[WARNING] Yet another SCAM by the shady BITTREX Exchange!

[jack0m]

I'm reporting this on behalf of a friend (I'll call him Bob hereon) who's not registered on this forum. I know him personally and trust him 100%, he also gave evidence (screens, mail exchange with support, etc) of all of his statements.

1) Bob opened his account on Bittrex in 2016 when verification was NOT mandatory according to their TOS;
2) he's been using the exchange seldomly and made just a few trades for a small amount of altcoins (no fiat, nor bitcoins);
3) in 2018 Bittrex covertly disabled Bob's account without any notice and for absolutely no reason;
4) when Bob found out his account was disabled, he contacted the support and asked for some explanation. They only answered that in order to enable his account he had to go through KYC and send them his documents;
5) shortly thereafter, Bittrex changed the TOS and introduced mandatory KYC;
6) Bob, who hadn't actually used the exchange since the old TOS still applied, claimed his right to reject the change and close his account, and asked to withdraw all of his coins;
7) Bittrex denied him to close the account and withdraw his funds without prior verification.

This is clearly a scam and an attempt to illegally hold Bob's funds since:

1) Bob chose to sign up with Bittrex precisely because they were not requiring KYC. He would never have registered if he'd known verification was mandatory;
2) if Bittrex had some valid reason to disable Bob's account (they never had, actually), then Bob would still have the right to be promptly informed about the block and the reason why. They acted instead in a shady way and with total lack of transparency;
3) whenever some service provider unilaterally changes the TOS, a customer has always the right to reject the change and close his account. On account's termination, the old TOS still apply, that means Bob has still the right to close his account and withdraw his funds without going through verification.

I've seen a number of other scam accusations on this shady exchange, let alone allegations of fraud, deception and market-manipulation: https://www.coindesk.com/bittrex-poloniex-sued-tether-bitcoin-manipulation, then I think Bittrex deserves all scammed users join and start a lawsuit to make those scammers pay for their crimes once and for all.

[1715201278]

1715201278

[1715201278]

1715201278

[1715201278]

1715201278

[CucakRowo]

I don't know if bittrex is shady exchange. I have my first account in bittrex at Dec, 2017. At that time, as i remember, KYC is a must, so i did kyc (i am newbie at that time). My last accessed to my bittrex acc is in April 2018. Then i read your thread. Then i try to access my bittrex acc. And i can still login without any obstacle and i still can withdraw some doge and xmr.

since AML and KYC are strictly enforced recently, i suggest your friend to do KYC. Don't forget, every "terms (TOS)" have an expiration time and can change adapted to situation and conditions. And for me, we must aware for this expiration and changes. I hope your friend's issues with bittrex can be resolved.

[jack0m]

I don't know if bittrex is shady exchange. I have my first account in bittrex at Dec, 2017. At that time, as i remember, KYC is a must, so i did kyc (i am newbie at that time). My last accessed to my bittrex acc is in April 2018. Then i read your thread. Then i try to access my bittrex acc. And i can still login without any obstacle and i still can withdraw some doge and xmr.

since AML and KYC are strictly enforced recently, i suggest your friend to do KYC. Don't forget, every "terms (TOS)" have an expiration time and can change adapted to situation and conditions. And for me, we must aware for this expiration and changes. I hope your friend's issues with bittrex can be resolved.

TOS have no pre-established expiration time, they hold until any unilateral change is communicated to the user. But then, each user is free to decide whether to accept the change and keep using the exchange, or stop using the service and close her account. In the latter case, the previous TOS remain in place and the user has the right to withdraw all of her funds without verification. Since Bittrex is denying that fundamental right to a customer, their behavior is definitely shady if not fraudulent and looks like not but an excuse to hold illegally Bob's funds. It's called embezzlement and I'm pretty confident that's a prosecuted crime in Liechtenstein too.

Bittrex proved to be completely sneaky and untrustworthy in so many circumstances (e. g. by disabling many accounts without notice nor explanation, even verified ones in some cases) that Bob won't ever trust them with his documents. And above all, he has absolutely no obligation to give them to those scammers.

[LeGaulois]

You're a little wrong on some points.

Bittrex isn't "forced" to close/delete his account. It's available for all exchanges, it can be done at their own discretion, in reality, there are just a few accepting to delete an account at the user's request. (you can try it yourself, surely less than 10% will delete your account)

Concerning Bittrex, following its ToS, if the person disagrees with the new user agreement and wishes to stop using it, the only thing it has to do is to leave the website and never comes back. There is no mention of deleting accounts at the user's request if they disagree.

