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

[examplens]

We only ask that people understand the situation while we work through it.

How do you expect us to understand your situation when you haven't told us anything specific about it?
All we get from you is 'actively working to take care' without any explanation.
You have already been recognized as giving a false claim that you are no-KYC, non-custodial... How can we believe only your claim that you are solving the case?

[OrangeFren]

I can't understand why orangefren can't help you recover the scammed amount and then stop cooperation with ghostswap forever. What's the point of holding escrowed funds only for users using their ref link while the service is scamming other users? Who would trust orangefren even if he receives special treatment if they're promoting a service scam to others? I can't find the logic in this point.

To orangefren, I will start a scam exchange platform, but I can't promote it anywhere. I will use your platform to list my scam. In exchange, I will guarantee you a sweet affiliate commission and put a considerable amount in escrow just for you to make sure that I will not scam users coming from your links. Is this possible?

Thanks RedFlix, Benedesuuuk and LoyceV for the feedback. You presented good arguments.

In light of this we've decided to hide GhostSwap from OrangeFren.com until this matter is resolved.

[RedFlix]

We also want to be clear about one thing. We have nowhere to go. We are not disappearing and we are not walking away from this. We will stay right here, we will keep this thread updated as things move, and we will keep Benedesuuuk informed directly at the same time.

You are a group of scammers. You liars asking for patience time because you think the community will forget about the case.

[Benedesuuuk]

I can't understand why orangefren can't help you recover the scammed amount and then stop cooperation with ghostswap forever. What's the point of holding escrowed funds only for users using their ref link while the service is scamming other users? Who would trust orangefren even if he receives special treatment if they're promoting a service scam to others? I can't find the logic in this point.

To orangefren, I will start a scam exchange platform, but I can't promote it anywhere. I will use your platform to list my scam. In exchange, I will guarantee you a sweet affiliate commission and put a considerable amount in escrow just for you to make sure that I will not scam users coming from your links. Is this possible?

Thanks RedFlix, Benedesuuuk and LoyceV for the feedback. You presented good arguments.

In light of this we've decided to hide GhostSwap from OrangeFren.com until this matter is resolved.

thank you for hiding GhostSwap from your platform. I appreciate that you took this step.

I have a question: since you have a security deposit from GhostSwap, and my funds are roughly $20,000 (which is less than the deposit), would it be possible to release my amount from that deposit? Then GhostSwap can return the deposit to you later, once they finish their internal review.

This way, I get my money back, and GhostSwap can take as much time as they need to sort out their compliance issues — without me waiting another month or two.

I think this would be a fair solution for everyone. What do you think?

[inspace]

thank you for hiding GhostSwap from your platform. I appreciate that you took this step.

I have a question: since you have a security deposit from GhostSwap, and my funds are roughly $20,000 (which is less than the deposit), would it be possible to release my amount from that deposit? Then GhostSwap can return the deposit to you later, once they finish their internal review.

This way, I get my money back, and GhostSwap can take as much time as they need to sort out their compliance issues — without me waiting another month or two.

I think this would be a fair solution for everyone. What do you think?

Please wait a bit until the verdict is issued. I don't think OrangeFren will cheat you, they'll compensate you for your loss, one way or another.

[Benedesuuuk]

thank you for hiding GhostSwap from your platform. I appreciate that you took this step.

I have a question: since you have a security deposit from GhostSwap, and my funds are roughly $20,000 (which is less than the deposit), would it be possible to release my amount from that deposit? Then GhostSwap can return the deposit to you later, once they finish their internal review.

This way, I get my money back, and GhostSwap can take as much time as they need to sort out their compliance issues — without me waiting another month or two.

I think this would be a fair solution for everyone. What do you think?

Please wait a bit until the verdict is issued. I don't think OrangeFren will cheat you, they'll compensate you for your loss, one way or another.

thank you for your comment. I appreciate the support. I'll wait for OrangeFren's response and hope for a fair resolution

[Benedesuuuk]

I can't understand why orangefren can't help you recover the scammed amount and then stop cooperation with ghostswap forever. What's the point of holding escrowed funds only for users using their ref link while the service is scamming other users? Who would trust orangefren even if he receives special treatment if they're promoting a service scam to others? I can't find the logic in this point.

To orangefren, I will start a scam exchange platform, but I can't promote it anywhere. I will use your platform to list my scam. In exchange, I will guarantee you a sweet affiliate commission and put a considerable amount in escrow just for you to make sure that I will not scam users coming from your links. Is this possible?

Thanks RedFlix, Benedesuuuk and LoyceV for the feedback. You presented good arguments.

In light of this we've decided to hide GhostSwap from OrangeFren.com until this matter is resolved.

thank you for hiding GhostSwap from your platform. I appreciate that you took this step.

