🔸 SageSwap.io - Fast Crypto Swap 🔸 Escrow $2000 🔸 NO KYC/AML!

[SageSwap]

What we learned from the eXch case, for the health of the exchange itself, might be better to be careful here. I fully support the exchanger's decision to refund the user if the AML score shows that it is about stolen assets, and to refuse to process such swap orders.
In the long term, it is certainly better for the exchange itself, because once they are marked as someone who accepts all coins without exception, after that, they are under constant pressure, most often from the competition.

Freezing coins is always wrong in my opinion. If the exchange doesn't want the coins, or cant process them, just refund them. Taking coins hostage and demanding documents is wrong, nobody has an obligation to handle personal information to anyone.

Legally registered entities, such as fixedfloat, are sometimes unable to offer refunds to users because they have received an official letter from LE stating that a particular address must be frozen/blocked. If they process the transaction or make a refund, they will face legal problems, which is why they often do not do so.

[UmerIdrees]

What we learned from the eXch case, for the health of the exchange itself, might be better to be careful here. I fully support the exchanger's decision to refund the user if the AML score shows that it is about stolen assets, and to refuse to process such swap orders.
In the long term, it is certainly better for the exchange itself, because once they are marked as someone who accepts all coins without exception, after that, they are under constant pressure, most often from the competition.

I agree... the same also happened to Chipmixer. Processing any coins may lead to big trouble to the service.
When an exchange refunding high AML coins it is taking no sides in the matter.  And it is the best approach for high AML coins.

Freezing coins is always wrong in my opinion. If the exchange doesn't want the coins, or cant process them, just refund them. Taking coins hostage and demanding documents is wrong, nobody has an obligation to handle personal information to anyone.

Also, once the exchange returns those coins that they aren't using, it shows the trustworthiness of the exchange and the service.  Refunding the money is the best option as it not only safeguards the interest of the site but also the person who sends the high AML coins gets back his money and doesn't feel that he has been scammed by the site for not refunding him.

These precautions need to be taken by SageSwap if they are to run their service for the long term. 

[joker_josue]

Legally registered entities, such as fixedfloat, are sometimes unable to offer refunds to users because they have received an official letter from LE stating that a particular address must be frozen/blocked. If they process the transaction or make a refund, they will face legal problems, which is why they often do not do so.

When this happens, is the user informed of the situation, that the block occurred because of the authorities?

The problem is that blocking the funds and then simply saying "the situation is being analyzed" or "we are trying to release the coins," without specifying that the blockage is due to the authorities, is not appropriate.

[examplens]

Legally registered entities, such as fixedfloat, are sometimes unable to offer refunds to users because they have received an official letter from LE stating that a particular address must be frozen/blocked. If they process the transaction or make a refund, they will face legal problems, which is why they often do not do so.

When this happens, is the user informed of the situation, that the block occurred because of the authorities?

The problem is that blocking the funds and then simply saying "the situation is being analyzed" or "we are trying to release the coins," without specifying that the blockage is due to the authorities, is not appropriate.

Does anyone know of a case where the user's funds were frozen, and the exchanger showed an 'official letter from LE' on the basis of which the funds were frozen?

In theory, we all know how it should work, but in many cases, we have not seen that there really is a requirement from LE. Although I have never seen a similar case, and I would really like to see what the official letter looks like, according to which the funds are taken away from the user.

[FP91G]

Does any other crypto exchange provide any information about blocking? When my friend's account was blocked, he answered questions, and the exchange referred to its terms of service.

[Coyster]

Does any other crypto exchange provide any information about blocking? When my friend's account was blocked, he answered questions, and the exchange referred to its terms of service.

They rarely provide any useful information, it is usually generic stuff that doesn't in anyway clarify the situation for the user whose funds has been blocked. And then their terms of service does not help, because it is written to their favor, leaving everything open to interpretations that favor the platform. It is what it is i guess, but it would make more sense if legally registered entities provide info of government request to block funds from certain addresses when they do.

[SageSwap]

Legally registered entities, such as fixedfloat, are sometimes unable to offer refunds to users because they have received an official letter from LE stating that a particular address must be frozen/blocked. If they process the transaction or make a refund, they will face legal problems, which is why they often do not do so.

