Is MINT a Scam?

When we at FXCanary evaluate a broker, we do not rely on marketing claims or a handful of five-star reviews. Our methodology is built on a multi-layered cross-check: we verify regulatory licences against official public registers, we analyse aggregated user reviews for patterns rather than isolated incidents, we count and categorise withdrawal complaints, and we scan for clone or impersonator websites that might be trading on a broker's name. Each of these layers feeds into a Scam Risk Score that reflects the real-world safety picture for retail traders.

For MINT (operating as MintCFD), that score is 75 out of 100, which we classify as 'Severe'. This is not a score we assign lightly. It is driven primarily by the complete absence of any verified regulatory licence, a Trustpilot rating of just 2.7 out of 5, and a meaningful cluster of withdrawal-related complaints. In the sections below, we unpack exactly what this means for a trader considering depositing funds with this broker.

Our most critical finding is that MINT has no verified regulatory licence on file. The company behind the platform, Mint AFK Markets Ltd, is registered at Office 707, Seventh floor, Sterling House, 9-11 Lislet Geoffrey Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. While Mauritius is home to a financial services regulator, the Financial Services Commission, we found no evidence that Mint AFK Markets Ltd holds a licence from that body or any other competent authority. This is a red flag of the highest order.

A regulated broker is subject to conduct rules, capital adequacy requirements, and client-money segregation rules. If a broker is unregulated, none of those protections apply. In the event of a dispute, a trader has no ombudsman to turn to, no compensation scheme to claim from, and no regulator to investigate a complaint. One user review we analysed directly highlights this: a trader asked MINT's live chat for licence and regulation details and was told they could not provide any. In our assessment, that is not an oversight—it is a structural absence of oversight.

For regulated brokers, client fund protection typically comes in three forms: segregation of client money from the broker's own funds, a compensation scheme that covers losses if the broker goes bankrupt, and negative balance protection that prevents a trader from owing more than they deposited. None of these protections are guaranteed for MINT, because no regulator is watching.

Even in Mauritius, a licensed broker would be expected to keep client funds in segregated accounts, but without a licence, there is no independent verification that this happens. There is also no compensation scheme that would reimburse a trader if Mint AFK Markets Ltd were to collapse. Negative balance protection is a feature that some brokers offer voluntarily, but MINT's terms are not disclosed in the data we reviewed. In our assessment, the absence of a licence means a trader is exposed to the full risk of the broker's solvency and conduct, with no safety net.

Withdrawal reliability is the single most important test of a broker's integrity. A broker can have a slick platform and fast execution, but if it refuses to return a trader's money, it is effectively a scam. We counted five withdrawal-related complaints in the user reviews we analysed, and while that number may seem small, it is significant given the low total number of reviews.

One trader reported that their trades were suddenly closed after the platform removed a ₹600 bonus while positions were still open, which reduced margin and caused a stop-out. Another trader said they were 'still waiting on my payments' despite a trading bot delivering weekly profits. These are concrete, specific allegations of funds being withheld or positions being closed in a way that harmed the trader. We also note that the positive reviews praising 'instant' withdrawals are often vague and promotional in tone, which makes us cautious about giving them full weight.

It would be unfair to ignore the positive feedback entirely. Several users praised the platform's ease of use, the zero-brokerage model, and the speed of deposits and withdrawals. One five-star review claimed to have received profit money in ten minutes, and another said multiple withdrawals were done instantly. These are the kinds of experiences that a legitimate broker would want to highlight.

However, we treat these positive reviews with caution. Many of them read like promotional testimonials rather than organic user feedback, and they are heavily outnumbered by the negative reviews when it comes to trust and reliability. The positive reviews also do not address the core issue of regulation. A broker can process a few withdrawals quickly and still be a bad actor—the real test is whether it behaves consistently over time and under stress. With only six Trustpilot reviews in total, the sample size is too small to draw any robust conclusion about reliability.

The most serious red flag in the user reviews is the allegation that MINT removed a ₹600 bonus while the trader's positions were still open, causing a margin reduction and a stop-out. This is a classic tactic used by unscrupulous brokers: offer a bonus to attract deposits, then withdraw it at a moment that triggers a forced liquidation of the trader's positions. The trader loses money, and the broker keeps the spread or commission.

Another trader reported holding a Bitcoin position for a week and finding their capital in 'munus' (minus) even though the market was ascending, with no customer support to explain the loss. This suggests either a malfunctioning platform, a lack of transparency in pricing, or a deliberate manipulation of trades. In our assessment, these are not isolated incidents—they are patterns that point to a broker that does not have the trader's interests at heart.

We also checked for clone or impersonator websites that might be using the MintCFD name to defraud traders. Our scan found zero clone sites, which is a small positive. It means that the broker itself is the primary risk, rather than a third party pretending to be the broker.

However, this does not reduce the overall risk. In fact, it makes the situation clearer: the broker itself is the entity that traders need to be wary of. The lack of clones also means that any trader who searches for 'MintCFD' is likely to find the real platform, which could give a false sense of security. We advise traders to remember that a broker does not need to be a clone to be dangerous—it can be dangerous in its own right.

Given the severe risk score, our strongest advice is to avoid depositing any funds with MINT until it obtains a verifiable regulatory licence. If you have already opened an account, we recommend withdrawing any remaining balance immediately, and documenting every step of the process—screenshots of your account, withdrawal requests, and any communication with customer support.

If you do decide to trade, never deposit more than you can afford to lose, and be aware that bonuses are not free money—they come with strings attached. In particular, be extremely cautious about accepting any bonus that is not clearly explained in the terms and conditions, as the ₹600 bonus incident shows how a bonus can be used against you. Finally, keep an eye on your positions and margin levels, and if you notice any unexplained changes, close your positions and withdraw your funds without delay.

In our assessment, MINT is a high-risk broker that operates without any regulatory oversight. The positive reviews are outweighed by the negative ones, and the withdrawal-related complaints are a serious concern. The Scam Risk Score of 75/100 reflects the real, concrete risks that we have identified.

We cannot recommend this broker to any trader, whether beginner or experienced. The lack of a licence alone is enough to disqualify it, and the user experiences we analysed only reinforce that conclusion. If you value your capital, we urge you to look for a fully regulated broker with a track record of treating clients fairly. There are many reputable options available, and none of them require you to take on the level of risk that MINT presents.