I have a question: since you have a security deposit from GhostSwap, and my funds are roughly $20,000 (which is less than the deposit), would it be possible to release my amount from that deposit? Then GhostSwap can return the deposit to you later, once they finish their internal review.

This way, I get my money back, and GhostSwap can take as much time as they need to sort out their compliance issues — without me waiting another month or two.

I think this would be a fair solution for everyone. What do you think?

Quick update:

I contacted GhostSwap in private and sent them a screenshot of my proposal to OrangeFren. They replied that they are discussing it with their team.

I then asked them directly: if they agree with my proposal regarding OrangeFren — about returning my funds from their deposit — they can say it publicly here in this thread. I also asked for a timeframe for their decision.

Still waiting for their answer.

[OrangeFren]

I can't understand why orangefren can't help you recover the scammed amount and then stop cooperation with ghostswap forever. What's the point of holding escrowed funds only for users using their ref link while the service is scamming other users? Who would trust orangefren even if he receives special treatment if they're promoting a service scam to others? I can't find the logic in this point.

To orangefren, I will start a scam exchange platform, but I can't promote it anywhere. I will use your platform to list my scam. In exchange, I will guarantee you a sweet affiliate commission and put a considerable amount in escrow just for you to make sure that I will not scam users coming from your links. Is this possible?

Thanks RedFlix, Benedesuuuk and LoyceV for the feedback. You presented good arguments.

In light of this we've decided to hide GhostSwap from OrangeFren.com until this matter is resolved.

thank you for hiding GhostSwap from your platform. I appreciate that you took this step.

I have a question: since you have a security deposit from GhostSwap, and my funds are roughly $20,000 (which is less than the deposit), would it be possible to release my amount from that deposit? Then GhostSwap can return the deposit to you later, once they finish their internal review.

This way, I get my money back, and GhostSwap can take as much time as they need to sort out their compliance issues — without me waiting another month or two.

I think this would be a fair solution for everyone. What do you think?

We're unable to do that (since you're not our user), unless GhostSwap requests we do so, which itself seems quite likely given that they stated they are looking at ways to refund you with their own reserves. However, as I understand it there's been some major issues that came up with respect to the funds that you sent them on the side of the liquidity provider they used.

[Kavelj22]

Quick update:

I contacted GhostSwap in private and sent them a screenshot of my proposal to OrangeFren. They replied that they are discussing it with their team.

I then asked them directly: if they agree with my proposal regarding OrangeFren — about returning my funds from their deposit — they can say it publicly here in this thread. I also asked for a timeframe for their decision.

Still waiting for their answer.

Don't worry. Ghostswap has to finish this dispute with a fair solution because it doesn't only infect its reputation among bitcointalk community, but also lost its position in orangefren monitor. They are hidden from orangefren after being red tagged in bitcointalk, and I hope orangefren to freeze the escrow amount until the case is resolved if they can't pay  the victim upfront from that escrow funds.

As long you spend waiting in patience, ghostswap also are losing traffic from reliable sources as they are also losing their reputation meanwhile. Sas to see a pretending reliable service turning into decievers. Fortunetly there are money in escrow with orangefren.

[Benedesuuuk]

Thank you all for your responses and support — OrangeFren, Kavelj22, and everyone else who took the time.

I understand the situation better now. I'm just going to wait for GhostSwap to actually do something. They have my funds, they know the proposal, and they know what needs to be done. I hope they make the right choice soon.

I'll keep this thread updated if anything changes.

[examplens]

I understand the situation better now. I'm just going to wait for GhostSwap to actually do something. They have my funds, they know the proposal, and they know what needs to be done. I hope they make the right choice soon.

I'll keep this thread updated if anything changes.

Through some communication, did they ^GhostSwap indicate to you in what time frame you could expect the case to be resolved?
We have seen cases that drag on for months, even years, I believe that you did not plan for your funds to be locked with someone for such a long time, and it all started with a swap action that was supposed to last 15-30 minutes.

[goldkingcoiner]

Another classic case of false advertising.

They outright say they will never KYC but their Terms of Service states the opposite. What kind of marketing is this? Since when is it ok to lie about service and products. I have been against these lying no-kyc exchanges for a long time now.

I do not get the legal idea behind why these exchanges are allow to advertise lies...

Hope you get your money back, OP!

[Benedesuuuk]

I understand the situation better now. I'm just going to wait for GhostSwap to actually do something. They have my funds, they know the proposal, and they know what needs to be done. I hope they make the right choice soon.

I'll keep this thread updated if anything changes.

Through some communication, did they ^GhostSwap indicate to you in what time frame you could expect the case to be resolved?
We have seen cases that drag on for months, even years, I believe that you did not plan for your funds to be locked with someone for such a long time, and it all started with a swap action that was supposed to last 15-30 minutes.

thank you for the question. Actually, just yesterday GhostSwap contacted me in private and said: "You will get a final answer this week." I asked for a more specific timeframe, and I'm waiting for their reply.

To be honest, I still have doubts. After everything that's happened — the vague replies, the silence, the broken promises — it's hard to just trust words at this point. I hope they mean it this time, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Ghostswap.io]

Here is our final answer, as we promised Benedesuuuk this week.

We can now say plainly what we are dealing with. The deposit in this case was flagged as connected to illicit activity. The flag came after the swap was already created, which is why our screening could not stop it upfront. Trêvoid and OrangeFren posted this exact explanation here weeks ago, which reflects what was understood about this case at the time. Nothing in our account of this case has changed since day one.

The documentation provided to clear the funds was reviewed and was not sufficient to clear the funds under the process. And 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. The funds sit in a formal process that we cannot release, bypass or put a date on, and parts of the case are under confidentiality obligations we did not choose and cannot waive. Members of this forum also analyzed the origin of these funds independently earlier in this thread and drew their own conclusions. We will not litigate that publicly, but we are not going to pretend it is not there either.

On the marketing point, our Terms of Service state clearly that we do not accept funds connected to illicit activity. This case ran exactly by those terms.

Illicit funds are not an abstraction. Behind funds like these there are real people who lost money. If we released them, or quietly replaced them with our own money because the pressure got loud enough, the harm would simply be completed, with our help. This board exists to stop people from being robbed. A compliance hold on flagged funds serves the same purpose. We will not help anyone, whoever they are, turn funds flagged as connected to illicit activity into clean money. A swap service that would do that under forum pressure is the one that would deserve a scam tag.

And to be clear about that word. A scam means taking money for ourselves. We have taken nothing. Our fee on this swap would have been a few hundred dollars, and this case has already cost us far more in listings, volume and reputation. We had every commercial reason to make this disappear quietly, and we did explore paying the claim from our own funds, including through our security deposit at OrangeFren as suggested in this thread. The guidance we received was clear. Moving value from us to the claimant on an open case of this nature, through any route, could tie the platform itself to the case. We will not gamble the entire service and every other user on it.

Some perspective on how rare this is. This is a single case out of many hundeds of thousands of swaps, fewer than one in five thousand. More than 99.9 percent of swaps on our platform complete with no verification of any kind, exactly as advertised.

What happens now. If the process concludes and funds are released, they go out immediately, and this thread will hear it first. Until then we will post an update here on the first of every month, even if the update is that nothing has changed. And our offer stands. We will walk one or two trusted, long standing members of this community through the case privately, under confidentiality, so the thread can get an independent read instead of taking our word for it. The Cryptovator offered help earlier, and any DT member the community trusts is welcome.

[Murat]

Code:

4. Compliance

All transactions processed through GhostSwap are subject to the automated AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and sanctions compliance procedures of our licensed processing partners.

GhostSwap and its processing partners reserve the right to block, reject, or refund any transaction flagged by these compliance systems. Because GhostSwap is non-custodial, it does not hold user funds.

GhostSwap operates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Law enforcement inquiries may be directed to: legal@ghostswap.io

Source - https://ghostswap.io/terms-of-use/

You should have checked the terms before using the website. FinneysTrueVision traced the deposit back to Tornado Cash earlier in this thread and posted the graph. No one will touch the funds coming from tornado cash.If it was a cex they would just close your account forever. Still I expect ghostswap will solve this problem with their liquidity provider and release the funds.

[RedFlix]

Some perspective on how rare this is. This is a single case out of many hundeds of thousands of swaps, fewer than one in five thousand. More than 99.9 percent of swaps on our platform complete with no verification of any kind, exactly as advertised.

If it is not 100%, you have a problem with the slogan you promote.

Benedesuuuk might not be a thief or a scammer just because he received a payment from whatever source and he has already completed KYC and submitted source of funds. This eliminates all possibilities that he himself is a fraud. His only problem is that he believed the big NO KYC shown in bold in front of his eyes. Why you didn't mention the KYC ENFORCEMENT exception in your ANN presentation or in the signature design in bitcointalk campaign or in your homepage where you described in a length paragraph what is an No-KYC crypto exchange?

I can't accuse you of fraud, but you are deceivers. Until you refund the Benedesuuuk's money (there's no need to complete the swap if it goes against your policy) and stop advertising yourselves as No-KYC crypto exchange, you deserve the negative rating.

You should have checked the terms before using the website.

@Murat

Did you check the same terms before accepting to manage a campaign promoting Ghostswap as a privacy-first, no-KYC crypto exchange? If NO, then you have a problem. If YES, then you have two problems.

[noorman0]

-snip-

The documentation provided to clear the funds was reviewed and was not sufficient to clear the funds under the process. And this is the part we ask people to understand.

