IG Trading and Investments Limited · DRN-4806228

The complaint Mr R complains that IG Trading and Investments Limited trading as IG allowed him to deposit and trade large sums, which he feels should’ve put it on notice of a potential gambling issue. He also feels that failures with IG’s anti-money laundering (AML) procedures exacerbated the situation. What happened The background to the complaint will be well known to both parties, so I’ll only give some key details here. Mr R first opened trading accounts with IG in late 2019, for share dealing and spread betting, later adding two more, a second spread betting account and a contracts for difference (CFD) trading account, in late 2022. Most of his trading took place from around that time through until July 2023, at which point he approached IG and explained that over the previous year he’d developed gambling problems. He said that up to May 2023 he’d been using the accounts within his means, but he’d then sold his business and committed and lost significantly larger amounts. He asked that his accounts be suspended, which IG did. But he also complained that he’d been allowed to incur the losses as his more recent activity had been out of character with his previous trading, which he felt IG should’ve have noticed and acted upon. He also questioned IG’s AML procedures, which he felt had allowed him to deposit large sums too easily and, conversely, had made it difficult withdraw funds, leaving money in his trading accounts that he’d then gone on to lose. IG didn’t uphold Mr R’s complaint. In short, it said that there’d been no reason for it to have been alerted to any potential vulnerability prior to Mr R’s notification to it in July 2023, at which point it had acted promptly and effectively. It said the risks involved with this type of trading had been made clear to Mr R at the outset and IG had always adhered to its correct AML procedures, with its request for bank statements to confirm details when Mr R had requested withdrawals being a normal part of this. Mr R referred his complaint to this service, but our investigator also didn’t think it should be upheld. He first considered whether IG had followed the correct process when providing Mr R with his trading facility, to ensure it had been appropriate for him, and was satisfied IG had done. In respect of the crux of the complaint, Mr R’s trading activity and losses in the months preceding his complaint, the investigator explained that although he appreciated that Mr R had opened larger positions more frequently than previously, doing so in isolation wouldn’t have been sufficient to put IG on notice that he was experiencing gambling issues. The investigator also noted that while Mr R had experienced significant losses over a three-week period prior to contacting IG they’d nevertheless been within his declared earnings/savings figures.

-- 1 of 3 --

Lastly, in respect of Mr R’s concern that IG hadn’t properly followed its AML procedures, the investigator wasn’t persuaded that was the case and he highlighted IG’s comments regarding the information it had requested in respect of the withdrawals and how doing so was common in this type of situation. Mr R didn’t accept the investigator’s view, stressing that he felt IG should’ve sought proof of funds before allowing him to commit large amounts. He said he wanted IG to take responsibility for what he felt were the failings in its processes. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to me to review. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, while I recognise Mr R will be disappointed, I find I’ve come to the same conclusion as the investigator. I don’t think the complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that the experience that prompted Mr R to complain has clearly been very difficult and challenging for him and he has my sympathy. But in order to uphold the complaint I would need to be persuaded that IG acted incorrectly or unfairly in handling his accounts. And having considered the matter very carefully I’m unable to conclude that it did. The investigator touched upon IG’s account opening process and its consideration of whether this type of trading was appropriate for Mr R, as the relevant regulations required it to do. He concluded that IG had acted reasonably in this respect and, while I recognise it isn’t an issue Mr R himself raised, for completeness, I confirm that I see no reason why IG shouldn’t have provided a trading facility to him. Clearly there was a significant change in his trading behaviour in the weeks preceding his email to IG in July 2023. But IG has explained that the controls it had in place at the time, which help to identify trading behaviour that might suggest vulnerability or a risk of harm, didn’t pick up on any issues. While with hindsight, and in light of what subsequently became known, it’s possible to conclude that IG could have acted differently or sooner, I don’t think it’s reasonable in the circumstances to conclude that it should have done so. While Mr R’s deposits, trades and losses increased significantly, they nevertheless still sat within the boundaries of the information he’d provided to IG about his income and savings. And there was no requirement that IG confirm those figures. Its subsequent requests for information related to withdrawals, where it was confirming details of the account it was paying the funds to, in line with its AML obligations. Again, with hindsight it can be seen that the request for statements coupled with Mr R’s delay in supplying them meant that money that should’ve been removed and not available for trading remained in the account. But this wasn’t a case of IG acting incorrectly, or out of step with its normal procedures or normal industry practice. As I say, I appreciate my decision will come as a disappointment to Mr R, but after careful consideration I find there’s no basis on which I can uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. James Harris Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --