GhostSwap unresolved swap case — 12.441 ETH (ID 41gf6aamcb79iw8o)

[Benedesuuuk]

I have a business idea for scammers:

    Create a crypto exchange website.

    Write "NO KYC" in big letters.

    Deposit some money into escrow services like OrangeFren so they list you as "trusted."

    Offer users a 1% discount if they swap directly through your site, not through OrangeFren's referral link.

    When users come directly — freeze their funds.

    Tell them "it's under investigation" but never provide any case number or authority name.

    OrangeFren won't pay from the deposit because the user didn't come through their link.

    You keep the money.

I'm not encouraging anyone to do this, and I'm not accusing anyone. But this scheme looks like it could work in reality.

https://cryptgeon.com/note/17ZYyvukFfgtGSR2H4cx87FbChedyn4LsLa34y6WUyFK#d97890c6ed059286fa9ff2ce7e6cd4efdf8486912e70a06afa601ae29c604754

And other influential people like Trevoid will promote it themselves

[LoyceV]

~ this is the part we ask people to understand. Completing identity verification tells us who somebody is. It does not change what the funds are. Those are two different questions, and only the second one is keeping this case open.

So why do you ask KYC information if that goes against your own statements while it doesn't even resolve the case? Better yet: who are you? You yourself are anonymous, but you use people's money to demand they tell you who they are.

Behind funds like these there are real people who lost money.

Are you returning the funds to the real owners?

How sure are you the person who sent the funds to you obtained it illegally? Could it be someone who received the funds in a legal way? The notion of taint is an attack on crypto's fungibility. You shouldn't deal with criminals, but that doesn't change the fact that 90% of the banknotes in your wallet contain traces of cocaine.

More than 99.9 percent of swaps on our platform complete with no verification of any kind, exactly as advertised.

It's the 0.1% that makes your no-KYC advertising a lie.

[Ghostswap.io]

To repeat something clearly, because it keeps getting mixed up. We have never called Benedesuuuk a fraudster, and we are not going to. The flag in this case is on the origin of the funds, not on a person. Those are two different things. Anyone who has followed how tainted funds move knows they can pass through several hands before reaching a service. Who is responsible for what is a question for the process, not for this thread, and not for us.

And nobody at GhostSwap picked this customer and decided to hold his funds. The deposit was flagged by automated compliance screening, and once a transaction is flagged, the hold is not a choice anyone gets to make. It is a rule that binds every exchange and every swap service that touches regulated liquidity, from the biggest names in this industry down to us. Members of this thread have themselves described deposits being flagged and held at major exchanges for exactly the same reason. Our Terms of Service state this clearly, we do not accept funds connected to illicit activity, and flagged transactions can be blocked, held or refunded: https://ghostswap.io/terms-of-use/ (Section 4). We cannot unflag a transaction, we cannot override the hold, and we cannot ignore the law because the situation is uncomfortable. If we could make this case disappear, it would have been gone weeks ago.

Meanwhile, more than 99.9 percent of the people who use GhostSwap every day never see a verification request and never will, whatever amount they swap. Screening reacts to the origin of funds, not to the size of the transaction. This is a single case out of many thousands of swaps.

Details connected to a flagged case cannot be shared publicly, not by us and not by anyone involved. That is not stonewalling, it is the rule, and breaking it would create real problems without helping anyone, including Benedesuuuk. We have answered what can be answered.

As for HitBTC, where funds physically route during settlement is a technical detail of how swaps execute, not the issue in this case. The issue is the flag, and the flag would follow these funds to any venue.

That is the full picture as it stands. When there is a development, this thread will hear it first.

[Benedesuuuk]

To repeat something clearly, because it keeps getting mixed up. We have never called Benedesuuuk a fraudster, and we are not going to. The flag in this case is on the origin of the funds, not on a person. Those are two different things. Anyone who has followed how tainted funds move knows they can pass through several hands before reaching a service. Who is responsible for what is a question for the process, not for this thread, and not for us.