Who reviewed the document?
Obviously, we know where you deposited these funds, and they're worth too much to just let go.
And they pool the "dirty" funds and all other deposits into withdrawal liquidity without issue. Have you ever wondered why your partner does that?

Your partner actually has no clear legal compliance status, and their AML system is rubbish. You deposited on a notorious scam exchange, and you should be held accountable.

[Benedesuuuk]

Here is our final answer, as we promised Benedesuuuk this week.

We can now say plainly what we are dealing with. The deposit in this case was flagged as connected to illicit activity. The flag came after the swap was already created, which is why our screening could not stop it upfront. Trêvoid and OrangeFren posted this exact explanation here weeks ago, which reflects what was understood about this case at the time. Nothing in our account of this case has changed since day one.

The documentation provided to clear the funds was reviewed and was not sufficient to clear the funds under the process. And 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. The funds sit in a formal process that we cannot release, bypass or put a date on, and parts of the case are under confidentiality obligations we did not choose and cannot waive. Members of this forum also analyzed the origin of these funds independently earlier in this thread and drew their own conclusions. We will not litigate that publicly, but we are not going to pretend it is not there either.

On the marketing point, our Terms of Service state clearly that we do not accept funds connected to illicit activity. This case ran exactly by those terms.

Illicit funds are not an abstraction. Behind funds like these there are real people who lost money. If we released them, or quietly replaced them with our own money because the pressure got loud enough, the harm would simply be completed, with our help. This board exists to stop people from being robbed. A compliance hold on flagged funds serves the same purpose. We will not help anyone, whoever they are, turn funds flagged as connected to illicit activity into clean money. A swap service that would do that under forum pressure is the one that would deserve a scam tag.

And to be clear about that word. A scam means taking money for ourselves. We have taken nothing. Our fee on this swap would have been a few hundred dollars, and this case has already cost us far more in listings, volume and reputation. We had every commercial reason to make this disappear quietly, and we did explore paying the claim from our own funds, including through our security deposit at OrangeFren as suggested in this thread. The guidance we received was clear. Moving value from us to the claimant on an open case of this nature, through any route, could tie the platform itself to the case. We will not gamble the entire service and every other user on it.

Some perspective on how rare this is. This is a single case out of many hundeds of thousands of swaps, fewer than one in five thousand. More than 99.9 percent of swaps on our platform complete with no verification of any kind, exactly as advertised.

What happens now. If the process concludes and funds are released, they go out immediately, and this thread will hear it first. Until then we will post an update here on the first of every month, even if the update is that nothing has changed. And our offer stands. We will walk one or two trusted, long standing members of this community through the case privately, under confidentiality, so the thread can get an independent read instead of taking our word for it. The Cryptovator offered help earlier, and any DT member the community trusts is welcome.

Thank you for your detailed response. I respect that you have taken the time to explain your position.

However, I have a simple request. If these funds are truly part of an official investigation, please provide me with the case number and the name of the authority handling it. I am ready to cooperate fully — as a witness, as the sender of the funds, and as someone who can provide all documentation proving the legal origin of my assets.

But let me be clear: if this investigation is not being conducted by law enforcement, but merely by a private exchange — especially one with a poor reputation like HitBTC — then this is not a legitimate legal basis for holding my funds. You were the ones who sent my funds to HitBTC. And when I asked you directly, you told me that HitBTC does not hold my funds. Now you are using them as a reason to keep my money frozen.

If you cannot or will not provide a real case number from an actual law enforcement authority, then I have to assume there is no such investigation, and this is just another vague explanation designed to keep my funds frozen indefinitely.

I am not asking you to break confidentiality. I am asking you to provide the basic information that any legitimate process would already have: a case number and a responsible authority.

If you are willing to do that, I will step aside and let the authorities handle it. If you are not, then your words remain just words.

[mikeoneal]

GhostSwap cannot have it both ways.

If you market your service as a no-KYC exchange, users reasonably expect that they can complete swaps without having their funds frozen and held hostage pending compliance reviews. If extensive compliance screening can occur after a deposit is received, then that limitation should be front and center in your marketing, not discovered only after a customer's funds are already under your control.

The fundamental problem is not the investigation itself. The problem is accepting customer funds first and raising compliance objections afterward. By that point, the user has already taken all the risk while the platform holds all the leverage.

A truly fair process would identify and block high-risk transactions before accepting deposits whenever possible. If your systems are unable to do that, then advertising a no-KYC experience without prominently warning users that funds may later be frozen for compliance reviews is, at minimum, highly misleading.

"No KYC" loses much of its meaning if a user can be subjected to identity checks, source-of-funds demands, or an indefinite compliance hold after the transaction has already begun. Users deserve to know that risk before they send their money, not after it is locked.

[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.