Topic: Bestchange keeps scammer exchangers and probably collaborates with them - page 2. (Read 779 times)

If the funds were received from a p2p exchange, then we will request details of this exchange, when and under what conditions it was made, where the user who wants to make this exchange was found and all correspondence with him.

If it turns out that the client initially knew that the funds were stolen and went to the exchange due to the low exchange rate of coins, then this is equated by law enforcement agencies to complicity in a crime, namely, assistance in money laundering. If the transaction was absolutely transparent and the client has all the data about the completed exchange, then we will have no reason to further withhold these funds.

You have been avoiding answers for days, this only makes it look worse.  How many times did we ask you the same thing and you only found ways to avoid the answer?  You are digging your own grave at this point.

List a few documents you may request.

Many countries do not have the best relationship with Russia overall.  If we are talking about a Russian crime that only Russian law enforcement is investigating, do I have to obey to Russian law enforcement instructions in order to gain my funds back?

Who are you to tell me what I should do with my software really?  If I made a Bisq trade and do not use the Bitcoin I received for 10 years, am I supposed to keep my Bisq installed just in case FixedFloat decides to arbitrarily seize my funds?

Do you sign a contract when giving your children or nieces a bill of $10 just in case some body asks them where they got the money from?  In my country people often to go to a random shop and politely ask them to exchange large bank notes into smaller ones for change.  Am I supposed to keep a record of this just in case some body asks for the source of funds?

What kind of data can I provide you to prove the coins I received were in fact from a legitimate and fair trade made on a software I deleted?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

regardless of whether they read or write a post here, it is much more interesting how they completely avoid giving specific answers, and they were asked a lot of essentially very important questions. I believe that they can answer endlessly in general, without giving a concrete answer.

That's not up to you to decide. When I pay cash in a shop, they don't ask me where I got the money. Exchanges in the Seychelles shouldn't ask for my personal administration either.

Any response to this?
I take it you don't want to answer it, which is fine, but I'll draw my own conclusion.

---

---

This is another interesting thing: I don't think most law enforcement agencies are very willing to work with an anonymous company in the Seychelles. But apart from that, what makes you think any "local" law enforcement agency holds jurisdiction over international financial crime? Or even better: how do you even know you're really talking to law enforcement, if they're based in a country you know nothing about?

Different proofs are required for each case, depending on each case

The Bisq example is not entirely correct, but in the mentioned case, in the absence of evidence from the sender, we will act on the instructions of the law enforcement agencies investigating this case. You should not delete evidence of receiving funds from any services, as this may become a problem for confirming the source of funds.

The publication of our blocklist will provide information to criminals that their crime is known, and will help in their laundering. We will not assist criminals in any way. Honest users will be able to provide the necessary data if they have deleted this data purposefully.

LOL, couldn't agree more about this. I've been thinking since yesterday that we're kinda scared them off by bombarding them with questions that'll expose them and their tendency towards unilateral decision and judge-playing; they've been online several times since their last post and stopped replying here. And as you said, the silence actually speaks louder than what they've been trying to say here with their posts.

I was considering about giving them couple of days, see if they'll go online and still intentionally ignoring the unanswered questions here --giving benefit of the doubt here, maybe the silence is because they're gathering data and proper answer-- and start a thread to warn people about their service. If anyone using their service are subjected to a russian roulette of fund freezing for stupid reason, they have the right to know what they're going into before they put their money on it.

Their silence is starting to say more than they said in all their 5 posts on this thread.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Why are you avoiding to answer some of the questions asked by me and other members in this topic?
I asked few simple questions and I expect to get an answer from official representative of this exchange, not doing that doesn't look good.
So far I didn't saw any proof that you own any funds, and I doubt law enforcement from Seychelles ever contacted you about some bitcoin transactions or asked you to freeze coins.

I will repeat my questions to fixedfloat:
 -Can you tell us what  tools are you using to prove some coins are coming from hacks and stolen funds??
- Is customer limitless_777 also being refunded to other address?

