No, CampBX and Dwolla will have knowingly laundered funds if they do that because they are well aware that Pierre Hossler is a fake identity and they cannot confirm that the funds were legitimately obtained.  They are required by law to file suspicious activity reports and cannot release the funds back to a fake identity.  Any funds in the accounts will eventually be transferred to government organisations responsible for enforcing AML compliance.

If you read the entire post history it looks like he's trying to find out information on which exchanges are the most lax when it comes to AML compliance.  He's done the "I'm not giving you any money unless you guarantee that you'll never hold my funds if I can't verify" bullshit to several companies now - when proper AML compliance actually requires that the funds of customers who fail to verify be held.  I'm sure he's totally aware of that fact by now and just looking to confirm which companies are and aren't fully compliant.

Interestingly, he claims to hold a German bank account and at least one exchange has had issues with fraud originating in Germany lately.  It's not unusual for scams to originate from certain locations and target certain others when they discover loopholes which facilitate fraud - and they move on quickly when those loopholes are closed.

I am trying to find out which exchanges are not misusing AML laws for purposes they where not intended to. And which do not have a habit of inventing AML procedures impossible to comply with, and coming up with new requirements after funds are deposited. No bank I know ever does this. Maybe in the US - but that is not a sane jurisdiction.

I have no problems with identifying myself to an exchange, provided there is good will from both sides, and no needless suspiciousness - the point of AML is not to create a witch-hunt, but to prevent traces of proceeds of robberies, extortion and theft from being hidden. Its point is not to allow exchanges to extort free indefinite loans from users who for some reason can't meet their requirements.

And after experiences with CryptoXchange marking my passport as invalid, I don't have much trust with them, and so my posts. If they can just mark it like that and do nothing, they can do it any time to any one. In fact I never yet deposited any currency or Bitcoins to CryptoXchange.

And my passport... well, a German policeman having access to the Schengen Information System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System finds it fully valid, and some private company having no access to any governmental databases can just mark it "invalid" with one click... funny. Come to Schengen, we can drive up to a policeman and I can prove you.


Nice you posted this, so everybody can read and make up his own mind.

You and Bitpiggy01 seem to have quite a... different sense of judgement, I respect that, we don't have to make business together, we can have different views and opinions.

In another thread I am trying to help users which might have had been unjustifiably punished, that's it. I had never myself had funds frozen by an exchange.

And about AML laws: yes, they can be, and are, different in different countries, I am aware of that. If some country has them so harsh to the level of insane, I refuse to do business with entities bound by the laws of that country. EU is a respectable jurisdiction. In many EU countries financial entities are not required to identify customers which make transactions of less then 15000 EUR in one operation or connected operations.

I had myself sent funds to an currency exchange (fiat currency exchange), which failed to pass identity (address), and the funds where instantly returned. I was never asked for any ID by this exchange. They (Walutomat.pl) deal with volume of several million EUR each day, and are in business since 2009. More volume then any Bitcoin exchange, and longer in business then any Bitcoin exchange. Of course, laws vary by country, but they are in a EU country and I am an EU citizen.

I'll respect your jurisdiction laws if I am to deal with you, but I need to know about them before starting to deal, and won't deal if I find them, or the practice of their application unacceptable. But respect my jurisdiction please, and respect practices of my jurisdiction, and not insinuate me of wrongdoing just because of asking how practices differ from practices in jurisdictions I have dealt with so far, OK?

In many jurisdictions public disclosure of a customer's financial information without the customer's express consent is an offence in and of itself - and that consent is not implied by the customer discussing the matter publicly.

AML law is complex, but opening an account using a false identity breaches it and in and of itself warrants the lodging of a suspicious activity report with the relevant authorities and closing an account.  In many places it also triggers the obligation to apply enhanced KYC/due diligence requirements, which often require more stringent identification of the customer and identifying the origin of the funds.  Disclosing to the customer that an SAR has been filed and that they are being investigated for AML violations is often an offence.  Often, a determination about whether or not funds will be returned to the customer cannot be made by the financial institution involved - it's made by the authority to which the suspicious activity was reported.

Although I doubt that many people read them, organisations like Technocash and PayPal do put their AML policies in the legal section of their websites and explicitly state that in cases where a customer fails to satisfactorily verify or re-verify their identity and/or the source of funds they will hold the funds before ultimately turning them over to the government (and that they'll charge you for any staff time spent on co-operating with official investigations of your account/s) - but even if they didn't publish those policies, their legal obligations would remain the same.  Knowingly ignoring suspicious activity is a serious offence in itself, so most financial organisations (or other entities to which KYC/AML/CTF provisions apply) make damned sure they do everything possible to ensure that they're covered by the safe harbour provisions of AML legislation.

Most organisations don't reveal what will flag an account, for obvious reasons.  The list isn't a static one anyway - while some types of transactions will always be flagged, there are always new things being added to the list as different strategies for laundering money and/or committing financial fraud evolve.