BOT’ and the platform being a facade further underlines that the infrastructure may be designed to trap deposits rather than facilitate genuine trading.

FXCanary’s analysis of the deposit and funding mentions — 100% negative — reveals that even the initial deposit process can be fraught. Users report being unable to log in or being misled about the nature of the investment. When combined with the withdrawal blockade, it becomes clear that the entire funding cycle is engineered against the client.

Every one of the 17 user mentions regarding the platform or app is negative. The most frequent complaint is the inability to access the member area, with the system returning an ‘Invalid’ error.

One trader described the platform as a ‘BOT’ with no real support, merely a website designed to appear legitimate. Another detailed how the platform dropped the connection for 15 minutes, preventing the closure of profitable EA positions, resulting in losses. Such alleged malicious manipulation of connectivity points to a broker that may be controlling the trading environment to the disadvantage of its clients.

In a legitimate brokerage, platform stability and fair execution are non-negotiable. The repeated reports of login failures and unexplained disconnections suggest that Longasia’s platform is either grossly under-resourced or intentionally rigged. The fact that users cannot even access their accounts to monitor trades or request withdrawals is a massive red flag.

User complaints about spreads and fees, though fewer in number, are telling. One reviewer mentions being billed 30,000 yen for ‘expenses and gasoline’ on top of a promised transfer that never materialised. Another reports that Longasia used the excuse of a regulatory investigation into a clone firm to delay withdrawals, implying that the broker was charging margins in its name.

Beyond these anecdotes, there is no publicly available schedule of fees or spread table. The lack of transparency means traders have no way to compare costs or even know what they are being charged. In a legitimate operation, fee structures are clear and consistent. The opaque and arbitrary nature of fees reported by users aligns with a pattern of financial exploitation.

Aggregating across all topics, the user record for Longasia is overwhelmingly negative. Withdrawals, platform, deposits, and customer support all show near-zero satisfaction. The Fraud/Scam concerns topic alone carries 9 mentions, all negative, with users explicitly labelling the broker a ‘Totally Fraud Broker’ and warning others to stay away.

Specific stories paint a vivid picture: a trader alleges being defrauded of over 100,000 USD. Another recounts how after attending a seminar, they were pressured to invest in a scheme from which they could not withdraw. A third describes travelling to the broker’s purported address in Hangzhou, only to find it had become a home-based information consulting company.

These reviews are not isolated gripes; they show a coherent narrative of a broker that uses seminars, personal relationships, and high-pressure tactics to attract deposits, then systematically refuses to return funds. The few positive outliers — like the 5-star review about smooth withdrawals — are likely either from early-stage clients or potentially fabricated to offset the overwhelming negativity.

In our experience, a Trustpilot score of 2.6 out of 5 over 14 reviews, where most are 1-star screams, is a strong indicator that genuine users are deeply unhappy. The absence of any commentary on Forex Peace Army further suggests the broker may not have a presence among more experienced traders, or that reviews on that platform have been contested.

FXCanary’s own Scam Risk Score of 85/100 (Severe) is derived from a weighted analysis of regulatory strength, complaint density, corporate transparency, and user feedback. We also note that aggregated industry data sources show a consistent pattern of complaints.

One industry database records 42 withdrawal-related complaints and identifies one clone or impersonator site. Clones are often set up by scammers to piggyback on a brand’s notoriety, but the existence of a clone can also indicate that the original broker’s reputation is so tarnished that others try to exploit it. In this case, the clone site further muddies the waters and makes it harder for traders to know which entity they are dealing with.

The regulatory picture remains murky. While MAS is a respected regulator, the specific licence held by Longasia appears to be inactive or not intended for retail forex. The ICDX licence, from an Indonesian commodity exchange, provides minimal investor protection. No top-tier regulator such as the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC is present. This is a gaping hole in the broker’s legitimacy claims.

Longasia triggers nearly every red flag on our checklist. A shell company with zero employees. Licences that are either inappropriate for retail trading or unverifiable.

No transparent account or fee information. A platform that users cannot reliably access. An overwhelming number of complaints about blocked withdrawals and missing funds.

Allegations of outright fraud exceeding 100,000 USD in individual cases.

When we see a broker that processes early withdrawals but later stonewalls, it is the hallmark of a Ponzi-like or advance-fee scheme. The fact that multiple users mention being introduced through seminars and personal contacts suggests the broker relies on affinity fraud, exploiting trust within communities.

The Scam Risk Score of 85/100 is not arbitrary. It places Longasia in the ‘Severe’ category, meaning that the probability of financial harm is very high. We have seen similar profiles in other brokers that ultimately disappeared with client funds.

Based on our rigorous investigation, Long Asia Group Limited is not a safe broker for retail traders. The evidence points to a deliberate scheme to collect deposits under the guise of forex and derivatives trading, with little intention of honouring withdrawal requests.

If you are considering trading with Longasia, we urge you to stop and reconsider. Do not be swayed by the Singaporean company registration or the mention of MAS; these are often used as smokescreens. Verify the regulatory status directly on the MAS register and you will likely find that this entity does not hold a licence for retail forex.

If you already have funds with Longasia, our advice is to attempt a withdrawal immediately, document all communications, and report your case to your local financial authority and consumer protection agencies. In cases of suspected fraud, time is critical.

FXCanary will continue to monitor this broker and update our assessment if conditions change. But as of this writing, the verdict is clear: Longasia is a severe risk, and traders should avoid it entirely.