Coinbox1, a simple curiosity. So I was looking at other accusation threads addressed to you that you managed to solve on this forum, where most are proven to be a false accusation made by multi-acc abuser. On every single one of those cases though, you asked them their username so you can consult it to your database and informed them --and the forum-- of the basis for their account freezing, like this one


Or this,


Or every other threads, they're handled in similar fashion where --as said above-- you asked for their account details and then informing us why'd they got banned. So why is this case different? Instead of informing us about the suspicious behavior they're being suspected for, you instead directly asking for KYC before you'll share any further info and insist on it that I practically had to "beg" for you to meet in the middle


True, that you finally and ultimately gave in and sticked to your old procedure by informing us the reason behind OP's case, I just can't help but being curious why OP's case is treated differently.

---

Didn't mean to be rude, but maybe you both want to dial it down a little on commenting on each others thread? Although your way-too-frequent exchange of comments is the reason that pushed me into curiosity and to look into Laki21000's thread and ultimately brings me to look for each cases against Trustdice, it's still... too much and borderline spamming the accusation board, IMO. Just try to dial it down a little if you two don't mind, ok?

If you could update your opening post with this alongside with a screenshot as an evidence of their counter-offer, it'll be nice. I find it quite questionable for their side, if they're sure your account is cheating but then decided upon a "good will" by paying you one-fifth of amount due, isn't it a bit strange? If they're very sure you're an abuser, they won't do anything and keep on pressing with their defense.


Last time, it worked nicely. They were "too busy" with updating their staff that they missed the accusation for months. Given this one is not even clear what's the real reason why they canceled OP's WD, let's see if a nice orange number on their profile helps motivate them enough to handle this case more seriously.

I'd like to firstly congratulate you, your jumbled explanation on this page only actually managed to make me stare at my screen for I'm not sure how long, it' a long minutes, re-read the entire page and found myself stared at my screen again because I'm not sure what's the best way to approach your situation. I even finally slept on it. So, I think this is the best way to address you and your sea of explanation, and trust me, I've wrote a very-very long post, but then decided to wrote a very simplified version. It's there in my draft, if you'd like to read.

So, simplified, if someone can't prove he's not related and didn't know the user he trade with, his account will be banned. If he can't provide proof of transaction, his account will be banned. If he bought a stolen money and can't prove his innocence, his account will be banned. In short, anyone using your platform, although they're free from KYC, they have to know a full details of the people they're about to transact with prior to using ypur platform or they'll be banned? Not sure if that's convenient, or if the info you inquire can be categorized as a legal questions, and not a harrasment, or extortion.

And what's the parameter of innocence? If A and B are friend and A tried to launder the money he stole from C through B who's about to sell it to D, which then put the money on FixedFloat, and they discussed it through a disposable chat platform, or even meeting face to face, or by paper airplane a-la high school students, or whatever, and since you found that D didn't know anything and somewhat can prove that B is not related and "didn't know" that the money is stolen, they'll get out of it? This means you're the ultimate judge of which fund is frozen and which one isn't?

Next, I still can't understand this statement,


How?

If any, it'll tighten their wiggle room. By having their address published, anyone is one or two steps away from tracking of the user and the true nature of the fund. No body would want to deal with the address owner and we can say good bye to the ML and TF.

But you choose to withheld this piece of very useful information. Clueless users who came to your platform wouldn't know what's about to hit them. All they know was they're dealing with someone --who probably dealt with someone else before them-- and boom, he went bankrupt in a day because all of his lifesaving is confiscated. The terrorist? Well, they sat calmly in their fortress, they've successfully launder their money, thanks to the cluelessness of the cryptocommunity because one of them didn't know the address they had a transaction with is belong to Gru.

Now, let's address your claim of emails from authorities accross the countries, what's the nature of this request? For you to stop harassing and extorting their citizen? Or to cease and desist?