When this happens, is the user informed of the situation, that the block occurred because of the authorities?

I'm not sure, but I think it depends on the jurisdiction in which the company is registered.

Our CDN provider - bunny.net, is registered in a country that must inform users if legal proceedings are being brought against users. If Bunny gonna receive a letter from LE regarding our case, they need to inform us about that.

PS: Even if SageSwap receives a letter from LE requesting that we NEED to block certain coins, we will not do so. We will process the transaction or send a refund.

[joniboini]

Does any other crypto exchange provide any information about blocking? When my friend's account was blocked, he answered questions, and the exchange referred to its terms of service.

Based on my experience, most of the time they don't. Unless you're a high-profile user, there's a chance your query is processed by bot or an agent with a lack of knowledge too. Heck, I remember seeing contradicting statements from the TOS and what the CS told me when I requested support before. That said, it depends on a lot of things. I doubt bigger exchanges would do something like this.

[OcTradism]

What we learned from the eXch case, for the health of the exchange itself, might be better to be careful here. I fully support the exchanger's decision to refund the user if the AML score shows that it is about stolen assets, and to refuse to process such swap orders.
In the long term, it is certainly better for the exchange itself, because once they are marked as someone who accepts all coins without exception, after that, they are under constant pressure, most often from the competition.

But it's not what the company thought about or they thought about risk by separating their products to two types: "clean" coins (low AML score), and "likely stolen coins" (high AML score).

With this product separations for two different types of input coins from users, I believe that they want to minimize risk in the future as well as make it more easily for blockchain accounting with different pools for different customers' coin types.

However, honestly I don't know that whether it can help them in legal aspect in the future as I am vague that whether the governments can accept a platform with two parts: one part complies well with AML, another part does not comply with AML. Just my thinking but perhaps they already thought about it thoroughly.

[sabotag3x]

The problem is that blocking the funds and then simply saying "the situation is being analyzed" or "we are trying to release the coins," without specifying that the blockage is due to the authorities, is not appropriate.

I don’t believe they (CEXs/DEXs in general) have the freedom or the willingness to provide that information to users.. if they even have it, since some cases likely proceed under judicial secrecy..

But by using these services, you accept the terms.

[TryNinja]

The problem is that blocking the funds and then simply saying "the situation is being analyzed" or "we are trying to release the coins," without specifying that the blockage is due to the authorities, is not appropriate.

I don’t believe they (CEXs/DEXs in general) have the freedom or the willingness to provide that information to users.. if they even have it, since some cases likely proceed under judicial secrecy..

But by using these services, you accept the terms.

Usually they can't. There is a reason these exist: Warrant canary

[FP91G]

Does any other crypto exchange provide any information about blocking? When my friend's account was blocked, he answered questions, and the exchange referred to its terms of service.

They rarely provide any useful information, it is usually generic stuff that doesn't in anyway clarify the situation for the user whose funds has been blocked. And then their terms of service does not help, because it is written to their favor, leaving everything open to interpretations that favor the platform. It is what it is i guess, but it would make more sense if legally registered entities provide info of government request to block funds from certain addresses when they do.

I read that centralized exchanges themselves may not be aware of the reasons for coin blocking. Blocking is indicated by an algorithm used by a blockchain research company, which does not disclose the data.
And the exchange is legally obligated to conduct an investigation into each such incident. A centralized exchange may have some idea of ​​the reason for the blocking, but may not have precise data.

[SageSwap]

What we learned from the eXch case, for the health of the exchange itself, might be better to be careful here. I fully support the exchanger's decision to refund the user if the AML score shows that it is about stolen assets, and to refuse to process such swap orders.
In the long term, it is certainly better for the exchange itself, because once they are marked as someone who accepts all coins without exception, after that, they are under constant pressure, most often from the competition.

However, honestly I don't know that whether it can help them in legal aspect in the future as I am vague that whether the governments can accept a platform with two parts: one part complies well with AML, another part does not comply with AML. Just my thinking but perhaps they already thought about it thoroughly.

There will never be any problems with this, everything is taken care of.