There is also a term stating the company is not responsible for any loss of funds following a decision on their part.
It says something along the lines. Which means they're covered against any such charges:
they decided to change the ToS => you lose money because you can't transfer out=> they're not guilty

I wouldn't call this site a scam but with some unethical working methods. I considered it a shit exchange when they forced KYC, I put it in the same pool with Yobit, Poloniex and co.

[electronicash]

his concern though is that if his friend only knew that the exchange will ask KYC he couldn't;t be signing up. but since he is there on bittrex already before the mandatory KYC, the TOS should not cover those who was there long before the change of policy.
i feel your friend. i have my account verified like i have no choice because i wanted to withdraw my money from them.

[TalkStar]

Concerning Bittrex, following its ToS, if the person disagrees with the new user agreement and wishes to stop using it, the only thing it has to do is to leave the website and never comes back. There is no mention of deleting accounts at the user's request if they disagree.

Yeah,,,Its the best point. During implementation of new user agreement website users can take their own decision to continue or not. As an example coinpayment changed their rules and notified specific country based users to move their fund to another wallet. Personally i have my own bittrex account and its enough old. Till now i have already completed lots of successful trades through that account but haven't faced any issue with my fund. After hearing multiple accusation against them i changed my mind about them and if i am not wrong then many traders left this platform due to same reason.

I wouldn't call this site a scam but with some unethical working methods. I considered it a shit exchange when they forced KYC, I put it in the same pool with Yobit, Poloniex and co.

Bittrex never care about these accusations and showing no responses. Few months earlier they run their banner ads here but didn't feel it necessary to solve their exchange related issues which is really unexpected.  

[jack0m]

Concerning Bittrex, following its ToS, if the person disagrees with the new user agreement and wishes to stop using it, the only thing it has to do is to leave the website and never comes back. There is no mention of deleting accounts at the user's request if they disagree.

Yeah,,,Its the best point. During implementation of new user agreement website users can take their own decision to continue or not. As an example coinpayment changed their rules and notified specific country based users to move their fund to another wallet. Personally i have my own bittrex account and its enough old. Till now i have already completed lots of successful trades through that account but haven't faced any issue with my fund. After hearing multiple accusation against them i changed my mind about them and if i am not wrong then many traders left this platform due to same reason.

 but sorry to say that bittrex never care about these accusations. Few months earlier they run their banner ads here but didn't feel it necessary to solve their exchange related issues which is obviously unexpected.

I wouldn't call this site a scam but with some unethical working methods. I considered it a shit exchange when they forced KYC, I put it in the same pool with Yobit, Poloniex and co.

Bittrex never care about these accusations and showing no responses. Few months earlier they run their banner ads here but didn't feel it necessary to solve their exchange related issues which is really unexpected.  

Closing the account is of secondary importance, what matters most is allowing the user to withdraw her funds and then stop using the exchange. For the records, I had accounts on various exchanges which later introduced mandatory KYC and never had issues in asking them to close my account.

There is also a term stating the company is not responsible for any loss of funds following a decision on their part.
It says something along the lines. Which means they're covered against any such charges:
they decided to change the ToS => you lose money because you can't transfer out=> they're not guilty

that's totally unacceptable! Whatever they write in their TOS, since part of the service they offer is coins custody they are legally responsible of the funds in the account. They have no legal right to hold them. Again, that's embezzlement and is against the law which obviously overrules the TOS.

[Midas111]

bittrex has always be a scam exchange. it has all the big scam coins. the owner of bittrex is a 2bit criminal. just warn folks to avoid bittrex poloniex paxful et al. they are all just thieves dens

[dkbit98]

I never opened account in Bittrex exchange, so I can't speak more about them, but I know people who use it for years and never had any issues.
There is always a risk with using centralized exchanges, kyc and holding your coins on any exchange.
As soon as you send them coins they are not yours anymore.
Old TOS should be checked with layers, but again he needs to reveal his identity.

[jack0m]

I never opened account in Bittrex exchange, so I can't speak more about them, but I know people who use it for years and never had any issues.
There is always a risk with using centralized exchanges, kyc and holding your coins on any exchange.
As soon as you send them coins they are not yours anymore.
Old TOS should be checked with layers, but again he needs to reveal his identity.

