Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD

[rjk]

From what I know about these matters it would be extremely expensive for the OP to take this to court and may yield little benefit. If my assumptions about Crypto are correct they are a company that is heading into the gutter whether by lack of funding or some other source and they simply don't have the funding to pay. Yes the OP could take this to court but in the end Crypto may end up declaring bankruptcy to no avail of the OP or may end up paying but at a large monetary loss of the OP. Either way Crypto goes down and the OP loses a significant amount of money.

Crypto is not going down. OP needs to file his paperwork.

I think they are. You can't just pull off scams of this magnitude with sensitive currency such as BTC.

You "think"? "Sensitive currency such as BTC"? "Scams"? Oh god I lol'd

Complying with government regulations under threat of force isn't a "scam". Grow up and get a clue.

[1715109150]

1715109150

[1715109150]

1715109150

[1715109150]

1715109150

[1715109150]

1715109150

[1715109150]

1715109150

[1715109150]

1715109150

[Liberty Payout]

From what I know about these matters it would be extremely expensive for the OP to take this to court and may yield little benefit. If my assumptions about Crypto are correct they are a company that is heading into the gutter whether by lack of funding or some other source and they simply don't have the funding to pay. Yes the OP could take this to court but in the end Crypto may end up declaring bankruptcy to no avail of the OP or may end up paying but at a large monetary loss of the OP. Either way Crypto goes down and the OP loses a significant amount of money.

Crypto is not going down. OP needs to file his paperwork.

I think they are. You can't just pull off scams of this magnitude with sensitive currency such as BTC.

You "think"? "Sensitive currency such as BTC"? "Scams"? Oh god I lol'd

Complying with government regulations under threat of force isn't a "scam". Grow up and get a clue.

Complying with government regulations? Where is there proof of that? That was an assumption of a user.

[rjk]

Complying with government regulations? Where is there proof of that? That was an assumption of a user.

AML/KYC are regulations enforceable by various governmental agencies, amirite?

[Liberty Payout]

Complying with government regulations? Where is there proof of that? That was an assumption of a user.

AML/KYC are regulations enforceable by various governmental agencies, amirite?

This is true, but can we get a statement from Crypto proving that this is the case? Anyone can use AML/KYC as an excuse to suspend funds. I also don't understand how that stops Crypto from returning the OPs coins.

[Scott J]

So, an organisation that asks for notarized ID before transferring $100k is a scammer? Even if they were possibly forced to do so, by law?

Have I not read the thread properly, or is this what Liberty Payout is claiming?

[LoupGaroux]

Liberty PayFlaps- you are under constant scrutiny because your approach to this community, and your wounded sense of pride that anyone would question why somebody so noble as yourself would want to take a 35% loss just to establish a reputation is just so much bullshit.

You have been outed as a scammer, trying to bring the proceeds of your scams here to launder the money.  And now you want to cry outrage because another strongly suspect story WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED is pissing and moaning because he doesn't want to confirm his identity, and is stressed out that he is receiving the same coins that he deposited andhave been identified as the ones stolen in the Linode heist back?

Please, you are filthy with guilt, and your comments only wriggle you that much deeper in the shit of your own making.

[Liberty Payout]

So, an organisation that asks for notarized ID before transferring $100k is a scammer? Even if they were possibly forced to do so, by law?

Have I not read the thread properly, or is this what Liberty Payout is claiming?

No, a organization that claims to have sent the money several times over the course of  6 months is a scammer. They should have stated a notarised ID was required from the jump. I'm sorry but Crypto is still at fault.

[repentance]

From what I know about these matters it would be extremely expensive for the OP to take this to court and may yield little benefit. If my assumptions about Crypto are correct they are a company that is heading into the gutter whether by lack of funding or some other source and they simply don't have the funding to pay. Yes the OP could take this to court but in the end Crypto may end up declaring bankruptcy to no avail of the OP or may end up paying but at a large monetary loss of the OP. Either way Crypto goes down and the OP loses a significant amount of money.

The OP doesn't need to take this to court.  AUSTRAC is the body in charge of regulating and enforcing AML/KYC/CTF compliance.  They are absolutely the people to complain to if a service provider is suspected of using AML/KYC requirements to steal user funds and perfectly capable of determining whether the OP's ID documents are authentic.  If AUSTRAC says the documents and transactions are fine, CryptoXchange has no AML/KYC grounds on which to retain the funds/BTC.  If the OP would rather write off $100,000 than subject his ID documents to AUSTRAC's scrutiny, people need to ask themselves why that might be the case as all international funds transfer instructions must be reported to AUSTRAC anyway, regardless of value.

[Liberty Payout]

From what I know about these matters it would be extremely expensive for the OP to take this to court and may yield little benefit. If my assumptions about Crypto are correct they are a company that is heading into the gutter whether by lack of funding or some other source and they simply don't have the funding to pay. Yes the OP could take this to court but in the end Crypto may end up declaring bankruptcy to no avail of the OP or may end up paying but at a large monetary loss of the OP. Either way Crypto goes down and the OP loses a significant amount of money.

The OP doesn't need to take this to court.  AUSTRAC is the body in charge of regulating and enforcing AML/KYC/CTF compliance.  They are absolutely the people to complain to if a service provider is suspected of using AML/KYC requirements to steal user funds and perfectly capable of determining whether the OP's ID documents are authentic.  If AUSTRAC says the documents and transactions are fine, CryptoXchange has no AML/KYC grounds on which to retain the funds/BTC.  If the OP would rather write off $100,000 than subject his ID documents to AUSTRAC's scrutiny, people need to ask themselves why that might be the case as all international funds transfer instructions must be reported to AUSTRAC anyway, regardless of value.

