24Option Binary Options Broker Review (Updated 2025)

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

24Option emerged as a prominent online trading broker, initially carving a niche in the binary options market before transitioning its focus to Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and Forex trading. The brand operated primarily through Rodeler Limited, a Cyprus-based entity regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), and Richfield Capital Limited, an entity based in Belize.¹

Crucially, analysis reveals that 24Option, under its regulated European entity Rodeler Ltd., is no longer operational.¹ This cessation followed a period marked by severe and widespread regulatory sanctions across multiple jurisdictions. Authorities including CySEC in Cyprus, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) in France, the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) in Italy, and the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) in the Netherlands imposed bans, fines, and suspensions on Rodeler Ltd. for significant compliance failures.² These failures included misleading marketing practices, such as the use of unauthorized celebrity endorsements, aggressive sales tactics pressuring clients into large investments, failure to assess product suitability, lack of transparency regarding fees and risks, and issues with client withdrawals.⁷

Facing mounting regulatory pressure, Rodeler Ltd. voluntarily renounced its CySEC license (CIF License 207/13) in mid-2020, which was subsequently officially withdrawn by CySEC in early 2021.⁹ The broker’s reputation suffered immensely, reflected in numerous user complaints echoing the concerns raised by regulators, alongside direct accusations of operating as a scam and links to fraud investigations.¹⁵

While the regulated European operation ceased, there were indications that the 24Option brand attempted to continue operations through the offshore entity, Richfield Capital Limited, registered in Belize and holding an IFSC license.² However, operating through such an offshore entity offers significantly diminished regulatory oversight and investor protection compared to major financial centers. More recent reports suggest even this offshore operation may have become inactive.¹⁹

This report concludes that 24Option/Rodeler Ltd. exhibited a pattern of serious regulatory non-compliance and engaged in practices detrimental to investors. The historical risks associated with this broker were substantial. The general risks inherent in trading high-speculation products like binary options and CFDs are amplified when dealing with brokers demonstrating such a problematic track record, particularly those operating from offshore jurisdictions with weaker regulatory frameworks.

related posts : Best Binary Options Brokers (in 2025)

2. Broker Profile: 24Option (Rodeler Ltd. / Richfield Capital Ltd.)

Establishment and Evolution

24Option entered the online brokerage scene around 2010 4 or 2013 3, quickly establishing itself as a major player in the burgeoning binary options market.2 Its initial appeal was built on offering an accessible platform for trading these specific financial instruments.16

Operating Entities

The 24Option brand was primarily operated by two distinct legal entities:

Rodeler Ltd.: Based at 39 Kolonakiou St., Ayios Athanasios, CY-4103 Limassol, Cyprus.³ This company served as the main operator for European clients. It obtained a Cyprus Investment Firm (CIF) license (Number 207/13) from CySEC in July 2013, which permitted it to offer services across the European Union and the UK via regulatory passporting rules.²
Richfield Capital Limited: Incorporated in Belize, this entity held a license from the Belize International Financial Services Commission (IFSC) with number IFSC/60/440/TS/18.³ Richfield Capital Limited was used to service non-EU international clients, operating from an address listed as Unit 303, No. 16 Cor. Huston and Eyre Street, Blake Building, Belize City.²

Initial Business Focus

In its early years, 24Option concentrated exclusively on binary options. These instruments offered traders a fixed payout based on a simple yes/no outcome regarding an asset’s price movement over a set period. The platform aimed to be intuitive for both novice and experienced traders.16

Transition to CFDs and Forex

Beginning around 2016 and solidifying by 2018, 24Option underwent a significant strategic shift, phasing out binary options and refocusing its offerings entirely on Forex and Contracts for Difference (CFDs).2 This pivot coincided directly with increasing regulatory scrutiny and outright bans on binary options across Europe. Authorities like the AMF in France had already taken action against 24Option’s binary options activities 5, and pan-European measures from ESMA were imminent.23 Interviews with company representatives suggest this move was a deliberate reaction to anticipated regulatory hostility towards binary options, aiming to avoid being burdened with a product deemed problematic by regulators.26 This reactive shift, driven by regulatory pressure rather than a fundamental change in strategy, foreshadowed the compliance issues that would later plague its CFD operations. The underlying business approach, particularly concerning client acquisition and retention methods, appeared to persist despite the change in product offerings.

3. Operational Status and Website Analysis

Current Status

The regulated operations of 24Option, conducted through Rodeler Ltd., definitively ceased around mid-to-late 2020.1 This termination aligns with the timing of Rodeler Ltd.’s voluntary renouncement of its CySEC license in July 2020 and the subsequent formal withdrawal of the license by CySEC in early 2021.2 Therefore, 24Option is no longer operating as a regulated broker within the European Union or the UK.

