I got SCAMMED by bitbox.mx!!!

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well if bitbox intends to use reversal for fraud as a method of returning funds they won't be in business very long.  After the first half dozen fraud reversals their bank will close their account without appeal.

[Bitcoin Scammer]

Sorry to hear about bitbox.mx scamming you. Justice is needed for sure, maybe a major crack down.

[greyhawk]

I can't tell if you're sublimely sarcastic or just didn't read the thread.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I can't tell if you're sublimely sarcastic or just didn't read the thread.

TOS can't violate existing laws.  For example I can't put in a TOS by using the service you agree to transfer all property to xyz corp and then go into court and say "see he agreed give me the deed to his house".  A company can refuse to do business but they can't refuse to do business and "hang on to" another persons assets.  The honest and clear thing to do would be for the service provider to have client complete any requirements first and then accept funds. For example if the service provider is worried about ACH fraud they could send a random small amount of funds to the clients account to verify it.  If they need any docs they can design the site such that the client can't send funds until verified.  

Nothing in MSB regulations requires or even allows a company to just keep client funds.  The purpose of AML is to prevent the TRANSFER of suspicious funds not to deprive criminals of them (note not saying the OP is a criminal just pointing out the purpose of AML programs is to prevent not seize).  Seizure of assets is a law enforcement activity pursuant to a warrant by a judge.  The company has no authority to seize funds of clients under any circumstances.  If funds are returned then there is no transfer. In the event of a "suspicious transaction" the proper procedure is to file a SAR with FinCEN.  If the company had completed mandatory AML training and had a written AML compliance program as required by a MSB they would already know the proper response.  Companies doing stupid shit like seizing the property of another person is why money transmission is so heavily regulated at the state level.  State regulation and licensing has nothing to do with AML, it is about protecting clients from illegal actions of companies.  Illegal actions like seizing without due process the property of another person.

I mean you are a logical person, obviously if was the case that a company could just keep funds based on vague terms of service it would be a good way to turn a profit doing nothing.  Sorry before we can complete this transactions we need a copy of your DL ... now we also need a copy of your utility bill ... sorry we also need three personal references ... sorry we need your SSN and written permission to access your credit report .... sorry we also need a notarized copy of your high school diploma ... what you are refusing to comply well we will just keep these funds then. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=017335056cf96e754794b9fe7336e17c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.6&idno=31#31:3.1.6.1.6.3.5.8

Every money services business described in § 1010.100(ff)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of this chapter, shall file with the Treasury Department, to the extent and in the manner required by this section, a report of any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation. Any money services business may also file with the Treasury Department, by using the form specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or otherwise, a report of any suspicious transaction that it believes is relevant to the possible violation of any law or regulation but whose reporting is not required by this section.

(2) A transaction requires reporting under the terms of this section if it is conducted or attempted by, at, or through a money services business, involves or aggregates funds or other assets of at least $2,000 (except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), and the money services business knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part):

(i) Involves funds derived from illegal activity or is intended or conducted in order to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity (including, without limitation, the ownership, nature, source, location, or control of such funds or assets) as part of a plan to violate or evade any Federal law or regulation or to avoid any transaction reporting requirement under Federal law or regulation;

(ii) Is designed, whether through structuring or other means, to evade any requirements of this chapter or of any other regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act; or

(iii) Serves no business or apparent lawful purpose, and the reporting money services business knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.

(iv) Involves use of the money services business to facilitate criminal activity.

[extracrunchy]

TOS can't violate existing laws.  For example I can't put in a TOS by using the service you agree to transfer all property to xyz corp and then go into court and say "see he agreed give me the deed to his house".  A company can refuse to do business but they can't refuse to do business and "hang on to" another persons assets.  The honest and clear thing to do would be for the service provider to have client complete any requirements first and then accept funds. For example if the service provider is worried about ACH fraud they could send a random small amount of funds to the clients account to verify it.  If they need any docs they can design the site such that the client can't send funds until verified.  