And nobody at GhostSwap picked this customer and decided to hold his funds. The deposit was flagged by automated compliance screening, and once a transaction is flagged, the hold is not a choice anyone gets to make. It is a rule that binds every exchange and every swap service that touches regulated liquidity, from the biggest names in this industry down to us. Members of this thread have themselves described deposits being flagged and held at major exchanges for exactly the same reason. Our Terms of Service state this clearly, we do not accept funds connected to illicit activity, and flagged transactions can be blocked, held or refunded: https://ghostswap.io/terms-of-use/ (Section 4). We cannot unflag a transaction, we cannot override the hold, and we cannot ignore the law because the situation is uncomfortable. If we could make this case disappear, it would have been gone weeks ago.

Meanwhile, more than 99.9 percent of the people who use GhostSwap every day never see a verification request and never will, whatever amount they swap. Screening reacts to the origin of funds, not to the size of the transaction. This is a single case out of many thousands of swaps.

Details connected to a flagged case cannot be shared publicly, not by us and not by anyone involved. That is not stonewalling, it is the rule, and breaking it would create real problems without helping anyone, including Benedesuuuk. We have answered what can be answered.

As for HitBTC, where funds physically route during settlement is a technical detail of how swaps execute, not the issue in this case. The issue is the flag, and the flag would follow these funds to any venue.

That is the full picture as it stands. When there is a development, this thread will hear it first.

I still have a few simple questions:

    Who placed this flag? Which AML provider or authority?

    If the flag came from an AML provider — which one?

    If it came from law enforcement — what is the case number?

You keep saying you cannot share details. I'm not asking for all details. I'm asking who flagged the transaction and on what basis.

I have completed KYC and provided all documents. I am ready to cooperate with any investigation. But I cannot cooperate with a process that I cannot see, cannot question, and cannot understand.

You also said HitBTC is a "technical detail." But when I asked you directly weeks ago, you told me HitBTC does not hold my funds. Now you say it's just a technical detail. Which one is it?

I'm not asking for anything unreasonable. I'm asking for basic transparency.

[Ghostswap.io]

Who placed the flag, which provider or authority, on what basis, and under what identifier, these are all the same category of information, and it is exactly the category that confidentiality rules around flagged transactions prohibit disclosing to the affected person. That includes confirming or denying which kind of body is involved, and whether any case identifier even exists. This is not a GhostSwap policy. It is the tipping-off principle that applies to every exchange and every service handling a flagged transaction, worldwide. Anyone can verify this, look up FATF Recommendation 21 on tipping-off and confidentiality. So the honest answer to all three questions is the same and it is final: we cannot say, and no exchange in our position could.

On cooperation, we want to acknowledge this plainly: you completed verification and provided documents, they were received and passed into the process, and they are part of the review. The review itself is not interactive, not for you and not for us, that is how these processes work everywhere, and we understand how frustrating that is.

On HitBTC, there is no contradiction. On-chain routing shows where funds move during settlement. That does not mean that venue holds your funds or decides the outcome. The funds sit under the compliance process on the settlement side, which is what we told you then and it is what we are telling you now.

We have said everything the law permits us to say, and we will not pretend otherwise just to fill this thread with words.

[LoyceV]

Anyone who has followed how tainted funds move knows they can pass through several hands before reaching a service.

You should read [Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services / exchanges. "Taint" only exists if you believe it. By attacking fungibility, you attack people's confidence in crypto. Governments would never do that to their own fiat money, because nobody would trust it again. So an attack on crypto's fungibility is an attack on crypto.

where funds physically route during settlement is a technical detail of how swaps execute

I've seen the same on FF: "those funds are bad, but it's totally okay if we send it to another customer". That's not right nor can you explain this.

You're hiding behind regulations while you're as anonymous as it gets. Feel free to answer those questions any time now.

[JamalMF]

People keep skipping past the fact that a Legendary member traced these funds back through bridges to Tornado Cash on page one. OP being polite doesn't undo on-chain analysis. Maybe he's an innocent recipient, that happens, but then his problem is with whoever paid him, not with the service that got stuck holding the bag.

I Went ahead and read the terms of a few other instant exchangers after this thread. FixedFloat, ChangeNOW, all of them have the same AML clause, flagged deposits get held pending verification. If this makes GhostSwap a scam, the entire category is a scam.