Official Website(s)

The primary domain associated with the broker was www.24option.com.2 Regional variations existed, such as www.24option.com/eu/ for European clients under Rodeler Ltd. 7, www.24option.com/fr for French clients 5, and www.24option.com/international presumably for clients under the Belize entity.21 The parent company website www.rodeler.com was also associated with the operation.7 Additionally, Rodeler Ltd. operated the brand 24fx.com.2

Website Status (Post-Regulation)

Following the cessation of regulated activities by Rodeler Ltd., the www.24option.com domain appeared to remain active for some time, purportedly operated by the offshore entity Richfield Capital Limited based in Belize.2 This entity targeted international clients outside the jurisdictions where Rodeler Ltd. had faced bans or lost its license. However, the long-term viability of even this offshore operation is questionable. A warning issued by the Ukrainian National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC) in March 2024 noted that after 24option was added to its warning list, the associated web page became inactive.19 This suggests that the brand may now be entirely defunct. (Note: General market news snippets referencing 2024/2025 4 are not specific to 24Option’s operational status).

The migration of operations exclusively to an offshore entity like Richfield Capital Limited following severe regulatory enforcement actions in reputable jurisdictions like Cyprus and the UK constitutes a significant red flag. This move to Belize, a jurisdiction generally perceived as having less stringent financial regulation and oversight compared to CySEC or the FCA ⁴, strongly suggests an attempt to preserve the brand and potentially continue problematic business practices by relocating to an environment with lower scrutiny. This pattern, often referred to as regulatory arbitrage, allowed the brand to continue soliciting clients internationally after being effectively barred from key regulated markets.

4. Regulatory History and Compliance Failures

24Option’s operational history, particularly under Rodeler Ltd., is characterized by a consistent and severe pattern of regulatory breaches and enforcement actions across numerous major financial jurisdictions.

CySEC (Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission)

As the home regulator for Rodeler Ltd., CySEC’s actions were central to the firm’s European operations:

Licensing: Rodeler Ltd. obtained CIF License 207/13 from CySEC on July 11, 2013.³ This license enabled the firm to ‘passport’ its services across the EU and UK.²
Settlement/Fine: In August 2020, CySEC announced a settlement agreement with Rodeler Ltd. for €280,000 regarding multiple “possible” violations of investment services law.² This settlement occurred after the firm had already signaled its intent to renounce its license.²
Suspension: Following intervention by the UK’s FCA, CySEC suspended Rodeler Ltd.’s authorization effective June 1, 2020.²⁷ The suspension barred the firm from providing investment services, onboarding new clients, or advertising, permitting only the completion of existing transactions and return of client funds.³³
License Renouncement: Facing insurmountable regulatory pressure, Rodeler Ltd. formally notified CySEC of its decision to voluntarily renounce its CIF license.⁹ CySEC approved the commencement of the renouncement process on July 6, 2020.²⁷
License Withdrawal: CySEC officially withdrew Rodeler Ltd.’s CIF license 207/13 in March/May 2021, formalizing the cessation of its regulated status.⁹
ICF Membership Loss: Consequently, Rodeler Ltd. lost its membership in the Cyprus Investors Compensation Fund (ICF) in September 2021.¹³ While this removed future protection, CySEC noted that eligible clients could still claim compensation for investment operations carried out before the loss of membership.¹³

FCA (UK Financial Conduct Authority)

The FCA took decisive action against 24Option’s UK operations:

Intervention and Ban: In May/June 2020, the FCA imposed requirements effectively banning Rodeler Ltd. (trading as 24option) from conducting any regulated activities with UK consumers.⁷ This was a significant step against a firm operating under EU passporting rights.²
Reasons for Ban: The FCA detailed extensive failings based on numerous consumer complaints and its own assessment ⁷:

Misleading Marketing: Widespread use of fake celebrity endorsements on social media and websites to promote CFD trading, often disguised as crypto or forex opportunities.² Marketing materials were deemed unfair, unclear, and misleading.⁷
Aggressive Sales Tactics: Reports of high-pressure calls demanding large investments, sometimes hundreds of calls per day, and even encouraging clients to take out loans.⁷
Suitability Failures: Inadequate assessment of whether complex and high-risk CFDs were appropriate for clients, particularly inexperienced retail investors.⁷
Lack of Transparency: Failure to disclose fees comprehensibly and provide adequate risk warnings about CFDs.²
Withdrawal Issues: Complaints about inability to withdraw funds and failure to pay money owed to investors.²
Improper Client Categorization: Inappropriately classifying retail clients as ‘professional investors’ to circumvent leverage restrictions and other protections.⁷
Unauthorized Advice: Firm employees providing specific trading advice without authorization.⁷
Outcome: The FCA required Rodeler Ltd. to cease all UK business, close positions, return funds to UK clients, and display prominent notices about the ban on its websites and trading platform.⁷ The FCA noted substantial client losses, with several individuals losing over £100,000.⁷

AMF (France – Autorité des Marchés Financiers)

France’s regulator also took action against 24Option:

Initial Ban (2016): In August 2016, the AMF banned Rodeler Ltd. (operating www.24option.com/fr) from providing financial services in France, specifically citing failure to comply with professional obligations to act fairly and honestly in the interest of clients, particularly concerning its binary options offering.⁵
Reinstatement (2017): The AMF later lifted this ban in June 2017 after 24Option reportedly implemented remedial measures and committed to cease offering binary options in France.³⁵ However, the subsequent actions by other European regulators regarding its CFD business indicate that underlying issues likely persisted.

