No. Plenty of large, long-running brokers hold Seychelles or Mauritius licences and pay people out every day. The point is what happens on the bad day. If that firm fails, there is no fund, no ombudsman, and no realistic court route from another continent. You are trusting the company itself rather than the system behind it.

Only if your account sits with the FCA entity. Large brokers run several companies. The UK one serves UK clients, and clients elsewhere are often signed up to a Seychelles or Vanuatu company under the same brand. The client agreement names the entity. Read it before depositing.

Japan’s FSA on leverage, at 25:1. The US comes closest on capital, since a retail forex dealer needs 20 million dollars before it can open the door. For the balance of tough rules and a real payout if things go wrong, the FCA is hard to beat at £85,000, and Canada’s CIRO members carry the largest ceiling at one million Canadian dollars.

Because the entity offering it sits outside those rules. Offshore jurisdictions set no cap, so the same brand can advertise 1:30 in London and 1:1000 in its offshore arm. The cap is not there to annoy you. Regulators measured the loss rates and moved.

Rarely. Money kept separate from the firm’s own cash is standard at any decent regulator, and that is not the same as insurance. An actual payout fund covering forex specifically exists in the UK, the EU, Canada and Switzerland. Japan runs a protection fund too, but its own rules exclude FX margin trading, so it doesn’t help a forex client. Australia, Singapore, South Africa and every offshore jurisdiction have none.

Complain to the broker in writing first, then take it to the free dispute service if the country has one. The UK has the Financial Ombudsman Service, Australia has AFCA, Japan has its own resolution centre. Offshore, your only route is the firm’s own complaints desk, which is the whole problem.