JAKARTA \u2014 Transaction data is crucial in assessing claims of losses\nin futures trading. Deposit and withdrawal histories, along with trading\nresults, need to be examined to establish the full facts in disputes\nbetween clients and brokerage firms.<\/p>\n
The issue has come into focus following a clarification by PT Didi\nMax Berjangka (Didimax) concerning a client\u2019s reported claim of Rp 23\nbillion in losses, published by an online media outlet on 23 September\n2026.<\/p>\n
Didimax said its records on the MetaTrader 5 (MT5) platform showed\nthat the client had deposited a total of US$230,000, or about Rp 3.22\nbillion. Total withdrawals were recorded at US$327,800, or about Rp 4.58\nbillion. The calculation uses an exchange rate assumption of Rp 14,000\nto the US dollar.<\/p>\n
According to the company\u2019s records, withdrawals therefore exceeded\ndeposits by US$97,800, or about Rp 1.37 billion.<\/p>\n
\u201cInformation released to the public should prioritise verifiable\ndata, rather than relying solely on the size of the claim made by one\nparty,\u201d Didimax said in a written statement on Monday (12 October\n2026).<\/p>\n
The company also recorded cumulative trading profits of US$110,507\nand transaction commissions of US$12,690. The account\u2019s closing balance\nwas US$17.<\/p>\n
Didimax said the Rp 23 billion claim also included potential profits\nthat the client said they had not earned. The company argued that\nunrealised or missed potential profits should be distinguished from\nlosses that actually occurred.<\/p>\n
Even so, the difference between deposits and withdrawals is not\nenough to explain the full basis of the loss claim. Transaction\nhistories and the method used to calculate the claim need to be examined\nto establish the matter comprehensively.<\/p>\n
Didimax also responded to allegations of trading-system manipulation\nlinked to differences in prices when transactions were placed.<\/p>\n
The company explained that a difference between the price requested\nwhen a client submits an order and the price at which it is actually\nexecuted is known as slippage.<\/p>\n
This can occur when market prices change rapidly, for example during\nperiods of heightened volatility or when trading volumes at a particular\nprice are limited.<\/p>\n
Didimax stressed that a price difference does not automatically prove\nthat the trading system has been manipulated. Establishing whether\nmanipulation occurred requires examining when the order was submitted,\nthe available price, market conditions and trading-system records.<\/p>\n
The company also said it respects clients\u2019 right to submit complaints\nthrough the available channels, including to the Commodity Futures\nTrading Regulatory Agency (Bappebti).<\/p>\n
In futures-trading disputes, transaction data must be reviewed\nthoroughly to establish the basis for differences between a client\u2019s and\na company\u2019s calculations. Claims of losses and alleged violations should\nbe assessed against the evidence before any conclusions are reached.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/transaction-transparency-is-key-to-resolving-trading-disputes-1791805928", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }