Mirae just posted the translation, he isn't endorsing this misleading "legal opinion". I know he also thinks they are scammers.
Thanks also for the continuous support of Jollygood and s1lverbox.
Anyone thinking they are scammers/liars, please give them negative feedback, to both Rock founders (thanks for r34tr783tr78 and Jollygood on eliale), since Paci by remaining silent isn't fulfilling his duties (so he is an accomplice) and he also wrote me the very suspicious email of 21 August 2018 (see OP).
eliale:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35172paci:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15648Let's warn the community about them with permanent negative feedback.They quote the Legislative Decree No. 231/2007 without making clear that they are doing so with the changes made by (the several times quoted by me) Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017.
And they invoke the correct article, article 3, n.º 5, i), which has the name "subjected entities" and defines who is subjected to it and its duties of KYC and AML, but they don't quote the article, misleading every one with a completely illegal interpretation.
It says:
"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.".
Which means:
"service providers related to the use of virtual currency,
limited to the performance of the activity of
conversion of virtual currencies from or into currencies with a forced course".
So, only the conversion of crypto into fiat is subjected to KYC and AML. It doesn't say trading or exchanging, but converting activities: that is, transferring the money from mere "I owe you" sitting on their balance to real fiat by withdrawing them to the banking system.The decree used very carefully its words and the "limitatamente/limited" is there with the clear intention to restrict the duties of crypto exchanges in order to avoid interfering unnecessarily with technological development on this area.
If any act of trading crypto/fiat on their exchange 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.
It's because of this that their FAQ says:
“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.
And they are misleadingly invoking the 5th AML european directive that hasn't been yet adopted by Italy on its internal Law, so can't be applied to private persons.
This can't be legal ignorance. It's just legal bad practice. This just confirms that they paid for a misleading legal opinion.
Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 249 TEC):
"A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods."
I already completely debunked their TOS as a ground for what they are doing several times:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4975753.msg47649687#msg47649687Anyone believes they are breaching their FAQ/TOS and italian law, raising doubts about my ownership that they know are lies and enduring the condemnation of several members of the community only to get 2 jpgs from me?