CONSOB (Italy – Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa)

Italy’s financial watchdog prohibited 24Option’s activities:

Ban: CONSOB ordered Rodeler Ltd. to cease providing investment services in Italy, citing non-compliance with regulations (including MiFID2 requirements like negative balance protection) and “serious irregularities” based on numerous complaints from Italian investors.⁶
Impact: The firm was barred from soliciting new Italian clients and required to terminate existing relationships, facilitating only the closure of positions and withdrawal of funds.⁶

Other Regulatory Warnings/Actions

The regulatory concerns surrounding 24Option extended beyond the major EU markets:

FMA (New Zealand): Issued a warning in June 2017 advising caution when dealing with 24Option, referencing prior warnings from AMF and ASIC, and stating the firm was not registered to offer financial services in New Zealand.²⁰
ASIC (Australia): While no specific fine is documented in the provided materials, ASIC was noted alongside AMF in the FMA’s warning.²⁰ ASIC has been active in warning against unlicensed binary options and CFD providers ³⁷, suggesting 24Option likely fell under their scrutiny.
AFM (Netherlands): Imposed a fine of €15,000 on Rodeler (NL) B.V. and Rodeler Limited for obstructing an investigation by failing to provide requested telephone recordings between the firm and its customers.⁸ The relatively small fine amount reflected the firms’ weakened financial state due to previous penalties.⁸
NSSMC (Ukraine): Added 24option to a warning list of potentially unlicensed entities in March 2024.¹⁹
Belgium FSMA: Implemented a national ban on the marketing, distribution, and sale of binary options (including those offered via passporting, like 24Option) and certain leveraged OTC derivatives (like CFDs) to retail consumers in August 2016, citing high risks and numerous complaints.³⁸

Summary Table: Regulatory Actions against 24Option/Rodeler Ltd.

Regulator	Jurisdiction	Date(s)	Action(s)	Key Reasons Cited
CySEC	Cyprus	2020 (Jun-Aug)	License Suspension, Settlement (€280k), License Renouncement Approved	Possible compliance breaches (unspecified in settlement notice), Response to FCA action
CySEC	Cyprus	2021 (Mar-May)	License Withdrawal	Firm’s voluntary renouncement
CySEC	Cyprus	2021 (Sep)	ICF Membership Withdrawal	Consequence of license withdrawal
FCA	UK	2020 (May-Jun)	Intervention / Ban on UK activities	Misleading marketing (fake endorsements), pressure sales, suitability failures, non-disclosure (fees/risks), withdrawal issues, unauthorized advice, improper client categorization ⁷
AMF	France	2016 (Aug)	Ban on providing services	Failure to act fairly/honestly in client interests (binary options) ⁵
AMF	France	2017 (Jun)	Ban lifted	Remedial measures taken, commitment to stop binary options ³⁵
CONSOB	Italy	2019/2020	Ban on providing investment services	Non-compliance with regulations (MiFID2), serious irregularities based on investor complaints ⁶
FMA	New Zealand	2017 (Jun)	Warning	Not registered in NZ, referencing AMF/ASIC warnings ²⁰
AFM	Netherlands	2021 (approx)	Fine (€15k)	Failure to cooperate with investigation (not providing call recordings) ⁸
NSSMC	Ukraine	2024 (Mar)	Added to Warning List	Unlicensed/unregistered intermediary status ¹⁹
Belgium FSMA	Belgium	2016 (Aug)	National Ban on Product Type	General ban on binary options & leveraged CFDs for retail clients affecting all providers ³⁸

The extensive list of regulatory actions across diverse jurisdictions reveals a clear pattern. It points not to isolated errors, but to systemic failures within Rodeler Ltd.’s operational model and compliance culture. The company faced scrutiny for its binary options practices, pivoted to CFDs, and then encountered similar or even more severe sanctions related to its CFD business. Common themes of misleading marketing, aggressive sales, lack of transparency, and disregard for client suitability run through the findings of multiple independent regulators. The eventual decision to renounce the CySEC license under duress, rather than rectifying practices to meet regulatory standards, suggests that the firm’s business model may have been fundamentally incompatible with operating profitably within the stricter regulatory environments of the EU and UK.

5. Business Model Evolution: From Binary Options to CFDs

24Option’s product offering underwent a significant transformation during its operational lifespan, driven primarily by external regulatory forces.

Binary Options Era (approx. 2010/2013 – 2016/2018)

Initially, 24Option built its brand and client base as a dedicated binary options broker.2 Binary options offered a seemingly simple proposition: predict whether an asset’s price would be above or below a certain point at a specific expiry time for a fixed potential return or loss.