Talking about FATF, were Seychelles fully FATF compliant? Last I check, Seychelles still arranging their regulations to meet thr standard, and from the evaluation taken in 2020, they're just meet 12 of the 40 guidelines FATF issued. Not sure which from those 12 speciefies what and if your actions were included and justified by those 12 compliantce, or if being nosy --and self appointed judge-- like this make you a progidy or a vigilante or an extortionist.

---

Beware of this point, it could backfire. We can only imagine what length a competitor would do to defame their fellow competition. For example, without having to submit a proof for bad review, a company called worstexchange could create hundreds of accounts to wrote bad review about his fellow competition, goodexchange. And without an admin who can moderate or decide the legitimacy of those fake reviews, your system would turn into a battlefield of reviews before ultimately collapsed.

I thought you're exchanging emails with them? Was this mean the resolution you're looking for is not reached? Or are they stopped replying again? If they're still looking and discussing for a solution with you by emails, I think it's quite unfair if you reached here and post something that made them looks bad ---fact and data or not-- although they're still in a good will. Unless they went MIA again?

Hmm... Stunna was online today and they're still not here. I'd hope my PM was just lost in the sea of PM they received. Is there anyone who happen to know their TG handler? I wouldn't mind trying to reach through them by it. I looked at Stake's website and found that they don't have an official TG channel, so I certainly couldn't reach them by that means, unless I'm wrong and they actually have one?

Yes, that's actually helpful, and I'm thanking you for your willingness to meet at the middle, it's a very good start and as you can see, starting from this post of yours forward, we can actually start looking for the truth instead going for a wild goose chase.

As for OP, here's your accusation, hope it's helpful for you to get through this. Interestingly though, I found one thing that's a bit incoherent from your side. I thought you said on the opening post that you are not playing esport?

And if you read my post carefully, you'll understand that I am not demanding you to give detailed info about why their account got banned, just the reason, mentioned in a direct and clear answer. If you read through this whole sub-boards, you'll see that there are a lot of users complaining about similar issues with other casino or exchange or other business entity. Some cases, the casino did a misjudgment and the situation solved through exchange of evidences. Some cases, the accusers actually tried to fool people and proven to be guilty after each side gave their side of story. While some other cases, the platform did dirty things, and exposed through series of questions where they can't give concrete evidences to back up their claim.

I'm not saying OP is right and you're scamming them, there's even a possibility that they're a multi-acc abuser and the KYC they offered is a bluff, or fake ones. But there's also possibilities where you misunderstood them, or cheated them.

This is why we all are here right now, to see and prove which story is actually a truth.

And about being much better than what a lot of other casinos do by providing the clauses being triggered, I'll invite you to read several threads of issues with casinos on this sub-board, there are several casinos that go to a length to solve the issues and clear their name by cooperating. Not only they specify the reason so it can be discussed and reviewed, they also gave counter-evidence to back up their claim and get to the bottom of the issue, so err... yeah, you're actually not that much better than you imagined. This one for good example and comparison.

I'm not threatening you here, just giving a simple words from my observation, but by refusing to specify the reason like this, you actually cast an impression that you're the one being wrong here. Anyone reading this case would probably think like me, that if you have nothing to hide and sure that OP is an abuser, you'll be more than happy to provide --at the very least-- the reason why they're being banned. They offered you to complete KYC and you --unless you have an evidence that OP's claim and screenshot is not true-- banned them instead, and then just after the situation escalated to this forum you asked for KYC. If you ask me, it's kinda looks fishy. Lest it be too late and a flag raised and stir a lot of unnecessary inconvenience like the other case OP had in the past.

Ahh, I see. Yes, I'll openly admit that there is a major misunderstanding from my side. The way your team explained to OP on email suggested that their account is banned due to insider info --why else would you mention this point on email if that is not the reason or related at any degree to their account freezing-- and I take that it's far from it, then? OP's account is not suspected of insider info?

