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

[JollyGood]

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.

That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

If they let him have his funds back and then a month or year later IF there is a request by Italian authorities or an audit then they can justify their returning of the crypto by saying the CTO gave wrong information and the funds were sent by the customer in error.

I am sure the OP would be happy to withdraw his crypto over a period of 4 days to the value of 8,750 EURO a day over a 4 day period.

The stance taken by the exchange is dubious enough but the fact that they seem to revel in the suffering of the OP makes this a very sad matter indeed.

[1715394831]

1715394831

[1715394831]

1715394831

[1715394831]

1715394831

[1715394831]

1715394831

[1715394831]

1715394831

[eliale]

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.

That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

If they let him have his funds back and then a month or year later IF there is a request by Italian authorities or an audit then they can justify their returning of the crypto by saying the CTO gave wrong information and the funds were sent by the customer in error.

I am sure the OP would be happy to withdraw his crypto over a period of 4 days to the value of 8,750 EURO a day over a 4 day period.

The stance taken by the exchange is dubious enough but the fact that they seem to revel in the suffering of the OP makes this a very sad matter indeed.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

[JollyGood]

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

The same person would not come back and say "hack". Your post is very condescending, it seems very clear you are deliberately putting obstacles in the way just to antagonise the OP.

That is same attitude the OP can show you and say that after receiving his ID you will still not release his funds.

I expected better from you. If you are a professional business you should have ended this issue 11 months ago. the OP has suffered enough. You could easily allow him to login to his account and withdraw his crypto over a period of 3 or 4 days.

Your arguments about KYC and law are out of context in this particular case and appear to be used by you as an excuse to get revenge against the OP and nothing else.

[Coinfan]

An entity is required to carry out an adequate client and/or beneficial owner due diligence in case of ongoing business relationship or occasional transaction involving the transfer or the handling of payment of an amount equal to or higher than 15,000 Euro

Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, article 3, n.º 5, i), under the name of "subjected entities", restricts ANY application of its provisions to a crypto exchange only to operations of conversion (not trading or exchange, but definitive conversion) of crypto to fiat that only happens when the customer makes a withdrawal.

Under this Decree only FIAT withdrawals from crypto exchanges of more than 15000 euros are subject to the quoted due diligence.

It's because of this that their TOS and FAQ makes no reference at all to any 15000 euros limit and allows unverified accounts provided that they don't request fiat withdrawals.

If any transaction of more than 15000 euros were subjected to due diligence and KYC their TOS and FAQ would be illegal.

But they aren't illegal as is confirmed by the fact that their TOS and FAQ were approved by the italian authorities when they moved back from Malta to Italy this year.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day....

no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

His invocation of "european directives" and "Law" are just lies.

He just publicly stated (and I made scans):
1) That he covertly blocked my withdrawals in december 2017. I had no evidence of a precise month. Thank you!

2) That there are "european directives" applicable to this case, when I informed him more than a month ago that directives don't apply to private relations only to states. Clear lie.

3) That he is going to keep my money "forever" ("or we will have to wait forever"). Confession that he is willing to appropriate my money no matter how many evidence there is that is mine. Thank you!

4) That he doesn't care for the absolute evidence that the money is mine and keep raising suspicions about my ownership that no honest person can raise, which is confirmation that these are just pretexts to keep my money "forever" (quoting him).


If he wants to gamble his exchange, his money and his freedom on a criminal court, I'll be forced to comply and make a criminal complaint.

But I'm still gathering evidence and making the community aware of their practices.

[Mirae]

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.

That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

If they let him have his funds back and then a month or year later IF there is a request by Italian authorities or an audit then they can justify their returning of the crypto by saying the CTO gave wrong information and the funds were sent by the customer in error.

I am sure the OP would be happy to withdraw his crypto over a period of 4 days to the value of 8,750 EURO a day over a 4 day period.

The stance taken by the exchange is dubious enough but the fact that they seem to revel in the suffering of the OP makes this a very sad matter indeed.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

so you are still playing the "its a hacker" card ?
That has been proven as an absolute bs few pages ago.
Do you really think that the real owner wouldnt take some action after 11 months ? That the "hacker" would have access to all the personal information Coinfan (owner) has ?
You are just trying to push the money from him

[xtraelv]

2) That there are "european directives" applicable to this case, when I informed him more than a month ago that directives don't apply to private relations only to states. Clear lie.

Member states are required to enforce the directives. The Italian AML law is based on those directives.

It appears that you want to be obtuse about the intent of those directives. I have posted 3 legal opinions from Italian law firms that disagree with your "lawyer".

It would be interesting to know who the lawyer is because the AML directives also specifically apply to lawyers.

