AMarkets publishes its regulatory position on its own website, and the detail there is more useful than the summary most review sites give you. The group operates three registered entities, in three jurisdictions, under three different registries. None of them is the Financial Conduct Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, CySEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The brand dates to 2007 and is not a shell operation, but the protections attached to your balance are set by the entity your account sits with, and those entities sit in jurisdictions with minimal forex supervision.
That distinction decides almost everything that follows. This piece sets out what AMarkets says about itself, what the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines regulator says about registrations like one of its own, and how to check each entry yourself before you send money anywhere.
Disclosure: no affiliate links on this page and no payment for signups. Entity and registration details were read from AMarkets' own regulation page and from regulator notices on 15 September 2026. Where a figure could not be traced to a primary source, it is not printed here.
Three entities, three registries
AMarkets' regulation page lists the following. Read the "operated by" column carefully, because two of the three entries are company registries rather than financial services licences.
| Entity | Jurisdiction | Number | Registry or authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMarkets LTD | Island of Mwali, Comoros | T2023284 | Mwali International Services Authority (MISA), described by AMarkets as an international brokerage and clearing licence |
| AMarkets LLC | Cook Islands | LLC14486/2023 | Registry operated by the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) |
| AMarkets LTD | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 22567 BC 2015 | Registry operated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) |
The Mwali entry is the one AMarkets presents as its licence. The Cook Islands and Saint Vincent entries are described on the same page as registrations with "the relevant registry operated by" each authority, which is a different thing from authorisation to conduct investment business. AMarkets also states on its site that it does not target clients in the European Union, the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom or the United States.
What the Saint Vincent registration means, in the FSA's own words
This is the part that review pages usually skip, and it is the part that matters. The Financial Services Authority of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines publishes warning notices that address this exact question. In a notice concerning an unregistered entity, the Authority states that it "does NOT issue Forex/Brokers licenses in this jurisdiction," and that "the Financial Services Authority neither regulates nor licenses Business Companies (BCs) nor Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) involved in FOREX Trading or Brokerage."
The FSA goes further. It says the extent of its supervision "goes no further than to ensure that BCs comply with their obligations under the Business Companies (Amendment and Consolidation) Act" and that LLCs comply with the Limited Liability Companies Act. It then states that companies engaged in forex trading or brokerage "must obtain the necessary authority or license from the jurisdiction where their clients are located." A market notice republished by the Eastern Caribbean Securities Regulatory Commission puts the same point in plainer terms: no authority in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines issues forex trading or brokerage licences.
So an SVG registration number tells you that a legal entity exists. It tells you nothing about whether anyone is supervising how that entity handles your money.
The Financial Commission and Verify My Trade are not regulators
AMarkets points to two private mechanisms, and both are worth understanding before you rely on them. It is a certified member of The Financial Commission, which AMarkets describes as an independent external dispute resolution organisation providing a compensation fund of up to €20,000 per claim. It also submits to monthly execution audits by Verify My Trade, providing 5,000 trades per month for comparison against first-tier liquidity providers.
Both are real, and both are genuinely more than most offshore brokers offer. Neither is a regulator. The Financial Commission is a private industry body funded by its members, its compensation fund is not a statutory scheme backed by a government, and a €20,000 ceiling per claim is a fraction of the FSCS limit available to UK clients of FCA-authorised firms. Membership can lapse. Verify My Trade audits execution quality, which is about fill rates and slippage, not about whether client money is segregated or whether the firm is solvent.
What a top-tier licence would give you that these registrations do not
The comparison below is not a claim that AMarkets breaks any rule. It sets out which protections follow from which regulatory status, so that you can price the difference yourself. The left column describes what an FCA-authorised investment firm is subject to, and the right column describes what AMarkets' own page documents.
FSCS cover is not automatic either. It applies when the firm was authorised by the FCA or the PRA, when the activity you were sold was a regulated activity, and when the firm has been declared in default. Check the current limits on the FSCS site rather than relying on a broker's summary of them.
| Protection | FCA-authorised firm (UK) | AMarkets' three entities |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory compensation if the firm fails | FSCS covers investment provision up to £85,000 per eligible person, per firm | None. The Financial Commission fund is a private scheme with a €20,000 per claim ceiling |
| Retail leverage | Capped by FCA rules at 30:1 on major FX pairs | AMarkets advertises up to 1:3000 |
| Negative balance protection | Required for retail CFD clients | Not documented on AMarkets' regulation page |
| Client money segregation | Governed by the FCA client money rules, with reporting and auditor oversight | Not documented on AMarkets' regulation page |
| Independent escalation | Financial Ombudsman Service, then FSCS | Financial Commission, then the courts of the entity's jurisdiction |
The first row is the one that decides outcomes. When a regulated firm fails, a statutory scheme pays. When an unregulated one fails, you are a creditor in an insolvency proceeding in the country where the entity sits.
The last row matters more than traders expect. A complaints route only has force if you can use it cheaply and if the other side has an incentive to comply.
None of this is a judgement on AMarkets as an operator. It is a description of what different paperwork buys you after something goes wrong.
Four clauses to read before you sign the account agreement
Most traders accept the client agreement in a single click. It is the only document that binds the firm to you, and four of its clauses carry most of the weight.
