Pocket Broker on Reclame Aqui

Where the complaints appear

Complaints about trading platforms concentrate on complaints sites, forums and video comments. The shape of those channels explains much of what one reads on them — including why one story becomes ten.

Before discussing the content of complaints, it helps to look at the place where they live. A complaints channel is not a statistical sample: it is a space where only people who had a problem show up, which is exactly its purpose and also its limit.

Complaints sites and forums

In Brazil, the reflex when facing a consumer problem is to look the company up on a complaints site. The model works well when there is a Brazilian company on the other side: it receives the record, replies publicly and has a reputational incentive to resolve. It is a pressure mechanism, not an arbitration one.

Trading forums and messaging groups work differently. There the complaint comes mixed with strategy discussion, signal recommendations and disputes between promoters. The signal is richer in technical detail and poorer in verification.

A necessary caveat, and it is about this very page: no profile, score, badge or complaint count was checked in a primary source for this text. That is why you will not find "score X" or "Y complaints in the last 12 months" here. Those numbers circulate, change on their own and, when reproduced without checking, become fiction with the appearance of data.

The weight of anonymous posts

Most of the material is anonymous, and that cuts both ways. Anonymity protects someone with a real problem who fears retaliation; it also removes any cost to exaggerating, leaving things out or staging.

There is a less-discussed side effect: in this sector, part of the negative content is commercial. Promoters of competing platforms produce criticism, and promoters of the same platform produce replies. When you read a passionate account in either direction, the useful question is who gains from that text.

How one complaint multiplies

A case usually travels the same route: someone posts a screenshot of a stalled withdrawal, an aggregator turns it into a video, a second site writes an article about the video, and a third page cites the article as evidence. In the end, there is one occurrence and four apparent sources.

That is why the more productive reading is not to count complaints but to classify them. A complaint describing a rejected document and one describing money held back after verification was approved are different phenomena, even when they appear under the same "it does not pay" heading.

Complaints channels show who had a problem, never the proportion. And since no index was checked in a primary source, this page classifies complaints instead of counting them.

The most common types

The complaints fall into three quite recognisable families: a withdrawal that takes time, verification that does not go through and an account with some restriction. Each has its own symptom and its own route.

Anyone who reads a lot of these accounts quickly notices that the variety is smaller than it looks. The tone changes, the amount changes, but the plot repeats.

Withdrawal delay

It is the largest family and the loudest. The typical text describes a request made a few days ago, a status that does not change and the feeling that nobody is answering. The detail almost always missing from the account is the correct counting: the platform's periods are written in business days, and people who count in calendar days tend to be outraged before the deadline.

The company itself publishes different numbers in different documents — the Public Offer says up to 3 business days, extendable to 14; the Payment Policy, up to 5 business days, with bank transfer from 3 to 45 business days and electronic methods ranging from seconds to days. A "delay" complaint on the fourth day may be inside the period of one document and outside the other. The subject is set out in detail on the page about whether the platform pays.

Frustration with verification

The second family is not about money, it is about documents. These are accounts of submissions rejected with no clear explanation, of additional requests appearing after the first submission, of waiting with no forecast.

What the terms say helps explain the volume of this category. The Public Offer requires scanned copies of documents confirming identity and actual place of residence. The Payment Policy asks for a scan or photo of the identity document and a full copy of every page, and reserves the company the right to request utility bills, bank confirmation or a card scan. It is not a one-off request: it is a process with several openings for an extra round.

Account restriction

The third family is the smallest and the gravest in tone. It speaks of a limited account, of the withdrawal function being unavailable, of suspended access. It is also the one that depends most on context missing from the account: a bonus condition accepted, an attempt to withdraw by a method different from the deposit, registration details differing from the document sent.

The last line deserves attention because it is the most misclassified of all: losing the amount placed in fixed-time contracts is the product working as described, not a service failure. Said once, without hedging: this kind of trading can cost all the money placed.

Withdrawal, verification and account restriction cover almost everything. The fourth category — a trading loss — is not a service complaint, even when it is written up as if it were.

What actually causes each one

Behind the three families lie three concrete contractual causes: incomplete KYC, the payment provider's timing and a bonus condition accepted without reading. All of them are written in the official documents.

This is the part usually missing from texts about complaints: instead of judging who is right, looking at the clause that produced the situation.

Incomplete KYC

Verification is a contractual condition and has a period of its own. Completion must happen within 10 business days from the company's request, extendable to up to 30 business days, according to the published policies. Anyone who starts that process on the day of the withdrawal adds that whole clock to the waiting time.

The reasons for a rejection are rarely mysterious: a cropped image, glare over a field, missing pages when the document requires a full copy, a proof of address that does not match the registered address. Each correction means a new review, and a new review means a new wait. The detail is on the account verification page.

The payment provider's timings

Once the amount is released, the time depends on the rail, not on the platform. A bank transfer can take from 3 to 45 business days under the Payment Policy; electronic methods, from seconds to days. A user who sees only "processed" and nothing credited is frequently inside the provider's window.

There is also the rule that produces a quiet complaint: the payout is made in the same currency in which the corresponding deposit was made. Anyone expecting to choose the exit freely finds out that the real choice happened at the deposit.

Still on rails, a distinction this site insists on keeping: Pix appears on the platform's global payment-methods page, and nothing more. Neither "Brasil", nor "BRL", nor "Boleto" appears on that page, and it could not be confirmed whether Pix is offered to someone signing up from Brazil. A complaint that starts from the assumption of a guaranteed local rail starts from an unconfirmed premise.

