1. In 2024, the account director and manager invited me to open a DLSM trading account. The email clearly stated that the platform's regulatory body was ASIC, corresponding to the company DLS Markets (AUST) Pty Ltd, and that the law was ASIC law, with dispute resolution in Australia (see Figure 1). 2. In 2025, I had a dispute with DLSM. At that time, the account manager also clearly explained the situation according to ASIC law and confirmed that I was a retail client (see Figures 2/3). 3. In October of the same year, the platform provided a fraudulent account, resulting in my bank card being frozen. The platform's account director promised that automatically closed orders would be restored, and open orders would also be protected (see Figure 6). 4. Subsequently, the platform refused to restore the orders and added restrictive conditions. I disagreed and filed a complaint with the ASIC-designated complaint body, AFCA. 5. DLSM claimed to AFCA that I was not their client and it had not provided any financial services to me. However, AFCA denied this and determined that it met the AFCA's rules for handling such cases (see Figures 4/5). 6. DLSM violated ASIC's financial product restriction regulations by providing retail clients with leverage exceeding 1000 times, which constitutes illegal activity. I demand that DLSM refund my net investment.