The Rock Trading Scam www.therocktrading.com Exchange Review fraud truffa

[eliale]

Just wondering eliale...

Considering he believed he would not need to give any document based on your previous T&C and your FAQ, and he entered a fake name to protect his privacy.

Does he have a way to get back his money?

Why is a signed message from a funding address of his trading account not enough to prove his ownership?

Please be precise and exhaustive in your answer, and give us details about what will happen with the money if he used a fake name.

Thank you for your request.

We do have some past data which is the following:

1) Name and Last Name
2) We sent some wire transfers in the same Name and Last Name in a EU Country
3) On the claim she filed out she is putting the same name and last name
4) We do have correspondence, Ip, emails, ecc on file


Therefore, we could safely say we do have the real name and last name.

So, the moment we will receive matching documents, for us KYC will be completed and funds promptly released.

However, among the matching docs which we are requiring, we do ask a Selfie with the ID and a paper with a unique phrase we are going to provide upon request.

This could be difficult to obtain if the owner is no longer in control and, at the same time, very easy to produce if all is ok as I hope so.

So, aside AML/KYC directives which we must follow, we must be sure we are doing the right thing to protect our customers assets.

Regards

[asche]

1) Name and Last Name
2) We sent some wire transfers in the same Name and Last Name in a EU Country
3) On the claim she filed out she is putting the same name and last name
4) We do have correspondence, Ip, emails, ecc on file

1) If it's tied to no document this means nothing
2) I thought you didn't send any wire transfers without KYC? Also there is no check against the name when doing a wire transfer. Only the IBAN/SWIFT code is checked. There is no need for a match to bank records.
3) Again, she would probably do that if she used a fake name in the first place
4) still no proof of identity

Therefore, we could safely say we do have the real name and last name.

Actually you cannot.

@OP can you provide a signature from a wallet you used to fund you account? Or alternatively can you prove ownership of a bank account you used to fund your account earlier, by doing a new transfer of a predetermined small amount (a few cent).

[eliale]

As far as the KYC, back in 2013, when we made the bank wires, KYC use to be very light. Today is another world

But, no more than few months ago, when Coinfan filed a claim with the arbitrator, she indicated the same name we had on file since 2013. 

So, we can assume, it is the same person due to 3 separate events:  Name on file, wire transfers and recent claim.

Please note: The name on the bank wire must be correct otherwise the bank is returning the transfer.  This is a basic rule in AML.

Thank you!

PS: I cannot post private correspondece with Susana on a public chat as you can understand.  But they are quite clear about it ... at least back in 2013/2014

[eliale]

Therefore, we could safely say we do have the real name and last name.

Actually you cannot.

@OP can you provide a signature from a wallet you used to fund you account? Or alternatively can you prove ownership of a bank account you used to fund your account earlier, by doing a new transfer of a predetermined small amount (a few cent).
[/quote]

no.... I wish but, actual AML laws do not allow this option.  As a matter of  fact they don't even have the idea of what we are talking about.....

[asche]

Please note: The name on the bank wire must be correct otherwise the bank is returning the transfer.  This is a basic rule in AML.

When using SEPA what you are saying is simply wrong. I tried it myself a few weeks ago. Maybe this is how it should be, but as a matter of fact it is NOT like this.

You don't have to do the AML if we follow your own T&C for crypto withdrawal, so it is only a matter for you to be convinced OP is still the same. So a signature SHOULD be enough.

You are deviating from topic. Also you did not answer the question regarding what would happen to the funds in case of no documentation from OP.

Finally did the metadata of OP change significantly to back up your doubts?

To me you are desperately looking for reasons to hold that money back. If op proves ownership through signature, AML requires you to exactly nothing and you are legally entitled to release the funds.

PS: I cannot post private correspondece with Susana on a public chat as you can understand.  But they are quite clear about it ... at least back in 2013/2014

With her approval you could.

[Coinfan]

Let's go on the topics one by one:

I) I was more than clear: I won't send them my documents!

