One of the victims of Go Go Exchange raised an allegation on the scam accusation board.

Here is the original thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5552339.0

That exchange freezes $11K USDT of the victim. This exchange was listed on Best_Change without a KYC tag. So user think the go go exchange doesn't require KYC. However, the victim made the mistake, didn't read the KYC policy and agreed on that during the exchange. I will say this is a big mistake by the victim for agreeing to their KYC policy and suffering now.

But the exchange shouldn't allow users to use the exchange without verifying KYC. So later there shouldn't be any issues about exchanging coins. In the above case, the user strictly determines he will not submit his KYC to the scammers. The exchange claim user sent dirty coins, but they failed to prove it. They just make a nonsense reply on the thread.

Exchange official account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3630654

Hence, I decide to leave negative feedback for the exchange account and raise flags. I believe using this exchange is highly risky. Also the user raised a red flag as well.

Red flag by me; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3422

Red flag by victim: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3421

If you agree then you can support the flag.

These are among the reasons why even if I'm going to use any exchange I still prefer to go for the top ones at least they won't result to such act.

Hope everything goes well in the victim favour. Another proof to show why you shouldn't believe information from a single source and then ignoring necessary verification like going through their TOS. Although, I get the reason they gave the user for holding his coin wasn't stated in their TOS also. It shows how shady this exchange can be or go.

An interesting point: the English version of the site does not mention anywhere in the rules that amounts exceeding 10 thousand must undergo additional verification, while the Russian version describes in sufficient detail all the "little things" that the client will need for the exchange. The question is, did the client read the rules in Russian, or did he use the English version and not take into account all the rules?

https://www.go-go.exchange/ru/rules/aml-kyc-policy/



https://www.go-go.exchange/en/rules/aml-kyc-policy/   

It took me a while to read this thread and the original, and at first I thought it might be a mistake by Denis_Verbinsky, as it could be similar to how certain casinos do not request KYC but below certain limits. I think that's the logical first impression we might have, as happened to The Cryptovator, for example, who ended up opening this thread. But looking at the case closely, this is unacceptable, so I support the flag.

flag supported.

tbh, i don't know how some people can exchange that large of an amount in one go, especially on a not so known shady looking exchange. that's one expensive lesson.

casinos? i think you meant to say exchanges.

Can you check if your coins are still at the deposit address from the order, or if the exchanger sent them on?
If they are 'dirty' coins as they claim, they should not move them.

Otherwise, if I understood correctly, OP sent USDT. Perhaps this could be a case of requiring Tether to freeze these tokens, as there is little chance that the OP will get their money back through the goodwill of a go-go.exchange.

Flag supported!

I read through this thread and the original thread to try and get the full picture, my first impression is that I feel the user should have done more research before picking an exchange to trade over $10k on and if they were very strict on not sending any documents even at the risk of losing their funds, proper vetting should have been done.

The exchange has also not been straightforward in their approach. Changing their terms, changing the reason the funds were suspended, not providing proof that the funds were/are shady and refusing to cancel trade and refund to the original address it was sent from is a red flag.

- Jay -

I got the impression that they appeared on August 3 under pressure from Bestchange, because they were removed from the search on their aggregator. After they left a comment in the scam accusation thread, BC reactivated them. It was obviously important that they formally show interest in solving this case.

Dear client, no one has stolen anything from you.
We expect you to verify KYC
This is not only our right but also a requirement of the regulator.
The fact that you do not pass verification speaks of your intention to defame us.
Dear colleagues and forum members, at the moment we have hired a company that is investigating this incident, we will resolve this situation in the near future.
Everyone present understands that this business is worth more than the funds that the client demands to return, but at the same time we cannot give in to manipulation from this client.
The issue is not about money, but about ensuring that this incident does not happen again, and this is not the first case with this client. A few weeks ago we had a similar situation with him.
We are forced to take such steps to protect ourselves in the future.
Everyone understands and knows that the requirements of the KYC / AML policy are mandatory and the client agreed to them even before creating the application.
With respect and until next time, the Go-Go team

I do not intend to provide my personal data to you.

You have still not shown any proof of your accusations.

I do not intend to provide my personal data to an exchanger that changes its rules after I have made an exchange and requires verification under the changed invalid agreements.

I will not back down until my you give me my coins back.

And this is my only exchange on your site, so stop coming up with more excuses to continue blocking my funds.