Coinbase freezing funds because there's no official documents of betting.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

There is no such thing as laundering channels, because in this instance we are talking about casinos, which are legitimate businesses but some people try to launder their money through them.. You said it's clean money, then it does not fall under money laundering as the very basic definition of money laundering is making dirty money appear legitimate.

Dirty money + put it through laundry = clean money.

The goal is to make dirty money look clean, so anybody would claim the money was clean even if it was actually dirty, so even if the excuse was pretty good, I mean saying all the money came from a casino is a pretty good one and it’s quite believable, but just because it’s believable doesn’t mean it’s actually true, so it’s normal for any platform to carefully verify such money before it leave their hand.

[stompix]

I have so many questions...

I am not sure what definition of money laundering you are looking at, but hiding the origin and owner of the money is definately money laundering, which that gambler did by using fake id and vpn.

Also, i am confused on your definition of "offence". Like what's your argument here? Offence against whom? You think that there wouldn't be repercussions as US citizen if you hacked a bank overseas because it wouldn't be located in US terrority?

Are you aware that the reason why US citizens are restricted in many places is because it's required by US regulators? Are you aware that FATF is based on international agreements?

If you have that many questions about basic stuff...maybe it's time to stop posting, stop admonishing people for stuff you have no clue about, and....read more from the guys that do so.
I have alrady explained it 1000 times, and I really don't understand how challenged someone could be to not get it

The guy in question:
https://www.reddit.com/user/Tricky_Werewolf_1954/
Has been placing 10k bets on Stake for at least 3 years, and has bragged about them everywhere.
Use your damn brain, who the fucks does this while laundering money!

Second, you don't launder money by placing bets on 5-to-30 odds because you might be losing all of them!

Third, Stake didn't see that as money laundering; Stake paid the sums won fair and square!

Fourth, the user committed a misdemeanor in some states where gambling is illegal; it's not a federal crime and Coinbase doesn't care about that.

Fifth, Coinbase froze the money because it came from a service that bans US citizens in an accoutn of a US citizen, they can't confiscate those assets.

Sixth, if the guy lawyers up there, there is nothing stopping a judge from awarding him the money, absolutely nothing.

Whatever crime he has committed by using a fake ID and gambling is a different thing, this doesn't invalidate property!

So now, be a good sport and cut that bullshit red text because it's pure bullshit!

How interesting, OP. You highlighted everything in red, and the editing of the post took place five days ago, you could say, on the same day that you created the topic, but, however...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5595906.msg67208325#msg67208325

You are right to note that many people do not read the discussion; moreover, they do not even read the topic itself, and warnings and explanations can no longer affect either the color or the size of the letters. Just check how many responses you received after you clarified the reason for the freezing of the funds of the person who provided the false documents. Indeed, @nutildah will not run out of work for a very long time.

I never expected this from you, like not in 1000 years!

[Powerjumboo]

I found this from reddit:



This is one reason why one should keep a detailed spreadsheet of your betting history.

Let me start by approaching this in good faith and assume that user is not lying. Then only thing that would work their favor is to keep as detailed data of their betting history as possible.

I believe that in regulated casinos, you can ask for all betting data. At least EU citizens have law on their side and casinos are required to give all the data they have about the user activity if they choose to request it. That can take couple of months, but resolving these issues take time anyway.

Either case, imho the issue to resolve is with the casino, not with the exchange. Exchange is just following the law and won't be accepting vague data, because it's their license on the line.

But in this case, i genuinely believe this is about money laundering. Because why wouldn't the user contact to police or a lawyer if the money is legally theirs?

Edit: Since people don't read the comments, i am pointing out in here that. Iranus already provided the update, confirming that this was money laundering attempt.

I think their is nothing wrong if Coinbase as an exchange wants to know ones source of income before withdrawing huge amount of money because they know there are some fraudulent people who scam people, and withdraw such money to their exchange. However, if ones account is frozen, and their is an evidence or prove of the fund in your exchange account, your account has to be freed or lifted from ban, and in this case, the evidence has been provided, and his account has to be freed. The owner of the Coinbase account should be able to recover his fund if really he is the owner of that account.

Yes, it is true that if the exchange party wants to know the income level before withdrawing a large amount of money, then the source of income must be disclosed. Because sometimes a lot of black money is entered into the exchange in this way, which if later proven, creates pressure on the exchange authorities. However, if the person can present all the data of his funds with evidence and provide proof, then the exchange authorities must definitely return his money to him because the exchange party does not have the right to withhold legitimate money with its evidence.