Revealing his identity to a lawyer or law enforcement is not a problem at all to him, while giving his documents to such an untrustworthy and dishonest organization is a totally different matter. He won't do it.

[gembitz]

I'm reporting this on behalf of a friend (I'll call him Bob hereon) who's not registered on this forum. I know him personally and trust him 100%, he also gave evidence (screens, mail exchange with support, etc) of all of his statements.

1) Bob opened his account on Bittrex in 2016 when verification was NOT mandatory according to their TOS;
2) he's been using the exchange seldomly and made just a few trades for a small amount of altcoins (no fiat, nor bitcoins);
3) in 2018 Bittrex covertly disabled Bob's account without any notice and for absolutely no reason;
4) when Bob found out his account was disabled, he contacted the support and asked for some explanation. They only answered that in order to enable his account he had to go through KYC and send them his documents;
5) shortly thereafter, Bittrex changed the TOS and introduced mandatory KYC;
6) Bob, who hadn't actually used the exchange since the old TOS still applied, claimed his right to reject the change and close his account, and asked to withdraw all of his coins;
7) Bittrex denied him to close the account and withdraw his funds without prior verification.

This is clearly a scam and an attempt to illegally hold Bob's funds since:

1) Bob chose to sign up with Bittrex precisely because they were not requiring KYC. He would never have registered if he'd known verification was mandatory;
2) if Bittrex had some valid reason to disable Bob's account (they never had, actually), then Bob would still have the right to be promptly informed about the block and the reason why. They acted instead in a shady way and with total lack of transparency;
3) whenever some service provider unilaterally changes the TOS, a customer has always the right to reject the change and close his account. On account's termination, the old TOS still apply, that means Bob has still the right to close his account and withdraw his funds without going through verification.

I've seen a number of other scam accusations on this shady exchange, let alone allegations of fraud, deception and market-manipulation: https://www.coindesk.com/bittrex-poloniex-sued-tether-bitcoin-manipulation, then I think Bittrex deserves all scammed users join and start a lawsuit to make those scammers pay for their crimes once and for all.

bittrex is a scam exchange, only a matter of time until they are shut down forever!  #frozenacct

[Coinfan]

I had to research about this before and there are court rulings on the United States and it's stated clearly on the Law of several European countries that abusive TOS clauses are against Public Policy (in France, Ordre Public; or, in Germany, against the principles of Good Faith, as stated on their specific Act on it) and so null and void and won't be uphold on a court of law.

Any TOS clause rule of an exchange saying that they can keep their customers funds, whatsoever the reason, is clearly against Public Policy and void.

Bittrex did the same to me. Too bad for them that I had withdraw everything I had there before.

Any exchange doing that (as Poloniex also do) should be avoided like if they had the black death (not Covid19). It's indeed a scam, that they hide under scamming TOS clauses.

I didn't check, but, if Bittrex really dare to have clauses like that, this says everything about them.

Of course, if confirmed, they created the clause with the clearly intention to keep the money of customers that won't trust them with a copy of their personal documents. Which makes this a premeditated action and a clear scam!

I could even "suggest" to Bittrex ways to make their scam more profitable: they could increase the demands on KYC, like demanding evidence of the provenience of the money. And cash in if they decided (of course, under their sole discretion, as stated in their TOS, hided under tons of irrelevant stuff) that the customer didn't fulfill this duty!

As far as I know, for instance, when Kraken enforced their KYC rules, they let all customers withdrew their money.

Because they have our money they think they are above Law and can do whatever they want, including keeping it.

What amazes me is that there are forum members who post supporting scams like this. I guess it's human nature to yield to the powerful and always consider their actions as justified.

OP, glad that you opened this thread. Burn Bittrex abou this.

[jack0m]

I had to research about this before and there are court rulings on the United States and it's stated clearly on the Law of several European countries that abusive TOS clauses are against Public Policy (in France, Ordre Public; or, in Germany, against the principles of Good Faith, as stated on their specific Act on it) and so null and void and won't be uphold on a court of law.

Any TOS clause rule of an exchange saying that they can keep their customers funds, whatsoever the reason, is clearly against Public Policy and void.

Bittrex did the same to me. Too bad for them that I had withdraw everything I had there before.

Any exchange doing that (as Poloniex also do) should be avoided like if they had the black death (not Covid19). It's indeed a scam, that they hide under scamming TOS clauses.

