OKx ban for bad AML crypto

[greysonz]

The head of the OKex exchange warned in his X that the exchange may block a user for dirty crypto:
Translation:

Depositing to OKX from high‑risk addresses may trigger stricter checks for money laundering and risks. Depending on the specific circumstances, the verification may last 15 days or longer, and partial account functions and funds may also be restricted; for accounts confirmed to be associated with high risk or illegal activities, we may terminate service.
Funds received, including but not exclusively through transactions in TG groups, Huiwang and its variants, and other channels, may carry a high risk regarding the source of the funds.
Please do not use your OKX account for money laundering, fraud, illegal fund circulation, or other unlawful activities.

[_act_]

This is not new at all. I have seen people that their money was frozen on exchanges like Binance, MEXC and OKX. These are very centralized and they want to follow the government KYC and AML policies which will make them be acting like this.

You can make sure you do not send the coins directly to them, but first send it to an address on your noncustodial wallet and send it to another address before sending it to the exchange.

Or you can use the exchanges advertised through signature campaign on this forum or use decentralized exchanges. You can see some on Unstoppable wallet also.

[OmegaStarScream]

You can make sure you do not send the coins directly to them, but first send it to an address on your noncustodial wallet and send it to another address before sending it to the exchange.

That might help but not always. If you have funds coming from a mixer, or a non regulated/sanctioned gambling or exchange for example and on a regular basis, you can probably go through 3-4 addresses before sending them to the exchange and they would still block the deposit and freeze the account until you provide what they ask for.

[Upgrade00]

<snip>

Barriers like this makes the use of bitcoin for everyday use more difficult. It was meant to be a currency that connects people, but now I am expected to check the trail of the bitcoins I am receiving back 3-4 transactions to confirm it is "clean".
The overwhelming argument would be that bitcoin should be used through decentralized, but fewer people do these days meaning actions from CEX is shaping how it is used.

[Nwada001]

The overwhelming argument would be that bitcoin should be used through decentralized, but fewer people do these days meaning actions from CEX is shaping how it is used.

CEX is the right place the regulators are using to control how people use crypto, not just Bitcoin, and even if most of us are to make it a habit of only using DEX for our Bitcoin transactions, it might come to a time where stablecoins swap using DEX anything it lands in centralized exchange you will be asked to verify the origin of the coin.

[Ambatman]

Imagine a dust attack or better still an attack to affect your UTXO
Unlike some non custodial that allows coin control
If such a funds come to your exchange address you would still be placed under scrutiny.

You can make sure you do not send the coins directly to them, but first send it to an address on your noncustodial wallet and send it to another address before sending it to the exchange.

it doesn't change the history
The path would still be there since Bitcoin is a public ledger.

[ColdLava40]

<snip>

Barriers like this makes the use of bitcoin for everyday use more difficult. It was meant to be a currency that connects people, but now I am expected to check the trail of the bitcoins I am receiving back 3-4 transactions to confirm it is "clean".

There was some news about kucoin having similar rules on crypto trails.

They stated and claimed to freeze or restrict any account that received money from a few listed platforms, even though it didn't mention mixers but I get their point which is dirty coins.

These lastest restrictions from centralized exchanges though not new, implies one thing which is, When we try to improve our privacy with good intentions, it could bring more problem for us. We cannot always want our back or know where the coins we send into an exchange hails from.

The overwhelming argument would be that bitcoin should be used through decentralized, but fewer people do these days meaning actions from CEX is shaping how it is used.

It's because of the kind of exposure we have today with centralized exchanges.

They offer users more services like trading or staking many more people would consider sticking with them instead.

[Zwei]

If such a funds come to your exchange address you would still be placed under scrutiny.

something like that was allegedly done by HTX days before the new EU sanctions took effect against them.

https://x.com/0xZiye/status/2089540128712876298
https://x.com/_FORAB/status/2089581214181253121
https://x.com/katexbt/status/2089654499723944271

i don't know if this was really done by justin clown sun, or just someone trolling.
but this shit is kinda scary, someone can fuck you over or give you a lot of headache if they know your deposit address on a CEX.

[_act_]

That might help but not always. If you have funds coming from a mixer, or a non regulated/sanctioned gambling or exchange for example and on a regular basis, you can probably go through 3-4 addresses before sending them to the exchange and they would still block the deposit and freeze the account until you provide what they ask for.

This is true. What I do is that any money that I used mixer for, I do not send it to any centralized exchanges. Most coins that I send to centralized exchanges are the coins that I received through signature campaign and the coins that I bought directly through the exchange with fiat.

it doesn't change the history
The path would still be there since Bitcoin is a public ledger.

It may not fully help but it has helped some me before. I am only referring to tainted coins and not blacklisted coins.or probably I was lucky.

[bitmover]

You can make sure you do not send the coins directly to them, but first send it to an address on your noncustodial wallet and send it to another address before sending it to the exchange.

That might help but not always. If you have funds coming from a mixer, or a non regulated/sanctioned gambling or exchange for example and on a regular basis, you can probably go through 3-4 addresses before sending them to the exchange and they would still block the deposit and freeze the account until you provide what they ask for.