[sompitonov]

Yes, it is true that if the exchange party wants to know the income level before withdrawing a large amount of money, then the source of income must be disclosed. Because sometimes a lot of black money is entered into the exchange in this way, which if later proven, creates pressure on the exchange authorities. However, if the person can present all the data of his funds with evidence and provide proof, then the exchange authorities must definitely return his money to him because the exchange party does not have the right to withhold legitimate money with its evidence.

I don't find this request surprising, given that exchanges operate under the supervision of financial regulators who have established specific rules. If a withdrawal exceeds a certain limit, it may be frozen pending the submission of additional information regarding the source of funds. The key issue, in my view, is how a trader can actually prove the history of their funds especially if they have been trading for years, moving assets between exchanges and personal wallets, or perhaps trading on DEXs. The volume of data involved could be overwhelming, yet an exchange might demand a record of every single trade made over that entire period a requirement that seems impossible for most users to meet.

[pawanjain]

$900k is not a small amount to lose. Even though the user has not yet technically lose the money but it is kinda gone if the user is unable to provide the source of funds.
But does it give Coinbase the right to keep that amount to themselves ? Isn't it like free money for Coinbase ? This shouldn't be legal.
However, one should refrain from keep such large amounts on centralized wallets and should rather choose a non-custodian wallet.

Free money.  You just jumped into conclusion that's it's free money. Just what if the terms and conditions that everyone doesn't read says they have the right to sieze any money that cannot be verified and use it as they like. Will you still call that free money, even after the person agreed to the terms. I won't call that fake money at all.

This also proves further why using centralised platforms poses a greater risk than non custodian wallet. Not saying non custodian wallet are completely safe. All that I am saying is that, the risk is way more smaller than using centralised platforms.

Yeah I will still call it free money for Coinbase because they aren't really doing anything for it except for putting the terms and conditions.
I mean, yeah their team has to go through the source of funds and all but not as if they are putting in sweat to earn that money.
Just putting up a notice doesn't mean anyone has the right to use someone else's money.

[hedgeh0g]

Yeah I will still call it free money for Coinbase because they aren't really doing anything for it except for putting the terms and conditions.
I mean, yeah their team has to go through the source of funds and all but not as if they are putting in sweat to earn that money.
Just putting up a notice doesn't mean anyone has the right to use someone else's money.

It is interesting, however, to see exactly how they handle such funds; I hope they don't simply book them as profit, as that would make it look like they are confiscating assets to boost their own performance figures. Ideally, exchanges should earn enough revenue without making a habit of this practice; otherwise, they risk destroying their reputation and eroding trust, which could ultimately undermine or even ruin their business. I am not saying they shouldn't identify such accounts, but they ought to avoid overstepping their authority.

[xenomorfo]

It is interesting, however, to see exactly how they handle such funds; I hope they don't simply book them as profit, as that would make it look like they are confiscating assets to boost their own performance figures. Ideally, exchanges should earn enough revenue without making a habit of this practice; otherwise, they risk destroying their reputation and eroding trust, which could ultimately undermine or even ruin their business. I am not saying they shouldn't identify such accounts, but they ought to avoid overstepping their authority.

Here i absolutely agree with you, reputation is the most important part of our being.
Unfortunately, once it's gone it's difficult to recover.
It takes you a long time to build a good reputation and then it really takes a moment to destroy it.

[o48o]

You either don't know how to read or you're deliberately lying. Money laundering is literally the legitimization of illicit funds. This is clearly emphasized even in the quote I cited.
There is no evidence that he used criminal money. If you have any other information, please present it.
All in all, I don't expect a sensible answer from you, it's clear you're one of those people with mental issues who would rather die than admit they were ever wrong. If you have nothing substantive to write, just don't write to me, there's no need to look even more foolish than you already do.

And again, what you mean by "criminal money" or "illicit funds"? I have never said that this money would have criminal origin or something.

When someone is using fake ID when they are depositing nearly a million dollars, there's no change in hell that it's not tax evasion. Because why would they pay taxes if they successfully withdraw the money and risk whole another layer of problems by adding some shady paperwork trail containing stolen accounts that needed to be somehow scrubbed from it?

Most simplest way to explain where this become money laundering, is that when that person was depositing with stolen identity, they were breaking FATF travel rule by knowingly obfuscating the trail of the money.