3) That he is going to keep my money "forever" ("or we will have to wait forever"). Confession that he is willing to appropriation my money no matter how many evidence there is that is mine. Thank you!

Nope - that is not what he said. He said that if you don't comply with their interpretation of the law then they cannot release the funds. He even said he is keen to resolve it and close the account.

4) That he doesn't care for the absolute evidence that the money is mine and keep raising suspicions about my ownership that no honest person can raise, which is confirmation that these are just pretexts to keep my money "forever" (his words).

If he wants to gamble his exchange, his money and his freedom on a criminal court, I'll be forced to comply and make a criminal complaint.

Do it.

Laying a complaint with the authorities and providing them with your identity is one way of resolving it.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly??

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

Threatening legal action is usually bullshit. This is what happened with the last person that threatened legal action in a thread that I took an interest in. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939

[Coinfan]

Italian law isn't based on these directives.

The 4 AML directive says nothing about crypto. Doesn't apply to crypto exchanges.

The 5 AML directive from 2018 explicitly addresses crypto, but Italy has until 10 january 2020 to convert it into national law. It hasn't done it yet, so it isn't applicable on Italy.

This isn't a matter of opinion. Is the Law.

Only Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 is applicable to this issue and its article 3, under the name of obligated entities, says:
5. Rientrano nella categoria di altri operatori non finanziari:
i) i prestatori di servizi relativi all'utilizzo di valuta
virtuale, limitatamente allo svolgimento dell'attivita' di
conversione di valute virtuali da ovvero in valute aventi corso
forzoso."

The legislative decree only applies to withdrawals of fiat not of crypto.

BS? Yes, I'm spending money in lawyers for nothing... yes, shore, I'm really going to let them keep my 35500 euros "forever".

[eliale]

Anyway,  if you believe we are not following the law and you do not agree on our security policies, there is nothing more we can do.

We do have thousands of customers and doing business since 2011. As you can imagine we must follow indications from our lawyers and we do have to stick with it.

So, please, again, if you feel we are making a mistake, we do not reside in an off-shore country and you can freely proceed to open a cliam with the authorities.

They'll provide to us your information according to the law and,if all is fine, we will promptly release your funds under their strict supervision.

As an alternative, comply with our TOS and the problem will be solved asap.

Thank you

[eliale]

[/quote]
so you are still playing the "its a hacker" card ?
That has been proven as an absolute bs few pages ago.
Do you really think that the real owner wouldnt take some action after 11 months ? That the "hacker" would have access to all the personal information Coinfan (owner) has ?
You are just trying to push the money from him
[/quote]

Thank you.  The hacker card is only a safety procedure to protect customer funds.  Of course, if the account has been hacked, the hacker would have all the information posted on this forum.

Still some other facts:

1) Customer accepted all our new TOS and policies.
2) Customer has FIAT funds on the account.
3) We must follow EU laws and our legal team agreed with our procedures
4) We are in EU and not off shore. If the customer does not any longer agree with our terms, it is possible to report it to the authorities

In conclusion, we are not asking for his DNA 

we do need:

1) A valid ID
2) A selfie with the ID
3) A recent POA

We do this with thousands of customers and, since 2014 (when we started to collect documents) we never had one single security issue or leak of information.

Is the above strange for a regulated entity? It is standard......

[JollyGood]

Anyway,  if you believe we are not following the law and you do not agree on our security policies, there is nothing more we can do.

We do have thousands of customers and doing business since 2011. As you can imagine we must follow indications from our lawyers and we do have to stick with it.

So, please, again, if you feel we are making a mistake, we do not reside in an off-shore country and you can freely proceed to open a cliam with the authorities.

They'll provide to us your information according to the law and,if all is fine, we will promptly release your funds under their strict supervision.

As an alternative, comply with our TOS and the problem will be solved asap.

Thank you

I am sorry to read you are not going to assist the customer unless he sends his ID to you.

He is one of your oldest customers, dating back to 6 years. If you wanted to apply KYC then your CTO should not have misled the OP and when he deposited his XRP you should flagged him up a warning informing him that should he continue he will have to send KYC.

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4619534.msg46792439#msg46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

[xtraelv]

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4619534.msg46792439#msg46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

The thread you quote is from a scammy exchange with hidden office somewhere in Russia. Of course they don't comply with KYC laws.

I challenge you to look at any exchange that is in a reputable jurisdiction. They all freeze accounts when they have to by law. Bitcointalk tends to be the moaning board when that happens. BIttrex froze over 20000 of such accounts because they were required to do so by law.

Surely you are not advocating breaking the law because that is what I'm hearing.  Why the OP doesn't want to provide KYC nobody really knows - he doesn't trust them with his id but he trusted them for 6 years with 35000 euro. What if he turns out to be a scammer, hacker or from a country the exchange is prohibited to trade with ?