Known Features: While detailed specifications are scarce in the available material, some aspects of their binary options offering included potential payouts advertised as high as 88% ¹⁶, various option types like traditional high/low, one-touch, and high-yield options, and very short-term expiries, including 60-second options.¹⁶ A feature named “Easy Closure” was also marketed, supposedly allowing traders to exit trades early to limit losses.¹⁶
Regulatory Impact: This business model faced increasing headwinds globally. Regulators grew concerned about the high-risk, often speculative nature of binary options, the potential for conflicts of interest between brokers and clients, and widespread reports of fraud and aggressive marketing. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) eventually implemented an EU-wide prohibition on the marketing, distribution, or sale of binary options to retail clients, effective from July 2, 2018, citing significant investor protection concerns and documented high loss rates for retail investors.²³ Prior to the ESMA ban, individual countries like Belgium had already outlawed these products for retail clients ³⁸, and 24Option itself was specifically banned in France in 2016 due to issues related to its binary options services.⁵

Shift to Forex and CFDs (approx. 2016/2018 onwards)

In response to the mounting regulatory pressure and bans targeting binary options, 24Option transitioned its business model to focus exclusively on Forex and CFD trading.1 This shift was explicitly acknowledged as a reaction to the negative regulatory view of binary options.16

CFD Offerings: The broker offered CFDs across a range of asset classes:

Assets: Included major and minor Forex pairs (46 pairs mentioned ⁴), a large selection of individual stocks (over 160 mentioned, including well-known names like Apple and Amazon ¹), major global indices (e.g., DAX30 ¹⁶), commodities like gold, silver, and oil ¹, and various cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Dash, Monero, Stellar ¹), often paired against major fiat currencies (BTC/USD, BTC/EUR, BTC/GBP ¹) and sometimes offered in “mini” contract sizes.³
Leverage: Leverage levels varied significantly based on client status and jurisdiction. For international clients under the Belize entity (Richfield Capital Ltd.), leverage was offered up to 500:1.³ Within the EU, ESMA regulations enforced from August 2018 restricted leverage for retail clients to a maximum of 30:1 for major currency pairs, 20:1 for non-major pairs/gold/major indices, 10:1 for other commodities/minor indices, 5:1 for stocks, and only 2:1 for cryptocurrencies.²⁴ Clients classified as ‘professional’ (sometimes inappropriately, according to the FCA ⁷) could potentially access much higher leverage, with levels up to 400:1 mentioned.³
Margin Rules: Under EU rules, specific margin requirements applied. 24Option implemented a margin call level at 100% and a stop-out level (where positions are automatically closed) at 50% of the minimum required margin for retail clients (20% for professionals).³ Negative Balance Protection, ensuring clients could not lose more than their deposited funds, was also mandated for retail clients in the EU.⁶

Throughout its evolution, 24Option maintained a focus on highly speculative, complex financial products. Whether offering binary options with high advertised payouts or CFDs with extremely high leverage (outside the EU), the core business model revolved around attracting retail clients to instruments carrying substantial risk. The transition from binary options to CFDs appears to have been a change in the product wrapper necessitated by regulation, rather than a fundamental shift away from a high-risk, high-volume trading model. The broker’s own website included warnings about the volatility and potential for significant losses associated with CFD and cryptocurrency trading ¹⁶, yet the marketing and sales practices highlighted by regulators suggested these risks were often downplayed or obscured.

6. Trading Platform and Tools

24Option provided clients with access to standard trading platforms and a suite of tools and educational resources, though the quality and utility of these offerings must be viewed in the context of the broker’s overarching operational conduct.

Platform Options

Clients could choose between industry-standard software and the broker’s proprietary solutions:

MetaTrader 4 (MT4): 24Option offered the globally popular MT4 platform, known for its advanced charting capabilities, extensive technical indicators, and support for automated trading strategies (Expert Advisors).¹
Proprietary Platform: The broker developed its own trading platform, available as a web-based application (requiring no software download ¹⁶) and potentially a desktop version. Reviews described this platform as generally user-friendly, intuitive ¹⁶, and potentially better than the industry average, featuring customizable price lists and a unique “indicator wizard” for building custom charts.¹
Mobile Apps: Dedicated mobile trading applications were available for both iOS and Android devices.¹ While functional, they were described as adequate rather than market-leading.¹ The apps allowed users to manage watchlists, view charts across different timeframes, apply a wide range of technical indicators (nearly 100, though lacking the desktop’s wizard), and place various order types, including conditional orders, stop-losses, and take-profits.¹

Trading Tools & Features

Supporting the trading platforms, 24Option provided several tools and resources:

Charting and Indicators: Both the MT4 and proprietary platforms offered charting tools. The proprietary desktop platform included an “indicator wizard” for customization ¹, while the mobile app provided access to nearly 100 technical indicators.¹
News & Analysis: The broker integrated third-party technical analysis from Trading Central, providing trading signals, charts, and recommended entry/exit points.¹ A daily financial news feed was accessible via the company’s Twitter account.¹ However, live streaming news was reportedly not integrated directly into the trading platforms ¹, and no fundamental research offerings were mentioned.¹
Educational Resources: 24Option invested in educational content, offering videos explaining CFD trading concepts, order types, technical analysis (trend, support/resistance), risk management, and pip calculation.¹ They conducted regular webinars (up to 10 per month) covering basic and intermediate technical analysis, provided a dedicated Forex trading section, and included a glossary of trading terms.¹ These resources were generally considered good quality.¹
Calculators: A pip value calculator was available to help traders estimate potential profits or losses.¹

While 24Option offered seemingly standard and functional trading technology (MT4, a decent proprietary platform) and supporting educational materials, this surface-level presentation contrasts sharply with the deeply problematic business practices uncovered by regulators. The provision of standard tools and educational content, which could lend an air of legitimacy, did little to mitigate the risks posed by the firm’s documented misleading marketing, high-pressure sales tactics, and lack of transparency. It highlights a potential disconnect where investment in user-facing features masked fundamental flaws in client acquisition, ethical conduct, and compliance adherence. The quality of the platform itself becomes secondary when the methods used to bring clients to that platform and manage their funds are predatory or non-compliant.