Nothing in MSB regulations requires or even allows a company to just keep client funds.  The purpose of AML is to prevent the TRANSFER of suspicious funds not to deprive criminals of (note not saying the OP just pointing out the purpose of AML programs is to prevent not seize).  Seizure of assets is a law enforcement activity pursuant to a warrant by a judge.  The company has no authority to seize funds of clients under any circumstances.  If funds are returned then there is no transfer. In the event of a "suspicious transaction" the proper procedure is to file a SAR with FinCEN.  If the company had completed mandatory AML training and had a written AML compliance program as required by a MSB they would already know the proper response.  Companies doing stupid shit like seizing the property of another person is why money transmission is so heavily regulated at the state level.  State regulation and licensing has nothing to do with AML, it is about protecting clients from illegal actions of companies.

I mean you are a logic person obviously if that was the case that a company could just keep funds based on vague terms of service it would be a good way to turn a profit doing nothing.  Sorry before we can complete this transactions we need a copy of your DL ... now we also need a copy of your utility bill ... sorry we also need three personal references ... sorry we need your SSN and written permission to access your credit report .... sorry we also need a notarized copy of your high school diploma ...

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=017335056cf96e754794b9fe7336e17c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.6&idno=31#31:3.1.6.1.6.3.5.8

THANK YOU!! This is the exact reason why I took a stand on this!!! Very well said.... BitBox is just trying to make money doing nothing. In talks with the University of Michigan (whose name they use to scam people!)

[extracrunchy]

I was talking to a few friends, and heres a technicality:

BitBox has already admitted they have my money. If I simply refuse to do anything and send them a registered letter asking for my money back and they do not comply, doesn't that make them illegally holding on to my money??

[greyhawk]

At this point, if i were bitbox.mx, I'd take your US Dollars, burn them to a crisp and send you the ashes in an envelope. Then take the real Dollars I slyly exchanged before I burned the fake monopoly dollars and buy the best Mezcal I could find and drink to the stupid Americano. Arriba, abajo, al centro y pa dentro.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

I was talking to a few friends, and heres a technicality:

BitBox has already admitted they have my money. If I simply refuse to do anything and send them a registered letter asking for my money back and they do not comply, doesn't that make them illegally holding on to my money??

Thats a helluva lot more work than just reversing the ACH!!!

[xboxgames]

JESUS OP, ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS VERIFY.


PRETTY HARD TO PICK UP THE PHONE WHEN THEY TRY TO CALL AND VERIFY ITS YOU, ISNT IT.

GTFO

[Cryptoin]

I have personally met the founders of Bitbox.mx and can assure you they have no intention of scamming anyone.  Sounds like Bitbox is trying to cover there ass so they don't violate any Fincen regulations and the OP is being unreasonable.  I assure you if you just provide them the information they requested or give them a call you will get your money back.

[Darktongue]

OP, 

Sounds to me like you are realty enjoying the negative attention.  You have talked to friends lawyer friends and received some solid advice on what to do.  Yet you ask in not so certain words. "Should I write a letter and keep this on going for three to six months?". No you made your point and learned a lesson about reading ToS agreements when it comes to your money and

You made a comment about PayPal.  In the event they flag your account you are aware this same shit occurs right?
PayPal gives you the optio to verify accounts with photo ID or a proof of address.  And if you are uncomfortable giveing that infomation. Oh welk you don't have a usable PayPal account

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Instead of giving them  a phone call (what, 20 min at the very, very most?) or reversing the ACH (including time to drive to the bank and back, maybe an hour?) this guys has been going on for days and days to try more and more convoluted ways of getting his money back.

Something smells fishy here.  Perhaps he didn't call them or give verification info because he can't?  Maybe he registered the account with a false identity or maybe the verification was triggered not as a random spot check, but as a "for cause" investigation?

[extracrunchy]

Something smells fishy here.  Perhaps he didn't call them or give verification info because he can't?  Maybe he registered the account with a false identity or maybe the verification was triggered not as a random spot check, but as a "for cause" investigation?

I have clearly stated that MY money could either be reversed from the bank account it was sent from or could be mailed back to my address on file via check. I don't have any problems VERIFYING anything as long as it doesnt involve bitbox requesting my passport/state id/bank statements.

If you've read the thread, all I'm against is giving my personal information to a shady start-up like BitBox. Theyre more than welcome to come visit me if they would like to verify who I am.