I don't believe they are doing this just for KYC. He blocked my account for months and didn't inform me, he lied several times, he doesn't respect his own TOS and FAQ or his personal assurances to me. His word means nothing to me.

Actually, here he wrote publicly:

As soon as the Arbitrator will send us your Identity information, assuming you are the owner, we will release funds promptly.

Now he is writing:

Please, be so kind to provide to us or to the authorities the following documents:

A valid picture ID
A selfie with your ID and a paper with a unique phrase we will provide to you (please open a ticket in order to obtain it)
A recent proof of address
Fill out all information requested online from your account (please open a ticket in order to be able to do it)

Upon receipt of the above information, if all the documents requested met the above criteria, we will release funds in one business day.

He wants to control what documents the authorities will ask me!? Of course, they won't ask on any case for a selfie. So, he changed completely his public promise and created an excuse not to release my money in any case.

Yes, he is a man of his word. We can all trust him. No doubt about it.

I don't need any new reason to refuse to send any documents to them. But he is saying: if you send us your documents we'll get the necessary information to (abusively) sue you.

It looks like they don't really want my documents. And are posting this just for the police to read.

I would win their pathetic law suite easily and also my counter-claim against them for everything they did, including defaming me. But that would be an annoyance. 10 years on an Italian court? Only if it's really necessary.


II) He just published the first name of a customer on a public forum.

After he posted this just days ago:

Do not worry, we are not going to publish on a chat personal details such as names, bank details ecc.  Even in your case we are going to respect your privacy  

Again, a man of his word.

This wasn't only a violation of privacy. It was a breach of security. Someone can try to use this information to steal my money.

III) JollyGood is an outstanding forum member who hates scammers. I paid him nothing! I helped him on his fights, he is helping me. Since I received negative feedback for helping him, he feels in debt to me.
Moreover, he has a personal issue with the Rock CFO, since he tried to mediate this and the Rock CFO ignored him.
I even wrote this about him:

You made a lot of enemies for picking fights that aren't yours.

IV) asche, thank you a lot for your time with this scam. Be careful, the Rock CFO is going to accuse you of being a mercenary too.

A) I can't sign a message, since my deposits were made from other exchanges. But with some trouble I could get a scan of one or two transfers made to the Rock from one exchange.

B) I still own the banking account with the IBAN (banking number) they have on file. The European commission and the Arbitrator received a scan made on december 2018 of the account.

C) The European commission and the Arbitrator also received a document with the same identity the Rock Trading have on file. I assure you the names they have on file are real and there aren't any problems with documents.

D) They know I'm the owner of the money. There isn't (and never was, I posted since the start that I owned the banking account with the IBAN they have on file) any security problem. Recently, after many lies and defamation, he confessed that several times. Check quote below.

E) He is blatantly lying when he writes that the current law demands verification on my case, since I only want to withdraw bitcoin. They have thousands of unverified customers who traded fiat, but didn't ask for a fiat withdrawal. They aren't demanding verification from them.

There was no relevant change on their TOS on matter of verification. Their FAQ, which is their own interpretation of their TOS, still states: "Verification is not mandatory, but in order to deposit/withdraw FIAT currencies you will need it." https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?id=27

Of course, Italian law says exactly the same thing or their TOS would be illegal and they couldn't be accepted as an Italian company when they returned from Malta on April 2018: Legislative Decree No. 231/2007, as emended by Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, on AML and KYC duties, article 3, n.º 5, i), says: "service providers related to the use of virtual currency, limited to the performance of the conversion of virtual currencies from or into currencies with legal tender".

They can't block accounts without a security reason under their own TOS.

F) To confirm what kind of person the Rock CFO is you just have to read his words:

Finally, she opened a claim as per our TOS and sooner or later we should receive a request from the arbitrator and try to solve the issue.  The good news, at least I hope, is that the Arbitrator has the same Lady name we do have on file since 2013 and, hopefully, as soon as we will get proper documentation about the identity, we should be able to allow the Lady to withdraw.

However, if even in this case we won't be successful in obtaining the requested information, we are evaluating to open a case with Europol and ask them to investigate the issue.