7. Account Structure and Fees

24Option employed a tiered account structure and levied various fees, some of which were notably high or unusual compared to industry norms.

Account Types

The broker offered several account levels, typically differentiated by deposit size and potentially offering varying service levels or fee structures. Mentioned tiers include Basic, Gold, Platinum, and VIP.3 Higher tiers, such as Gold (requiring a deposit of at least $10,000 according to one source 16), reportedly provided access to additional market information or potentially better trading conditions.16 VIP accounts were suggested to benefit from unlimited free withdrawals.3

Minimum Deposit

The required minimum deposit varied across different sources and potentially depended on the funding method:

€100 was cited by one source.¹
$250 was mentioned by others, often specified for credit card or web wallet deposits.³
$1,000 was stated as the minimum for wire transfers.³

Trading Fees (Spreads/Commissions)

Trading costs were primarily through spreads, with varying figures reported:

Spreads on major FX pairs were cited as 0.5 to 1.0 pips during market hours.¹
Another source noted an average EUR/USD spread of 2.5 pips on the basic account.⁴
Specific spreads like 1.1 pips for EUR/USD and 1.4 pips for GBP/USD and USD/JPY were also listed, possibly for a different account type.⁴
A range of 1.5 to 3 pips was mentioned for the most traded currencies.¹⁶
Spreads were generally described as relatively wide compared to competitors.⁴
Cryptocurrency CFD spreads were noted as being particularly high compared to crypto exchanges.³
Commissions were generally stated as not being charged on trades.³
Swap fees (overnight financing charges) were applied for holding positions open overnight.³

Non-Trading Fees

24Option charged several non-trading fees, some considered high or unusual:

Withdrawal Fees: Described as high.¹ One source mentioned a fee of around 3.5% applying after the first withdrawal.¹ Specific costs cited included $10-$35 for credit card withdrawals and $30 for wire transfers, potentially varying by account type.³
Inactivity Fees: Significant fees were levied on dormant accounts. These fees reportedly kicked in after 2 months ³ or 6 months ¹ of no trading activity. The charges escalated over time: €80 for inactivity between 2-3 months, €120 for 3-6 months, and reaching €200 per month for inactivity exceeding 6 months.³
Maintenance Fees: A monthly maintenance fee of €10 was charged to accounts, regardless of trading activity.¹ This fee was described by one reviewer as “bizarre” and uncommon among brokers.³

Summary Table: 24Option Fees

Fee Type	Details	Amount/Rate	Source(s)
Minimum Deposit	Varies by method/source	€100 / $250 (Card/e-wallet) / $1,000 (Wire)	¹
Spreads (Examples)	Variable, wider on basic accounts, very wide on Crypto CFDs	0.5-1.0 pips (Majors), 1.1-2.5 pips (EUR/USD examples), 1.5-3 pips (Common pairs)	¹
Commissions	Generally not charged on trades	$0	³
Swap Fees	Charged for holding positions overnight	Varies by instrument	³
Withdrawal Fees	Charged after first withdrawal (potentially waived for VIPs)	~3.5% / $10-$35 (Card) / $30 (Wire)	¹
Inactivity Fees	Charged on dormant accounts (after 2 or 6 months), escalating	€80 (2-3 mo), €120 (3-6 mo), €200 (>6 mo) per month	¹
Maintenance Fee	Charged monthly regardless of activity	€10 per month	¹

The fee structure, particularly the non-trading fees, raises concerns. The imposition of a monthly maintenance fee simply for holding an account is unusual in the brokerage industry. Coupled with punitive, escalating inactivity fees and substantial withdrawal charges, this structure could disproportionately impact smaller, less active clients or those wishing to cease trading and withdraw their capital. Such fees can create significant barriers to exit and may have served as an alternative revenue stream for the broker, derived not from facilitating trading but from account maintenance, dormancy, and client departure. This fee structure appears less focused on client service and more on maximizing revenue from potentially inactive or dissatisfied customers.

8. Geographical Operations and Restrictions

24Option initially pursued a global presence but saw its operational footprint drastically shrink due to regulatory actions in key markets.

