There is no way for them to know from the data they get, for example if I set my home computer up as a VPN router for my use they would be completely unable to know if I was at home or in Timbuktu. There is a general lookup table they try to compile of paid VPN IP addresses, it's pretty imperfect at best and with something like Tor it's completely useless (although Tor would be verrrry slow to trade on!). I kind of laugh when I see anyone using IP addresses as a form of security because it's such childs play to circumvent them that anyone who had a clue what they were doing could....and anyone incapable of circumventing them is not savy enough to be any threat...therefore they are entirely pointless.
I wrote: "Also, most times, most businesses know the difference between a VPN IP address and a non-VPN IP address. IOW, most times, they can know who's on a VPN ... if they care." Guess I should have written: "Also, most times, most businesses know the difference between a VPN IP address and a non-VPN IP address. IOW, most times, they can know who's on a VPN ... if they care." FYI, very few things in life apply some of the time, to everyone; or apply all the time, to some. Your type of response is what I had in mind when I wrote the word "most" ... thrice. (Maybe I should try writing it four times.) So ... yeah ... if you build a custom super duper VPN ... you win.
OP should start from the problem he's trying to solve. If you're trying to bypass restrictions on trading in your country, see a lawyer, if you have enough money they will resolve it for you.
I'm not sure if you are trying to infer I said or implied something I didn't. All I am saying - if you are asking to hide your IP address it raises red flags. That is a simple fact.
The OP never said he'd ask their broker about hiding their IP address. You alone injected communicating any of this to the broker. As a broker in this thread already mentioned, they don't care where you trade from. What seems to matter, imo, is the location of your residence. Which, again, is established upon opening your account. So, I guess I generally disagree with your 'red flag' position.
A broker may not care where you trade from but they certainly have obligations to know where you are trading from by producing IP addresses upon regulatory request. If they are aware you are masking or hiding a location, that would certainly raise concerns over money laundering or manipulation.
Not a point in the debate. Nevertheless, I agree. If L/E requests information on a person from a business; if possible and lawful, the business should comply. I disagree. In 2019, merely using a VPN should not suggest one is a money launderer or manipulator.
I feel like the term "money laundering" is a bit misunderstood. Money laundering is the act of taking illegitimately earned money and making it appear to be the proceeds of a legitimate business. If I'm pushing the buttons on my trading platform from Topeka or Miami or Lima makes absolutely zero difference when it comes to if I'm laundering money or not. I'm just struggling to understand a single scenario where the location I'm trading from would constitute money laundering or even have anything to do with it? Not to mention that if in this day and age the use of a VPN caused suspicion of money laundering or manipulation then you'd have to suspect a pretty good chunk of the most tech savvy portion of the world's population. Again, while there may be some compliance morons who think this way, it's laughable.
If they suspect you are entering an order from a country they are not registered in - some brokers will kick it back. The nice ones will call, but you can lose a ton of time. Give you an example - Canada requires registration in each Provence, you are prohibited from accepting an order unless registered.
Again, you're describing a person's residency, not their physical location at the time they push a button. Canada certainly does not require that a customer be located in the province where they registered with their broker in order to place a trade, what section of code requires that again?