Was my DIFC investment mis-sold, or did the market fall?

A DIFC investment mis-selling complaint needs more than a statement showing that the portfolio lost money. Start with the recommendation, the information the firm had about you and the risk you say was misunderstood or concealed. Then explain how that failure affected your decision and caused the loss now claimed.

Before writing a long account of the relationship, collect the recommendation, application, risk profile and funding terms for the particular purchase. A promise of capital protection at maturity may mean something very different when the investment was bought with borrowing that could trigger an earlier sale.

Client concern	Evidence to locate	Question it helps answer
I asked for a safe income	Meeting notes, emails and completed profile	What objective was communicated?
The adviser selected the product	Recommendation and order trail	Was this advice or execution of your instruction?
I did not understand the borrowing	Loan, margin and collateral terms	Could funding force an early exit?
The forms are inaccurate	Original signed version and later copies	When and by whom were answers entered?
I lost more than the investment	Transaction-level loss schedule	Which loss follows from the alleged failure?

What distinguishes mis-selling from an ordinary investment loss?

The distinction begins with the service undertaken. A firm recommending a product and a firm executing an instruction may have different obligations. Under the current DFSA COB Rule 3.4.1, the suitability section has scope exclusions, including execution-only transactions. Under Rule 3.4.2, where applicable, a recommendation requires a reasonable basis for suitability supported by an appropriate assessment of the client's circumstances.

Do not decide the nature of the service from the account label alone. Preserve what happened before the order. Who selected the instrument, proposed the amount and explained why it met your objective? Did you request a named product, or ask the relationship manager to choose something suitable? Keep the communications even if the final confirmation describes the trade briefly.

The complaint should identify the missing or inaccurate assessment. For example, you may have needed regular withdrawals while the product required a long holding period. Alternatively, the investment might have matched the recorded objective and suffered a disclosed market risk. Both possibilities should be tested against the documents before making an allegation.

Specify the disputed statement rather than saying only that the product was sold as safe. Safety might refer to repayment at a future date, the identity of the issuer, volatility, liquidity or the chance of a margin call. Those are not interchangeable. Write down what you understood, then put the actual communication alongside it.

Why do the product and its borrowing need to be examined together?

A product description may not capture the risk of the whole arrangement. Borrowing costs, collateral requirements and forced-sale provisions can affect whether the intended income and holding period are realistic. Obtain the investment and lending records together, even if different group companies supplied them.

In Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2015] DIFC CA 003, paragraphs 237-250, the Court examined structured products alongside borrowing and margin exposure. The clients' objectives and the risk of sale before maturity mattered. The first bank's appeal failed. The second bank obtained only limited changes to particular findings, without changing the compensation outcome in that appeal. This was not a rule that every loss on a financed investment is mis-selling.

For your own file, draw a payment calendar. Put coupon dates, interest charges, principal repayments and potential margin demands on it. Identify which amounts were fixed and which depended on performance or decisions by the lender. An expected annual return does not explain how a client was meant to meet an urgent demand between payment dates.

Add the margin communications to that calendar, with their receipt times and the response available to you. A request for clarification, attempted transfer or instruction to hold may explain what you could do when the demand arrived. Do not reconstruct a missed decision using prices that became known only later.

What if the risk profile or professional-client form is wrong?

Compare the versions side by side and explain the discrepancy precisely, retaining each original. A blank field in the copy you signed, an answer entered later and an answer you now regret giving are different evidential situations. Avoid treating them as a single accusation that the paperwork was fabricated.

The Al Khorafi appeal examined how client forms had been completed and what the bank knew about the clients' experience, at paragraphs 219-234. Its historical classification framework should not be copied into a present application. It nevertheless shows why the original form and the evidence behind an asserted classification can matter more than a signature considered in isolation.

The current Rule 3.4.2 permits specified limits to suitability assessment for a Professional Client only on stated conditions, including a prior written warning and express signed consent after an opportunity to consider it. Additional restrictions apply. Professional status is therefore not a reason to assume that every suitability question disappears.

Make a correction schedule with four columns: the answer recorded, the answer you say was accurate at the time, the supporting evidence and who received that information. Include experience with the actual kind of product, not just a general statement that you had investments. Keep records that support the firm's position too. An honest account of an earlier trade is better than allowing it to emerge as an unexplained contradiction.

Common mistake. Treating a signed risk warning as either a complete defence or legally worthless. Examine its wording, timing and relationship to the service actually provided and the information the firm had.

How should I calculate what the alleged mis-selling cost me?

Begin with a transaction ledger, not the highest portfolio valuation you remember. List subscriptions, purchases, sales, distributions, interest, fees, additional collateral and remaining holdings. Separate money transferred between your own accounts from a fresh loss. Retain statements showing the opening and closing balances.

Then identify the decision affected by the alleged failure. Would you have declined the transaction, invested a smaller amount, avoided borrowing or selected something else? This is a factual question requiring a consistent account of your objectives and options at the time. It should not be answered by choosing whichever alternative performed best afterwards.

For illustration, a purchase of AED 500,000 followed by sale proceeds of AED 320,000 and distributions of AED 20,000 produces an arithmetic difference of AED 160,000 before other items. That is not a damages ruling. Financing, causation, the applicable measure and overlapping claims still need separate analysis.

