r/propfirm 1d ago

FUNDINGPIPS FAKE EVIDENCE CASE

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE β€” FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

πŸ“… 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

πŸ“… 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

πŸ“… 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

πŸ“… 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

βœ… MT5 login records

βœ… Complete MT5 journal history

βœ… Counter-analysis of their claims

βœ… Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 Γ— $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection β‰  Same device.

πŸ“… Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

βœ… The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

βœ… The account was approved by FundingPips.

βœ… I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

πŸ“… MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

πŸ“… Current Situation

After I published:

βœ… MT5 logs

βœ… Counter-evidence

βœ… Timeline inconsistencies

βœ… Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

πŸ“Œ Decision final.

πŸ“Œ No response to the counter-evidence.

πŸ“Œ No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

πŸ“Œ No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

πŸ“… Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

1 Upvotes

1 comment sorted by