He recognized that the money is mine and he confessed he is more or less expecting to lose the arbitrage case (he has no doubt he is acting illegally), but he posted publicly that he isn't going to respect the Arbitrator decision even without reading it and no matter its legal grounds!!

He clearly thinks he is above the Law.

And he also posted he is ready to block other unverified customers even against his own word on their TOS/FAQ:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg50060106#msg50060106 (translation and comment)


I hope you give him negative feedback too.

[JollyGood]

Sorry, while I can understand your point of view, in order to protect your interests and everybody else safety, we do need to verify your real identity before releasing your funds which are available.

Refusing to do so, it only raise our concerns about the real ownership of the account.

So, please, comply with the requests in order to solve the issue.

As an alternative, if you do not want to provide requested information to us, you may contact the Italian police and file a request.  They will request us to proceed and we will be ok because we do have the guarantee they checked your Identity which, obviously will be forwarded to us....  It only takes longer but it is your choice.

Thank you

Andrea Medri
TRT CFO

He just published the first name of a customer on a public forum.

After he posted this just days ago:

Do not worry, we are not going to publish on a chat personal details such as names, bank details ecc.  Even in your case we are going to respect your privacy  

Again, a man of his word.

This wasn't only a violation of privacy. It was a breach of security. Someone can try to use this information to steal my money.

No professional company would violate their users like this. Scammer Andrea Medri (eliale) has deliberately posted your name in an attempt to bully you but again he has failed.

As rightly pointed out by you and now by user asche, the fact is scammer Andrea Medri (eliale) is making up excuses to steal that money from you.

I completely agree with you, you should never send your KYC to these scammers because they are driven by revenge against you. Now the Arbitration has started and you have sent your ID to them, you should allow for this process follow its natural course. It is up to the Arbiters how they advise Rock Trading scammers that they have your ID or forward a copy to them but you have taken the right step. Scammer Andrea Medri asking you to take "a selfie with your ID and a paper with a unique phrase we will provide to you (please open a ticket in order to obtain it)" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at misdirection and an attempt to show Italian authorities (and bitcointalk forum affiliates) that he is a operating a genuine business but their reputation is now in tatters.


Scammer Andrea Medri (eliale) did not even answer the question from asche about what theoretically would happen to funds in the case there was no documentation going to be sent to Rock Trading. He only answers questions he wants to and ignores the ones that will show him up to be a scammer.

When using SEPA what you are saying is simply wrong. I tried it myself a few weeks ago. Maybe this is how it should be, but as a matter of fact it is NOT like this.

You don't have to do the AML if we follow your own T&C for crypto withdrawal, so it is only a matter for you to be convinced OP is still the same. So a signature SHOULD be enough.

You are deviating from topic. Also you did not answer the question regarding what would happen to the funds in case of no documentation from OP.

Finally did the metadata of OP change significantly to back up your doubts?

To me you are desperately looking for reasons to hold that money back. If op proves ownership through signature, AML requires you to exactly nothing and you are legally entitled to release the funds.

[eliale]

Please note: The name on the bank wire must be correct otherwise the bank is returning the transfer.  This is a basic rule in AML.

To me you are desperately looking for reasons to hold that money back. If op proves ownership through signature, AML requires you to exactly nothing and you are legally entitled to release the funds.

PS: I cannot post private correspondece with Susana on a public chat as you can understand.  But they are quite clear about it ... at least back in 2013/2014

With her approval you could.

Why we should "desperately" hold 35k euro  when we have been in business since 2011 and processed thousands of bank transactions ?  No, we are just looking to find a solution which is legal and, at the same, time guarantee customer funds.

About Susana approval, yes I agree with you. If she is going to provide us requested docs and give us a written approval to publish her correspondence I'll be glad. But, by know, if she doesn't want to provide docs for 35k euro, I doubt she'll do it for some mails...

However, correspondence is available to authorities upon request.

Thank you

PS @jolly : is a mercenary paid by customers to defame people as per the post of the following moderator: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025233.msg50340436;topicseen#new

[JollyGood]

To me you are desperately looking for reasons to hold that money back. If op proves ownership through signature, AML requires you to exactly nothing and you are legally entitled to release the funds.