On a side note, you sound a lot like one of the BitBox guys I talked to. Out of curiosity, are you associated with BitBox in a any way??

[xboxgames]

Something smells fishy here.  Perhaps he didn't call them or give verification info because he can't?  Maybe he registered the account with a false identity or maybe the verification was triggered not as a random spot check, but as a "for cause" investigation?

I have clearly stated that MY money could either be reversed from the bank account it was sent from or could be mailed back to my address on file via check. I don't have any problems VERIFYING anything as long as it doesnt involve bitbox requesting my passport/state id/bank statements.

If you've read the thread, all I'm against is giving my personal information to a shady start-up like BitBox. Theyre more than welcome to come visit me if they would like to verify who I am.

On a side note, you sound a lot like one of the BitBox guys I talked to. Out of curiosity, are you associated with BitBox in a any way??

You are using  bank account.  They want to make sure you own the account.  They are protecting their ass, it dont matter if they send to the original bank account or not, the have KYC shit they have to follow, or end up like Dwolla.

How the fuck else are you gonna verify if not ID?  A goddamn snickers wrapper with your name on it, in a picture with a shoe on your head?

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Something smells fishy here.  Perhaps he didn't call them or give verification info because he can't?  Maybe he registered the account with a false identity or maybe the verification was triggered not as a random spot check, but as a "for cause" investigation?

I have clearly stated that MY money could either be reversed from the bank account it was sent from or could be mailed back to my address on file via check. I don't have any problems VERIFYING anything as long as it doesnt involve bitbox requesting my passport/state id/bank statements.

If you've read the thread, all I'm against is giving my personal information to a shady start-up like BitBox. Theyre more than welcome to come visit me if they would like to verify who I am.

On a side note, you sound a lot like one of the BitBox guys I talked to. Out of curiosity, are you associated with BitBox in a any way??

As i've stated before, I have no idea who bitbox is.  But why not just drive to your local bank and request an ACH reversal?  Or give them a call and not give them info.  It seemed like they were very willing to work with you but you didn't want to work with them.  One has got to start wondering why at some point in time...

And we probably sound alike because we are both using the same sort of thinking skills known as logic...

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Something smells fishy here.  Perhaps he didn't call them or give verification info because he can't?  Maybe he registered the account with a false identity or maybe the verification was triggered not as a random spot check, but as a "for cause" investigation?

I have clearly stated that MY money could either be reversed from the bank account it was sent from or could be mailed back to my address on file via check. I don't have any problems VERIFYING anything as long as it doesnt involve bitbox requesting my passport/state id/bank statements.

If you've read the thread, all I'm against is giving my personal information to a shady start-up like BitBox. Theyre more than welcome to come visit me if they would like to verify who I am.

On a side note, you sound a lot like one of the BitBox guys I talked to. Out of curiosity, are you associated with BitBox in a any way??

You are using  bank account.  They want to make sure you own the account.  They are protecting their ass, it dont matter if they send to the original bank account or not, the have KYC shit they have to follow, or end up like Dwolla.

How the fuck else are you gonna verify if not ID?  A goddamn snickers wrapper with your name on it, in a picture with a shoe on your head?

Xbox and I don't often agree on stuff, but THIS!

If you don't want to do business with them, fine, but they didn't take your money.  You gave it to them and you have the right to go get it back anytime you want.

And yes, Dwolla just asked me for KBA ID last week.  I was more than happy to oblige.  They sent me an email with a phone number and I gave them a call.  After a few short minutes with a rep and him directing me to a link on my dwolla page, I had a verified account and access to all of my money.  Whole process took about 10 minutes.  It would probably take you that long too if you just gave them a call and talked to them.  See how easy that was?

And picture of me with a shoe on my head... now THAT'D be an interesting KYC request!

[jacktarli]

You need to remember that companies like this will often ask for personal documents and information. You need to read the T&C before you agree to something, plain and simple.

[jacktarli]

Still they have no right to keep your money, hope you find a way to get it back, best of luck!

[Bitcoin Scammer]

Still they have no right to keep your money, hope you find a way to get it back, best of luck!

100% Agreed!

[xboxgames]

If you refuse to verify, they actually have everty right to take your money. 

They are violating laws if they DO NOT verify you.

The previous 2 posters must be 14