Topic: CoinURL disallowing withdrawals (split from Beware of scammers!) - page 2. (Read 5420 times)

15k EUR minimum threshold is for transactions with physical property (real estate, gold, antiques etc).
Financial instruments (paragraph 4-(b)) does not have it.

For example, there is no official way to anonymously withdraw Webmoney in Latvia. Of course, we have some "gray" traders who will help, but they take all risks on self and charge extra commissions.
You can see rules of major Webmoney exchanger in Riga, wmz.lv (available in Latvian and Russian), they can refuse withdrawals until you provide docs.

IMHO, You can think Bitcoin is out of regulation, but serious people who want to expand their business and start accepting real currencies and credit cards will comply the laws!

Thank you very much for the link. I've reviewed the document, and have some questions:

Under which of the following does your service fall under?

It says in the document that you are only obligated to identify clients if there are transactions involved equivalent to EUR 15 000 or more. Are you aware of this?

At the risk of dumping petrol on an already blazing fire... are some people never satisfied?

MC- you have your exception rule, the AML rules DO exist, and since that was the basis for dragon's reluctance, go ahead and play along. Send him whatever ginned up crap you want, he can quietly accept it and the problem is solved for all sides! Yay!

Or keep objecting publicly, keep involving the world in your intransigence and never get your shekels back. Your call.

Latvian AML law:
http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=178987

How much BTC are we talking about here ?

I'm not going to give some stranger enough documentation to ruin my life to comply with laws that don't exist.

Can you direct me to the appropriate "legistration" (I assume you mean legislation)?

You are free now to ask a refund according to the new policy!

Well it sort of does but on an individual basis and not from an regulating agency which is good.

i.e. If someone wants me to rent a truck and buy some fertilizer in exchange for BTC, I would have to decline that transaction.

Or I've had people tell me, hey I need BTC to buy (illegal as in my locality), I will decline the transaction.

No attempt has been made to contact me for a refund.

What I already thought you had your refund !

AML does not apply to Bitcoin.

This is insane.

To offer better conditions for CoinURL advertisers and prevent misunderstanding like happened with mcorlett in the future, our non-refund policy was mitigated. Now we act exactly as AML legistration requires.

Smart1985 can't prove he sent anything by mistake either. Trade was done on BTC-E exchange NOT FORUM.

I also told him no refunds for a service. A faulty product ? Yes but not a service. Can't rollback time or a service that costs man hours. Time machine to refund time has not been invented yet.

What scammy things did I say ?

If giantdragon does not get scammer tagged then my scammer tag needs to be removed ASAP because it is the same crap of "no refunds" ( typical scammer behaviour ).

I don't give refunds = I get scammer tag.

Giantdragon doesn't give refunds = he gets NOTHING

I think it was said days ago... this could have been handled a lot easier, and probably with mc's desired result if he had used the sense to keep it private between himself and dragon. But, piss into the wind, you have no excuse for why your shirt got wet.

I would like to refund mcorlett, but I am afraid about possible bunch of other users' refund claims if I make an exception for the one.

My opinion is that giantdragon's no-refund policy is perfectly reasonable, and he doesn't deserve a scammer tag. This is different than bulanula's case because:
- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.

Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.

It is definitely your right to use or not my service. I don't force anybody to do this!

You don't have to justify your actions to me; I'm sure your terms give you every right in the world to share this information with anyone you'd like, and even if they didn't, you could just modify them to do so:
"CoinURL may revise these terms of service from time-to-time. [...] Please check this page regularly to ensure you are familiar with the current version."

To put it in another way, it doesn't exactly make me want to use your service in the future.

It isn't, but it would've prevented myself and probably others from depositing if we would've known that we couldn't get the funds back. Then again, the entire clause is probably there to make the owner as much money as possible, so I can't see why anyone in their right mind would actually make this information more public. The goal is to keep it inconspicuous, so as to attract as many suckers as possible (read: myself).

I agree. I'm just trying to expose what I find to be unethical and dishonest behavior, officer.

Don't you have to judge someone's actions in order to decide whether or not you should tag 'em? Anyway, I don't think I took that out of context, but I'm sure theymos himself can shine some light on the situation.

Okay, score one for the the Mighty MC... you caught me in a typo. Your [sic] of my "therms" should have read "terms".

Its nice that you want to coach the service owner on how he should design the TOS of his service, however it remains a hollow argument for why you should prevail in this circumstance. How adding more information that you won't read to the Deposit page is going to change your actions before you get to the page (in checking the checkbox, remember?) doesn't follow logically from your statement.

When you accepted the TOS you agreed to spend whatever funds you deposited on the service. Pretty cut and dried right there.

Yes you did state that they "might" be, your allegation that those provide a condition of dishonesty is the contradictory issue. I expect you knew that, but think that the very fine grammatical scalpel your are using is going to make your dreams come true. Sorry Mr. Clinton, language is not the tool you fancy it to be.

No apology needed, its a conversation. And yes, Dorothy, I did leave myself a massive sine qua non in stating the clear and factual statement was opinion. Gotcha.

Are legal and honest synonyms? No. But they are absolutes and can be defined. Something is either within the law or not, an action is honest or dishonest. Shady? Not so absolute. Shady is a big nasty grey scale of shades of interpretation, your shady might be my perfectly fair; my shady might be your massively wrong. Shady doesn't give anyone a place to stand. Was dragon's response to your request honest? Yes, under the terms you accepted. Was it legal? We can only guess what Court would have jurisdiction in this matter, but as a straightforward contract matter, he does seem to be enforcing the agreement in a consistent, reasoned manner, with similar application to all parties to the agreements. So probably legal. Is it ethical? Personal decision. To you, no, to others who live with the same agreement, yes; to dragon who crafted it, absolutely yes.

And finally, you have taken theymos grossly out of context to support your argument. Theymos is not passing judgement on dragon's actions, he is citing that as a measure of whether or not a Scammer tag is justified. And as the ultimate arbiter of Scammer tags here, I think that argument should put paid to the whole discussion. It didn't go your way, and while many agree with you, and many disagree with you, and dragon's behavior is not what many would consider "ideal" it is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for a scammer tag. Asked and answered.