[JollyGood]

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4619534.msg46792439#msg46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

The thread you quote is from a scammy exchange with hidden office somewhere in Russia. Of course they don't comply with KYC laws.

I challenge you to look at any exchange that is in a reputable jurisdiction. They all freeze accounts when they have to by law. Bitcointalk tends to be the moaning board when that happens. BIttrex froze over 20000 of such accounts because they were required to do so by law.

Surely you are not advocating breaking the law because that is what I'm hearing.  Why the OP doesn't want to provide KYC nobody really knows - he doesn't trust them with his id but he trusted them for 6 years with 35000 euro. What if he turns out to be a scammer, hacker or from a country the exchange is prohibited to trade with ?

Thank you for your post. Could you please explain how you are connected to Rock Trading.

I advocate nothing except a resolution that satisfies both parties. The status quo only benefits the exchange. As for why the OP is not sending his ID, I do not know but I would certainly never send my ID to any exchange. In this case the exchange holds all the cards so after the OP sends ID maybe he fears they will invoke other clauses and make life difficult for him.

What I do know is what I stated to eliale in a previous post:

He is one of your oldest customers, dating back to 6 years. If you wanted to apply KYC then your CTO should not have misled the OP and when he deposited his XRP you should flagged him up a warning informing him that should he continue he will have to send KYC.

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4619534.msg46792439#msg46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

[Coinfan]

1) Customer accepted all our new TOS and policies.
2) Customer has FIAT funds on the account.
3) We must follow EU laws and our legal team agreed with our procedures

Another scan made. Thank you.

Look like he talks about the "new" TOS, trying to suggest there are something new and relevant about their TOS.

His "new" TOS (April?) changed nothing about verification. I already debunked it completely as a ground for what he is doing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg46225609#msg46225609

He has thousands of unverified customers with fiat on their wallets. Because they only need to verify if they want to withdraw their fiat as the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 and their FAQ says. I don't want to withdraw fiat.

Look how he keeps invoking EU laws, that he know aren't applicable to this case. He doesn't have courage to say directives any longer, but he keeps invoking some mysterious EU Laws.

[xtraelv]

Thank you for your post. Could you please explain how you are connected to Rock Trading.

I'm not connected to the exchange. I hadn't even heard of them prior to seeing this thread.

I have a liking for exchanges, exchange technology and don't like seeing them unfairly tainted due to legislation forced upon them. This is currently happening worldwide. I have a strong interest in Crypto legislation and Crypto forensics.

I know that the majority of bitcoiners like to remain anonymous and while that is possible in some cases:
Where a small amount of funds is involved. (Depends on territorial limits)
Where the user is not identified as a risk.

Where exchanges are located in questionable jurisdictions or the exchange has questionable legal status like with the example that you provided.

So how are you connected to the OP ?

Have you read the applicable Italian law ? I have - and my opinion is that the exchange has the law on their side. It is pointless having a further discussion with him because he is ignoring anything that contradicts his stance.

I advocate nothing except a resolution that satisfies both parties. The status quo only benefits the exchange. As for why the OP is not sending his ID, I do not know but I would certainly never send my ID to any exchange.

Tax evasion, questionable source of funds, money laundering, being from a prohibited country or a compromised account are all a possibility.

Like I stated before. People who post on here - unless their RLI is known may not be who they appear to be.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939 RLI of scammer exposed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2267728.0 Thousands of Bittrex accounts frozen due to KYC requirements
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407402.0;all Poloniex account frozen
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85977.msg1037908#msg1037908 money laundering exposed (Link explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2049335.msg20417703#msg20417703 )

In this case the exchange holds all the cards so after the OP sends ID maybe he fears they will invoke other clauses and make life difficult for him.

The exchange is between a rock and a hard place. They don't hold all the cards. If they have been directed by a enforcement authority they may not even be able to disclose the reason for the freezing of the funds. If they have not been directed by an enforcement authority then they are acting on what they believe to be their legal obligations as advised by their lawyer.
I believe they are acting to the best of their ability based on the advise given by their lawyers. I don't know what law firm they use but I posted 3 legal opinions previously in the thread from different Italian law firms that all support the stance from the exchange.

Currently it is a Mexican standoff - with neither party likely to budge.

Exchange owners are advised by their lawyers they are not likely to know the exact laws to quote or the finer details. They rely on external opinions.

The OP will never admit that they are breaching any of the rules because it is not in their interest. He says he has a "lawyer" but has not stated who that is. He says he is taking it to the authorities but has not done so.

