Freewallet.org Flag - Please Support

Freewallet

member

Activity: 551

Merit: 11

Quote from: marlboroza on July 22, 2019, 06:28:32 PM

You have been asked several times already so I will take this as your final answer.

So user signs up, exchange $190K to btc, withdraw funds and according to you, if IP is the same and there are no multiple transfers - you won't perform identity verification.

So how all this complies with Hong Kong AML regulation? It does not. You stated this:

I am pretty sure that you have to report suspicious activities to authorities to comply with AML law, it doesn't really work on "request from authorities". Here is another useful link to read https://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/rules-and-standards/anti-money-laundering-and-counter-terrorist-financing/

Reading your posts I came to conclusion that you know nothing about AML regulations and you use word "AML" to selectively enforce KYC.

We've never posted an exhaustive list of all signs of activity that imposes us to run the AML procedure.
Just let us reiterate that most probably our policy is yet to be reviewed.

Thanks.

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2270

If you don't mind, cite me where does it say that you are supposed to enforce KYC because of AML regulation when user's IP is changed?

Quote from: Freewallet on July 22, 2019, 03:42:34 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on July 21, 2019, 11:45:59 AM

Are you trying to say if there is no sign of suspicious activity you won't perform identity verification?

That is correct.

Quote from: marlboroza on July 21, 2019, 11:45:59 AM

You are avoiding to provide clear answers.

Post all criteria under which you will perform identity verification and post "several thousand dollars" using numbers.

We can list using different IP addresses and multiple transfers between accounts with subsequent withdrawals as such criteria.
At this point, we will not be able to specify exact amounts.
Our KYC policy will be reviewed and I hope to get back to this thread with more transparent information afterward.

You have been asked several times already so I will take this as your final answer.

So user signs up, exchange $190K to btc, withdraw funds and according to you, if IP is the same and there are no multiple transfers - you won't perform identity verification.

So how all this complies with Hong Kong AML regulation? It does not. You stated this:

Quote from: Freewallet on July 17, 2019, 10:27:09 AM

Will you admit that not all credible AML algorithms (including the software) adhere to these guidelines?

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

And this:

Quote from: Freewallet on July 18, 2019, 04:13:26 AM

Quote from: Freewallet on July 17, 2019, 10:27:09 AM

You are playing on AML card so I will assume that you have reported lots of suspicious transactions to authorities because of AML regulation, especially because you are operating under Hong Kong's law which is part of FATF.

Is my assumption correct or wrong?

There are no "AML cards". From time to time we have to address the legal requests of public authorities.

I am pretty sure that you have to report suspicious activities to authorities to comply with AML law, it doesn't really work on "request from authorities". Here is another useful link to read https://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/rules-and-standards/anti-money-laundering-and-counter-terrorist-financing/

Reading your posts I came to conclusion that you know nothing about AML regulations and you use word "AML" to selectively enforce KYC.

Freewallet

member

Activity: 551

Merit: 11

Quote from: marlboroza on July 21, 2019, 11:45:59 AM

Are you trying to say if there is no sign of suspicious activity you won't perform identity verification?

That is correct.

Quote from: marlboroza on July 21, 2019, 11:45:59 AM

You are avoiding to provide clear answers.

Post all criteria under which you will perform identity verification and post "several thousand dollars" using numbers.

We can list using different IP addresses and multiple transfers between accounts with subsequent withdrawals as such criteria.
At this point, we will not be able to specify exact amounts.
Our KYC policy will be reviewed and I hope to get back to this thread with more transparent information afterward.

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2270

Quote from: Freewallet on July 21, 2019, 11:19:31 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on July 19, 2019, 02:34:18 PM

But it is one of the criteria.

Please post amount above which freewallet has to perform identity verification because of AML and CTF regulation and all criteria for which you ask users to verify identity to comply with AML/CTF regulation.

Hello,
There is no specified amount. We pay particular attention to the amounts from several thousand dollars being transferred with signs of suspicious activity.

Are you trying to say if there is no sign of suspicious activity you won't perform identity verification? Or?

You are avoiding to provide clear answers.

