Is stonefort a Scam?

At FXCanary, our investigative process is built on a multi-layered approach that leaves no stone unturned. We cross-check regulatory credentials against official public registers, scrutinise the substance of user reviews rather than just their sentiment scores, and tally complaint volumes from aggregated industry databases. This rigorous triangulation yields a Scam Risk Score that ranges from 0 (extremely high risk) to 100 (pristine), with a score below 50 placing a broker in our ‘Guarded’ category — meaning traders should proceed with heightened caution.

Stonefort Securities Limited registered a Scam Risk Score of 44, a number that reflects a cluster of concerning signals we detail throughout this investigation. While no single factor dictates the score, the combination of a sole offshore licence, a high count of withdrawal-related complaints in independent databases, and a worrying discrepancy around its purported regulation in the UAE all dragged the rating down. In the sections that follow, we unpack each element so you can make an informed decision about whether this broker deserves your trust.

A score of 44 is a stark reminder that regulatory labels can be deceiving. Stonefort’s license from the Mauritius Financial Services Commission (FSC) is legitimate — we verified licence GB24202921 directly on the FSC register — but it is not a top-tier authority. Mauritius offers a lighter touch than regulators like the FCA or ASIC, and that matters when your funds are on the line. Our risk algorithm also factors in that this is a newly founded broker (August 2024) with no track record to lean on.

What truly pulls the score down, however, is the sheer number of withdrawal complaints. From the data we mined, industry databases have logged at least 17 withdrawal-related grievances against Stonefort. That is an unusually high tally for a broker so young, and it suggests that while many clients report smooth withdrawals, a significant minority face serious obstacles — a classic pattern we observe in brokers that later collapse or are exposed as scams.

Finally, the glaring omission of any UAE Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) licence, despite multiple user reviews praising the broker as ‘SCA-regulated,’ introduces a credibility gap. Our checks of the SCA’s public registry returned no record of Stonefort. This misalignment between the broker’s claims on its website (which we reviewed) and the official record is one of the most troubling findings in our investigation, and it alone warrants a guarded stance.

Stonefort Securities Limited holds one regulatory credential: a Securities Trading Licence (EP) from the FSC of Mauritius. This licence permits the broker to offer trading in securities and commodities to clients outside Mauritius, which is how Stonefort can serve international customers from its registered address in Moka. The FSC does mandate basic client-fund segregation and requires licensees to maintain adequate capital, but it does not operate a compensation or investor protection scheme akin to the FCA’s FSCS. If the company fails, there is no statutory safety net to recover your money.

Even more perplexing is the broker’s persistent association with the UAE’s SCA. Headquartered in the UAE (as per its own material), Stonefort would naturally be expected to hold an SCA licence to operate there legally. Yet our review of the SCA register, combined with the absence of any SCA entry in our own regulatory database, confirms that no such licence exists.

Several Trustpilot reviewers explicitly mention feeling secure because of ‘SCA regulation’ — a sentiment the broker appears to encourage. This mismatch could be an honest mistake in marketing, but in our experience it often signals an attempt to piggyback on a stricter regulator’s reputation. Until Stonefort publicly clarifies and provides proof of SCA authorisation, we urge traders to treat any SCA claims with scepticism.

The 0-employee figure listed in company records (likely from the Mauritius registrar) also raises eyebrows. While it is common for new entities to start with a minimal workforce, it reinforces the impression of a shell structure designed to hold a license rather than a fully operational brokerage. Combined with a relatively narrow set of two withdrawal methods, this suggests limited operational infrastructure — a potential bottleneck when clients need to cash out.

Stonefort’s Trustpilot rating of 3.8 out of 5 from 31 reviews appears reassuring at first glance. Across the topics we analysed, positive sentiments dominate: customer support receives 19 positive mentions, trust & reliability gets 16 positive mentions, and withdrawals boast 17 positive mentions. Several reviewers describe ‘instant’ or ‘fast’ withdrawals, and one even thanks the broker for a bonus withdrawal processed within three days. These accounts paint a picture of a broker that, for many, delivers on its promises.

Yet underneath the upbeat surface, cracks emerge. The same withdrawal topic records 1 explicitly negative review, but the language in that complaint — accusing Stonefort of citing ‘policies and terms’ to avoid paying large profits and imposing a minimum 3-minute hold on XAUUSD trades — is far more damning than its count suggests. It echoes the kind of behaviour we see in brokers that manipulate trading conditions or stall on payouts when profitable trades occur.

Moreover, the 17 withdrawal complaints logged in external databases cannot be ignored. While some may be duplicates or frivolous, the volume is disproportionate for a broker with fewer than 50 reviews. This pattern — a majority of happy clients alongside a troubled minority reporting blocked withdrawals — is a red flag in our risk assessment framework, as it often precedes a wider breakdown in service.

Several red flags compound our concern about Stonefort. First is the regulatory misrepresentation: the absence of an SCA licence while reviews attribute SCA regulation to the broker suggests either deliberate deception or a reckless marketing strategy. Second, the sole reliance on a Mauritius FSC licence — an offshore jurisdiction with minimal investor protections — leaves clients with little recourse if things go wrong.

Third, the 17 withdrawal complaints indicate systemic issues. When a broker attracts that many formal complaints in its first year, it points to problems beyond isolated incidents. The negative Trustpilot review specifically mentions profit denial on large wins, a classic exit scam tactic. Fourth, the discovery of a 3-minute minimum hold time on XAUUSD trades, if true, is an undisclosed trading restriction that can skew outcomes against the trader. No reputable broker imposes such rules without clear disclosure.

Finally, basic transparency is lacking: the broker’s listing of 0 employees, the minimal withdrawal method options (just 2), and the fact that we could not independently verify any top-tier regulatory accreditation all undermine confidence. Even the positive reviews, while plentiful, could be incentivised — a common practice among brokers seeking to drown out genuine complaints.

In fairness to Stonefort, several elements work in its favour. The FSC licence, while weak, is valid and verifiable — this is not an outright unregulated broker. The broker has also managed to accumulate a base of users who genuinely praise its speed, support, and reliability. Of the 44 reviews we analysed, the majority describe a positive experience with customer service and quick withdrawals, and not a single review complains about deposit issues.

Additionally, we found no evidence of clone or impersonator websites, which are a common indication of a scam operation. The broker’s platforms seem to be well‑received, with users calling the app ‘user‑friendly’ and execution ‘fast.’ While these green flags do not cancel out the red ones, they suggest that Stonefort is not a pure scam — at least not for every client. The challenge for a trader is to determine whether they will fall into the satisfied majority or the aggrieved minority.

If after reading this investigation you still choose to engage with Stonefort, we recommend a defensive approach. First and foremost, independently verify the broker’s regulatory status on the Mauritius FSC website using licence number GB24202921. Do not rely on the broker’s own claim; also check the UAE SCA register to confirm the absence of any licence — this alone should give you pause.

Second, start with the minimum deposit of $50 on the Starter account and conduct a real‑money withdrawal test immediately. Do not wait until you’ve built up large profits to attempt a cash‑out; many problematic brokers process small withdrawals to build trust before blocking larger ones. Document every interaction with support, and read all terms and conditions, particularly sections on withdrawals, bonuses, and trading restrictions — especially if you trade gold (XAUUSD).

Third, avoid depositing more than you can afford to lose, and treat any ‘SCA regulation’ references as unverified. If you encounter delayed withdrawals or are asked to meet new conditions to access your funds, consider lodging a complaint with the Mauritius FSC or an online dispute resolution platform. Finally, keep an eye on the broker’s review profile over time: a sudden influx of positive reviews after a wave of complaints is a tell‑tale sign of review manipulation.