For the future: You noticed how i didn't needlessly insult you at any point, or assumed anything about you as a person? Now go and look your arguments. I am hoping you have a better day from here.

[Questat]

There is no such thing as laundering channels, because in this instance we are talking about casinos, which are legitimate businesses but some people try to launder their money through them.. You said it's clean money, then it does not fall under money laundering as the very basic definition of money laundering is making dirty money appear legitimate.

Dirty money + put it through laundry = clean money.

The goal is to make dirty money look clean, so anybody would claim the money was clean even if it was actually dirty, so even if the excuse was pretty good, I mean saying all the money came from a casino is a pretty good one and it’s quite believable, but just because it’s believable doesn’t mean it’s actually true, so it’s normal for any platform to carefully verify such money before it leave their hand.

They wouldn't do it to everyone. They would only investigate transactions they consider suspicious, based on their internal rules and regulatory requirements. Meaning, if an account is flagged for suspicious transactions, it will be investigated, and the user may be required to justify the transactions and explain the source of the funds. If they can't provide a satisfactory explanation, that could become a problem, but it doesn't automatically mean the user is involved in money laundering. After all, failing to justify the source of funds doesn't necessarily mean the money is illegal.

When it comes to anti-money laundering regulations, there are two types of transactions that banks are required to report:

covered transactions and suspicious transactions. (These are also reported by banks.)

[L E G E N D A R Y]

They wouldn't do it to everyone. They would only investigate transactions they consider suspicious, based on their internal rules and regulatory requirements. Meaning, if an account is flagged for suspicious transactions, it will be investigated, and the user may be required to justify the transactions and explain the source of the funds. If they can't provide a satisfactory explanation, that could become a problem, but it doesn't automatically mean the user is involved in money laundering. After all, failing to justify the source of funds doesn't necessarily mean the money is illegal.

When it comes to anti-money laundering regulations, there are two types of transactions that banks are required to report:

covered transactions and suspicious transactions. (These are also reported by banks.)

One thing I think people should understand is that, being questioned by the bank doesn’t automatically mean one is a criminal. Banks have compliance obligations, and if a customer initiates a transaction that seems different from their usual activity, it could potentially attract attention. And this is the reason why it’s crucial to keep a proper financial records, especially when the amount involved is unusually large. That way it wouldn’t be too hard to explain legitimate transactions when there’s an evidence to support them.

[Questat]

They wouldn't do it to everyone. They would only investigate transactions they consider suspicious, based on their internal rules and regulatory requirements. Meaning, if an account is flagged for suspicious transactions, it will be investigated, and the user may be required to justify the transactions and explain the source of the funds. If they can't provide a satisfactory explanation, that could become a problem, but it doesn't automatically mean the user is involved in money laundering. After all, failing to justify the source of funds doesn't necessarily mean the money is illegal.

When it comes to anti-money laundering regulations, there are two types of transactions that banks are required to report:

covered transactions and suspicious transactions. (These are also reported by banks.)

One thing I think people should understand is that, being questioned by the bank doesn’t automatically mean one is a criminal. Banks have compliance obligations, and if a customer initiates a transaction that seems different from their usual activity, it could potentially attract attention. And this is the reason why it’s crucial to keep a proper financial records, especially when the amount involved is unusually large. That way it wouldn’t be too hard to explain legitimate transactions when there’s an evidence to support them.

Therefore, if you cannot support your transactions with legitimate documents or proof, you should be prepared for questions before depositing funds into banks, exchanges, or even casinos, basically any financial institution or platform regulated by the government. And just to give some information about how anti-money laundering regulations work.

They look into these suspicious transactions.

https://www.fincen.gov/resources/frequently-asked-questions-regarding-fincen-suspicious-activity-report-sar

[sompitonov]

One thing I think people should understand is that, being questioned by the bank doesn’t automatically mean one is a criminal. Banks have compliance obligations, and if a customer initiates a transaction that seems different from their usual activity, it could potentially attract attention. And this is the reason why it’s crucial to keep a proper financial records, especially when the amount involved is unusually large. That way it wouldn’t be too hard to explain legitimate transactions when there’s an evidence to support them.

Naturally, banks have standard withdrawal limits for ordinary users the moment a client wants to move or simply access their funds, the financial institution immediately wants to know the source of that money even if it was earned through honest, conventional work. Those are the rules, yet few people actually want to keep the precise records required for withdrawals though such users certainly do exist, perhaps because they have an accounting background or simply understand the potential hurdles and are preparing in advance to avoid future problems.

