Statistik › Aktivt, passivt och flöden › Prop firm legality
Two European authorities reached opposite conclusions on whether simulated funded trading needs a licence
| Authority | Position | Underlag | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Czech National Bank, opinion RS2023-18 | Simulated trading alone is not an investment service | No actual execution of the instructions given | Published 28 September 2023, valid indefinitely |
| Rotterdam District Court, January 2026 | The platform was executing client orders in contracts for difference | Licence required under Dutch financial supervision law | Preliminary relief; the underlying measure is under appeal |
| Belgian and Italian regulators | Consumer warnings issued | Not a licensing determination | 2024 |
| United States case against one firm | Dismissed with prejudice, May 2025 | Sanctions against the regulator's staff, not the merits | Final |
The Czech opinion expressly leaves open the question of what happens when a reward is tied to results achieved on a demonstration account, which is the arrangement every challenge model uses. So the two positions are not as directly opposed as they look, and neither settles the general case.
The Czech central bank's published opinion says purely simulated trading is not an investment service and needs no permit. A Dutch court held that a platform describing itself as a market simulation was executing client orders in contracts for difference and required a licence.
Endast för medlemmar
Resten av den här sidan är för medlemmar
Below this point there are 4 sections and 4 named sources, roughly 500 words of it. Every figure carries the source it came from and the date the data is from.
Du kan fortsätta bläddra i all statistik i biblioteket gratis. Introduktionen och sammanfattningen är alltid öppna.