- Parties. The opening page names the legal entity that is contracting with you. If that name is not one of the three listed above, stop and ask why.
- Governing law and jurisdiction. This decides where you would have to sue. A clause pointing to the courts of Mwali, the Cook Islands or Saint Vincent means enforcement is theoretical for most clients.
- Negative balance protection. Either the agreement promises it in writing, in which case read the conditions attached, or it does not. At 1:3000 this clause is the difference between losing your deposit and owing more than it.
- Amendment. Offshore terms frequently reserve the right to change spreads, margin requirements and fees unilaterally. Note whether the firm must give notice, and how much.
Save a PDF of the version you accept, with the date.
Leverage of 1:3000 tells you where the account sits
AMarkets advertises maximum leverage of 1:3000. That number is a regulatory signal rather than a feature. Under the European Securities and Markets Authority's product intervention measures, retail leverage is capped at 30:1 on major currency pairs and 2:1 on crypto-asset contracts for difference. The FCA and ASIC apply their own retail limits, margin close-out rules and negative balance protection requirements. No firm offering 1:3000 to a retail client is doing so under any of those regimes.
High leverage is not free. At 1:3000 a move of 0.033% against your position is enough to erase the margin behind it, and CFD losses are settled in cash against your balance. Traders who have only ever used 30:1 or 20:1 accounts frequently misjudge how little room there is.
How to check an offshore registration yourself
Every entry above can be checked without contacting the broker. Do it before funding, and treat any mismatch as a reason to stop.
- MISA: check the list of authorised brokerage companies published at mwaliregistrar.com and confirm T2023284 appears against AMarkets LTD, then read what the licence category actually covers.
- Cook Islands FSC: use the registry at fsc.gov.ck to confirm LLC14486/2023, and note whether the entry is a company registration or a financial services licence.
- SVG FSA: confirm 22567 BC 2015 at svgfsa.com, then read the FSA's own warning notices at fsasvg.com, which explain what that registration does not authorise.
- FCA and CySEC warning lists: search both for the exact name. Being unauthorised and being a clone of an authorised firm are listed separately, and brand impersonation is a common pattern in retail forex.
- Domain: confirm you are on amarkets.com. Look-alike domains are the most common delivery mechanism for broker impersonation.
Then confirm four things against your account agreement: the legal name is an exact match for the entity on the register, the status is current, the permitted activity covers retail forex and CFDs, and there is no warning or disciplinary record attached to that name. Ask the broker in writing which entity will hold your account. If the answer is vague, that is the answer.
One more check is worth running. Search the IOSCO investor alert portal and your own national regulator's warning list, since a firm can be clean in one jurisdiction and flagged in another.
When AMarkets is the wrong choice
- You need access to a statutory compensation scheme. There is no FSCS, CIPF or Investor Compensation Fund cover behind any of the three entities listed above.
- You want a regulator in your own country to complain to. A private dispute body with a €20,000 ceiling is the escalation route here, and its decisions depend on continued membership.
- You are treating 1:3000 as a way to grow a small account quickly. Leverage at that level removes the margin for error before a strategy has any time to work.
- You cannot verify which entity holds your account before funding.
- The money is not money you can afford to lose in full, including the counterfactual where the broker becomes insolvent rather than the trade going wrong.
What we could not verify, and therefore did not print
AMarkets' marketing material and the secondary review pages that repeat it make several claims we could not tie to a primary source. They are listed here rather than quietly repeated.
- Instrument count. Figures for the number of tradeable instruments vary between AMarkets' own pages and are not published in a form that can be checked.
- Minimum deposits and account tiers. Descriptions of the account lineup conflict across the sources we could reach, including standard, fixed, ECN and VIP tiers with differing minimums. Ask the broker directly and get the answer in writing.
- Deposit and withdrawal timings and fees. These change by method and by entity, and no primary schedule was available. Test with a small amount instead of trusting a review page.
- Support availability. Claims of round-the-clock support could not be confirmed.
- Absence of regulatory action. We found no enforcement record against these entities, and we are not asserting that none exists. Absence of evidence in a search is not evidence of absence, particularly for registries that publish no disciplinary register. Our searches covered public warning lists, not private complaint records.
An honest review is defined as much by what it refuses to assert as by what it does.
What to do next
Get the entity name in writing first, then look it up on the registry that matches, then read that regulator's own notices about what its registrations authorise. If you still proceed, fund the smallest amount accepted, withdraw part of it within the first month, and record how long that takes and what it costs, because withdrawal friction is the cheapest broker behaviour to test and the one that predicts the worst outcomes. Save the account agreement and fee schedule version you signed. Disputes turn on the terms in force at the time, and offshore terms change without notice.
None of this says AMarkets will not pay you. It says the institutions standing behind that promise are different in kind from the ones behind an FCA or ASIC licence, and you should know which kind before you rely on it.
Risk note
Contracts for difference and leveraged forex are high risk products. Losses can exceed your deposit, leverage magnifies losses as well as gains, and a CFD is a contract with your broker rather than ownership of an asset, which means its solvency is part of your risk. This article describes registration records and verification steps. It is not investment advice, and it is not a claim that any firm is safe or unsafe.