Transaction Transparency Is Key to Resolving Trading Disputes
JAKARTA — Transaction data is crucial in assessing claims of losses in futures trading. Deposit and withdrawal histories, along with trading results, need to be examined to establish the full facts in disputes between clients and brokerage firms.
The issue has come into focus following a clarification by PT Didi Max Berjangka (Didimax) concerning a client’s reported claim of Rp 23 billion in losses, published by an online media outlet on 23 September 2026.
Didimax said its records on the MetaTrader 5 (MT5) platform showed that the client had deposited a total of US$230,000, or about Rp 3.22 billion. Total withdrawals were recorded at US$327,800, or about Rp 4.58 billion. The calculation uses an exchange rate assumption of Rp 14,000 to the US dollar.
According to the company’s records, withdrawals therefore exceeded deposits by US$97,800, or about Rp 1.37 billion.
“Information released to the public should prioritise verifiable data, rather than relying solely on the size of the claim made by one party,” Didimax said in a written statement on Monday (12 October 2026).
The company also recorded cumulative trading profits of US$110,507 and transaction commissions of US$12,690. The account’s closing balance was US$17.
Didimax said the Rp 23 billion claim also included potential profits that the client said they had not earned. The company argued that unrealised or missed potential profits should be distinguished from losses that actually occurred.
Even so, the difference between deposits and withdrawals is not enough to explain the full basis of the loss claim. Transaction histories and the method used to calculate the claim need to be examined to establish the matter comprehensively.
Didimax also responded to allegations of trading-system manipulation linked to differences in prices when transactions were placed.
The company explained that a difference between the price requested when a client submits an order and the price at which it is actually executed is known as slippage.
This can occur when market prices change rapidly, for example during periods of heightened volatility or when trading volumes at a particular price are limited.
Didimax stressed that a price difference does not automatically prove that the trading system has been manipulated. Establishing whether manipulation occurred requires examining when the order was submitted, the available price, market conditions and trading-system records.
The company also said it respects clients’ right to submit complaints through the available channels, including to the Commodity Futures Trading Regulatory Agency (Bappebti).
In futures-trading disputes, transaction data must be reviewed thoroughly to establish the basis for differences between a client’s and a company’s calculations. Claims of losses and alleged violations should be assessed against the evidence before any conclusions are reached.