[noorman0]

-snip-
Meanwhile, more than 99.9 percent of the people who use GhostSwap every day never see a verification request and never will, whatever amount they swap. Screening reacts to the origin of funds, not to the size of the transaction. This is a single case out of many thousands of swaps.

That doesn't mean it never will; your marketing makes it seem like a complete guarantee. And remember, the OP doesn't currently control his funds.

-snip-
Your crypto stays in your hands throughout the entire process

-snip-
As for HitBTC, where funds physically route during settlement is a technical detail of how swaps execute, not the issue in this case. The issue is the flag, and the flag would follow these funds to any venue.

I'm even more confused when you say HitBTC isn't the issue in this case. At what point do the OP's funds become AML risk?
And again, who reviewed the documents?

[Benedesuuuk]

People keep skipping past the fact that a Legendary member traced these funds back through bridges to Tornado Cash on page one. OP being polite doesn't undo on-chain analysis. Maybe he's an innocent recipient, that happens, but then his problem is with whoever paid him, not with the service that got stuck holding the bag.

I Went ahead and read the terms of a few other instant exchangers after this thread. FixedFloat, ChangeNOW, all of them have the same AML clause, flagged deposits get held pending verification. If this makes GhostSwap a scam, the entire category is a scam.

I understand your point. But let me give you an example from my own experience.

I once had a similar hold on FixedFloat. I provided proof of the origin of the funds — a withdrawal from another exchange. They reviewed it, and within two weeks they returned my funds.

The key difference is: FixedFloat communicates. They tell you what they need, they give you a timeline, they respond. GhostSwap does none of this. They just say "we're checking" and refuse to give any path to resolution.

Also, if something goes wrong with FixedFloat, you can complain to BestChange. GhostSwap has no such oversight.

So it's not about the AML rule itself — it's about how the service handles it. GhostSwap is hiding behind the same rules while doing nothing to resolve the case.

[Benedesuuuk]

GhostSwap just sent me this in private:

"For us to be able to resolve this issue, we need more detailed information and stronger proof regarding the source of your funds. Unfortunately, the documents provided so far are not sufficient, and our compliance team has returned the case pending additional information. Please provide more specific evidence of the source of your funds so we can continue reviewing your case."

I have already provided an official purchase agreement, which is a legal document in my country. If that is not sufficient, then what exactly is?

My questions:

    What specific documents do you require?

    If you cannot name them — why?

    How can I provide "stronger proof" when you won't tell me what you need?

I am ready to provide whatever is needed. But I cannot guess what you want.

[rat03gopoh]

FixedFloat, ChangeNOW, all of them have the same AML clause, flagged deposits get held pending verification. If this makes GhostSwap a scam, the entire category is a scam.

They already fall into the scam category from the community's pov. https://bta.lk/u/1307188 https://bta.lk/u/2387384
Users who find an exchange promoting itself as NO KYC expect it to be truly KYC free, regardless of whether they are criminals or not, as they have agreed to the fees for such a service (which are generally much higher than CEXs). If they didn't advertise themselves as such, we wouldn't even bother typing their domain into the URL bar.

and our compliance team has returned the case pending additional information.

Hahaa, they have their own compliance team. Wth no KYC exchange is this? I thought they had changed the status to exchanger with KYC, apparently not yet.

[Benedesuuuk]

GhostSwap keeps changing their rhetoric. First they said they were waiting for documents. I provided an official purchase agreement, which has legal force in my country. The agreement specifies the wallet address where I received the funds, and then sent them to GhostSwap for the exchange.

Now they say it's not enough, but they can't explain what exactly is missing.

In the latest Telegram conversation, they wrote:

"We require you to provide any official documents/receipts confirming the source of the funds sent to the exchange."

I asked: "How do I do that?" — and still no answer.

They don't even know what they want. They are just stalling.



P.S Maybe they need receipts, like at a store? Can someone tell me what they want? Because they don't explain anything to me—it's like I'm a stranger.

[Benedesuuuk]

[21.07.2026 18:59] GhostSwap: Okay, we will set that issue aside for now.