Initial Reach

Leveraging the CySEC license held by Rodeler Ltd., 24Option utilized EU passporting rules to offer its services across European Union member states and the United Kingdom.2 To cater to a global audience, its website was available in multiple languages, including English, Chinese, Portuguese, Polish, Swedish, and Arabic.4 While headquartered in Cyprus 3, the Belize-registered entity, Richfield Capital Limited, was used to onboard clients from regions outside the EU.3

Key Restrictions and Bans

Over time, 24Option faced significant restrictions and outright bans in numerous countries:

France: Banned by the AMF in 2016 over binary options practices.⁵ Although reinstated in 2017 ³⁵, subsequent EU-wide issues rendered this moot for regulated operations.
Belgium: Effectively excluded from the retail market from 2016 due to a national ban on binary options and leveraged CFDs.³⁸
Italy: Banned from providing investment services by CONSOB due to regulatory violations and investor complaints.⁶
United Kingdom: Banned by the FCA in 2020 following findings of severe misconduct.²
European Union: Became subject to ESMA’s product intervention measures restricting CFDs and banning binary options for retail clients from 2018.²³ The suspension and eventual withdrawal of Rodeler Ltd.’s CySEC license formally ended its authorized operations within the EU.⁹
United States: The broker did not operate in the USA.³
New Zealand: Was not registered to provide financial services and received a warning from the FMA.²⁰
Nigeria: Noted as not accepting Nigerian clients and being non-operational.⁴

Shift to Offshore

As regulated avenues closed in major markets like the EU and UK, the operational focus appeared to shift entirely to the Belize-based entity, Richfield Capital Limited.2 This entity continued to target international clients in jurisdictions where the brand had not been explicitly banned or where regulations were less stringent.

The progressive shrinking of 24Option’s geographical reach was not a result of strategic market exits but rather a consequence of forced withdrawals mandated by regulators. The bans and license loss in high-value, well-regulated markets like the UK and across the EU demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to comply with robust investor protection standards. The increasing reliance on the Belize entity represents a retreat to a less demanding regulatory environment, a move necessitated by failures in core compliance and ethical conduct within regulated territories.

9. User Experience and Reputation

Despite efforts to present a professional image with standard platforms and educational materials, 24Option’s reputation was severely damaged by widespread user complaints and damning regulatory findings, painting a picture of problematic client interactions and potential harm.

Negative Feedback Themes

Consistent themes emerged from user complaints, regulatory reports, and investigative journalism:

Aggressive/Pressure Sales Tactics: This was a frequently cited issue. Clients reported being subjected to intense pressure from account managers to deposit increasingly larger sums of money, sometimes involving hundreds of calls per day and even encouragement to take out loans or use credit cards for investment purposes.⁷
Misleading Marketing/Information: The use of fake celebrity endorsements in online advertising was a major point of regulatory action (FCA) and user complaints.² Marketing materials were often found to be unclear, misleading, and failing to adequately disclose the high risks associated with CFDs or the applicable fees.⁷
Withdrawal Problems: Numerous clients reported difficulties or outright inability to withdraw their funds.⁶ This failure to return client money was specifically noted by the FCA.²
Scam Accusations/Fraud Investigations: The broker was explicitly labelled a scam by some victims and commentators.¹⁵ Critically, 24Option became the subject of criminal fraud investigations in Germany, leading to arrests and convictions of former employees for defrauding investors out of millions of euros through faked trading activities.¹⁶ The offshore entity, Richfield Capital, was also linked to investigations.¹⁸ Allegations included engaging in fraudulent trading practices.¹⁰ User reviews on platforms like Trustpilot reportedly contained accusations of fraud and scams..¹⁷³⁹
Poor Regulation (Offshore): The move to operate solely under the Belize IFSC license held by Richfield Capital Limited was seen negatively, as this jurisdiction is generally considered to offer weaker regulatory oversight and investor protection compared to CySEC or the FCA.⁴

Positive Feedback Themes (Limited)

Amidst the overwhelmingly negative reports, some limited positive aspects were occasionally mentioned:

Platform Usability: The proprietary trading platform was sometimes described as intuitive and user-friendly ¹⁶, even potentially better than average.¹ The mobile application was deemed adequate for core functions.¹
Educational Materials: The quality of the educational videos, webinars, and glossary provided was noted as being quite good.¹
Customer Support: Availability of customer support through online chat, phone, and email (24/5) was mentioned, with some suggestion it could be helpful.¹ Automated support for FAQs was also available.¹

Overall Reputation

Considering the weight and severity of the evidence, 24Option’s reputation is exceptionally poor. While the broker may have provided functional platforms and educational content, these aspects were overshadowed by systemic issues identified by multiple regulators and echoed in user experiences. Allegations of misleading practices, high-pressure sales, withdrawal difficulties, and links to criminal fraud investigations severely undermine any claims of trustworthiness.1

The coexistence of standard front-end features (platforms, education) with deeply flawed back-end practices (sales, compliance, withdrawals) suggests a significant disconnect. It appears resources were invested in creating an appearance of legitimacy and functionality, perhaps to attract clients more easily. However, the core operational conduct related to how those clients were treated, the transparency of information provided, and adherence to regulatory obligations was found severely lacking. This indicates that the positive features served as a superficial layer, failing to compensate for the fundamental lack of integrity in the broker’s business practices.