Exactly! None of those services disclose how they decide which funds are good or evil, so it's completely arbitrary. It's also a very recent thing that suddenly happens a lot on many different services, which (again) makes me think there's some strong marketing behind it. And that's not in the interest of Bitcoin users.

Well I mean these services need to decide, either they accept funds with a criminal history or they do not.  In other words.  Either they close down their service or not.  No way they can sit in between, because then they are seizing funds subjectively and selectively.  Your Bitcoin gets seized for having a criminal history but my Bitcoin with criminal history does not because they verified 3 pictures of my face?  Make it make sense.

Because if they decide to crack down funds with criminal history, they may as well seize and block every single transfer received and I should report every single Bitcoin transfer they make to my account to authorities as having a record of criminal history too.

Fixed Float, how many transactions prior to mine do they go back through and verify to qualify me as a Bitcoin owner suspicious of criminal activity?  2? 5? 25 or all the way back to the mined block?  I bet if I do another transaction on Fixed Float and go all the way block to where that amount came from, I would find at least one suspicious transaction.  Does that make Fixed Float legally liable for all that suspicious history?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

This is exactly why fungibility is so important, and taint is a very dangerous attack on Bitcoin's existence. Bitcoin is electronic cash, and like cash, it doesn't matter who used the money before you. Whoever signs the transaction is the owner, that's how Bitcoin works.

You mean as in morally obligated? As in you're not actually required by Sechyelles, but you want to be a law abiding citizen and friendly neighborhood err... exchange, so you choose to be nosy and ask for the sources? Or is it legally obligated by some international law? I can understand that maybe there's a global law that applied against AML-ATF that we are somehow didn't aware of its existence. But rest assured, you can just state the article number and we're back on track. The question, simplified, is: are you just being nosy or can you point us to the regulation that made you authorized to ask people to provide proof of source of fund.

It'll be quite a different story if by asking to provide, you were meaning to say that your clients just needed to state where it came from without actually providing the proof of transaction, written contract, etc. just like my illustration with the bank staff and my goldfish. For this, though, you'll then intersect with and have to answer LoyceV's question above. And if I may jump in and broaden the hypothetical scenario, the fund is actually came from harmful source and will actually be used for terrorism funding. Is simply saying someone got it from p2p board enough?


Why not? You contradict your own statement. You're not cooperating with scammers and thieves, not recommending to make exchanges with stolen fund and dark market, but you refuse to share the list? How is this being non-cooperative to the thieves? I can only think the benefits if you provide it than the disadvantages. For instance, everybody is just one ninjastic away to know whether they're dealing with a scammer or not and should they continue the transaction or terminate it before it waste their time any further, or get their fund blocked by you. Which also means, fewer things in your plate to do, since the transaction --thanks to your list-- didn't happen.

All the information about the source of the funds received.  Like what?  In an investigation, what kind of information is requested as proof of origin?  You are being too vague.

I will provide you a hypothetical scenario.  I send 0.5 BTC to your Exchange address.  My 0.5 BTC were obtained from Bisq, but I have long since uninstalled Bisq so I have no screenshots or recorded proof of origin.  The transaction before mine was a hit man payment.  You have evidence of this, I have no idea about it.  What exactly would Fixed Float request me to provide as proof of origin?

So if tomorrow all your customers deposit Coins from illegal sources they did not know about, you are perfectly fine with your company exchanging funds with criminal origin?

If LoyceV receives Bitcoin from a criminal origin, proves to be innocent and forwards the amount to me.  Exchanging funds with criminal history on Fixed Float is now fine?

Why not publish it?  I want to know who on the Blockchain is a known confirmed criminal with strong evidence so I can avoid them.  How else do you want me to have Bitcoin earned from legitimate origins if I do not even know who are the illegitimates first of all?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Seychelles does not regulate these issues. However, we work as an international company and are obliged to respond to requests from law enforcement agencies for information, as well as the freezing of funds. Otherwise, sanctions may be imposed on our service, as a result of which the existence of the service will be impossible.

