How to Get Money Back from Binary Options UK

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The Challenge of Recovering Binary Options Losses in the UK

Losing money through binary options trading is a distressing experience, one faced by numerous individuals in the United Kingdom. The high-risk nature of these products, combined with the prevalence of fraudulent operators, has unfortunately led to significant financial harm for many consumers.¹ This situation is compounded by the regulatory landscape in the UK.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the UK’s financial regulator, implemented a permanent ban on the sale, marketing, and distribution of binary options to retail consumers, effective from 2 April 2019.¹ This decisive action was taken due to widespread concerns about the inherent risks associated with binary options, often described as akin to gambling products dressed up as financial instruments, and the poor conduct of firms selling them, which resulted in substantial and unexpected losses for consumers.¹ Consequently, any firm that has offered binary options trading services to UK retail consumers after this date is highly likely to be operating illegally or be part of a deliberate scam.¹

While the FCA’s ban aimed to shield consumers from these harmful products, it has inadvertently complicated the process of recovering lost funds. Firms operating outside the regulatory framework, often based overseas, are difficult to trace and hold accountable through traditional UK channels like the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) when the complaint is directly against the broker itself.⁵ The very measure designed for protection – the ban – pushes illicit activities further underground, making direct recovery from the offending firms more challenging.¹

This report provides a comprehensive guide outlining the potential steps and avenues available for individuals in the UK seeking to recover money lost to binary options providers. It covers essential checks on the broker’s regulatory status, official complaint mechanisms (including those involving banks), bank-related redress procedures like chargebacks and Section 75 claims, the feasibility of legal action, and critical warnings about secondary scams targeting fraud victims. It is crucial, however, to maintain realistic expectations; recovering funds, particularly from unregulated or offshore entities, is frequently a difficult and uncertain process.

related posts : Best Binary OptionS Brokers (in 2025)

2. Binary Options and UK Regulation: Understanding the Landscape

A clear understanding of the regulatory environment surrounding binary options in the UK is essential for anyone attempting to recover lost funds.

The FCA’s Permanent Ban

Effective from 2 April 2019, the FCA prohibited all firms acting in or from the UK from selling, marketing, or distributing any form of binary options to retail consumers.¹ This ban is comprehensive, explicitly including ‘securitised binary options’ which had been excluded from a previous temporary EU-wide restriction imposed by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).¹ The FCA deemed these products to pose the same inherent risks to consumers.²

The FCA’s justification for the ban stemmed from multiple concerns: the products’ complexity and lack of transparency, their highly speculative nature making them akin to gambling, the potential for addictive behaviour, significant conflicts of interest (where firms often profit from client losses), and evidence of widespread mis-selling and consumer harm leading to large, unexpected losses.¹ The regulator estimated that the ban could save UK retail consumers up to £17 million annually and reduce fraud.¹

The most critical implication of this ban is that any entity offering binary options services to UK retail consumers after 2 April 2019 is almost certainly operating illegally or is a scam operation.¹ Dealing with such firms carries significant risk, including the lack of access to UK consumer protection schemes.

Regulatory History (Pre-Ban Context)

The regulatory status of binary options evolved before the permanent ban:

Before 3 January 2018: Binary options were primarily treated as gambling products. They were regulated by the UK’s Gambling Commission, but only if the firm had remote gambling equipment located within Great Britain.³ Many firms targeting UK consumers operated from offshore locations and therefore fell outside the Gambling Commission’s remit, leaving consumers largely unprotected.⁵ For issues arising during this period, complaints should initially be directed to the firm itself.⁴
3 January 2018 – 1 April 2019: Following the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), binary options were reclassified as financial instruments and brought under FCA regulation.³ During this specific window, firms offering binary options services in or from the UK needed to be authorised by the FCA to operate legally.¹¹ Investments made during this period with a firm that was FCA-authorised at the time may potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for complaints against the broker. This period also saw temporary restrictions imposed by ESMA across the EU, which the FCA’s permanent rules later mirrored and extended.¹

This shifting regulatory landscape, coupled with pre-Brexit rules allowing firms authorised in one European Economic Area (EEA) country to ‘passport’ their services into the UK, created confusion for consumers.⁶ A firm might have appeared on the FCA register due to passporting rights but was not subject to the same level of direct FCA conduct supervision as a UK-authorised firm.⁶ Many fraudulent operators exploited this, setting up in jurisdictions with weaker oversight while claiming a UK presence (often using fake addresses) to target British consumers.⁴ This history underscores why simply finding a firm’s name on the FCA register, especially historically, requires careful interpretation regarding the level of protection available. The timing of the investment and the firm’s true operational base are critical factors.