Why we should "desperately" hold 35k euro  when we have been in business since 2011 and processed thousands of bank transactions ?  No, we are just looking to find a solution which is legal and, at the same, time guarantee customer funds.

.... because Rock Trading are selective scamming this user.

Why did you name your customer without asking for consent before doing so?

So do you think all the people that say Rock Trading are scammers, are mercenaries?  

[asche]

Why we should "desperately" hold 35k euro  when we have been in business since 2011 and processed thousands of bank transactions ?  No, we are just looking to find a solution which is legal and, at the same, time

Again you are dodging the question and not answering:

Was there a shift in the users metadata?
What will you do with the funds in the end if the user does not send you the information you are asking for?

I am trying to find a solution, which the user could use without exposing his documents, and which would make sure he is the rightful owner.

You are able to send him his BTC back as there is no legal issue in doing so. You keep avoiding the point and are acting very suspiciously.

[Coinfan]

There were no change at all on my metadata.

He just posted that they monitor IP and so they know my IP was from the same country, same region and same internet provider.

He posted a blatant lie on an italian thread, saying my account was dormant so they had to force the KYC.

Inoltre, essendo stato un conto dormiente per parecchio tempo, dobbiamo verificare l'identità al fine di accertarci che sia la stessa persona originariamente registratasi.

They confessed here they blocked my money on december 2017.

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue

By coincidence, right after I sold all my bitcoins and ended up with about the current balance of 35519 euros.

He won't dare deny me, he knows I have full scans of my activity and can post them. Actually, after I denied the dormant lie, he never dared post about it again.

The account wasn't dormant at all when they blocked it! He just lies and lies, inventing facts and Laws. Why so many lies?

And they know the source of the money: trading there since 2012.

Moreover, he is writing he won't publish any correspondence without my consent? He published a full email from 2013 without any consent on the italian thread. An email which wasn't necessary to his defense.

Email that only shows there was an agreement that they wouldn't demand verification as long as there wasn't a request for a fiat withdrawal:

won't ever request any fiat withdrawal

I posted this 5 months ago:

I won't login again until you release my money. I have all the data I need for the legal case. Forget about accepting any new TOS.

And they know no one has logged in during this time.

I could also post here the scan of my banking account with the IBAN the Rock have on file and even a banking document of the transfer made to pay the Arbitrator cost (with the Arbitrator IBAN visible) which has the two names (I could show the one he abusively posted and one letter of their choice of the second) they also have on file, but what's the point? They won't release my money.


asche, my thank you for supporting me and giving him negative feedback.

My public gratitude also to IconFirm for the same reason.

The Rock CFO just got two more negative feedbacks on 24h. Of course, he is going to write that these two trustworthy members are mercenaries.

The Rock CFO also made a real enemy from JollyGood with his defamation. My reiterated thanks to JollyGood too.

[ivndnkn]

Hello.

@Coinfan:

I'm very happy to see you still fighting. The truth is on your side, just stay strong.
Also, I would like to inform you that eliale is breaking GDPR terms.

Quote from The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR):
https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/gdpr-faqs/

What constitutes personal data?
The GDPR applies to ‘personal data’, meaning any information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier. This definition provides for a wide range of personal identifiers to constitute personal data, including name, identification number, location data or online identifier, reflecting changes in technology and the way organizations collect information about people.

Please report your case to The EU's independent data protection authority here:
https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervisor/complaints-wizard_en

and add a note to your complaint about TRT breaking GDPR.


@eliale:
Run, while you can.

[xtraelv]

I thought this was all in front of an Italian arbitrator.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg49515791#msg49515791

Until the arbitrator has made a ruling it is a bit pre-emptive to make conclusions without all the facts being known.

[Coinfan]

Hello.

@Coinfan:

I'm very happy to see you still fighting. The truth is on your side, just stay strong.
Also, I would like to inform you that eliale is breaking GDPR terms.