[Coinfan]

You quoted opinions out of place, like quoting articles of the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, while completely ignoring that its article 3, n.º 5, i), explicitly limits its application to crypto exchanges to fiat withdrawal operations.

Or quoting articles of the 5 AML european directive of 2018 that is not in force in Italy because it hasn't been adopted yet by italian legislation.

Basically, you are saying that the Rock has been operating outside of the Law by allowing unverified customers to trade there.

But since their TOS and FAQ were approved by the italian authorities this year when they moved back to Italy, this isn't clearly the case.

Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 is very clear: there is no duty to KYC to customers who don't request fiat withdrawals.

And their FAQ is even clear: “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.

I have a scan, but it's also recorded here https://archive.fo/BNSfb in case they decide to change it (that would just confirm that they had no authority to do what they are doing and wouldn't apply retroactively to my case).

[xtraelv]

You quoted opinions out of place, like quoting articles of the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, while completely ignoring that its article 3, n.º 5, i), explicitly limits its application to crypto exchanges to fiat withdrawal operations.

Or quoting articles of the 5 AML european directive of 2018 that is not in force in Italy because it hasn't been adopted yet by italian legislation.

Basically, you are saying that the Rock has been operating outside of the Law by allowing unverified customers to trade there.

But since their TOS and FAQ were approved by the italian authorities this year when they moved back to Italy, this isn't clearly the case.

Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 is very clear: there is no duty to KYC to customers who don't request fiat withdrawals.

And their FAQ is even clear: “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.

I have a scan, but it's also recorded here https://archive.fo/BNSfb in case they decide to change it (that would just confirm that they had no authority to do what they are doing and wouldn't apply retroactively to my case).

Yep -sure. Me and the three articles I provided from prominent Italian law firms are wrong according to you and you and your anonymous lawyer are right.

All the points you have made I have already previously addressed or is just BS.

Prove it in court and I'll believe you. Let me know how you got on when you are done.

In the meantime I am of the opinion that the Italian government has created legislation that cracks down on money laundering and tax evasion .

[JollyGood]

So how are you connected to the OP ?

I am not connected to the OP.

I am posting here because I see the OP being treated unfairly and as with other issues I got involved with I just am trying to help out.

As for the points you raised, I broadly disagree with them all.

The CTO overstepped his remit and gave false information to the OP which resulted in all this mess. The blame lay clearly with the exchange and not the OP but this can be resolved without the customer sending ID and without the exchange sending FIAT. The resolution is for them to allow the OP to login and then send his crypto (which he is the owner of) to his desktop wallet as it will not breach any domestic/EU/international AML/KYC laws which are being exaggerated in many cases across many exchanges in order to steal funds by selective scamming. Again, not saying that is happening here but I am really not impressed with the way the exchange has handled this.

The exchange has allowed customers to deposit funds without notifying them they need to send KYC when withdrawing, they should amend that function so customers cannot deposit anything until KYC has been verified and in the interim they should return crypto to all customers in the OPs position.



@eliale

Please reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg47500695#msg47500695

[r34tr783tr78]

Scammer Medri/eliale your paid poster gave me negative feedback working under your orders. Guess who is going to pay for this? I hope you like your picture. I just made you famous a few days ago. Check http://andrea-medri.simplesite.com
If your paid poster keeps annoying me I will add this site to my signature.

[xtraelv]

I am not connected to the OP.

I am posting here because I see the OP being treated unfairly and as with other issues I got involved with I just am trying to help out.

As for the points you raised, I broadly disagree with them all.

The CTO overstepped his remit and gave false information to the OP which resulted in all this mess. The blame lay clearly with the exchange and not the OP but this can be resolved without the customer sending ID and without the exchange sending FIAT. The resolution is for them to allow the OP to login and then send his crypto (which he is the owner of) to his desktop wallet as it will not breach any domestic/EU/international AML/KYC laws which are being exaggerated in many cases across many exchanges in order to steal funds by selective scamming. Again, not saying that is happening here but I am really not impressed with the way the exchange has handled this.

The exchange has allowed customers to deposit funds without notifying them they need to send KYC when withdrawing, they should amend that function so customers cannot deposit anything until KYC has been verified and in the interim they should return crypto to all customers in the OPs position.



@eliale

Please reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg47500695#msg47500695

The CTO spoke to the OP a number of years ago. The AML laws changed in 2017. The TOS changed reasonably recently. (It was mentioned in the thread). Like I said earlier I doubt this is going to get resolved without the op lodging it with the authorities.

Unfortunately most things don't get resolved on a public forum. Some exchanges don't even bother with bitcointalk anymore since some users have no understanding of legal requirements and some just don't want to know.

[Coinfan]

Thanks for keep bumping my thread.