I didn't check, but, if Bittrex really dare to have clauses like that, this says everything about them.

Of course, if confirmed, they created the clause with the clearly intention to keep the money of customers that won't trust them with a copy of their personal documents. Which makes this a premeditated action and a clear scam!

I could even "suggest" to Bittrex ways to make their scam more profitable: they could increase the demands on KYC, like demanding evidence of the provenience of the money. And cash in if they decided (of course, under their sole discretion, as stated in their TOS, hided under tons of irrelevant stuff) that the customer didn't fulfill this duty!

As far as I know, for instance, when Kraken enforced their KYC rules, they let all customers withdrew their money.

Because they have our money they think they are above Law and can do whatever they want, including keeping it.

What amazes me is that there are forum members who post supporting scams like this. I guess it's human nature to yield to the powerful and always consider their actions as justified.

OP, glad that you opened this thread. Burn Bittrex abou this.

Thank you for supporting this case, Coinfan. You're 100% right: any service agreement cannot obviously supersede public regulation on the matter, i.e. on financial services.
Otherwise I could open my own service and write down in my TOS that, in case of dispute, I'd reserve the right to kill, at my sole discretion, the complaining customer... laughable, isn't it?
In fact regulations on financial services across Europe (where Bittrex Global is located) grant users the right to reject any unilateral change to the TOS and close their account. The old TOS will still apply on account's closure.

[TalkStar]

Closing the account is of secondary importance, what matters most is allowing the user to withdraw her funds and then stop using the exchange. For the records, I had accounts on various exchanges which later introduced mandatory KYC and never had issues in asking them to close my account.

They have no right to block users account without giving opportunity to move funds from their exchange. Even they have to notify their users about the changing of TOS and obviously they can't force someone to go through the KYC verification process. Its like you are forcefully trying to keep me on your exchange when i am not interested to provide KYC.

After implementing new TOS if a user think that he/she will close his account then IMO that specific user's case will be justified under old TOS.     

[jack0m]

Closing the account is of secondary importance, what matters most is allowing the user to withdraw her funds and then stop using the exchange. For the records, I had accounts on various exchanges which later introduced mandatory KYC and never had issues in asking them to close my account.

They have no right to block users account without giving opportunity to move funds from their exchange. Even they have to notify their users about the changing of TOS and obviously they can't force someone to go through the KYC verification process. Its like you are forcefully trying to keep me on your exchange when i am not interested to provide KYC.

After implementing new TOS if a user think that he/she will close his account then IMO that specific user's case will be justified under old TOS.     

I totally agree! Furthermore, my friend shared the email he got when they announced the new TOS in 2018:

The new Terms contain a number of improvements over the previous version, including providing further explanation about specific service use restrictions, addressing some of the most common support questions, and clarifying your rights and our obligations to you as a user of the platform. By using our Services on or after March 9, 2018, you are agreeing to the new Terms of Service & Privacy Policy. Please take a few minutes to read through the new Terms to help ensure that you are properly informed.

They were implicitly admitting that users were not forced to accept the new terms, so they knew very well they had to give users the option to stop using the service and refuse to accept the change.
Then they failed to keep their own promise and denied Bob to close his account without accepting the new TOS, even though he was NOT actually using their service anymore: he simply couldn't, as they disabled his account even before the change announcement!
That proves once again their bad faith and fraudulent intent. That's just disgraceful.

[Stedsm]

They were implicitly admitting that users were not forced to accept the new terms, so they knew very well they had to give users the option to stop using the service and refuse to accept the change.
Then they failed to keep their own promise and denied Bob to close his account without accepting the new TOS, even though he was NOT actually using their service anymore: he simply couldn't, as they disabled his account even before the change announcement!
That proves once again their bad faith and fraudulent intent. That's just disgraceful.

Nah, I don't believe it's their fault but your friend's failure to just remove his coins ON TIME, which means before they changed their terms. Now that this has become mandatory and he's got his coins there, I believe he needs to go through it in order to get his coins back. Don't you think it'd be unfair to those who actually accepted the terms and went ahead and did their KYC? Were all those users stupid who didn't raise their voice and didn't make the use of their rights you're talking about, for Bob? Just ask Bob to go legal and then, the expenses will be much more higher than what he'll be getting through the exchange (his alts).

