The Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM) announced the penalties on November 12, 2026, following a unanimous decision at its November 3 administrative hearing. FBS Markets received R$2 million in fines, while Mitsui Markets was ordered to pay R$1.7 million.
The decision, issued under administrative proceeding 19957.012863/2025-15, addresses two separate violations of Brazil’s Securities Law 6,385/1976. Both companies retain the right to appeal, with any appeal carrying suspensive effect.
How Were the R$3.7 Million Penalties Calculated?
The CVM divided the penalties between unauthorized securities intermediation and unregistered public offerings, treating the two activities as distinct breaches of Brazilian law.
FBS Markets Inc. was fined R$500,000 for conducting securities intermediation without the required CVM authorization, contrary to Article 16 of Law 6,385/1976. The regulator imposed an additional R$1.5 million for publicly offering securities to Brazilian residents without registration or an applicable exemption, violating Article 19.
Mitsui Markets Limited received R$425,000 for unauthorized intermediation and R$1.275 million for unregistered public offerings.
The penalties were calculated in the same proportions for both companies, with the public offering violation accounting for 75% of each firm’s total sanction.
The CVM’s Superintendence of Market and Intermediary Relations (SMI) conducted the underlying investigation. Director Igor Muniz acted as rapporteur, and the regulator’s board unanimously adopted his recommendation.
The decision establishes regulatory liability for the two specified violations. The regulator’s published announcement does not establish that either company misappropriated customer funds or committed investment fraud.
Investor Takeaway
The larger penalties concern unregistered public offerings rather than unauthorized intermediation alone. For offshore brokers, the distinction matters because obtaining permission to operate as an intermediary and meeting securities offering requirements are separate compliance obligations.
Why Does the CVM Decision Matter for Offshore Forex Brokers?
Brazilian securities law requires firms conducting regulated securities intermediation to obtain authorization from the CVM. Public offerings of securities generally require registration unless a legally recognized exemption applies.
These requirements are particularly relevant to international forex and contracts-for-difference (CFD) brokers that solicit Brazilian residents through online trading platforms.
Operating from another jurisdiction does not automatically exempt a broker from Brazilian securities rules when its activities fall within the CVM’s authority.
FBS operates internationally through different corporate entities and regulatory arrangements. The broader FBS group’s expansion into Australia, for example, involved obtaining authorization from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in 2021.
However, authorization in one jurisdiction does not establish permission to solicit investors in another. The Brazilian decision specifically names FBS Markets Inc., rather than every legal entity operating under the FBS brand.
The CVM announcement likewise identifies Mitsui Markets Limited as a respondent, without providing sufficient information to establish affiliations with other businesses using similar names.
For brokers targeting multiple countries, jurisdiction-specific licensing and product-distribution restrictions can affect customer acquisition, marketing arrangements and the legal availability of trading services.
Can FBS Markets and Mitsui Markets Appeal the Fines?
Both companies can challenge the decision before Brazil’s National Financial System Appeals Council, known as the Conselho de Recursos do Sistema Financeiro Nacional (CRSFN).
The CVM confirmed that appeals would have suspensive effect, meaning enforcement of the financial sanctions can be suspended while an appeal is considered.
The November 3 ruling therefore represents a formal administrative sanction, but the announcement does not establish that the penalties have been collected or that the proceedings have reached an unappealable conclusion.
The regulator has not disclosed in its November 12 announcement whether either company intends to appeal. It also did not announce customer restitution, asset recovery or additional criminal proceedings arising from the case.
Any subsequent appeal decision could uphold, amend or overturn the sanctions, depending on the findings of the reviewing authority.
Investor Takeaway
The R$3.7 million represents penalties imposed, not necessarily cash already paid. The appeal process could affect the timing and ultimate amount of any collection. Neither the initial decision nor its suspension through appeal establishes whether the firms currently maintain active Brazilian customer accounts.
What Does the Ruling Mean for Cross-Border Brokerage Compliance?
The Brazilian action illustrates the legal exposure facing offshore brokers that make regulated investment products available across national borders without the relevant domestic permissions.
Comparable licensing issues have prompted action elsewhere. Cyprus’s securities regulator has warned against unauthorized forex and cryptocurrency providers, while Italy’s CONSOB has continued blocking access to unlicensed investment websites.
Those actions involve different legal frameworks and enforcement powers, but they demonstrate why overseas authorization cannot be treated as a substitute for compliance in markets where clients are solicited.
For FBS Markets and Mitsui Markets, the immediate development to monitor is whether appeals are filed and how the CRSFN handles the penalties.
For other international forex and CFD providers, the ruling reinforces the need to distinguish general international market access from activities that constitute regulated securities intermediation or public offerings under Brazilian law.
Investor Takeaway
Brazilian regulatory exposure can arise from both providing brokerage services and soliciting investment in securities. Firms assessing the Brazilian market must account for both requirements rather than relying solely on offshore licensing or the absence of a physical office in the country.