Faizan Anees has spent more than a decade building ThinkMarkets from a forex startup into a multinational online brokerage with regulatory licences across several jurisdictions. Public corporate records identify Anees, born in November 1986, as an American national and an active director of TF Global Markets (UK) Limited; as of September 2026, that puts him at 39. Companies House records also identify his brother, Nauman Anees, as a person with significant control of the UK business. ThinkMarkets itself says the brothers co-founded the business in 2010.
Today, Anees remains closely connected to the group. Trade-industry reporting in February 2026 identified Nauman Anees as CEO and Faizan Anees as President of ThinkMarkets, while the Dubai Financial Services Authority’s public register lists Faizan as an authorised individual of TF Global Markets (UK) Limited’s DIFC branch. Companies House lists his country of residence as the United States, although public business records do not establish a more precise current location. No credible alternate names or aliases for Faizan Anees surfaced in the records reviewed.
The regulatory and legal history surrounding ThinkMarkets does not amount to a criminal case against Anees, and it would be inaccurate to describe him personally as convicted of fraud or another financial crime. No credible public record reviewed for this article identifies a criminal conviction, guilty plea or criminal charge against him. The more significant record is instead a mixture of regulatory warnings, civil litigation, Financial Ombudsman disputes and complaints involving companies within the ThinkMarkets structure.
One of the clearest episodes occurred in Bermuda in 2021. On August 17 that year, ThinkMarkets issued a press release stating that it had a licence from the Bermuda Monetary Authority. The BMA subsequently issued a public warning stating that it had issued no licence to any ThinkMarkets company, including Think Capital Limited. The regulator said ThinkMarkets told it the statement had been made in error and should have referred to a licence from the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. ThinkMarkets issued a corrected release on August 21. The BMA specifically acknowledged the company’s efforts to correct the error and said its warning was intended to ensure the public was not confused. The incident therefore establishes a false regulatory claim, but the available BMA document does not impose a fine or accuse Anees personally of deliberate deception.
The episode nevertheless became part of the public record surrounding Think Capital and Faizan Anees. OffshoreAlert subsequently published the BMA warning and, in 2024, published a letter from Incogni acting for Anees requesting removal of material concerning the warning and corporate records. The request argued that privacy laws gave Anees rights concerning his personal information and that there was insufficient public interest in publishing personal details. The documents supplied for this article show that Anees personally signed an authorization appointing Incogni to pursue privacy-related deletion and objection requests. That request is significant as a response to the reporting, but it was not an admission or denial of the underlying BMA warning.
A separate regulatory warning came from Québec. In November 2021, Québec’s Autorité des marchés financiers warned against TF Global Markets Int Limited, stating that it was not registered with the AMF and was not authorised to solicit Québec investors. The regulator listed Think Capital Limited and ThinkMarkets among the business names used. This was a regulatory warning concerning the company’s authorisation in Québec, not a finding that Faizan Anees personally committed fraud.
Brazilian regulators later took a more direct enforcement step. In August 2024, Brazil’s Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, or CVM, said it had identified indications that TF Global Markets (Australia) Pty Limited, operating under the ThinkMarkets brand, was using its website to attract Brazilian residents for securities transactions without CVM authorisation. The regulator ordered the immediate suspension of public offers of securities-intermediation services to Brazilian residents, directly or indirectly through websites, applications or social media. Failure to comply could result in a daily R$1,000 coercive fine, in addition to potential sanctions through a subsequent administrative proceeding. The order named the company, not Anees personally.
ThinkMarkets has also faced civil disputes over how it handled trading accounts and client funds. In a 2020 High Court case involving Samuel Tan, Gianmarco Fedele and Elene Ribers, TF Global Markets challenged Financial Ombudsman decisions concerning the suspension of 30 trading accounts and the withholding of profits. ThinkMarkets had suspected the traders of exploiting price latency and arbitrage techniques, with withheld sums of €70,000, €14,000 and £18,000 respectively.
The court ultimately quashed the Ombudsman’s three decisions, finding that the Ombudsman had interpreted ThinkMarkets’ contractual provisions incorrectly. But the court did not rule that ThinkMarkets had actually proven abusive trading by the three customers. Instead, it said the matter had to return to the Ombudsman to consider whether ThinkMarkets had exercised its contractual discretion reasonably rather than arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably. That distinction matters: the judgment strengthened ThinkMarkets’ contractual position, but it was not a blanket judicial finding that every account closure or withheld profit was justified.