The Nature of Binary Options Fraud

Binary options scams are frequently sophisticated operations. Common tactics include:

Aggressive Marketing: Using social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) with enticing images of luxury lifestyles to lure victims.⁴
Deceptive Platforms: Creating professional-looking websites and trading platforms that appear legitimate, sometimes featuring fake reviews or celebrity endorsements.⁴
False Representation: Claiming to be based in the UK (e.g., City of London address) when actually operating from overseas.⁴
Manipulation: Using software to distort prices and payouts, ensuring client losses, or faking trades entirely.⁴
Refusal of Withdrawals: Preventing clients from accessing their funds, often demanding further deposits or citing spurious reasons, before ceasing all contact.⁴
Identity Theft: Collecting sensitive personal data (credit cards, passports) for potentially illicit purposes.²²

The scale of this fraud, even before the ban, was significant. Action Fraud reported average daily losses of £87,410 in 2017, and the FCA noted £59.4 million in reported losses from 2,605 victims between 2012 and 2017.¹¹

3. Step 1: Investigate the Broker You Dealt With

The first and most critical step in exploring recovery options is to determine the regulatory status of the binary options provider you used, specifically during the period you were investing with them. This information dictates which redress avenues might be available.

Check the FCA Financial Services (FS) Register

The FS Register is the official public record of firms and individuals authorised by the FCA or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to conduct regulated financial activities in the UK.²⁴

How to Use: Access the register via the FCA website (register.fca.org.uk).²⁵ Search using the firm’s name or its FCA reference number (FRN), if known.²⁶ Adding a location can help narrow results, but be aware scammers often use fake UK addresses.⁴
What to Check:

Status: Is the firm listed as ‘Authorised’, ‘Formerly Authorised’, or ‘Unauthorised’? ²⁵
Dates: Crucially, check if the firm was authorised during the specific dates you invested. Authorisation status can change over time.
Permissions: Verify the ‘permissions’ the firm held. Did its authorisation cover the specific activity of dealing in binary options (or relevant investment types) for retail clients? A firm might be authorised for some activities but not the one offered to you.²⁶
Contact Details: Note the official contact details (address, phone number) listed on the Register. Only use these details if you need to contact the firm to verify its legitimacy. Scammers often clone legitimate firms but provide different contact information.⁴
Individuals: The Register also contains the ‘Directory Persons’ data, allowing checks on individuals certified to undertake regulated activities for authorised firms.²⁴

Check the FCA Warning List

Alongside the main Register, the FCA maintains a Warning List.⁴

Purpose: This list details firms that the FCA believes are operating without the necessary authorisation, are deliberately running investment scams, or are ‘clone firms’—fraudulent entities impersonating legitimate, authorised firms.⁴
How to Use: Search this list specifically for the name of the broker, associated individuals, websites, or contact details you were given.⁴ The FCA published a specific list of 94 unauthorised binary options providers in January 2018, which may be relevant for historical checks.¹⁶

Significance of Findings

The results of these checks are crucial:

If the firm WAS FCA-authorised for the relevant activity WHEN you invested: You may be eligible to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about the firm’s conduct (see Step 4). This offers a potential route for independent dispute resolution.
If the firm was NEVER FCA-authorised, is listed on the Warning List, or was acting outside its permissions: A complaint to the FOS against the broker is highly unlikely to be accepted.¹⁶ Your focus should shift towards potential claims involving your bank (Step 5), reporting the firm to the authorities (Step 4), and potentially considering legal advice (Step 6), although recovery prospects are significantly diminished.¹⁶

It is vital to remember the limitations. The changing regulatory landscape means a firm might have operated under different rules previously (e.g., Gambling Commission oversight).³ Scammers are adept at using false information or cloning legitimate firms, making identification challenging.⁴ Therefore, cross-referencing information between the Register and the Warning List, and paying close attention to the timing of events, is essential for an accurate assessment.