10. Risk Assessment and Final Conclusion

Summary of Findings

24Option began as a major binary options broker before pivoting to CFDs and Forex amidst regulatory crackdowns on binary options. Operated primarily by Rodeler Ltd. (Cyprus, CySEC-regulated) and Richfield Capital Ltd. (Belize, IFSC-regulated), the broker faced extensive regulatory sanctions across Europe (CySEC, FCA, AMF, CONSOB, AFM) and warnings elsewhere (FMA NZ, NSSMC Ukraine). Violations consistently involved misleading advertising (including fake celebrity endorsements), aggressive high-pressure sales tactics, failure to assess client suitability for high-risk products, lack of transparency on fees and risks, and significant issues with client withdrawals. These failures led to substantial client losses, bans in key markets like the UK and Italy, and ultimately the voluntary renouncement and withdrawal of Rodeler Ltd.’s CySEC license in 2020-2021, ending its regulated operations. The brand garnered an extremely poor reputation, linked to numerous complaints and criminal fraud investigations. Operations potentially continued for a time under the less-regulated Belize entity, Richfield Capital Ltd., though recent reports suggest this too may be inactive.

Risk Assessment of 24Option (Historical/Offshore)

Based on the historical evidence, dealing with any entity operating under the 24Option brand entails exceptionally high risks:

Regulatory Risk: Extremely High. The documented history of severe non-compliance, multiple regulatory bans, fines, and the loss of its primary European license demonstrate a fundamental inability or unwillingness to operate within established regulatory frameworks. Reliance on the Belize (IFSC) license under Richfield Capital Ltd. offers significantly weaker regulatory protection and oversight compared to major financial centers ⁴, amplifying this risk.
Operational Risk: High. The documented practices of misleading marketing, aggressive sales, lack of transparency, potential manipulation (suggested by fraud investigations), and difficulties with withdrawals point to severe operational risks and unethical business conduct.
Financial Risk: High. Clients faced a high risk of significant financial loss due to the combination of inherently high-risk products (binary options, high-leverage CFDs) and the broker’s problematic practices. Documented losses were substantial.⁷ The association with criminal fraud investigations raises serious counterparty risk concerns.¹⁶
Reputational Risk: Extremely Poor. The brand is irrevocably tainted by regulatory actions, widespread complaints, and links to fraud. Any association carries significant reputational hazard.

General Risks of Binary Options and High-Leverage CFDs

It is essential to reiterate that binary options and high-leverage CFDs are inherently risky financial products, particularly for retail investors. Their complexity, the potential for rapid and substantial losses (with documented high loss rates among retail CFD traders 24), and the need for sophisticated risk management make them unsuitable for many. Trading these products requires dealing with highly reputable, well-regulated brokers operating with integrity and transparency.

Conclusion

24Option, particularly under its regulated entity Rodeler Ltd., serves as a stark case study of regulatory failure and predatory practices within the online trading industry. Its history is defined by a pattern of attracting clients through misleading means, subjecting them to high-pressure tactics, offering high-risk products without adequate suitability checks or transparency, and ultimately causing significant financial harm, leading to widespread regulatory condemnation and the loss of its license to operate in major markets.

While Rodeler Ltd. is defunct, the potential past continuation of the brand under the offshore entity Richfield Capital Limited should be viewed with extreme caution, as it operated outside the robust regulatory scrutiny that ultimately exposed the flaws in the European operation. The entire history suggests a business model fundamentally incompatible with ethical conduct and investor protection.

Investors are strongly advised to avoid any entity associated with the 24Option brand. This case underscores the critical importance of conducting thorough due diligence on any broker, prioritizing those regulated by reputable authorities in major financial centers (like the FCA, ASIC, or EU national regulators under ESMA oversight), understanding the fee structure completely, and being acutely aware of the high risks involved in trading speculative products like CFDs and the historical dangers associated with binary options. The trajectory of 24Option—from rapid growth in a loosely regulated space, to facing bans, pivoting products without changing practices, losing licenses, and retreating offshore—illustrates a common lifecycle for firms whose operations cannot withstand regulatory scrutiny and prioritize profit over client protection.