Bonus terms read badly

Promotional credits come with conditions that restrict the payout until a requirement is met. Accepting them is voluntary, and that is exactly why the matching complaint is hard to sustain: the rule was accepted beforehand.

No percentage, multiplier or bonus amount is quoted here, because the official pages consulted do not publish those numbers — whoever circulates them did not take them from the source. What can be said is the principle, and it is simple: a bonus adds a condition between you and your balance. The bonus page gathers what can be stated about it.

Notice the pattern common to the three causes: all of them are knowable before the problem. None depends on discovering a hidden trap; all are in a public document, available to read with no account at all.

The three dominant causes are written in a public document and are knowable in advance. That does not make the frustration illegitimate, but it changes what is reasonable to expect from an appeal.

How they get resolved

Resolution almost always follows the same route: complete verification properly, press support in an organised way and document every stage with a date, a ticket number and a screenshot.

This is where a page about complaints needs to be useful rather than indignant. The routine below applies to any platform outside the Brazilian regulated perimeter, and it is what is left when there is no local authority to turn to.

1. Confirm at which stage the case stopped. Verification pending, request in processing, amount released and not yet credited, or a function unavailable. Each has a different counterpart and a different period, and treating all four as the same thing tends to stall the conversation.
2. Close verification before any chasing. The whole document, every page, no cropping and no glare, with an address matching the registration. While that is open, any complaint meets the same answer.
3. Count the period from the right document. In business days, from the method actually used. A complaint made inside the contractual period loses force.
4. Write to support objectively. Amount, date of the request, method, stage of verification and what has already been sent. No adjectives and no threats — clear text is what lets someone on the other side locate the case.
5. Keep everything. The date and time of each request, ticket numbers, screenshots of the status and copies of the messages. That set is the only asset that survives a change of agent.

Where to escalate, and where you cannot

One has to be frank about the limit. There is no CVM authorisation: in an alert of 4 October 2021, the regulator stated that Pro Trade LTD, Pocket Option and Gembell Limited had no authorisation to take on clients, and through Ato Declaratório CVM 19.121, of 28 September 2021, it ordered the immediate suspension of any public offering to investors resident in Brazil, with a daily fine of R$ 1,000.00; whether that decision is still in force in 2026 could not be confirmed, since the alert page records no revocation and no current status page could be read.

That answers the question "who do I escalate to" directly: there is no Brazilian regulator with a complaints channel about this company. And there is the other side of the same coin — the platform states, on the homepage, on the About Us page and on the payment-methods page, that it does not provide service to residents of Brazil, listing the country alongside the European Economic Area, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, the Philippines and Japan. The Public Offer, for its part, submits the contract to the law of Costa Rica and to the courts there.

None of that means the platform is illegal or fraudulent — no primary source in this analysis uses those words. It means the route of appeal is short: support, documented persistence and, if it comes to it, public posting of the account. Anyone recording a case on a complaints site should know they are using reputational pressure, not jurisdiction.

What strengthens an account

• Exact dates instead of "it has been weeks".
• Explicit mention of the deposit method and the withdrawal method.
• The state of verification at the moment of the request.
• Whether or not there was an active bonus on the account.
• The text of the reply received, rather than an interpretation of it.

An account with those five items is useful to whoever reads it and hard to dismiss for whoever answers. Without them, it becomes one more line in the noise.

Verification closed, the period counted correctly, objective contact and a complete record. Beyond that, the appeal is reputational: there is no Brazilian regulator to turn to and the contract points to Costa Rican courts.

Putting it in perspective

Perspective is not an excuse. A complaint volume with no denominator says nothing, recurring themes say a great deal, and most of what one reads describes contractual friction rather than fraud.

Closing a page about complaints requires two kinds of honesty at once: not minimising someone who lost money, and not turning noise into a verdict.

Volume with no denominator

A complaint count only means something in relation to the number of users, and that number does not exist publicly for the platform. The official pages carry old milestones, from earlier years, which do not serve as a current base, and no present-day figure is published. Without a denominator, "many complaints" and "few complaints" are the same empty sentence.

It is also worth considering the effect of popularity itself: the more people use a financial product, the more records it accumulates, regardless of quality. That is why comparing raw counts between platforms of unknown size produces no information.

Recurring themes are worth more than a count

What does inform is the distribution of subjects. If the complaints concentrate on timing, documents and contractual conditions, the picture is one of process friction. If they described, en masse, verified accounts with deadlines passed and money held back without justification, the picture would be another — and a more serious one.

This text does not state which of the two pictures is the right one, because no reliable measurement was made and inventing one would be exactly the vice the page criticises. What it offers is the reading grid for you to classify what you find yourself.

Why most of it does not describe fraud

Only the last line describes something that would deserve the word people use for all the others. Keeping that separation is what makes it possible to recognise a serious case when it appears, and it is the main service a page about complaints can provide.

What to do with this

If you are still deciding, two things cost little: reading the payout terms before any decision about money, and getting to know the shape of the product in the demo environment with virtual money, which the app's official listing describes as rechargeable. The underlying questions about the platform are organised on the is it trustworthy page, and the inventory of common problems with their fixes is on problems and fixes.

All the information, platform data and regulatory statements on this page were checked in September 2026 against Pocket Option's own site and against the CVM alert published in 2021; both the platform's terms and a regulator's position can change at any moment, and the documents published by the platform remain the up-to-date reference for periods and rules.

With no published user base, counting complaints informs nothing. What informs is the theme: timing, documents and clauses describe friction; verification approved with the deadline passed describes a genuine problem.