[Supreme Donvic]

They wouldn't do it to everyone. They would only investigate transactions they consider suspicious, based on their internal rules and regulatory requirements. Meaning, if an account is flagged for suspicious transactions, it will be investigated, and the user may be required to justify the transactions and explain the source of the funds. If they can't provide a satisfactory explanation, that could become a problem, but it doesn't automatically mean the user is involved in money laundering. After all, failing to justify the source of funds doesn't necessarily mean the money is illegal.

When it comes to anti-money laundering regulations, there are two types of transactions that banks are required to report:

covered transactions and suspicious transactions. (These are also reported by banks.)

One thing I think people should understand is that, being questioned by the bank doesn’t automatically mean one is a criminal. Banks have compliance obligations, and if a customer initiates a transaction that seems different from their usual activity, it could potentially attract attention. And this is the reason why it’s crucial to keep a proper financial records, especially when the amount involved is unusually large. That way it wouldn’t be too hard to explain legitimate transactions when there’s an evidence to support them.

If your money is actually clean I see no reason or any difficulty in explaining how the money came about, it is only when your money is not clean that is when you will have difficulties in trying to explain how the money came about.
When Banks call you or ask you for explanation about a financial record you have in your account, what you need to do is to give a simple and a true explanation and I believe when you do that, they will not have any other reason to block or hold your money, but when you don't give them a good and tangible reason that is when they will hold and block your account, and they have the right to do that, you can go to court maybe you will explain better over there, same goes to exchange and even casinos.


~Supreme

[Iranus]

I don't understand how this allows the exchange (Coinbase) to steal his money  

No mate, this fund will not be stuck in Coinbase's pocket for life or forever. That's just not how it works. But for that specific user situation is extremely complicated. But Coinbase will not be able to enjoy that money with themselve. Since this is gross violation of AML and fake identity. if any case develop, American law enforcement agency will bring court order to seize these fund. When court confirm that money was generated through fake ID, money laundering or restriction bypassing then funds will be seized and transferred to US Government or Treasury account at end of the process.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

Naturally, banks have standard withdrawal limits for ordinary users the moment a client wants to move or simply access their funds, the financial institution immediately wants to know the source of that money even if it was earned through honest, conventional work. Those are the rules, yet few people actually want to keep the precise records required for withdrawals though such users certainly do exist, perhaps because they have an accounting background or simply understand the potential hurdles and are preparing in advance to avoid future problems.

The problem is that someone people only see the need to keep financial records only when a bank starts asking questions, while in reality they’re meant to treat it as part of managing their money. It’s possible for one to earn money legitimately for several years but still find it difficult to explain one particular transaction if they fail to keep an accurate record of where the money came from. And it gets even more complicated when money passes through different accounts or when the money comes from different sources like business incomes, salaries, profits from investments, even winnings from gambling. When we say prioritize keeping your financial records, we are not saying expect the bank to suspect you, but it’s more about being prepared to explain whenever the need arises the sources of your money.

[Odusko]

I found this from reddit:



This is one reason why one should keep a detailed spreadsheet of your betting history.

Let me start by approaching this in good faith and assume that user is not lying. Then the only thing that would work in their favour is to keep as detailed data of their betting history as possible.

I believe that in regulated casinos, you can ask for all betting data. At least EU citizens have the law on their side, and casinos are required to give all the data they have about the user activity if they choose to request it. That can take a couple of months, but resolving these issues takes time anyway.

Either case, imho the issue to resolve is with the casino, not with the exchange. The exchange is just following the law and won't be accepting vague data, because it's their license on the line.

But in this case, I genuinely believe this is about money laundering. Because why wouldn't the user contact the police or a lawyer if the money is legally theirs?

Edit: Since people don't read the comments, I am pointing out here that. Iranus already provided the update, confirming that this was a money laundering attempt.

Obviously the guy should know that depositing such an amount of money both in fiat or cryptocurrency, it will definitely get flagged and you have to provide enough source of the funds to get the account unfrozen, what we should know about centralized cryptocurrency exchange is that they have alot of anti money laundering laws to play along with and government regulations or licensing requirements mandate exchange to request for such proof of fund's for such amounts, my opinion is that ypu should always be ready to answer whatever questions if you decide to use centralized exchange for such transactions.