Works cited

24Option Review – Investopedia, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/24option-review-4587884
24option.com parent Rodeler fined €280,000 by CySEC – FX News Group, accessed April 20, 2025, https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/24option-com-parent-rodeler-fined-e280000-by-cysec/
24option Review: Scam Broker?? What We Know!! – Coin Bureau, accessed April 20, 2025, https://coinbureau.com/review/24option/
24option Review (2025) | FxScouts Nigeria, accessed April 20, 2025, https://fxscouts.ng/broker/24option/
The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) bans Rodeler Limited (’24option’) from providing financial services in France, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-news-releases/autorite-des-marches-financiers-amf-bans-rodeler-limited-24option-providing-financial-services
Consob Bans 24Option Trading Services in Italy | Finance Magnates, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/consob-bans-24option-trading-services-in-italy/
www.fca.org.uk, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/first-supervisory-notice-rodeler-limited-2020.pdf
Operators of 24option.com get small fine in the Netherlands – FX News Group, accessed April 20, 2025, https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/operators-of-24option-com-get-small-fine-in-the-netherlands/
CySEC withdraws CIF license of 24option parent Rodeler Ltd – FX News Group, accessed April 20, 2025, https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/cysec-withdraws-cif-license-of-24option-parent-rodeler-ltd/
Giambrone & Partners: Financial Fraud Litigation Experts | 24 Option, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.giambronelaw.com/site/news-articles-press/library/articles/giambrone-partners-group-litigation-24-option-fraud-money-back
FCA bars Cypriot firms that used unauthorised celebrity endorsements, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-bars-cypriot-firms-used-unauthorised-celebrity-endorsements
CySEC Withdrew CIF License of 24Option Operator Rodeler Ltd – Finance Magnates, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/cysec-withdrew-cif-license-of-24option-operator-rodeler-ltd/
Optionrally, 24option parent Rodeler among firms to lose Cyprus ICF membership, accessed April 20, 2025, https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/optionrally-24option-parent-rodeler-among-firms-to-lose-cyprus-icf-membership/
iTrader And Other Firms Renouncing CySEC Authorizations – Financial Commission, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financialcommission.org/2020/07/22/itrader-and-other-firms-renouncing-cysec-authorizations/
Decision Reference DRN-3639940 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3639940.pdf
24Option – scam or reputable provider? – Law Firm Herfurtner, accessed April 20, 2025, https://kanzlei-herfurtner.com/24option/
How scam networks use fake celebrity ads to lure online investors – SWI swissinfo.ch, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/life-aging/how-scam-networks-use-fake-celebrity-ads-to-lure-investors/82568794
Terminating a business relationship under the AML/CFT Act: practical guidance from the High Court – Bell Gully, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.bellgully.com/insights/terminating-a-business-relationship-under-the-aml-cft-act-practical-guidance-from-the-high-court/
Investor Alerts – 24option – IOSCO, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.iosco.org/v2/investor_protection/?subsection=investor_alerts_portal&id=29390&entity=24option
24Options | Financial Markets Authority, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.fma.govt.nz/library/warnings-and-alerts/24options/
Investor Alert List – Monetary Authority of Singapore, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.mas.gov.sg/investor-alert-list?date=2020-01-01T00%3A00%3A00.000Z%2C2020-12-31T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&page=1&rows=All
Exclusive: 24Option Banned from Operating in France – Finance Magnates, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/brokers/exclusive-24option-banned-from-operating-in-france/
ESMA renews binary options prohibition for a further three months from 2 April 2019, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-renews-binary-options-prohibition-further-three-months-2-april-2019
ESMA agrees to prohibit binary options and restrict CFDs to protect retail investors, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-agrees-prohibit-binary-options-and-restrict-cfds-protect-retail-investors
Europe wide ban on risky binary options – DLA Piper, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/es-pr/insights/publications/2018/10/finance-and-markets-global-insight-issue-15/europe-wide-ban-on-risky-binary-options
24option profits from forex pivot amid new ESMA regulations – European CEO, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.europeanceo.com/finance/24option-profits-from-forex-pivot-amid-new-esma-regulations/
Hoch Capital, Rodeler Renounce Cyprus’ CIF License – Finance Magnates, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/hoch-capital-rodeler-renounce-cyprus-cif-license/
24option – Binary Options Trading – EU Digital Finance Platform, accessed April 20, 2025, https://digital-finance-platform.ec.europa.eu/observatory/eu-fintech-map/24option-binary-options-trading
2025 Proxy Statement, accessed April 20, 2025, https://s202.q4cdn.com/757723766/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/2025-Proxy-Statement.pdf
Cboe Announces Plans to Launch 24×5 U.S. Equities Trading – Investor Relations, accessed April 20, 2025, https://ir.cboe.com/news/news-details/2025/Cboe-Announces-Plans-to-Launch-24×5-U.S.-Equities-Trading-2025-NwujmKvsxb/default.aspx
ASIC warns of threat from “hydra-like” scammers after obtaining court orders to shut down 95 companies, accessed April 20, 2025, https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2025-releases/25-052mr-asic-warns-of-threat-from-hydra-like-scammers-after-obtaining-court-orders-to-shut-down-95-companies/
UK FCA Takes Action Against Cypriot Firms – Financial Commission, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financialcommission.org/2020/06/01/uk-fca-takes-action-against-cypriot-firms/
Suspension of Authorisation of Rodeler Limited by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission – MFSA, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.mfsa.mt/publication/suspension-of-authorisation-of-rodeler-limited-by-the-cyprus-securities-and-exchange-commission/
Hoch Capital, Rodeler Renounce Cyprus’ CIF License – Fazzaco, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.fazzaco.com/newsdetail/hoch-capital-rodeler-renounce-cyprus-cif-license-14372
24option.com operator hit with a €15K fine by Dutch AFM – LeapRate, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.leaprate.com/financial-services/fines/24option-com-operator-hit-with-a-e15k-fine-by-dutch-afm/
New Zealand Financial Watchdog Warns Against Binary Options Broker 24Option, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/regulation/new-zealand-financial-watchdog-warns-binary-options-broker-24option/
16-218MR ASIC crackdown on unlicensed retail OTC derivative providers, accessed April 20, 2025, https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2016-releases/16-218mr-asic-crackdown-on-unlicensed-retail-otc-derivative-providers/
In European first, Belgium bans binary options | The Times of Israel, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-european-first-belgium-bans-binary-options/
24Optiontradings | FCA, accessed April 20, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/24optiontradings