+1, OP i suggest you look at this.

[vampire]

WTF is Opistilled?! Just look up the damn word.


I am not sure why Crypto is claiming false documents, but Russian names sometimes appear differently in English documents. So far I saw a delaying tactic from the beginning, but Alex's responses in Skype weren't making any sense also. 100k is a lot money in Russia, hell it's a lot of money anywhere.

[repentance]

AML/KYC are regulations enforceable by various governmental agencies, amirite?

Yes.  Primarily AUSTRAC.  There's a positive obligation to comply with the requirements of the AML/CTF Act and the Rules Instrument - which means that it's mandatory for services to whom the Act and Rules apply to take certain kinds of actions and report certain matters without any request from AUSTRAC being required.  They are additionally required under the Act to co-operate with "requests" from AUSTRAC - AUSTRAC does not require a court order to compel such co-operation as their authority is written into the Act and non-co-operation is an offence.  Information obtained by AUSTRAC may form the basis of criminal prosecutions by other agencies.

Under the Act "tipping off" is an offence.  A reporting entity must conduct ongoing customer due diligence and apply enhanced know your customer requirements if "suspicious" circumstances a rise, but it is an offence to disclose to a customer that a Suspicious Matters Report has been filed with AUSTRAC.  Requiring additional identification and proof of control of the funding account does not count as "tipping off" and neither does asking the customer about the source and destination of funds (in fact verifying these as legitimate can be a requirement of OCDD under certain circumstances).

They should have stated a notarised ID was required from the jump.

It probably wasn't required from the jump.  There's a minimum amount of KYC information which must be collected from all customers but all sorts of things can trigger the requirement to obtain additional information/proof of identity etc.  While many large financial institutions continue to use the 100 points ID system - it was mandatory at one point and their systems are already set up for it - many smaller organisations only apply enhanced KYC protocols when the need arises because it's a large administrative burden.  Where a customer fits on the risk matrix can change with a single transaction, and when it changes different requirements apply.

[PatrickHarnett]

Having been subject of a money laundering inquiry from a bank previously, subscribing.  Helped that one of the people I was working with was the ex-boss of the head of currency that had manually held up the transaction.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

This also raises question - is it possible to trust using bitcoin exchange 3-rd parties that aggregate clients money ... or bitcoin exchanges should be done more in p2p manner, making p2p transactions between persons

I prefer the latter. Not for the reasons you said in your original msg, but to avoid things like what we see in this thread (submitting personal data, account seizures and freezings, lack of privacy, government interference, taxes, tainting of coins etc etc).

I understand some people need the liquidity, and perhaps can't afford to search for a trustworthy trader every time they need to trade. But if you don't have such needs, then avoid escrowed exchanges and go person-to-person.

[wirmola]

Dude.. return his coins!!! Don't you understand this will ruin your business if not solved immediately..
First he was a trusted customer, and then you come up with a story about his IDs.. How could you then transfer money to him in first case??
How can you say those bitcoins are stolen??? prove it! I thought bitcoin is anonymous... Correct me if wrong...
And like some one said before... You are not the bitcoin police... Return the money.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Having been subject of a money laundering inquiry from a bank previously, subscribing.  Helped that one of the people I was working with was the ex-boss of the head of currency that had manually held up the transaction.

Just out of curiosity, would you mind telling if the inquiry you've been subject of had anything to do with bitcoins?

[swissmate]

What kind of unprofessional guys are you that you attend a wedding or stay sick but you don't pay attention to your clients?
I mean it's 100k, the image you guys are giving is horrible.

[malaimult]

i think there is something fishy on both sides.
the customer didn't provide the aml doc
exchanger was happy with that and keep the money

[PatrickHarnett]

Having been subject of a money laundering inquiry from a bank previously, subscribing.  Helped that one of the people I was working with was the ex-boss of the head of currency that had manually held up the transaction.

Just out of curiosity, would you mind telling if the inquiry you've been subject of had anything to do with bitcoins?

No, it was well before bitcoins.  Simply a transfer of money from one country to another.  We had raised funds in New Zealand from local investors and were sending it to Australia where the operational business was located.  Due to the size of the particular transfer it was flagged for inspection.  When it cropped up, we were asked to prove what we were doing and it was fairly simple to resolve via a phone call because the people involved knew each other.  That is, one of the other directors was an ex-head of corporate banking from one of the main trading banks, and he knew the head of retail banking at the bank we were using (because he had employed him some time earlier).

When doing IMTs (international money transfers) there are several places it can get stopped.  As an example, I shifted some AUD back to NZD , did all the paperwork, paid the fees and had my receipt etc, went back to my office in Melbourne and noticed I had made an error.  Walked back to the bank, fixed the error and the funds went through correctly - definitely not instant, and having a receipt doesn't necessarily prove the transaction is made.  Also, the receiving bank can hold the funds before depositing it into your account - that's part of the SWIFT system.  ie, out of your account to the bank - transfer of value/fx - receiving bank account, distribution to recipient = four accounts and plenty of places it can be scrutinised.

[DILLIGAF]

i think there is something fishy on both sides.
the customer didn't provide the aml doc
exchanger was happy with that and keep the money

Don't know how you came to that conclusion I have seen the crypto people on numerous occasions tell this fool to provide the proper documents if he wants his money so far he has not complied. So sorry about his scammer luck he obviously does not to reveal his true identity so his scam is done with for now..

[malaimult]

true on that. but how come the cryptoxc guys didn't pay him the money back?
yes lets say he is a scammer but that doesn't mean the cryptoxc guys should keep the money right?