Post all criteria under which you will perform identity verification and post "several thousand dollars" using numbers.

Freewallet

member

Activity: 551

Merit: 11

Quote from: marlboroza on July 19, 2019, 02:34:18 PM

But it is one of the criteria.

Please post amount above which freewallet has to perform identity verification because of AML and CTF regulation and all criteria for which you ask users to verify identity to comply with AML/CTF regulation.

Hello,
There is no specified amount. We pay particular attention to the amounts from several thousand dollars being transferred with signs of suspicious activity.

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 20, 2019, 05:30:03 AM

Are they at it again?

14,000 USD worth of tokens worth frozen in this users account for 18 months?

We always encourage our users to consider which tokens we support prior to sending a transaction.

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3528

Merit: 9525

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Are they at it again?

14,000 USD worth of tokens worth frozen in this users account for 18 months?

Quote from: charlie987 on July 15, 2019, 11:51:53 PM

Like I said before.....losted all hopes after almost 1 and a half year....thanks for not helping me and losing me a 14.000 usd.

Quote from: Freewallet on July 15, 2019, 06:45:05 AM

Quote from: charlie987 on July 15, 2019, 04:38:02 AM

Still waiting......at this moment i have losted all my hopes that this will ever be done.....so disappointing...... Cry

Quote from: charlie987 on October 19, 2018, 05:53:46 AM

Hello everyone,

i am waiting for about 6 months FREWALLET team to add ROX token to their wallet.

I am patient guy but this is really to much. I looked for this topic on the internet and I saw that there was some tokens added in month, max 2 months, so I thought ok i wioll wait for a little bit and that's it.

But now I am allready waiting for 6 months!!!! I am really afraid that I will lost all my funds.....

Please freewallet team, help me with this issue, it is really taking to long....

Hi Charlie, our management added new tokens since then, however, I am sorry ROX wasn't on the approved list. We will continue monitoring the situation with ROX and will let you know of any news. I noted down your details

BitcoinGirl.Club

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 2645

Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: rosezionjohn on July 19, 2019, 07:27:15 AM

Some newbie accounts who woke up to defend freewallet after months in hybernation:.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/qwerty6274-2521448
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/neromonney-2520952
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/s00n44-2521462
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/polarbear824-2520852
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mikkycrypto-2511390
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/denveagle-2520822

I don't know how many more are there but Freewallet should also ask these accounts/bots to oppose the flag.

Paid shills probably however the supports from only DTs count so there are nothing much to worry. I gave my support for this flag. Sometimes I wonder how I miss a topic which is already 5 page long 😜

I need to spend more time in reputation I guess.

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2270

Quote from: Freewallet on July 18, 2019, 04:13:26 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on July 17, 2019, 04:35:52 PM

But you didn't confirm nor deny correct amount above which you are enforcing KYC. Can you write exact number using USD?

As we mentioned, amount is not the criterion.

But it is one of the criteria.

Please post amount above which freewallet has to perform identity verification because of AML and CTF regulation and all criteria for which you ask users to verify identity to comply with AML/CTF regulation.

rosezionjohn

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 301

Some newbie accounts who woke up to defend freewallet after months in hybernation:.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/qwerty6274-2521448
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/neromonney-2520952
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/s00n44-2521462
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/polarbear824-2520852
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mikkycrypto-2511390
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/denveagle-2520822

I don't know how many more are there but Freewallet should also ask these accounts/bots to oppose the flag.

AdolfinWolf

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1427

Quote from: nero_monney on July 19, 2019, 06:17:34 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on July 18, 2019, 11:23:30 AM

Quote from: nero_monney on July 18, 2019, 10:50:45 AM

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

To my mind, only the true-users can pass the KYC procedure while scammers will fail it. THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them. Am I not right?

You're not right. You can buy photoshopped or even hacked documents for as little as 30$ per document.

Without access to either a government database or some heavily developed AI, it's as good as impossible to see the difference between a hacked/photoshopped document and a real one.

Quote

THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them.

This is false, since you will only be asked AFTER your account is "hacked" - there's no identification given to freewallet prior to your wallet being compromised, thus freewallet can never differentiate whether the info is A. real, and B. matching the actual account owner.