Okay, hypothetical: let's say you've blocked my funds, and I tell you I got it from the Currency Exchange board. A simple, honest p2p trade. Is that enough for you to return my funds?

Of course, we will not publish the blocking list, since we do not cooperate with cryptocurrency scammers and thieves, we treat them extremely negatively and believe that they bring huge harm to the entire crypto community. Many of our employees have also been hacked and caught in fraud before, so we are well aware of how difficult it can be to recover lost funds.

If the funds are stolen or from the darkmarket, we do not recommend making exchanges on our service, since we do not support fraud in any form.

Of course, we do not trust unfounded accusations of anyone, but we also cannot ignore incoming information. As we said earlier, each incident is considered individually and a full investigation is conducted. All evidence is carefully considered. We receive information about thefts and fraud from our partners (other exchanges and cryptocurrency services) and victims who contact us.

In order to continue the exchange or return the money, we must make sure that the funds were received honestly, as well as get all the information about the source of the funds received. If the client for some reason cannot provide us with information about the source of the funds received, then he can contact the law enforcement authorities of his country to initiate a criminal case, this will greatly simplify the process of dealing with the incident.

We do not request KYC, as we value the confidentiality of our customers, but only information about the source of the funds received. It is easy to prove the honesty of receiving funds by providing the requested data. If the user has nothing to do with the crime and did not know that the funds he received were criminal, then we have no reason to withhold these funds.

so besides being an exchanger, you are also the police, prosecutor and judge. I wonder who gave you the licence for that.

can you present a successful example here where you confiscated dirty money and returned it to the victim? I mean example with all evidence.


 
this information is certainly reassuring and instils confidence in all your clients. at some point, you ask for all KYC information from the user, while we know nothing about you. it's a bit excessive for someone who presents himself as a judge, prosecutor, or exchanger...

The companies who earn money from selling their taint-detection-services of course! They're also the ones who have all financial interests in promoting the crazy idea that taint even exists, because without it, they'd be out of business.

This sounds awfully arbitrary. Can you start by publishing your "blocklist", so customers can check if their addresses are on it before sending their funds to your exchange?

While others are curious about how do you know and decide that a fund coming into your platform acquired illegally or not --which, an interesting topic for me too, but since other members has asked about this, I won't repeat the question-- I am more interested on this topic.

Were you required by the govt. where you're basing your office on to ask about this? On my previous post about AML compliance, I do say that financial institutions on several countries are required to conduct KYC, but I have no awareness that the AML --or even ATF-- extend to such length for financial institutions.

Speaking for my own country --which will remain unspecified-- even centralized financial institutions are not allowed to ask for their customers to provide proof of funds origin. Asking where from and what for? Sure, they asked that, but their customer may just said whatever crossed their mind. "My goldfish died yesterday and inherited me 1 trillion dollars, which currently you're seeing right now. For what does the funds for? Well, I'd like to build shelters for homeless koi fish" and the bank would accepted that answer without asking their customer to provide the proof of... will... by the goldfish. The authority to ask for proof of fund's origin fall into the hand of the govt. themselves, specifically their tax and financial dept. upon investigation.

Recently I even learned that during a preliminary investigation of tax evasion and/or money laundering, the tax dept. --similar to IRS, I think-- staffs are not allowed to ask for the source of money too, let alone to ask the "suspect" to provide proof of source. They only allowed to ask for confirmation if the said person owned certain value and assets that they flagged and where from. It's until further investigation of AML and tax evasion that the person are obligated to provide the proof of sources and other articles asked. And I'm talking about the govt. themselves here, the one who held kinda "absolute" power. So how does a decentralized org. in your country required and given an authority to ask for the same is... beyond me.

But, I'm also aware and understand that different country applies different rules. Maybe IRS staff may asked what the tax staff in my country aren't allowed to. So, since you're stating that you're based in Sechyelles, could you point us to the regulation article specifically mentioning this matter? I'm sure we're one google away to verify that if you can help with the article number.