Another client dispute became considerably larger. Turkish businessman Abdurrahman Suzgun sued ThinkMarkets after the broker said in late 2021 that approximately $4.28 million would be debited from his account. ThinkMarkets maintained that Suzgun had misused a swap-free account, saying more than 90% of his trades had been conducted through it and that many positions were held longer than the broker said was permitted. The company calculated that it could have earned more than $1.6 million in swap charges had those trades been conducted through a regular account. Suzgun disputed the allegations and maintained that his trading complied with his agreement.
In December 2023, the High Court issued an interim proprietary injunction concerning $4,280,818.88. The order required TF Global Markets (UK) Limited to place the disputed funds into a segregated client-money account and, where funds had been transferred to the Australian entity, use its best endeavours to procure their return. The order carried a penal notice warning that disobedience could expose the company or its directors and officers to contempt proceedings, fines, imprisonment or asset seizure.
That injunction was not a final finding that ThinkMarkets had wrongfully taken the money. The underlying dispute was settled shortly before the scheduled February 2024 trial. Barrister Charlotte Eborall, who acted for Suzgun, publicly states that proceedings settled shortly before trial after the proprietary injunction had been obtained. The financial terms of that settlement were not publicly disclosed. There is therefore no final public judgment determining which side was legally correct.
ThinkMarkets also became embroiled in a separate $15 million lawsuit brought by iS Prime concerning the 2017 sale of ThinkMarkets’ B2B business ThinkLiquidity. iS Prime alleged that ThinkMarkets breached an exclusivity arrangement by not routing trades to ISAM-group entities. ThinkMarkets brought counterclaims, and the litigation produced several preliminary rulings. The parties settled on the eve of trial in May 2023, with settlement terms remaining confidential. iS Prime described the outcome as a vindication of its position; ThinkMarkets said most of the claim had already been defeated at an earlier strike-out stage and that it had chosen to resolve the remaining differences.
There is also a smaller but instructive Financial Ombudsman record. In a separate complaint involving a 2017 withdrawal, the Ombudsman found that ThinkMarkets had deducted €6,996.25 in fees after telling the customer that fees would not apply if he limited withdrawals to one per month. The Ombudsman ordered TF Global Markets (UK) Limited to refund the €6,996.25 plus 8% annual interest. This was a complaint against the company, not Anees personally.
The group has continued expanding despite the disputes. In February 2022, ThinkMarkets secured $30 million in growth funding from Mars Growth, a joint venture involving Liquidity Group and MUFG. In May 2023, it announced plans to become publicly traded through a combination with FG Acquisition Corp. The proposed transaction valued the business at roughly $160 million, but the parties mutually terminated the agreement in December 2023 without completing the listing.
The corporate network around Anees is broad. Public records connect him to TF Global Markets (UK) Limited, Think Capital Services UK Limited and Think Forex Capital Markets Ltd, while the wider ThinkMarkets group operates through entities including TF Global Markets (Aust) Pty Ltd and TF Global Markets Int Limited in Seychelles. ThinkMarkets’ own regulatory materials list licences or registrations across the UK, Australia, Cyprus, South Africa, Dubai, Cayman Islands, Mauritius, Seychelles and New Zealand, depending on the entity serving the client.
Customer complaints remain a separate category that should not be confused with proven misconduct. Current review platforms contain numerous complaints concerning withdrawals, account closures, verification demands and disputed profits. Trustpilot, for example, contains recent 2026 complaints of delayed withdrawals and disputes over profit deductions, alongside positive reviews and company responses. These are self-reported customer accounts, not regulatory findings, and should be treated accordingly.
What emerges from the record is not a simple story of an unlicensed or convicted operator. ThinkMarkets is a real, multinational, regulated brokerage group, and several of its entities hold substantial financial-services licences. At the same time, its history contains a documented false licence claim in Bermuda, an authorisation warning in Québec, a Brazilian stop order, Ombudsman disputes over client money and trading accounts, and major civil litigation involving millions of dollars. Some cases ended in decisions favourable to ThinkMarkets; others produced orders or findings against its operating entities; still others ended privately without a final judgment.
That distinction is the central fact investors and customers should understand. Regulatory status belongs to specific legal entities, not simply to a global brand name, and a corporate group can be licensed in one jurisdiction while facing restrictions or different rules in another. For Faizan Anees, the public record currently shows an active financial-industry executive who remains deeply involved in ThinkMarkets, but it does not establish a criminal conviction or personal finding of fraud. The significance of the record lies instead in the repeated disputes over regulatory perimeter, client accounts and the handling of trading relationships. For anyone placing money with a cross-border broker, those details matter because the entity named on the account agreement can determine which regulator has jurisdiction, what protections apply and where a customer must go when a dispute cannot be resolved.
Source:
OffshoreAlert
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