Would you elaborate more on the reason? You can't give evidences due to the backlash you received on previous case, okay, arguably understandable, but certainly a casino --or any business entity-- should inform their user the reason of the banning so their user could defend themselves with proper evidence?

From what we can take from the email, the possible reasons are (1) misconduct, (2) insider info, (3) multi-alt abuse, or (4) a breach in TnC.

I think we can safely cross reason number (2) based on your own statement, and (3) because if OP is multiacc-ing, they'll quite reluctant to do KYC instead of offering them. So, point number (1) which would need you to to explain which misconduct is it because the term is very wide, or point (4) that's even more vague and widely open for misinterpretation.

I'd like to say OP raised a good point, they've offered to willingly perform KYC and you cut their way by freezing their account instead, for no clear reason if I may add. So certainly we can agree that they reserve a good degree of caution upon who they submit their info to. So, maybe all we need right now is for you to give a good gesture and tell us why you banned them in the first place. After all, as you said yourself, you have your reputation to maintain. So I think explaining why they're banned is not only a cheap price to pay for OP to do KYC and you to maintain your reputation, but also your duty on the first place.

LOL, couldn't agree more about this. I've been thinking since yesterday that we're kinda scared them off by bombarding them with questions that'll expose them and their tendency towards unilateral decision and judge-playing; they've been online several times since their last post and stopped replying here. And as you said, the silence actually speaks louder than what they've been trying to say here with their posts.

I was considering about giving them couple of days, see if they'll go online and still intentionally ignoring the unanswered questions here --giving benefit of the doubt here, maybe the silence is because they're gathering data and proper answer-- and start a thread to warn people about their service. If anyone using their service are subjected to a russian roulette of fund freezing for stupid reason, they have the right to know what they're going into before they put their money on it.

To be fair, actually, you are kinda agreed to submit documents for KYC purpose if they ask you for it, written on their TnC.


But, as your screenshot of chat suggested that you've suggested this --and still getting blocked-- so... let's move our focus to Coinbox1


Thank you for the link, I've actually read and familiarize myself with them before writing my post. And although it is true that by the TnC your user are agreeing on a clause where they have to submit KYC if needed, your explanation did not exactly answered my question. But if I may infer from your seemingly deliberate vague answer, you banned their account because they had suspicious behavior --i.e. insider info-- and thus you feel you need to check their ID? Then why did your team still froze OP's account although they already offered to complete KYC?

And let's take one step backward here on the reason itself, can you provide evidences that became the basis of this suspicion? Have you studied OP's account closely and have solid proof before freezing it or were you just ban-first-ask-later? How do we know that it is not a foul play by your platform, that you didn't just invent the situation and you won't use the same reason for other user(s) in the future?

For OP, Poika5, can you provide the email you mentioned on your opening post as oart of your evidence in screenshot instead of just quoted text? It'll be more reliable that way.

---

For Coinbox1, I don't think I understand the situation correctly, so please enlighten us. First, was OP's account banned because of the reason he mentioned on the quoted email --the unfair advantage-- or because they're yet to fulfill the KYC TnC?

Second, I'll assume for now that the quoted text from OP is legit and originated from your email to them, as below,


Were you saying that an educated guess in your sportsbetting is not allowed? Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?

---

edit: tidying up the quoted post

Not trying to give you false and empty hope here, but Stunna probably didn't deliberately not-answering --yes, I've heard myself saying it, and it gave me brainfreeze too-- you, they probably set their PM to ignore message from newbie. If that's the case, hopefully my PM could reach their inbox. They haven't been online since few days ago though, so maybe just wait a little bit.

Regarding any other way to pursue this, sadly, I think this is the only path we can take right now. And regarding how visiting this thread feels like reopening a fresh wound for you, if you'd like to start --just in case Stunna never appeared here-- moving on from this case by stop checking this thread regularly, if you want to, drop me your TG username through PM. I'll notify you through TG when --or if-- Stunna replied. If you never heard from me, well... you know what it means.