[hedgeh0g]

Obviously the guy should know that depositing such an amount of money both in fiat or cryptocurrency, it will definitely get flagged and you have to provide enough source of the funds to get the account unfrozen, what we should know about centralized cryptocurrency exchange is that they have alot of anti money laundering laws to play along with and government regulations or licensing requirements mandate exchange to request for such proof of fund's for such amounts, my opinion is that ypu should always be ready to answer whatever questions if you decide to use centralized exchange for such transactions.

Absolutely especially when a trader holds such a large amount of capital in cryptocurrency. I often see people with relatively small crypto holdings worrying that they need to report to various regulatory bodies, explain the source of their funds, and so on. But when we’re talking about the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the OP’s situation shouldn't come as a surprise at all; transactions of that magnitude immediately raise a host of questions starting with the "where from" and "where to," as well as the origin of the funds themselves.

[KTChampions]

You either don't know how to read or you're deliberately lying. Money laundering is literally the legitimization of illicit funds. This is clearly emphasized even in the quote I cited.
There is no evidence that he used criminal money. If you have any other information, please present it.
All in all, I don't expect a sensible answer from you, it's clear you're one of those people with mental issues who would rather die than admit they were ever wrong. If you have nothing substantive to write, just don't write to me, there's no need to look even more foolish than you already do.

And again, what you mean by "criminal money" or "illicit funds"? I have never said that this money would have criminal origin or something.

Is that you who wrote about money laundering? Under U.S. law, money laundering involves transactions involving funds of criminal origin. I gave you a definition, you can look for any other.
So, it turns out you were specifically asserting that this money was of criminal origin. But you were wrong, all that remains is to choose where.

And don't go asking me a bunch of stupid questions (like what is offense/criminal money/illicit funds/etc.) - the sort of thing every troll does when they have nothing to say and are trying to shift the topic of discussion. Just use google.

When someone is using fake ID when they are depositing nearly a million dollars, there's no change in hell that it's not tax evasion. Because why would they pay taxes if they successfully withdraw the money and risk whole another layer of problems by adding some shady paperwork trail containing stolen accounts that needed to be somehow scrubbed from it?

There is absolutely no information suggesting he deposited money into Coinbase under a name other than his own. You damn dreamer haven't even figured out the topic you created yourself, seriously?
Why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself?
Just think about what you're writing - the guy deposited money into Coinbase to launder it? Hahahaha, that would be the "30-IQ crime of the century."

For the future: You noticed how i didn't needlessly insult you at any point, or assumed anything about you as a person? Now go and look your arguments. I am hoping you have a better day from here.

For the past: You have already insulted me with your stupidity and trollish behavior. If you think this is less offensive than regular swearing, you're wrong.

I don't understand how this allows the exchange (Coinbase) to steal his money  

No mate, this fund will not be stuck in Coinbase's pocket for life or forever. That's just not how it works. But for that specific user situation is extremely complicated. But Coinbase will not be able to enjoy that money with themselve. Since this is gross violation of AML and fake identity. if any case develop, American law enforcement agency will bring court order to seize these fund. When court confirm that money was generated through fake ID, money laundering or restriction bypassing then funds will be seized and transferred to US Government or Treasury account at end of the process.

First of all, you shouldn't have cut off my quote, it already shows that I know how it works.
Secondly, you shouldn't pass off your assumptions as fact - specifically the claim that the money will be seized by the government. All that is known right now is that he turned 40k into 900k through betting, there is no information suggesting serious criminal activity, so the worst he faces is paying taxes and perhaps small fine. He will receive his money in full (taxes, as far as I know, are paid later) imo.

[OgNasty]

I feel like Coinbase freezes my account every time I make a large deposit. I always just think to myself that it can’t hurt them to try, but luckily I am not hiding anything so can provide documents when asked, which has been several times. Usually it is just a minor inconvenience, but always a little scary.

[WhoYouCantKill]

Absolutely especially when a trader holds such a large amount of capital in cryptocurrency. I often see people with relatively small crypto holdings worrying that they need to report to various regulatory bodies, explain the source of their funds, and so on. But when we’re talking about the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the OP’s situation shouldn't come as a surprise at all; transactions of that magnitude immediately raise a host of questions starting with the "where from" and "where to," as well as the origin of the funds themselves.

A lot of folks sometimes confuse regulatory reporting with being suspected for a crime. I mean it’s normal for a financial institution to detect large transactions, especially when the transaction is way out of your usual transaction amounts and then seek to know what prompted such transactions, I mean that’s one of the disadvantages of using decentralized platforms and it’s actually nothing new you know.