Bitcoin Forum

Hello, from a friend in chat room, I knew Freewallet.org where I could conveniently exchange cybermoney only by registering. I believed that BTC would appreciate on July 10 so I transferred 190000 USDT in total on July 9 and successfully exchanged the money into 15.2 BTC. Website: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/address/3MYY7addBQNQn4DW8Bz2FRUNdsexLKt88D/
When I tried to transfer the 15.2 BTC out of Freewallet.org, the website reminded me of “Error in transaction fields”. I did not know why this happened so I tried for many times.

https://imgur.com/BdaWsdz (https://imgur.com/BdaWsdz)

I got the following email from them,


It is ridiculous that I can provide correct Email confirmation, 2-factor authentication and PIN code but the website reminded me of” detected suspicious activity on your account. In case it was a hacking attempt, we had to temporarily suspend withdrawals from your account”. The website require me to provide my personal information. Is Freewallet.org a wallet? Why does it require me to provide my personal information like an exchange? I do not want to provide but the price fluctuation of BTC is huge. I have no time to communicate with them so I have to compromise and provide Freewallet.org with my personal information.

https://imgur.com/XvtzB6X

https://imgur.com/fwhDDjh

For fear of Freewallet.org having more reasons to refuse me, I contacted a professional translation agency to translate my personal information, and sent it to them again. They told me to wait for their approval. But I haven’t received any news up to now. I have emailed them several times to speed up my information review, but they only told me to wait. Now the price of Bitcoin has fallen, so that I have lost USD 30,000 on Freewallet.org. I hereby warn everyone that please do not use Freewallet.org. I just want to get my money back now.

I read that.
My point is: that means what you call a "wallet" is not a wallet!

I've said it before: you should stop calling your service a wallet. This is misleading, as a wallet is something that gives the user full and unrestricted access to his private keys.
What you're running is more like a bank, users are at your mercy.

Your website literally says: "make access to coins easier". How exactly are you making it easier by blocking transactions?

We make this access easier thanks to an easy and comfortable interface, swift processing of transactions and many other helpful features.

At the same time, any process dealing with people's money requires a very high level of safety. If we launch the verification procedure it solely means all operations on this particular account will be scrutinized to make it as secure as possible. 

Basically Freewallet is withholding a customers funds (15.2BTC) due to some KYC, small-print bull shit

Flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=456

Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164369.0

Freewallet user profile - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1177176

The person scammed -


Please support!

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

Freewallet,
The problem for me is the lack of transparency.

When the user deposited 190.000 usdt, there was no warning. He wasn't warned that "you will need to do kyc to withdrawal that amount"
If you were a transparent service, you would refuse to receive such amount until he does kyc, not refuse to withdrawal.
It's easy, just make a pop up asking how much the user wants to transfer before showing the public address to receive.

It is very comfortable for you to comply with all regulations while you are holding someone else's money, isn't it? Why didn't you said that upfront?

And no, writing that in the guidelines or whatever is not being transparent

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

Did you still force them to go through KYC? And how many other accounts do you have locked up this way?

And what do you do with the money of people that don't speak out against you after you subject them to a "random" KYC check?

Per your TOS you can just claim that, right?

At this point, we have a few accounts going through this procedure

Force whom?

At this point, we have a few accounts going through this procedure

The customer whose "issue was closed on Friday". Did that person have to go through KYC just to get their own funds back?

He made a conversion transaction (from Tether to BTC), using our service.

. It took support a few days to solve my case. So you’d better do not worry and just give the devs some time to figure it all out.

Devs? Figure out?
You don't understand what is going on here lol

Freewallet deliberately is locking funds until the customer goes through kyc procedure. There is no issue to be solved, just a shady behavior

Losing control over the wallet is sometimes too scary. That's exactly the point I wanted to use the Freewallet EOS app because it is told in their knowledge base that they are using a Cold Storage. I think that means they store all the valuable information regarding me and my funds. Since the fork happened I am keeping all my EOS there, except those bits I'm trading.

It was a good time to buy alts at that moment. Just take a look at EOS and the way it is slowly making its way to the top. From the very beginning of 2019 it has been showing growing trend, don't you think it is still a good time to buy some EOS for a long term hold? Should bring some profit I think in a half a year probably. I've chosen to keep mine at Freewallet's app, seems legit: https://freewallet.org/eos-wallet

I had the same problem recently but the sum of the stuck transaction was smaller. It took support a few days to solve my case. So you’d better do not worry and just give the devs some time to figure it all out.

Few days? How many days does it take? (I think you are one of them, am I right?)
In my case, it takes more than a year and you know what makes me annoyed at that shady service wallet? Their support on Gmail is just like a bot it response once to confirm your ticket issue submitted but after that, they will no longer reply. In short, lack of staff and also showing shady behavior. And now, I am not interested in my sleeping coin on their shady wallet(never trust them anymore), that is a small amount but it was so disappointing.

Supporting the raising flag as well.

See, this is interesting.