Quote from The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR):
https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/gdpr-faqs/

What constitutes personal data?
The GDPR applies to ‘personal data’, meaning any information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier. This definition provides for a wide range of personal identifiers to constitute personal data, including name, identification number, location data or online identifier, reflecting changes in technology and the way organizations collect information about people.

Please report your case to The EU's independent data protection authority here:
https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervisor/complaints-wizard_en

and add a note to your complaint about TRT breaking GDPR.


@eliale:
Run, while you can.

Thank you for your support, for the information and for the negative feedback you gave to the Rock CFO.

The main purposes of this thread are accomplished: the community reacted and is showing everyone that the Rock Trading can't be trusted.

Isn't it beautiful his red tag? I told him in August 2018 that he would end with one. That the consequences would be on him.

I wrote that time was on my side. And, as time goes, they have been going from bad to worst.

He seems already "upset". He doesn't imagine how bad this is going to get to him and his business.

He can't run or hide. He will answer legally for these acts and will be punished accordingly. I won the public relations battle, but the legal battle is just beginning.


My public gratitude also to Lauda for his negative feedback on the Rock CFO.

Any forum member thinking the Rock Trading is scamming me or, to the very least, breaching basic rules of their TOS/FAQ and Italian Law, please add the weight of your opinion and give eliale, the Rock CFO, negative feedback.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35172

[eliale]

Why we should "desperately" hold 35k euro  when we have been in business since 2011 and processed thousands of bank transactions ?  No, we are just looking to find a solution which is legal and, at the same, time

Again you are dodging the question and not answering:

Was there a shift in the users metadata?
What will you do with the funds in the end if the user does not send you the information you are asking for?

I am trying to find a solution, which the user could use without exposing his documents, and which would make sure he is the rightful owner.

You are able to send him his BTC back as there is no legal issue in doing so. You keep avoiding the point and are acting very suspiciously.

We can release funds only and only if we comply with KYC/AML and have a guarantee of the account owner existance. This is a basic rule. Or, if a Judge order us to do so.

Up to know, we haven't received any request from the arbitrator and this is quite strange.  So my question to Ms. Susana is: Do you have any news?  Could you please request an update and let us know?

To answer your question more precisely, this is the first time since 2011 we had such a case.

So we will proceed as follow:

1)  Wait for the arbitrator to be in contact with us so we can solve it.  The OP declared she made the claim and I hope it is a true information...

2)  In case we are not going to be in touch with the arbitrator because the OP bluffed....  we will look for legal advice how to handle the issue in accordance with the law and update you (the Community) about their reply.  Let's decide a target date:  If by the end of April we will have no contacts from the Arbitrator or authorities in general, point 2 will be execute it.

3) Last but not least, by the end of April, we will file a missing person report with Polizia Postale (in Italy it is in charge of Cyber crimes), providing them all the information we do have (including this chat and others) and requesting them to activate an international search to locate Ms. Susana which, if point number one is not happening, unfortunately we are assuming the worst for her.

Thank you

[JollyGood]

3) Last but not least, by the end of April, we will file a missing person report with Polizia Postale (in Italy it is in charge of Cyber crimes), providing them all the information we do have (including this chat and others) and requesting them to activate an international search to locate Ms. Susana which, if point number one is not happening, unfortunately we are assuming the worst for her.

Thank you

Just when you thought this situation could not get more pathetic (along comes Andrea Medri the owner/operator of a European Crypto Exchange that claims to process several hundred thousands of EURO a day) and continues to spout his never-ending drivel  

Hello.

@Coinfan:

I'm very happy to see you still fighting. The truth is on your side, just stay strong.
Also, I would like to inform you that eliale is breaking GDPR terms.

Quote from The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR):
https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/gdpr-faqs/

What constitutes personal data?
The GDPR applies to ‘personal data’, meaning any information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier. This definition provides for a wide range of personal identifiers to constitute personal data, including name, identification number, location data or online identifier, reflecting changes in technology and the way organizations collect information about people.