Please focus on finding and providing the required supporting documents. We need official documents or receipts that clearly confirm the source of the cryptocurrency sent to the exchange. This information is required for us to continue with the procedure.
[21.07.2026 19:00] Tisotaut: How do I do that?
[21.07.2026 19:17] Tisotaut: So, as I understand it, you've decided to keep the funds for yourselves after all?
It seemed like we were getting along well with you, but for some reason you've changed your tune.
[21.07.2026 19:18] GhostSwap: The funds are not under our control, and this is not a simple refund case. That is exactly why additional documentation is required before the procedure can move forward.

We have clearly explained what documents are needed, but so far you have not provided sufficient proof of the source of the cryptocurrency. Repeated messages or pressure will not resolve the issue without the required evidence.

Please cooperate with the review and provide the requested official documents. We are trying to help move the case forward, but we can only do so once the compliance requirements are met.
[21.07.2026 19:20] Tisotaut: Please send this text to Bitcoin Talk and explain what else you need from me. I've already provided the official document—I don't have any others—or please explain more specifically what you need from me.




P.S  Please explain to me what I need to provide ?

[Cryptock]

I was scammed by HitBTC for about $90. They blocked my funds, and I spent months sending them emails with transaction confirmations and documents. The will never give this money back.
I'd bet dollars to peanuts that HitBTC blocked that ETH and it's now irrecoverable, and GhostSwap is playing for time and trying to get out of this. They don't realize it's game over yet.

Alternatively, this is the second option, which I wrote about some time ago here:

I can't wait for this all to disappear 

@Murat - Why don't you ask your friends what the truth is? You are so trusted member here.. 

Anyway, sorry for your loss @Benedesuuuk

[Benedesuuuk]

I was scammed by HitBTC for about $90. They blocked my funds, and I spent months sending them emails with transaction confirmations and documents. The will never give this money back.
I'd bet dollars to peanuts that HitBTC blocked that ETH and it's now irrecoverable, and GhostSwap is playing for time and trying to get out of this. They don't realize it's game over yet.

Alternatively, this is the second option, which I wrote about some time ago here:

I can't wait for this all to disappear 

@Murat - Why don't you ask your friends what the truth is? You are so trusted member here.. 

Anyway, sorry for your loss @Benedesuuuk

you were right. You predicted exactly what would happen. Now they are asking for documents that go far beyond the sale — transport receipts, family business records, contracts for sales made by other family members. It feels like they want a full dossier on my family, not just proof of the transaction.

I have already provided a legal purchase agreement, completed KYC, answered every question. But every time I give something, they ask for more. It never ends.

Also, GhostSwap refuses to admit that my funds are being held by HitBTC, even though I can see it on the blockchain. I think this is part of their business model — they send funds to HitBTC, block the user, and then hide behind "compliance" while never admitting where the money actually is. That way, they can keep asking for documents forever and never take responsibility.

I'm still trying, but I'm starting to see the pattern clearly now.

[OrangeFren]

where funds physically route during settlement is a technical detail of how swaps execute

I've seen the same on FF: "those funds are bad, but it's totally okay if we send it to another customer". That's not right nor can you explain this.

You're hiding behind regulations while you're as anonymous as it gets. Feel free to answer those questions any time now.

This is actually "normal" in the industry. Even though it certainly seems very weird. Crypto, becomes fungible once it hits a service that complies with chain forensic companies.

That's why it's ok for exchanges to freeze a balance rather than specific UTXOs even though UTXOs being traceable is what allowed the freezing in the first place.

[LoyceV]

This is actually "normal" in the industry. Even though it certainly seems very weird. Crypto, becomes fungible once it hits a service that complies with chain forensic companies.

It's not just weird, it's magic: the ones who claim someone's money is "tainted" are the ones who can magically clean it and sell it! It's obvious the companies that sell the notion of "taint" have a financial interest in keeping exchangers as customers.

[OrangeFren]

This is actually "normal" in the industry. Even though it certainly seems very weird. Crypto, becomes fungible once it hits a service that complies with chain forensic companies.

It's not just weird, it's magic: the ones who claim someone's money is "tainted" are the ones who can magically clean it and sell it! It's obvious the companies that sell the notion of "taint" have a financial interest in keeping exchangers as customers.

Yes. "Clean" in crypto forensic AML terms just means: "Comes from a trusted source", which in other words means: "Comes from a company we sell AML checks to"