4. Step 2: Explore Official Complaint Channels

Once the broker’s regulatory status is understood, several official channels can be considered, primarily for reporting the issue and potentially seeking redress, particularly if your bank was involved.

Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)

The FOS resolves disputes between consumers and financial businesses.²⁶ Its role in binary options cases depends heavily on who the complaint is against:

Complaints Against the Binary Options Broker: The FOS can generally only consider complaints against firms that were authorised by the FCA at the time the issue occurred.²³ Given the FCA ban since April 2019, if you invested after this date, or if the firm you used was never FCA-authorised, the FOS will likely be unable to investigate a complaint against the broker itself. For the period between January 2018 and April 2019 when FCA authorisation was required, a complaint might be possible if the firm was authorised then. Before January 2018, binary options fell largely outside FCA regulation.⁴ If eligible, you must first complain directly to the firm. If you don’t receive a satisfactory final response within eight weeks, you can escalate the complaint to the FOS.³⁰ The service is free for consumers.³⁰
Complaints Against Your Bank/Payment Provider: This is often a more viable route, especially if the broker was unauthorised. Even if the FOS cannot investigate the broker, it can investigate a complaint against your bank or card provider (assuming they are FCA-regulated) regarding their actions or omissions in relation to the scam payments.²⁰ FOS decisions show they assess whether the bank acted fairly and reasonably, considering factors like:

Did the bank have adequate fraud detection systems? ²³
Should the transactions (e.g., large payments to an unregulated overseas entity in a known high-risk sector like binary options) have triggered alerts? ²³
Did the bank fail to provide appropriate warnings about the risks or known scams associated with the recipient or transaction type? ²³
Did the bank properly handle subsequent requests for assistance, such as chargeback claims? ³³ The FOS determines complaints based on what it considers “fair and reasonable in all the circumstances,” considering relevant laws, regulations, codes, and good industry practice.³¹ This provides a potentially powerful lever, as FOS decisions have sometimes found banks liable for customer losses even when payments were initially authorised by the customer, if the bank missed clear warning signs or failed in its duty of care.²³

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

The FCA’s primary role is regulating the financial services industry, protecting consumers, maintaining market integrity, and promoting competition.¹⁶ It sets the rules (like the binary options ban) and takes enforcement action against firms engaging in misconduct or unauthorised activities.¹⁶

Reporting to the FCA: It is highly recommended to report any suspected binary options scam or unauthorised firm directly to the FCA.¹ This can be done via their consumer helpline (0800 111 6768) or their online reporting form.⁴ Providing this information helps the FCA to:

Gather intelligence on illicit operations.³⁸
Issue public warnings about specific unauthorised firms or scams, protecting others.¹⁶
Undertake investigations and potentially take enforcement action (e.g., court action, fines, bans) against illegal operators, although this is often difficult with overseas firms.¹⁶
Limitations: It is important to understand that the FCA does not typically investigate individual consumer complaints or have the power to order a firm to return specific funds lost by an individual.³⁹ Their focus is on broader market regulation and enforcement rather than individual redress.

Action Fraud

Action Fraud serves as the UK’s national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime, operated by the City of London Police.¹²

Reporting: All instances of suspected binary options fraud should be reported to Action Fraud.³⁹ Reports can be filed online (www.actionfraud.police.uk) or by phone (0300 123 2040).⁴¹
Process: Reports are assessed by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB).¹² Where appropriate, they may be passed to law enforcement agencies for investigation.¹² Arrests and prosecutions related to binary options fraud have occurred, sometimes involving substantial operations.¹²
Limitations: Reporting to Action Fraud is crucial for police intelligence and potential criminal investigations, but it does not guarantee the recovery of lost funds for the individual victim.¹²

5. Step 3: Seek Redress Through Your Bank or Card Provider

If the broker was unauthorised, or if complaints to the broker (if authorised) have failed, pursuing redress through the bank or card provider used to make the deposits is often the most practical next step. Two main mechanisms exist: chargebacks and Section 75 claims.