Record subsequent decisions that may affect the calculation. If you rejected a sale recommendation or added to the position, preserve the explanation and advice received then. If another person made the decision, identify their authority. Do not assume that every later loss automatically belongs in the first adviser's account.

Prepare an explanation for each large consequential item. A business opportunity you say was lost because capital became unavailable needs more than a proposed profit figure. Keep the underlying commitments, dates, funding needs and alternative resources. This allows the legal and evidential merits of that item to be assessed before it distorts the whole complaint.

Can I bring one claim now and add a different loss in another case?

Do not plan on using separate proceedings to repair an incomplete first case. Have the full transaction history and all known loss heads reviewed before choosing the scope of proceedings. A later label for the same dispute does not necessarily provide a clean second opportunity.

In Al Khorafi [2018] DIFC CA 010, paragraphs 97-107, the Court struck out later proceedings as an abuse in the circumstances. It did not hold that any different cause of action is automatically prohibited. The analysis concerned matters that could and should have been included earlier. A consent order issued on 21 April 2020 subsequently recorded confidential settlement and discontinuance of CA 010/2018. It does not disclose the settlement terms.

Tell the reviewer about every earlier complaint, lawsuit, arbitration, settlement and release involving the investment. Include matters brought against another group entity. A short summary should state what was claimed, what was decided and what remains pending. Attach the actual orders instead of describing every hearing as a win or loss.

If further losses are still developing, identify them openly and obtain advice on how to handle them within the correct procedural route. Do not omit an inconvenient item on the assumption that it can always be litigated later.

Should I complain to the firm, the DFSA or start proceedings?

These are different routes, and the right sequence depends on urgency and the problem. The DFSA complaints guidance asks a client complaining about an authorised firm to try the firm first and explains the written information needed for a regulatory complaint. Its remit is not every financial dispute anywhere in Dubai.

The DFSA describes its response as regulatory and says that pursuing a complainant's commercial outcome is not its usual role, except where the public interest calls for it. A regulatory complaint should therefore not replace a separate assessment of a civil recovery claim.

Check the exact legal entity and relevant authorisation. Use the name in the agreement, not simply the brand on the website. Explain whether the complaint concerns advice, execution, handling of money or another service. Give the regulator the material it requests rather than sending an unindexed archive.

1. Identify the product, transaction date and responsible legal entity.
2. Preserve the recommendation, profile, warnings and funding terms.
3. Write a dated account of the decision and the disputed information.
4. Prepare the transaction ledger and supported loss schedule.
5. Send the firm a specific complaint through its stated channel.
6. Assess regulatory escalation alongside urgent legal and limitation issues.
7. Review all related proceedings and releases before choosing a claim.

Keep the complaint factual enough to permit an answer. Ask the firm to explain the suitability assessment, provide the version of your profile it relied upon and identify the basis for disputed charges. A response may narrow the issue or expose a disagreement that needs evidence from another source.

Do not treat an acknowledgment of a complaint as a court award or assume that correspondence preserves a litigation deadline. Have jurisdiction, governing law, available causes of action and limitation assessed using the actual documents. This article does not prescribe a universal time limit or promise compensation through a particular route.

Key takeaway. The complaint route and the recovery claim need separate attention. Ask what each can achieve and protect the litigation position while the firm or regulator considers the complaint.

A complaint response, loss calculation and litigation decision need different records.

What should I check before relying on an older investment judgment?

Match the historical duty to the rules and facts applicable to your transaction. The Al Khorafi litigation is useful evidence of how a court examined advice and borrowing, but its older regulatory provisions are not presented here as today's classification rules.

Sources were checked on 29 September 2026. Current COB provisions were read directly, and the later public settlement order is identified. The later-treatment search was bounded, not a certificate that every related proceeding has ended. The proposed claim still needs a transaction-date regulatory assessment and qualified review before use in a live dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a large investment loss prove mis-selling? No. Identify the relevant duty, alleged failure, decision and resulting loss.

Does capital protection mean there was no risk? Not necessarily. Examine when protection applied and how funding or early sale could affect the arrangement.

Do suitability rules cover every execution-only transaction? No. The current suitability section contains exclusions, including execution-only transactions.

Does Professional Client status remove every assessment requirement? No. Check the current conditions and limits governing any agreed restriction.

Should I keep inaccurate forms? Yes. Preserve originals and identify the precise discrepancy with supporting contemporaneous evidence.

Can I claim the portfolio's highest previous value? Do not assume so. Build a transaction ledger and have the correct loss measure assessed.

Can I save another loss for a second lawsuit? That can create serious procedural risk. Review all known claims and earlier proceedings together.

Does a DFSA complaint settle my court deadline? Do not assume that it does. Obtain a separate, claim-specific limitation assessment.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.

Related Guides

Our DIFC commercial contracts page covers payment, suspension, termination, guarantees and shareholder disputes under DIFC-law agreements.

• Can I sue my Dubai bank in the DIFC Courts?
• Crypto lost during a Dubai OTC deal: who was responsible?
• The Bank Is Demanding Your Company's Debt From You in DIFC