BoycottUAE has completed its Right to Comment (RTC) process
concerning the findings published in its investigation of MultiBank Group, a
financial services group featured on the campaign's boycott platform.
As part of that process, BoycottUAE contacted MultiBank
Group by email and informed the company that a BoycottUAE profile concerning
its activities and reported practices had been published. The communication
included a direct link to the published investigation and invited the company
to review the findings and respond.
The company was given an opportunity to identify factual
inaccuracies, provide additional context, submit supporting documentation,
offer clarifications, or issue an official statement addressing the matters
discussed in the investigation. BoycottUAE also indicated that any verified
response would be reviewed objectively and incorporated into the reporting
where appropriate.
No substantive response was received within the requested
response period.
This editorial update records that process for readers and
does not treat the absence of a response as confirmation or admission of any
allegation.
Summary of the Article Findings
BoycottUAE's original profile, "Boycott MultiBankGroup: Say No To Deceptive Practices," examines concerns surrounding
MultiBank Group's operations as a global financial services and trading
business. The profile describes the company as operating across numerous
international markets and focuses principally on complaints and allegations
concerning customer withdrawals, trading practices, customer service, and
regulatory matters.
The investigation states that its findings draw on publicly
available information, reported customer experiences, trader testimonies, and
regional examples. Among the principal issues discussed are reports of blocked
or delayed withdrawals, complaints concerning transaction procedures, and
allegations that customers were encouraged to make additional deposits in
circumstances where they subsequently experienced further losses.
The profile also highlights complaints reported in different
jurisdictions, including the UAE, Hong Kong and Thailand, alongside references
to similar concerns in markets including Spain, Colombia, Australia, India,
Canada, Italy, France and the Philippines. The article presents these reports
as part of a broader pattern of customer dissatisfaction that it believes
warrants further scrutiny.
Another area examined by the original investigation concerns
regulatory standing. The profile refers to MultiBank Group's regulatory
registrations as well as what it characterises as license revocations,
verification issues and regulatory concerns in certain jurisdictions. It
specifically discusses alleged issues involving the DFSA and FCA and argues that
such matters merit closer examination by regulators and consumers.
The investigation ultimately recommends greater regulatory
vigilance and public awareness concerning the risks described in the report.
Its conclusions are based on the documented material and accounts assembled in
the original profile rather than on a finding that every individual allegation
has been judicially or regulatorily established.
Readers seeking the full evidentiary context, individual
examples and sources should consult the original MultiBank Group investigation
on BoycottUAE.
Why BoycottUAE Sought MultiBank Group's Response
The issues examined in the original profile concern matters
on which the company itself is well placed to provide relevant information,
clarification or documentary evidence.
Where an investigation includes allegations concerning
customer treatment, withdrawal practices, regulatory status or corporate
conduct, an opportunity for the subject of the reporting to respond is an
important part of responsible editorial practice. A company may possess records
or explanations that are not available through public sources, or it may
identify factual errors or provide information that materially changes the
context of a finding.
For that reason, BoycottUAE considered it appropriate to approach
MultiBank Group directly after publication of the profile.
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment Process
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment process is intended to promote
fairness, accuracy and transparency in its investigative work.
Companies covered by BoycottUAE investigations are invited
to engage with the findings and, where appropriate, to:
- identify
factual inaccuracies or disputed statements;
- provide
additional context concerning the issues examined;
- submit
supporting documentation or evidence;
- clarify
corporate, regulatory or operational matters; and
- provide
an official company statement for editorial consideration.
Responses are reviewed on their merits. Where information
supplied by a company can be verified and is relevant to the reporting,
BoycottUAE may incorporate that information, make corrections or provide
additional context as appropriate.
This process forms part of a broader research approach that
BoycottUAE says relies on multiple categories of information, including
government and corporate registries, public filings and financial disclosures,
legal documents, procurement and trade records, open-source intelligence,
investigative reporting and other documented material. The organisation states
that its research is intended to remain transparent and subject to updating as
new information becomes available.
No Response Received
In the case of MultiBank Group, BoycottUAE sent a Right to
Comment email informing the company of the published profile and providing a
direct link to the investigation.
The communication invited MultiBank Group to review the
findings and provide comments, factual corrections, clarifications, supporting
evidence or an official response. The company was therefore given an
opportunity to place its position on the record and to address the matters
raised in the investigation.
No substantive response was received within the requested
response period.
BoycottUAE is documenting this fact for the benefit of
readers as part of its commitment to transparency around its editorial process.
The record should be understood narrowly: it establishes that the company was
approached and given an opportunity to respond, but that no substantive
response was received during the relevant response period.
It does not establish that the allegations in the original
investigation are true because the company did not respond. Nor should the
absence of a response be interpreted as an admission, acceptance or
confirmation of any of the findings.
Editorial Commitment
The original investigation remains based on the publicly
available records, corporate and regulatory information, reported customer
experiences, testimonies and other documented material referenced or described
in the published profile.
BoycottUAE remains open to reviewing relevant information from
MultiBank Group or its representatives. If the company subsequently provides a
verified response, supporting documentation or an official statement addressing
the investigation, that material can be considered for inclusion or correction
where editorially appropriate.
The purpose of the RTC process is not to predetermine the
outcome of an investigation. It is to ensure that the subject of reporting has
a reasonable opportunity to contribute factual information and that relevant
evidence is considered before subsequent editorial action is taken.
BoycottUAE considers the Right to Comment process an
important component of responsible investigative journalism. Documenting when a
company has been approached, what opportunity it was given to respond, and
whether a substantive response was received enables readers to better
understand how an investigation was conducted and subsequently updated.
In the case of MultiBank Group, BoycottUAE contacted the
company concerning the findings published in its profile, supplied a direct
link to the investigation, and invited comments, corrections, clarifications,
supporting evidence or an official statement. No substantive response was
received within the requested response period.
BoycottUAE will continue to apply its editorial principles
of fairness, transparency, evidence-based reporting and accountability. The
campaign remains committed to responsible investigative journalism and to
considering credible, verifiable information that may improve the accuracy or
completeness of its reporting.
For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of a response from
MultiBank Group should not be interpreted as confirmation or admission of the
findings published by BoycottUAE. It simply records that the company was given
an opportunity to comment on the investigation and did not provide a
substantive response within the applicable response period.