Chargebacks (Debit and Credit Cards)

The chargeback scheme allows cardholders to dispute a transaction and potentially have it reversed by their bank (the card issuer).⁴⁵

How it Works: The cardholder initiates the dispute with their bank, providing reasons and evidence. The bank then raises the dispute with the merchant’s bank (acquirer) through the relevant card network (e.g., Visa, Mastercard). The merchant has an opportunity to contest the chargeback.³⁵ It’s important to note this is a process governed by card scheme rules, not directly by law, although banks have obligations in how they handle the process.⁴⁷
Relevance to Binary Options: Chargebacks can be relevant if the service paid for was fraudulent (e.g., fake trading platform), misrepresented, or if the merchant blocked legitimate withdrawal requests.²⁰ There are documented cases where victims of binary options scams, including those promoted with fake celebrity endorsements, have successfully recovered funds via chargeback.²¹ Specific chargeback reason codes may apply, for instance, where a binary options merchant prevents fund withdrawals.²⁰
Time Limits: Acting quickly is critical. Card schemes impose strict time limits, commonly cited as 120 days.⁴⁵ However, this limit can sometimes run from the date the cardholder became aware of the problem (e.g., when a withdrawal was refused) rather than the original transaction date, and specific rules vary between Visa and Mastercard and depend on the dispute reason.²⁰ Missing the deadline can mean losing the right to dispute the charge.⁴⁵
Evidence: Success often hinges on providing clear evidence to the bank. This should include all communications with the broker (especially attempts to withdraw funds or resolve issues), evidence of false promises or misrepresentation, account statements, and a clear explanation of why the transaction is disputed as fraudulent or illegitimate.⁴⁵ Meticulous documentation is key.⁴⁸ Even if a chargeback is initially refused by the merchant or their bank, the FOS has sometimes found that the victim’s bank should have pursued it more robustly or considered alternative grounds.³³

Section 75 Claims (Credit Cards Only)

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 offers a powerful form of protection for purchases made using a credit card.

How it Works: This law makes the credit card provider jointly and severally liable with the supplier for any breach of contract or misrepresentation related to goods or services purchased using the card.⁵⁰ This applies to single items or services costing between £100 and £30,000.⁵² If the supplier fails to deliver, provides faulty goods, or misrepresents the service, the consumer can legally claim a refund from their credit card company.⁵¹
Relevance to Binary Options: Section 75 could apply if it can be demonstrated that the binary options provider breached its contract (e.g., by operating a fake platform, not executing trades, or unlawfully refusing withdrawals) or made misrepresentations about the nature of the service, the risks involved, or the potential for returns.⁴⁷
Overseas Transactions: Crucially, UK courts have confirmed that Section 75 protection does extend to transactions made overseas with a UK-issued credit card.⁵¹ This is highly relevant as many binary options brokers targeting UK consumers are based abroad.⁴
Challenges: While powerful, Section 75 claims face challenges. Proving a breach of contract or misrepresentation against a sophisticated scam operation that may have disappeared can be difficult. The link between the credit card payment and the specific service must be direct; complex payment intermediaries might break this chain. The entity providing the credit must fall under the definition of a ‘creditor’ in the Act.
Time Limits: Unlike the shorter chargeback deadlines, Section 75 claims are subject to statutory limitation periods, typically six years from the date of the breach of contract or misrepresentation in England and Wales.⁴⁷ This provides a much longer window for potential claims compared to chargebacks.

These bank-related avenues are often interconnected. A failed chargeback attempt does not prevent a potentially valid Section 75 claim (for credit card payments). Furthermore, if a bank unreasonably refuses a chargeback or Section 75 claim, or fails to handle the dispute process correctly, this failure itself could be grounds for a complaint to the FOS against the bank.³³ Persistence across these mechanisms may be necessary. However, the differing and sometimes complex time limits underscore the importance of acting promptly, especially for chargebacks, while being aware that Section 75 may offer a longer timeframe for credit card transactions.²⁰

6. Step 4: Assess the Viability of Legal Action

Pursuing legal action directly against the binary options broker is another potential avenue, but one fraught with significant challenges, particularly when dealing with unregulated, overseas entities.