My take is that they ask almost every customer for KYC, and only resolve the ones where the customer makes a fuss about it, or uploads documents, regardless of whether or not the customer had "fraudulent activity" going on with their account.

Which we won't know about since these people either don't care that they lost 50-500$, or don't know how to resolve it properly.

I got the following email from them,

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity.

Our guidelines are compliant with international AML regulations and standards.
That's the main reason why this procedure is in place.

What are the exact requirements for you to request a KYC procedure?

If you cannot outline these details (and subsequently record them in your terms of service if they are not already) then how do we know you are not selectively enforcing it in order to fill your pockets?

Look at the flailing excuses (emphasis mine):




marlboroza pointed that out and some other stuff here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164369.msg51801073#msg51801073

Sleazy AF. Not to mention that the 15 BTC case did not involve fiat (Tether is not fiat) and their AML/KYC shit is supposed to apply to direct fiat-crypto purchases.

My take is that they ask almost every customer for KYC, and only resolve the ones where the customer makes a fuss about it, or uploads documents, regardless of whether or not the customer had "fraudulent activity" going on with their account.

Which we won't know about since these people either don't care that they lost 50-500$, or don't know how to resolve it properly.

The memo was not written properly in your transaction as there is a space in the beggining:
https://eospark.com/tx/xxxxxx

It should be written as  "memo": "4948547030096397" (not  "memo": " 4948547030096397"). I hope that you can see the difference.

Your request for a refund has been submitted for processing. However, it's not a matter of a couple of clicks, but rather a complex process that requires lots of time and significant human resources.

We receive several hundred refund requests every month, which creates extra load on our technical team.
Please note that the refund is a paid solution. It makes 10% of the transaction amount but not more than 30 USD.
The ETA for this operation is 60 days; the fee shall be deducted from the recovered amount as of the date when the actual refund is completed.
Thank you for your patience!

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

Another scam alert? So tired of reading stuff like that. Can’t you post some positive content, please? What wallet shall I use?

<...>

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying KYC wouldn't apply to someone who deposits and withdraws the same currency? What about the claims of suspected hacking?

Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:

- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

~snip~

<..>

That's not true.

Hi,

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:

- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

Hello,

As per our terms and conditions, we are authorized to perform the verification procedure: https://freewallet.org/terms (please read the 5th paragraph)

However, we are making sure to have our customers' accounts verified as soon as it is technically possible.

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

Thank you for preparing the requested documents; we'll definitely get back to you today.

[...]we are authorized to perform the verification procedure[...]

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

All this means that you know shit about AML regulation.

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request?

Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request?

Let me guess freewallet's answer, "if request is sent from the same IP address"

We'd like to comment on some statements here but moderators keep removing our replies.

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.

Posts are only deleted when they break forum rules. I suggest to read Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0).

You keep breaking this rule:
You should use the edit button instead :)

No multiple posts were made.

You always replied with multiple posts in a row instead of simply quoting and answering in one single post.
Each time you answered X people, you created X posts in a row.

If you can't even admit doing such a lenient mistake.. how shall people trust you with their money  ???
I don't understand why you can't even be honest about such a trifle..

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

No multiple posts were made.

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

You either don't get it or try to ignore it miserably.

Posting two times in a row doesn't mean that people shouldn't trust you.. but the fact that you can't even admit it and expressing it as 'moderators are evil, they delete posts' is just a plain stupid move.
And imo, THIS makes you even less trustworthy and more shady than you already have been.

Why can't you simply admit that you made a mistake here by multi-posting ?
How can i know that you will admit your mistakes when they are more severe (e.g. loss of user funds) if you can't even admit posting twice in a row ? ..

So if a new post is made at the time my response has been just submitted, should I return to my most recent post and edit it by adding a reply to this new post?

You should use the edit button instead :)

Shouldn't that be merged into one post? I noticed mprep merges multi-posts all the time. Oh, well, anyway:

@freewallet can you confirm or deny this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165363.msg51836767#msg51836767 ?

---

In scam accusation you have stated this:

User transfered $190000 and exchanged them. Tried to withdraw BTC and then you performed KYC.

First, KYC should have been enforced at step 1 (user transfered 190000$ exchanged them).
Second, KYC should have been enforced at step 2 (user tried to withdraw BTC worth $190K)

I will quote this again:


It is not that you are authorized to perform the verification procedure, you are obligated to perform verification procedure for $190K. Things you mentioned in this thread, KYC because of different IP is pretty much nonsense. Things you said in scam accusation thread, that you have performed verification procedure because your algorithm has detected suspicious activity is also pretty much nonsense.

All this means that you know shit about AML regulation.

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and understanding of the process: it's very determined.

Will you admit that not all credible AML algorithms (including the software) adhere to these guidelines?

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

When you hold the customers private keys, you are responsible for its security.

If suspicious transactions were identified, it is because your system lacks security, as you are the only one responsible for its security (as the user cannot spend funds, only you can).

It is the same as a bank, a cloned credit card... it is always banks/credit card fault, never customer fault. So, if suspicious transactions happened, you are the only one to blame.