I guess the best is to check the aml score  of all coins before sending to any CEX.
I do that,  there are many free aml checkers

if the AML score is high, just chose another UTXO or use a good mixer to get cleaner coins

[r_victory]

I believe this will become increasingly common as regulation advances and the requirements for combating and preventing money laundering increase. Either exchanges comply with these requirements, or they will soon be out of the market. Here in Brazil, there is also a "precautionary retention of up to 24 hours for cryptocurrency withdrawals and transfers above US$10,000" with the same objective.

I was just wondering if this might be a great opportunity for growth in DEX adoption...

[PX-Z]

.... If you have funds coming from a mixer, or a non regulated/sanctioned gambling or exchange for example and on a regular basis, you can probably go through 3-4 addresses before sending them to the exchange and they would still block the deposit and freeze the account until you provide what they ask for.

I guess the best is to check the aml score  of all coins before sending to any CEX.
I do that,  there are many free aml checkers

if the AML score is high, just chose another UTXO or use a good mixer to get cleaner coins

Most of the times, i forgot aml score checkers so... And i only do 1 transfer then to the exchange, this include from mixers and non kyc instant kyc exchange. But once  i transfer funds to cex i eventually withdraw it within the day to avoid future headaches. So far everything went fine, its just the exchange i use have this EU implemented policy too.

[logfiles]

If you have been following what is going on, this is not new; I have seen such warnings with other exchanges as well, such as Binance. They even go ahead to list the exchanges you shouldn't deposit from or withdraw to.
If you want to deal with a CEX, you are going to first screen/scan your addresses/funds to see if they have are high risk but that might not be a guarantee that your account may not be frozen.

[crwth]

How would you even know if your Bitcoin is dirty? An average user wouldn't know, and if they're doing p2p transactions, they might run into something like this.

We need a clear definition of what a dirty bitcoin is because it would help some users. Dirty? Tainted? Or something. I hope it would be clarified or something.

[examplens]

How would you even know if your Bitcoin is dirty? An average user wouldn't know, and if they're doing p2p transactions, they might run into something like this.

We need a clear definition of what a dirty bitcoin is because it would help some users. Dirty? Tainted? Or something. I hope it would be clarified or something.

There are many tools for checking the AML score, some are more detailed and some are not. The problem is that there is no universal standard by which everyone would act. This way, the same funds can be completely legit at Binance, while OKX will block them and vice versa.

What should probably be the next direction is lawsuits against any illegal or unfounded retention of funds. OkX may have received a suggestion to check certain funds, but I am not sure that he received a signal to seize.

[PostQuantumBTC]

There are many tools for checking the AML score, some are more detailed and some are not. The problem is that there is no universal standard by which everyone would act. This way, the same funds can be completely legit at Binance, while OKX will block them and vice versa.

This is true but what about those that have not heard about AML checkers before? Being on this forum helped some people to know. I have not heard about it before until I came to this forum.

What should probably be the next direction is lawsuits against any illegal or unfounded retention of funds. OkX may have received a suggestion to check certain funds, but I am not sure that he received a signal to seize.

What if the money is small? Like $50. Also if the exchange is not operating in the person country, that is another issue.

It is not funny at all when some people coin are seized, some people are given back their money but it may take weeks which is inconvenient.

[hugeblack]

I guess the best is to check the aml score  of all coins before sending to any CEX.
I do that,  there are many free aml checkers

if the AML score is high, just chose another UTXO or use a good mixer to get cleaner coins

The main problem with defining "high risk" is that AML scores can vary from platform to platform, and what is classified as low risk on one platform might be medium or high risk on another.

Therefore, unless these platforms offer address AML verification before depositing, all these steps are useless.

[NotATether]

The main problem with defining "high risk" is that AML scores can vary from platform to platform, and what is classified as low risk on one platform might be medium or high risk on another.

Therefore, unless these platforms offer address AML verification before depositing, all these steps are useless.

Most of them just license a checker from AMLbot because they have no experience writing their own.

You can check AMLbot risk scores from BitMixList AML (amlcheck.bitmixlist.org)

[Taskford]

I guess the best is to check the aml score  of all coins before sending to any CEX.
I do that,  there are many free aml checkers

if the AML score is high, just chose another UTXO or use a good mixer to get cleaner coins

The main problem with defining "high risk" is that AML scores can vary from platform to platform, and what is classified as low risk on one platform might be medium or high risk on another.

Therefore, unless these platforms offer address AML verification before depositing, all these steps are useless.

Maybe the real issue what people need to look at is on how act in this situation, because I think it does not add much either AML result shows different in other AML checkers.

Since even if result shows that they are at low risk the exchange could still freeze it for whatever reasons they have.

But yet doing those pre screening could help, since it help users to reduce those possibilities of sudden account blocking. People can possibly see it as sort of risk management, but this one does not offer any guarantee to them.

[OmegaStarScream]

Therefore, unless these platforms offer address AML verification before depositing, all these steps are useless.

That's what I was thinking of actually. Is it against the law for them to offer such a thing? I doubt it?

Why deal with unecessary tickets, make your users wait months and months to manually handle and review their cases, when you could give them a tool to avoid that, or at least reduce it significantly?