I have noticed many people struggling like me with scammy practices from brokers unjustifiably holding funds during deposits and withdrawals.
Their excuse is often that understaffing, KYC and AML compliance oblige them to do so;
Both arguments are irrelevant and fraudulous, and blatant violations of the European and national laws.
Banks and fx brokers are tried on a daily basis for these kind of practices; cryptocurrency brokers may not be regulated or licensed, they aren't above the law.
The intent here is to gather enough legal material to pressure these companies to put an end to unethical practices and eventually start legal class actions when necessary to recover funds and compensation for prejudice.
There is no rational reason why a SEPA transfer in Europe would take more than 24h to clear and show on your broker's account. They pretend KYC and AML procedures are delaying credits and withdrawal, but this is all BS; all the financial institutions have to comply with MIFID2 requirements, and yet most do their due diligence and credit wire transfers the same day accordingly with the 2012 law.
Why do they holds your money? because their strategy is to keep the maximum of "frozen money" the longer possible on their books to leverage and play with it with god knows what kind of high risk investments that could potentially wipe out your assets if a major market crash occures. These companies aren't regulated, rarely audited; they can do whatever they want with our funds and leverage on the "gray zone" where they operate.
Once converted in cryptocurrencies, and the commission paid, your coins are useless to them and you become a liability.
Now, regarding the law; no financial service provider can hold your funds against your will, nor take more than D+1 to wire and credit your funds unless they can prove they have been instructed by the law enforcement. And in this case they should provide a warrant from a judge. Therefore, payment should clear in ONE banking day and there are no ceiling on the amount for SEPA
Since 2017 a new regulation for AML and wire transfer has been ratified; maximum 3 working days for verification and completion of missing information, is allowed for verification of suspect money movements aboce 1000e
For withdrawals:
"funds greater than €1,000 – the payee PSP is to verify the payee’s details before crediting / making the funds available
funds less than €1,000 – the payee PSP is to verify the payee details if the payout will be in cash, anonymous e-money or if there is suspected money laundering or terrorist financing."
indeed:
"The carve out to verify identity information for payments less than €1,ooo do not apply where funds have been received or paid out in anonymous electronic money"
For deposits:
"For transfers of funds where verification is deemed to have taken place, payment service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met."
Therefore, a deposit should appear directly on your account when it has cleared your bank, unless held for verification on the basis of significant money laundering evidences
In this case, the maximum allowed timeframe is 3 working days:
"Where a PSP chooses to suspend the transfer of funds, it should ask the sending PSP to
supply the information on the payer or the payee that is missing, or to provide that
information using admissible characters or inputs.
32. When asking for missing information, the PSP should set a reasonable timeframe, within
which the sending PSP should answer. The timeframe should be set out in the PSP’s
procedures. This should not exceed 3 working days for intra-EEA transfers, and 5 working
days for transfers of funds from outside the EEA. The PSP should notify the sending PSP
that the transfer has been suspended. "
https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1807814/Consultation+Paper+on+draft+Joint+Guidelines+to+prevent+transfers+of+funds+can+be+abused+for+ML+and+TF+%28JC-GL-2017-16%29.pdfOriginal text:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.141.01.0001.01.ENGAnalysis:
http://emoneyadvice.com/4mld-money-laundering-regulations-2017/http://emoneyadvice.com/wire-transfer-regs/Many banks have been sued and condemned to fail to comply with the 2012 payment directive; cryptocurrency brokers shouldn't be immune from such legal actions.
I encourage all crypto users to pressure their brokers to put them in line with the law and the public interest and to put class actions into motion when necessary to collect indemnities
Below a bunch of supporting legal material, post if you find more
Article 69(1) of the european Payment Services Directive, 2007/64/EC, OJ L 319
« Under the Payments Services Directive, by 2012[4] at the latest, monies must be credited to a recipient's account at the latest by the end of the next business day (i.e. "D+1" rule) »
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/retpaym/undpaym/legasp/html/index.en.html#psd« Article 69
Payment transactions to a payment account
1. Member States shall require the payer's payment service provider to ensure that, after the point in time of receipt in accordance with Article 64, the amount of the payment transaction is credited to the payee's payment service provider's account at the latest by the end of the next business day. Until 1 January 2012, a payer and his payment service provider may agree on a period no longer than three business days. These periods may be extended by a further business day for paper-initiated payment transactions.
2. Member States shall require the payment service provider of the payee to value date and make available the amount of the payment transaction to the payee's payment account after the payment service provider has received the funds in accordance with Article 73.
3. Member States shall require the payee's payment service provider to transmit a payment order initiated by or through the payee to the payer's payment service provider within the time limits agreed between the payee and his payment service provider, enabling settlement, as far as direct debit is concerned, on the agreed due date. »
On top of that, every EU state has specific laws in that regard; you should look up your local laws. Here in France, unlawful holding of funds is in violation with these laws:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072026&idArticle=LEGIARTI000020860766&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cidhttps://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072026&idArticle=LEGIARTI000026992850