Factors Influencing Success

The practicality and potential success of legal action depend heavily on several factors:

Broker’s Location and Status: Initiating legal proceedings against a firm that was FCA-authorised and based in the UK during the relevant period is theoretically straightforward. However, the vast majority of binary options scams targeting UK consumers are operated by unregulated firms based outside the UK, often in jurisdictions with weak regulatory oversight or complex corporate structures designed to obscure ownership.⁴ Suing such entities presents major hurdles.
Identifying the Correct Entity: Scammers often operate behind shell companies registered in multiple jurisdictions, making it difficult and costly to identify the true legal entity responsible and its ultimate beneficial owners.⁵
Jurisdiction and Enforcement: Establishing that UK courts have jurisdiction over a foreign company can be complex. Even if a UK court grants a judgment in favour of the victim, enforcing that judgment against assets held by a defunct or hidden company in another country is often practically impossible.⁵
Evidence: As with other routes, robust, documented evidence proving the fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and the extent of the financial loss is essential for any legal claim.⁴⁸

Challenges

The primary challenges associated with legal action include:

Cost: Legal fees for pursuing litigation, especially complex international cases, can be substantial and may quickly exceed the amount of money lost, making it financially unviable for many victims.⁵³
Complexity: Navigating international law, serving legal documents across borders, and dealing with potentially uncooperative foreign entities requires specialist legal expertise.⁵

Specialist Law Firms

Some law firms specialise in financial fraud litigation, including binary options cases, and may offer services to victims.⁵ Some may even attempt to mount class actions if multiple victims of the same broker can be identified.⁶ However, extreme caution is advised:

Thoroughly research any law firm’s track record and expertise in similar cases.
Be wary of firms demanding large upfront fees, as this mirrors the tactics of recovery scams (see Step 5). Reputable firms may offer conditional fee arrangements (“no win, no fee”), but ensure the terms are fully understood.⁴¹
Seek a realistic assessment of the chances of success and the likely costs involved before committing.

Criminal vs. Civil Action

It’s important to distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings. Reporting the fraud to Action Fraud and the FCA may contribute to criminal investigations led by the police or regulatory bodies.¹² These actions aim to punish the perpetrators but do not automatically result in compensation for victims, although courts can sometimes make confiscation orders. Civil legal action, initiated by the victim (usually via solicitors), aims specifically to recover the lost funds from the responsible party.³⁹

Given the significant hurdles involved, particularly the prevalence of unregulated, overseas brokers operating sophisticated scams, pursuing direct legal action against the broker is often an impractical and prohibitively expensive option for most individual victims.⁵ Resources may be more effectively directed towards the bank-related redress mechanisms (chargeback, Section 75) and complaints to the FOS regarding the bank’s conduct.

7. Step 5: Protect Yourself from Recovery Scams

Tragically, individuals who have already fallen victim to investment fraud, such as binary options scams, are often targeted again by a secondary type of fraud known as a ‘recovery room’ scam. Vigilance against these scams is crucial to avoid further financial loss.

How Recovery Scams Work

Recovery room fraudsters contact people they know have lost money in previous scams, often obtaining victim lists illicitly.²⁹ They falsely claim they can recover the lost funds, but require an upfront fee to do so.⁴ These scammers frequently impersonate legitimate organisations, including:

Government bodies (e.g., the Insolvency Service) ⁴⁴
Regulatory authorities (e.g., the FCA, overseas regulators like the FMA) ²⁹
Compensation schemes (e.g., the Financial Services Compensation Scheme – FSCS) ⁵⁷
Law enforcement agencies ²⁹
Law firms or claims management companies ²⁹

They may use sophisticated tactics, such as creating fake websites, sending official-looking documents (sometimes using stolen logos), spoofing legitimate phone numbers, or referencing details of the original scam to gain trust.²⁹ The requested upfront fee might be described as a tax, administrative charge, legal fee, or processing cost.²⁹

Identifying Red Flags

Be extremely wary of any unsolicited contact regarding the recovery of lost investments. Key red flags include:

Unsolicited Approach: Being contacted unexpectedly (phone, email, social media) about recovering funds you lost.²⁹
Upfront Fee Request: Any demand for payment before funds are recovered is almost certainly a scam.²⁹ Legitimate bodies like the FOS and FSCS do not charge consumers fees for their services.³⁰ The Official Receiver involved in liquidations also does not charge upfront fees for distributing recovered assets.⁴⁴
Pressure Tactics: Being rushed into making a decision or payment.²⁹
Unrealistic Promises: Guarantees of recovering all or a large portion of your lost money.²⁹
Suspicious Contact Details: Use of generic webmail addresses (e.g., @gmail.com, @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com, @yandex.ru) by purported official organisations.²⁹ Check official email domains carefully (e.g., fca.org.uk, fscs.org.uk) but be aware scammers can sometimes spoof these too.⁵⁶
Requests for Sensitive Information: Asking for bank account details, card numbers, or extensive personal information early in the process.²⁹
Impersonation/Cloning: Claims of being from a known organisation that seem suspicious. Always verify independently.²⁹