Imo, the biggest problem is the lack of transparency. Why don't you let users choose if they want you to control the private keys or not? Why don't you ask them if they want to make KYC (and transact more than X btc) or not? Holding their funds hostage just because a lot of btc showed up, or you decided to create a "new holding criteria" is trustworth.

In this case, how did you stop this customer from losing money? :)

[...]  so we do not share private keys with individual addresses.

But you didn't confirm nor deny correct amount above which you are enforcing KYC. Can you write exact number using USD?

As we mentioned, amount is not the criterion.


There are no "AML cards". From time to time we have to address the legal requests of public authorities.

Hi Bob,

This is not supposed to be a technical statement. It's rather a business model.

The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'.

Our service model is based on providing a secure cold storage technology so we do not share private keys with of individual addresses.

'Private keys' and 'addresses' are technical terms.
So, please explain what you meant with your statement.

The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'.

I honestly start thinking you almost know nothing about bitcoin at all, which makes it even more worrying that you are hosting a fake-wallet..

Let's put it this way: under our model, it's not feasible to provide private keys to individual wallet addresses.

We treat all the issues equally no matter if they are spoken in public or not.

We do not argue whether it is technically possible or not.

We know how Bitcoin works.

There are established and common methods used to identify a personality, which are applied in today's AML practices.

We treat all the issues equally no matter if they are spoken in public or not.

The proper way is to establish this before the user deposits. If a user passes KYC, you know who the user is and you know funds deposited afterwards belong to that user. If anything comes up, you can always ask the same user to verify his identity again to prove ownership of the account/funds.

However, if you do this after depositing, you can't be certain the original user is the same as the person submitting KYC-documents.

Stop hiding behind obfuscation, you clearly don't follow established and common methods. Most exchange & custodial wallet have detailed information/procedure such as :
1. Limit deposit/withdraw (whether it's daily, weekly, monthly or all-time) without identity verification
2. If user deposit above limit, you should ask for identity verification after deposit is made, not when user attempt to withdraw.

Why don't you start by mention those information on your Customer Support page for sake of transparency and prevent your user getting confused/angry?

Anyways, if only you hadn't advertised your service as a wallet, but rather a changelly-esque style exchange, a lot of these arguments mentioned above would've been avoided.
(Though i must note that asking for KYC after someone performs a transaction is still scummy behaviour, whether legal or not, and rather absurd if the transaction doesn't include fiat and or gateways to fiat.)

---

Again, Your TOS is still ridiculous though. I'm not sure where you're based, but i'm pretty sure you can't just claim funds of customers that you deem to be "Fraudulent".

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

Let me answer to both statements made above:

Since we are not able to perform KYC to absolutely all users, we can't be certain that suspicious activity will not be manifested on the accounts that have avoided the verification.

Either that or get rid of bullshit KYC

How does KYC protect from scamming?

To my mind, only the true-users can pass the KYC procedure while scammers will fail it. THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them. Am I not right?

THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them.

As we mentioned, amount is not the criterion.

Some newbie accounts who woke up to defend freewallet after months in hybernation:.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521448;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520952;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521462;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520852;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2511390;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520822;sa=showPosts

I don't know how many more are there but Freewallet should also ask these accounts/bots to oppose the flag.

Like I said before.....losted all hopes after almost 1 and a half year....thanks for not helping me and losing me a 14.000 usd.

But it is one of the criteria.

Please post amount above which freewallet has to perform identity verification because of AML and CTF regulation and all criteria for which you ask users to verify identity to comply with AML/CTF regulation.

Are they at it again?

14,000 USD worth of tokens worth frozen in this users account for 18 months?

Hello,
There is no specified amount. We pay particular attention to the amounts from several thousand dollars being transferred with signs of suspicious activity.

Are you trying to say if there is no sign of suspicious activity you won't perform identity verification?

You are avoiding to provide clear answers.

Post all criteria under which you will perform identity verification and post "several thousand dollars" using numbers.

That is correct.


We can list using different IP addresses and multiple transfers between accounts with subsequent withdrawals as such criteria.
At this point, we will not be able to specify exact amounts.
Our KYC policy will be reviewed and I hope to get back to this thread with more transparent information afterward.

Will you admit that not all credible AML algorithms (including the software) adhere to these guidelines?

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

There are no "AML cards". From time to time we have to address the legal requests of public authorities.

You have been asked several times already so I will take this as your final answer.

So user signs up, exchange $190K to btc, withdraw funds and according to you, if IP is the same and there are no multiple transfers - you won't perform identity verification.

So how all this complies with Hong Kong AML regulation? It does not. You stated this:

I am pretty sure that you have to report suspicious activities to authorities to comply with AML law, it doesn't really work on "request from authorities". Here is another useful link to read https://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/rules-and-standards/anti-money-laundering-and-counter-terrorist-financing/

Reading your posts I came to conclusion that you know nothing about AML regulations and you use word "AML" to selectively enforce KYC.