[jack0m]

They were implicitly admitting that users were not forced to accept the new terms, so they knew very well they had to give users the option to stop using the service and refuse to accept the change.
Then they failed to keep their own promise and denied Bob to close his account without accepting the new TOS, even though he was NOT actually using their service anymore: he simply couldn't, as they disabled his account even before the change announcement!
That proves once again their bad faith and fraudulent intent. That's just disgraceful.

Nah, I don't believe it's their fault but your friend's failure to just remove his coins ON TIME, which means before they changed their terms. Now that this has become mandatory and he's got his coins there, I believe he needs to go through it in order to get his coins back. Don't you think it'd be unfair to those who actually accepted the terms and went ahead and did their KYC? Were all those users stupid who didn't raise their voice and didn't make the use of their rights you're talking about, for Bob? Just ask Bob to go legal and then, the expenses will be much more higher than what he'll be getting through the exchange (his alts).

It looks like you missed some steps:

[...]
3) in 2018 Bittrex covertly disabled Bob's account without any notice and for absolutely no reason;
4) when Bob found out his account was disabled, he contacted the support and asked for some explanation. They only answered that in order to enable his account he had to go through KYC and send them his documents;
5) shortly thereafter, Bittrex changed the TOS and introduced mandatory KYC;
[...]

He could NOT withdraw his coins on time, for the simple reason they had already disabled his account and were preventing him to move the coins without verification!
Regarding the supposedly unfair treatment to those who accepted the terms... well if their account were not disabled as well for some unknown reason, they could refuse to accept and withdraw their coins in time. Bob was not given a chance instead, so it's Bob the one who may rightfully complaint about receiving an unfair treatment!

As a final remark, scamming people for a relatively small amount and being confident they won't go legal, since the expenses would be much higher than the scammed amount, is a typical low-life pattern. That makes Bittrex even more disgusting.

[ololajulo]

bittrex has always be a scam exchange. it has all the big scam coins. the owner of bittrex is a 2bit criminal. just warn folks to avoid bittrex poloniex paxful et al. they are all just thieves dens

If you have any issue with Bittrex and Poloniex address it but calling names and alleging such criminal label is not good. Have been this 2 exchanges for over 3 years and have no issue with, though the exchanges might struggling with some internal problems it does not affect the users of their exchange. Bittre and Poloniex are exchanges that barely list coins and do a lot of research on their coin, they are the only exchange they stop an IEO late on their exchange because of scam discovery

[Stedsm]

He could NOT withdraw his coins on time, for the simple reason they had already disabled his account and were preventing him to move the coins without verification!
Regarding the supposedly unfair treatment to those who accepted the terms... well if their account were not disabled as well for some unknown reason, they could refuse to accept and withdraw their coins in time. Bob was not given a chance instead, so it's Bob the one who may rightfully complaint about receiving an unfair treatment!

As a final remark, scamming people for a relatively small amount and being confident they won't go legal, since the expenses would be much higher than the scammed amount, is a typical low-life pattern. That makes Bittrex even more disgusting.

Sorry on missing those points, my bad!
So yes, Bob should definitely go for a legal complaint against them, but should first send a complain to Financial Market Authority (FMA) in Liechtenstein under whose supervision, Bittrex operates. Though, I don't think they'll compromise here as they're the party who hold the coins and are the big dogs currently - and are bitter exchange (so as their name suggests ).

[jack0m]

He could NOT withdraw his coins on time, for the simple reason they had already disabled his account and were preventing him to move the coins without verification!
Regarding the supposedly unfair treatment to those who accepted the terms... well if their account were not disabled as well for some unknown reason, they could refuse to accept and withdraw their coins in time. Bob was not given a chance instead, so it's Bob the one who may rightfully complaint about receiving an unfair treatment!

As a final remark, scamming people for a relatively small amount and being confident they won't go legal, since the expenses would be much higher than the scammed amount, is a typical low-life pattern. That makes Bittrex even more disgusting.

Sorry on missing those points, my bad!
So yes, Bob should definitely go for a legal complaint against them, but should first send a complain to Financial Market Authority (FMA) in Liechtenstein under whose supervision, Bittrex operates. Though, I don't think they'll compromise here as they're the party who hold the coins and are the big dogs currently - and are bitter exchange (so as their name suggests ).

Luckily for him, he had a rather small amount of coins on his account. Perhaps he won't get them back in the end, but Bittrex could still get a fine by FMA, which would somehow right the wrong that was done to Bob.