Verification Steps

If contacted by someone offering to recover lost funds:

End Contact: If asked for an upfront fee or sensitive financial details, cease all communication immediately.²⁹ Do not pay any money.
Verify the Organisation: Independently check if the organisation exists and if it is authorised to conduct claims management activities (if applicable) using the FCA Register.²⁹
Use Official Channels: Contact the organisation they claim to represent (e.g., FCA, FOS, FSCS, Insolvency Service) directly, using phone numbers or email addresses obtained from their official website, not the details provided by the person who contacted you.²⁹
Check Warnings: Consult the FCA Warning List for alerts about unauthorised firms, clone firms, or specific recovery scams.²⁹
Report: Report any suspected recovery scam attempt to the FCA and Action Fraud immediately.²⁹

Recovery scams prey on the vulnerability and hope of fraud victims.²⁹ The fundamental principle is that legitimate recovery processes through official UK bodies like the FOS or FSCS do not involve upfront fees payable by the consumer. Any request for such a fee is the clearest indicator of a scam.

8. Summary: Potential Options and Realistic Expectations

Recovering funds lost through binary options trading in the UK presents significant challenges, largely due to the FCA’s ban pushing activity towards unregulated and often offshore operators. However, several potential avenues exist, each with its own requirements and likelihood of success.

Recap of Potential Avenues

Investigate the Broker: Check the FCA Register and Warning List to determine the firm’s authorisation status during the investment period. This dictates FOS eligibility against the broker.
Official Complaints:

FOS vs Broker: Only possible if the firm was FCA-authorised at the time. Unlikely for recent scams due to the ban.
FOS vs Bank: Possible if your UK bank (if FCA-regulated) failed in its duty of care regarding fraud prevention or transaction handling.
FCA/Action Fraud Reporting: Essential for intelligence gathering and potential enforcement/criminal action, but does not directly recover individual losses.

Bank/Card Provider Redress:

Chargeback: A card scheme process with strict time limits (typically 120 days), requiring evidence of fraud/non-service.
Section 75 (Credit Card): A legal right for credit card payments (£100-£30k) where breach of contract or misrepresentation occurred. Longer time limits apply (statutory).

Legal Action: Direct legal action against the broker is complex, costly, and often impractical, especially if the broker is unregulated and overseas.
Avoid Recovery Scams: Be vigilant against secondary scams demanding upfront fees to recover lost funds.

Realistic Assessment of Likelihood

It must be stressed that recovering money from unregulated binary options firms, particularly those based overseas, is exceptionally difficult and frequently unsuccessful.⁵ These entities are often designed to be untraceable and operate outside the reach of UK regulators and courts.

The chances of recovery improve if:

The firm was genuinely FCA-authorised for the relevant activity at the time of the investment (allowing a potential FOS complaint against the broker).
A successful claim can be made against the victim’s own UK bank or credit card provider through the FOS (demonstrating the bank’s failings), the chargeback process, or Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Summary Table of Potential Recovery Routes

The following table summarizes the main potential routes, requirements, and considerations:

Route	Primary Target	Key Requirement(s)	Typical Time Limit	Key Evidence Needed	Likelihood/Difficulty Assessment
FOS (vs Broker)	Binary Options Broker	Broker FCA Authorised at time of event	6 months from final response	Complaint details, evidence of misconduct	Low/Impossible if broker unauthorised
FOS (vs Bank)	Your UK Bank/Card Provider	Bank potentially failed duty of care/fraud prevention	6 months from final response	Transaction details, bank comms, scam context, warnings	Possible depending on bank’s specific actions/omissions
Chargeback (Debit/Credit)	Merchant (via Bank)	Card payment, valid dispute reason (fraud, non-service)	Typically 120 days (can vary)	Proof of non-service/fraud, comms with broker	Possible but highly time-sensitive; depends on evidence & rules
Section 75 (Credit Card)	Credit Card Provider	Credit card payment £100-£30k, breach/misrepresentation	Statutory (e.g., 6 years)	Proof of breach/misrep, link between payment & service	Possible if criteria met & strong case; longer timeframe
Direct Legal Action	Binary Options Broker	Identifiable entity, jurisdiction, assets, funds for fees	Statutory	Comprehensive proof of fraud/loss	Very Low/Impractical if broker offshore/unregulated/hidden
Reporting (FCA/Action Fraud)	Authorities	N/A	N/A (report ASAP)	Details of the scam operation	No direct recovery; helps prevention & potential future enforcement