What are you talking about? Last reply from askgambler was 5 days ago? OP, genji87, did said that they reached and submitted a complaint to askgambler, but they never gave further update about this, no link or anything. I've comb through all of the cases against Stake on that platform and couldn't find any case submitted by OP there. Can you --or OP-- provide link to this case?

The closest I get to your quoted text is from the case of Stake v. stakecomisscam, which a completely different case with the one in this thread.

And "Casinoguru gave their verdict somehow in the favour of the player"? Have you read the entire case carefully or at least the summary written by the staff handling this case? I'm not defending Stake or OP right now, not leaning towards any side with the lack of insight and evidences, but I do hate misinformation. Your post just made it even more confusing for anyone who doesn't read the flows on casinoguru.

As I've wrote above, casinoguru close the case as rejected, because the case fell on sports betting that's not their expertise, but both sides provide equally strong evidence. The verdict is inconclusive, casinoguru did not favoring OP or Stake.

I've PMed Stunna, let's just hope they would appear here and give their side and evidences that's we currently can't see because all of them were sent privately through email to askgamblers and casinoguru.

You mean as in morally obligated? As in you're not actually required by Sechyelles, but you want to be a law abiding citizen and friendly neighborhood err... exchange, so you choose to be nosy and ask for the sources? Or is it legally obligated by some international law? I can understand that maybe there's a global law that applied against AML-ATF that we are somehow didn't aware of its existence. But rest assured, you can just state the article number and we're back on track. The question, simplified, is: are you just being nosy or can you point us to the regulation that made you authorized to ask people to provide proof of source of fund.

It'll be quite a different story if by asking to provide, you were meaning to say that your clients just needed to state where it came from without actually providing the proof of transaction, written contract, etc. just like my illustration with the bank staff and my goldfish. For this, though, you'll then intersect with and have to answer LoyceV's question above. And if I may jump in and broaden the hypothetical scenario, the fund is actually came from harmful source and will actually be used for terrorism funding. Is simply saying someone got it from p2p board enough?


Why not? You contradict your own statement. You're not cooperating with scammers and thieves, not recommending to make exchanges with stolen fund and dark market, but you refuse to share the list? How is this being non-cooperative to the thieves? I can only think the benefits if you provide it than the disadvantages. For instance, everybody is just one ninjastic away to know whether they're dealing with a scammer or not and should they continue the transaction or terminate it before it waste their time any further, or get their fund blocked by you. Which also means, fewer things in your plate to do, since the transaction --thanks to your list-- didn't happen.

Not sure if OP, genji87, get notified about this as their last activity on this forum is one day before this post below is made, but casinoguru has closed the problem and rejected,


So, if OP is being honest with his claim of only having one acc and submitting legit kyc --and proven by casinoguru-- and if we may conclude from closing statement by casinoguru's representative that Stake's claim is also somewhat correct --well, not proven to be wrong, to be exact, and there's a bit difference between the two-- I think it is even more likely now that my proposed situation is what actually happened.

My question to OP is, what do you want to do now that your issue is rejected by casinoguru? Given stake's representative is yet to be present here, I think I can invite Stunna through PM to see if they can possibly look into this matter.

---

Edit: PM sent

While others are curious about how do you know and decide that a fund coming into your platform acquired illegally or not --which, an interesting topic for me too, but since other members has asked about this, I won't repeat the question-- I am more interested on this topic.

Were you required by the govt. where you're basing your office on to ask about this? On my previous post about AML compliance, I do say that financial institutions on several countries are required to conduct KYC, but I have no awareness that the AML --or even ATF-- extend to such length for financial institutions.