Please report your case to The EU's independent data protection authority here:
https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervisor/complaints-wizard_en

and add a note to your complaint about TRT breaking GDPR.


@eliale:
Run, while you can.

[eliale]

To our readers: Please note, Jolly receives a pay fee in order to defame as per the post of the following BTC talk moderator:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025233.msg50340436;topicseen#new

Thank you

[asche]

To our readers: Please note, Jolly ...

You are just like him tho, just repeating the same non sense about KYC/AML non sense that doesn't apply to this particular case.

[s1lverbox]

To our readers: Please note, Jolly receives a pay fee in order to defame as per the post of the following BTC talk moderator:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025233.msg50340436;topicseen#new

Thank you

If you can acctually prove your words that would clear the air. Otherwise stop saying same over and over without any proof.

What  i noticed is that you trying attack those who actively helping OP here.

[Coinfan]

We can release funds only and only if we comply with KYC/AML and have a guarantee of the account owner existance. This is a basic rule. Or, if a Judge order us to do so.

Up to know, we haven't received any request from the arbitrator and this is quite strange.  So my question to Ms. Susana is: Do you have any news?  Could you please request an update and let us know?

To answer your question more precisely, this is the first time since 2011 we had such a case.

So we will proceed as follow:

1)  Wait for the arbitrator to be in contact with us so we can solve it.  The OP declared she made the claim and I hope it is a true information...

2)  In case we are not going to be in touch with the arbitrator because the OP bluffed....  we will look for legal advice how to handle the issue in accordance with the law and update you (the Community) about their reply.  Let's decide a target date:  If by the end of April we will have no contacts from the Arbitrator or authorities in general, point 2 will be execute it.

3) Last but not least, by the end of April, we will file a missing person report with Polizia Postale (in Italy it is in charge of Cyber crimes), providing them all the information we do have (including this chat and others) and requesting them to activate an international search to locate Ms. Susana which, if point number one is not happening, unfortunately we are assuming the worst for her.

Thank you

Now he invented a "missing person". I wonder if he couldn't invent a better lie?

They have two email addresses on file, both were used to contact them and I accused reception of the last email they sent:

La loro e-mail del 26 febbraio 2019 ("I'm writing you in reference of your account...") richiede informazioni senza alcuna promessa di liberare i miei soldi.

The "missing person" filed a complaint with the European Commission Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with full disclose of identity (with the same two names they have on file) and evidence of ownership, backed by documents.

He confessed here that he was contacted by the ODR after the complaint, that he confessed the amount of the money blocked and that the ODR presented several Arbitrage alternatives:

Per quanto concerne l'arbitro finanziario, la cliente ha dopo tanti (troppi) mesi seguito la nostra procedura di reclamo indicata nelle TOS aprendo un reclamo  tramite https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.trader.register

Abbiamo ricevuto il reclamo, confermato gli ammontari che non sono in discussione e spiegato che dobbiamo procedere con le verifiche AML/KYC.  A questo punto, ODR ha indicato alcune possibilità in Italia per una soluzione "amichevole" tramite arbitro e, tra le varie opzioni, è stata scelta quella dell'arbitro finanziario di cui, pazientemente, attendiamo contatto.

So, as usual, he is just lying, this time with an even more ridiculous lie.


He rejected all arbitrage alternatives except the one he couldn't reject, the current Arbitrator, since this Arbitrator has automatic jurisdiction over them and so doesn't depend on their consent. Precisely the Arbitrator he is complaining about because of the delay.

I hope they won't wait for the end of April and make me the favor of going to the Postal Police now, but better invent another lie.

By the way, about this question:

What will you do with the funds in the end if the user does not send you the information you are asking for?

(eliale) did not even answer the question from asche about what theoretically would happen to funds in the case there was no documentation going to be sent to Rock Trading.

The Rock CFO already answered it. He wrote that he is going to keep my money "forever":

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.

Of course, those were the times he thought I had something to hide. After the complaint to the ODR, he realized he was very wrong and that this was going to end bad for him.

What kind of person is willing to keep other people's money "forever" against the letter of their own TOS/FAQ? You decide!