Key Takeaways

Act Promptly: Strict time limits apply, particularly for chargebacks. Delay can extinguish rights.
Document Everything: Keep meticulous records of all transactions, communications, websites, and promises made by the broker.
Verify: Always check the FCA Register and Warning List. Use official contact details only. Be sceptical of unsolicited offers.
Focus on Bank Channels: For victims of unauthorised brokers, pursuing complaints against your bank (via FOS) or using chargeback/Section 75 mechanisms often represents the most realistic path to potential recovery.
Beware Recovery Scams: Never pay an upfront fee to anyone promising to recover lost funds. Report such approaches immediately.

Recovering from binary options fraud is a challenging path, but understanding the available options and proceeding methodically through official channels offers the best chance of navigating this difficult situation while avoiding further harm.

Download PDF

Works cited

FCA confirms permanent ban on the sale of binary options to retail …, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-confirms-permanent-ban-sale-binary-options-retail-consumers
FCA Introduces Permanent Ban on Binary Options to Retail Consumers – objectivus, accessed April 21, 2025, https://objectivus.com/fca-introduces-permanent-ban-on-binary-options-to-retail-consumers/
Product intervention measures for retail binary options Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) RPC rating: validated – GOV.UK, accessed April 21, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d1df9c340f0b609f39009e5/RPC-4371_1_-HMT-FCA_-_product_intervention_measures_for_retail_binary_options_-_IA_f__opinion.pdf
Binary options scams | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/binary-options-scams
‘Killers having lunch’: The real life Wolves of Wall Street | TBIJ, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-11-02/killers-having-lunch-the-real-life-wolves-of-wall-street
Binary Options Trading Litigation Team – Giambrone, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.giambronelaw.com/site/servicesforindividuals/binary-trading-litigation/english/
All bets are off for binary options – RPC, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.rpclegal.com/thinking/financial-services-regulatory-and-risk/all-bets-are-off-for-binary-options/
Compliance Corner: UK Bans Binary Options For Retail Investors – Family Wealth Report, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.familywealthreport.com/article.php/Compliance-Corner:-UK-Bans-Binary-Options-For-Retail-Investors-
PS19/11: Product intervention measures for retail binary options | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps19-11-product-intervention-measures-retail-binary-options
FCA Proposes Permanent Measures for Retail CFDs and Binary Options – objectivus, accessed April 21, 2025, https://objectivus.com/fca-proposes-permanent-measures-for-retail-cfds-and-binary-options-2/
Consumer warning about the risks of investing in binary options | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/consumer-warning-about-risks-investing-binary-options
Fraudsters claim “Binary Options are being used for investment scams” | Action Fraud, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/alert/fraudsters-claim-binary-options-are-being-used-for-investment-scams
Investors lose over £87k a day to binary options fraud, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/news/investors-lose-over-87k-a-day-to-binary-options-fraud
FCA issues warning on online investment fraud – Portfolio Adviser, accessed April 21, 2025, https://portfolio-adviser.com/fca-issues-warning-on-online-investment-fraud/
Warning issued by FCA about scammers on Facebook, Twitter & Instagram – Mike Coady, accessed April 21, 2025, https://mikecoady.com/blog/warning-issued-fca-scammers-facebook-twitter-instagram/
FCA issues list of unauthorised binary options providers, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-issues-list-unauthorised-binary-options-providers
Scam Artists? FCA Issues Warning Against FX and Binary Options Brokers, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/scam-artists-fca-issues-warning-fx-binary-options-brokers/
The FCA’s issued a fresh warning on bitcoin, cryptocurrency and binary option scams as fraudsters move online – City AM, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.cityam.com/fcas-issued-fresh-warning-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-and-binary/
FCA Alerts Investors of Increased Risk of Online Binary Options Scams | Finance Magnates, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/regulation/fca-alerts-investors-increased-risk-online-binary-options-scams/
Decision Reference DRN-3077317 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3077317.pdf
ECR0062 – Evidence on Economic Crime – UK Parliament Committees, accessed April 21, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/90710/html
Binary Options Fraud | Investor.gov, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/binary-options-fraud
