[#highlighted-links#]Octa's brand structure has become a hot topic recently, generating contradicting opinions from the financial media and market participants. In this article, the company elucidates some lesser-known aspects of its legal structure.

Octa's legal stance

Focusing on providing reliable e-brokerage services, the brand Octa was founded in 2011. Since then, it has gained considerable popularity among retail traders in various regions due to its client-centred approach and proactive technology stance. Despite this fact, Octa has never fully disclosed its legal structure.

It is worth noting that none of the Octa-related legal entities are public companies. Their private status doesn't require any transparency regarding communicating the organisational structure to the general public. However, Octa has recently decided to take a proactive approach to its public image and respond to controversy in the media by clearing the misunderstanding on the subject.

Instead of a single Octa company operating across different regions, there are, in fact, multiple Octa-associated e-brokerages, including Octa Markets Inc. and Octa Markets Cyprus Ltd. From a legal perspective, each of the entities is independent in its licensing and relationships with local regulators. Moreover, the only thing they have in common is that they all use the Octa brand.

Current structure (brand-sharing model)

Each operating company uses a brand-sharing framework that leverages a common Octa identity, visuals, and messaging, while maintaining its legal separation. This approach enables independent entities to tap into the brand's recognizability and shared resources. At the same time, each remains individually responsible for licensing, operations, and compliance in their respective jurisdictions.

Below are the entities under the holding, along with their respective contact and licence details.

Comoros (Mwali / MISA) — Octa Markets Ltd

  • licence: International brokerage & clearing house T2023320 (Mwali International Services Authority)

  • company reg. no.: HY00623410

  • registered address: Bonovo Road, Fomboni, Island of Mohéli, Comoros Union

  • business address: Foti Kolakidi 16, 1st floor, Agia Zoni, 3031 Limassol, Cyprus.

Mauritius (FSC) — Uni Fin Invest

  • licence: Investment Dealer (Full Service Dealer, excl. underwriting) — gB21027161 (FSC Mauritius)

  • company reg. no.: C186509

  • registered address: Rue De La Democratie, Office 306, 3rd floor, Ebene Junction, Ebene 72201, Mauritius

  • business address: 90 St Jean Road, Office No. 104, Palm Court Offices, 1st floor, Quatre Bornes, Mauritius.

South Africa (FSCA) — Orinoco Capital (Pty) Ltd (local intermediary under FAIS)

  • FSP no.: 51913 (FSCA)

  • company reg. no.: 2021/704761/07

  • physical/postal addresses (per FAIS disclosure): Spaces Umhlanga, Office 154, 1st Floor, 2 Ncondo Place, Ridgeside, Umhlanga, 4320.

EU entity. Cyprus (CySEC) — Octa Markets Cyprus Ltd

  • CIF licence: 372/18 (Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission)

  • company reg. no.: 359992

  • registered office: 1 Agias Zonis & Thessalonikis Corner, Nicolaou Pentadromos Center, Block B, Office 201, 3026, Limassol, Cyprus.

Saint Lucia — Octa Markets Incorporated

  • business registration no.: 2023-00092

  • registered address: 1st Floor, Meridian Place, Choc Estate, Castries, Saint Lucia

  • regulatory note: The company is registered in Saint Lucia and operates in accordance with applicable local laws. Under the current framework in Saint Lucia, certain OTC/CFD broking activities may be conducted without a dedicated Forex licence, provided the business model is suitable, and compliance with Saint Lucia legislation and cross-border rules is ensured.

Conclusion

To summarise, the Octa brand operates within an umbrella structure that encompasses several independent legal entities. These entities work under brand-sharing agreements to benefit from Octa's recognisable brand name and attributes. From the client's perspective, all Octa-related firms employ a very similar, if not identical, brand image. However, it is essential to note that they are entirely distinct from one another in terms of regulatory stance and licensing.

Source: Finance Magnates