Speaking for my own country --which will remain unspecified-- even centralized financial institutions are not allowed to ask for their customers to provide proof of funds origin. Asking where from and what for? Sure, they asked that, but their customer may just said whatever crossed their mind. "My goldfish died yesterday and inherited me 1 trillion dollars, which currently you're seeing right now. For what does the funds for? Well, I'd like to build shelters for homeless koi fish" and the bank would accepted that answer without asking their customer to provide the proof of... will... by the goldfish. The authority to ask for proof of fund's origin fall into the hand of the govt. themselves, specifically their tax and financial dept. upon investigation.

Recently I even learned that during a preliminary investigation of tax evasion and/or money laundering, the tax dept. --similar to IRS, I think-- staffs are not allowed to ask for the source of money too, let alone to ask the "suspect" to provide proof of source. They only allowed to ask for confirmation if the said person owned certain value and assets that they flagged and where from. It's until further investigation of AML and tax evasion that the person are obligated to provide the proof of sources and other articles asked. And I'm talking about the govt. themselves here, the one who held kinda "absolute" power. So how does a decentralized org. in your country required and given an authority to ask for the same is... beyond me.

But, I'm also aware and understand that different country applies different rules. Maybe IRS staff may asked what the tax staff in my country aren't allowed to. So, since you're stating that you're based in Sechyelles, could you point us to the regulation article specifically mentioning this matter? I'm sure we're one google away to verify that if you can help with the article number.

Not trying to defending them or anything, especially since I'm not benefited from anything or related by any degree to them or even tried their platform once, which --I think-- is why my opinion leads leans to a more neutral side, but isn't saying them a scammer just because they failed to mention that an exchange required KYC is a tad bit overstatement?

I mean, sure, yeah, they get some money from users using their platform, and for that they ought to do at least certain degree of DD toward the exchanges they list on their platform, but ultimately it is also the users duty to perform their own DD. And it's not that difficult to get info if this exchange requires KYC or that exchange don't. Their FAQs usually covered this, or a simple reading of reviews from several sites

Don't get me wrong, I do love my anonymity. That's why the first thing I look for before signing up into a new exchange --not that I use a lot-- is their KYC and limitations for non verified users.

You might also want to edit this sentence and add a word "some",


In many countries that tries to regulate crypto --more to control them, actually, but they choose a good political term-- an exchange needs to comply to their fintech regulations, where one of them mostly includes a compliance to KYC/AML. So yeah, they do have an "authority", they're kinda required by the country's rule. And again, let's say an exchange in R country called EB --these names is obscured by intention-- requested you for  KYC although that's not required by their country and, thus, they're not authorized to ask for it. How's that bestexchange's fault? You're kinda the one agreeing to it, EB is the one that asked you for it, but Bestexchange didn't force you to.

Edit: realizing I used a wrong word that I'm trying to say

You sent the email on December 3rd? Are they replying you through email? As I can see that they're online again yesterday, so the chance is almost zero that any of their staff didn't notice your offer. It's bound to happen by --at least-- now that either they saw the email or their representative read your post here. Seems they choose to ignore you if you're yet to get any, any, reply.

I don't think I understand the situation correctly. You crowdfund your project, this one, SPORE, back in mid 2020, and then two and a half years later, with sporadic updates in between, and a telegram channel that looks abandoned --can't understand how and why your own admin asking for details of your project, which should be something they've know about-- rebranding the project into CONDOR and doing another sale?

Ahh, it might be wise to mention that the perspective I offered is more intended for Stake as they're hell bent on being sure you abuses multi-alt. Being having to stay neutral and giving benefits of doubts to every party involved, it's a way to say, "Hey, Stake, here's a possibility, have you considered it before being persistently sure that you're banning for a legit reason?"


It is conclusive, actually. The accusation of fake KYC is false as casinoguru team was able to verify thr legitimacy of the documents,



which prompt Stake to submit another evidence for the focus of multi-acc accusation; and, since I think OP has built quite a solid counter-evidence against it, yet Stake still insist on it, and since we have to remain neutral here, I tried to suggest a new perspective for Stake to consider, that they made a wrong conclusion of OP because he's simply dragged into the mud.