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3425453.pdf
How To Check If A Firm Is Authorised | Financial Services Register – ASUKL, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.asukl.com/how-to-check-if-a-firm-is-authorised/
Financial Services Register | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-services-register
Register Home Page, accessed April 21, 2025, https://register.fca.org.uk/s/
FCA register search – Complygate, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.complygate.co.uk/fca-register-search
Checking whether a firm is authorised, what activities it can do and how customers are protected – Product Partnerships, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.productpartnerships.com/insights/news/checking-whether-a-firm-is-authorised,-what-activi/
Recovery room scams | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/recovery-room-scams
Make a complaint – Financial Ombudsman service – Step 1 of 8, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/make-complaint
Decision Reference DRN5838966 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN5838966.pdf
Decision Reference DRN-4249207 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4249207.pdf
Decision Reference DRN6040858 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN6040858.pdf
Decision Reference DRN-3398423 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3398423.pdf
Decision Reference DRN-3293681 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3293681.pdf
The Financial Conduct Authority – SmartSearch, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.smartsearch.com/resources/glossary/the-financial-conduct-authority
UK FCA Charges Four Individuals with £1.2M Binary Options Fraud – Finance Magnates, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/uk-fca-charges-four-persons-in-12m-binary-options-fraud/
FCA Pursuing 3 Binary Options Firms – Finance Magnates, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/fca-pursuing-3-binary-options-firms/
Investment fraud | Action Fraud, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/investment-fraud
Recover Fund | FCA, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/recover-fund
Action Fraud Claims Advice | Scam Recovery Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.actionfraud.org.uk/
Cold Call Investment Scam – Action Fraud Claims Advice, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.actionfraud.org.uk/investment-scams/cold-call-investment-scam/
Avoid and report pension scams – The Pensions Regulator, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/pension-scams
Investors warned about approaches to recover lost funds – GOV.UK, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/investors-warned-about-approaches-to-recover-lost-funds
Chargeback Time Limits: Understanding the Rules and Regulations – Chargeblast.com, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.chargeblast.com/blog/chargeback-time-limits-understanding-the-rules-and-regulations/
The Dark Side of Transactions | A Guide to Chargeback Fraud, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/chargeback-fraud0-guide/
Decision of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, accessed April 21, 2025, https://fspo.ie/complaint-outcomes/investigation-services/legally-binding-decisions/documents/2022-0058.pdf
Lost your money to binary options? Here’s how some victims got it back | The Times of Israel, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/lost-your-money-to-binary-options-heres-how-some-victims-got-it-back/
FKN0068 – Evidence on Disinformation and ‘fake news’ – UK Parliament Committees, accessed April 21, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/88888/html/
Decision Reference DRN2075983 – Financial Ombudsman Service, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN2075983.pdf
Credit card issuers: facing liability for overseas transactions – Practical Law, accessed April 21, 2025, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-202-2943?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
House of Lords upholds decision on credit card cover for overseas purchases, accessed April 21, 2025, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-378-8879?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
Broker does not pay out what to do? Tips and help for investors – Law Firm Herfurtner, accessed April 21, 2025, https://kanzlei-herfurtner.com/broker-does-not-pay-out/
Binary option fraud – The facts – Noble Solicitors, accessed April 21, 2025, https://noblesolicitors.co.uk/expertise/fraud-and-financial-crimes/binary-option-fraud/
Welcome to our Forex Litigation Section in English – Giambrone Law, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.giambronelaw.com/forex-class-actions-english.html
Recovery scam using name of UK Authority – Financial Markets Authority, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fma.govt.nz/library/warnings-and-alerts/recovery-scam-using-name-of-uk-authority/
Latest scams and frauds – updated 24 October | FSCS, accessed April 21, 2025, https://www.fscs.org.uk/news/fraud/latest-scams-frauds/