So any identification will do.

nero_monney

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 0

Quote from: suchmoon on July 18, 2019, 11:23:30 AM

Quote from: nero_monney on July 18, 2019, 10:50:45 AM

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

To my mind, only the true-users can pass the KYC procedure while scammers will fail it. THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them. Am I not right?

qwerty6274

newbie

Activity: 23

Merit: 0

IMO, if an error occurs, you’d better not repeat the command as many times as you can. Why not ask for help first? I’ve always thought that it’s just what support do: solve stuff like that.

hacker1001101001

sr. member

Activity: 1288

Merit: 415

Quote from: actmyname on July 18, 2019, 11:49:10 PM

Quote from: Freewallet on July 18, 2019, 08:15:07 AM

~

Either that or get rid of ~~bullshit~~ KYC

+1 just get rid of it, KYC is bullshit.

I agree, Freewallet are tracking nothing by doing KYC after deposit happens, it's that simple of an logic. Huh

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2504

Spear the bees

Quote from: Freewallet on July 18, 2019, 08:15:07 AM

Let me answer to both statements made above:

Since we are not able to perform KYC to absolutely all users, we can't be certain that suspicious activity will not be manifested on the accounts that have avoided the verification.

Wait, you're not able to perform KYC to all users? Why not?

Do the rules only apply for so many people, to which thereafter it becomes a cesspool of money-laundering?

Loyce's point made sense: you have no way of telling whether the user who deposited the funds is the user who will later withdraw the funds. You should have KYC apropos to linking the two cryptographic identities: it's the reasonable thing to do when considering cryptocurrencies.

Either that or get rid of ~~bullshit~~ KYC

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: nero_monney on July 18, 2019, 10:50:45 AM

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

nero_monney

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 0

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming? Feel so newb while reading the thread....

Freewallet

member

Activity: 551

Merit: 11

Quote from: LoyceV on July 18, 2019, 06:00:02 AM

The proper way is to establish this before the user deposits. If a user passes KYC, you know who the user is and you know funds deposited afterwards belong to that user. If anything comes up, you can always ask the same user to verify his identity again to prove ownership of the account/funds.

However, if you do this after depositing, you can't be certain the original user is the same as the person submitting KYC-documents.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Stop hiding behind obfuscation, you clearly don't follow established and common methods. Most exchange & custodial wallet have detailed information/procedure such as :
1. Limit deposit/withdraw (whether it's daily, weekly, monthly or all-time) without identity verification
2. If user deposit above limit, you should ask for identity verification after deposit is made, not when user attempt to withdraw.

Why don't you start by mention those information on your Customer Support page for sake of transparency and prevent your user getting confused/angry?

Let me answer to both statements made above:

Since we are not able to perform KYC to absolutely all users, we can't be certain that suspicious activity will not be manifested on the accounts that have avoided the verification.
Under the current model, a few users are requested to comply with KYC/AML requirements whereas the proposed option puts many more of them under stress.

Mind that the real practice of "other wallets" may vary and contradict to the "detailed terms".

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on July 18, 2019, 06:56:07 AM

Anyways, if only you hadn't advertised your service as a wallet, but rather a changelly-esque style exchange, a lot of these arguments mentioned above would've been avoided.
(Though i must note that asking for KYC after someone performs a transaction is still scummy behaviour, whether legal or not, and rather absurd if the transaction doesn't include fiat and or gateways to fiat.)

Again, Your TOS is still ridiculous though. I'm not sure where you're based, but i'm pretty sure you can't just claim funds of customers that you deem to be "Fraudulent".

Thanks for making these points.

We appreciate the feedback of the community expressed here and considering the modification of our present KYC policy with respect to reasonable concerns.

AdolfinWolf

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1427

Quote from: Freewallet on July 18, 2019, 05:42:59 AM

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on July 15, 2019, 08:19:07 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

And what do you do with the money of people that don't speak out against you after you subject them to a "random" KYC check?

Per your TOS you can just claim that, right?

We treat all the issues equally no matter if they are spoken in public or not.

Equal as in, you claim the money after x amount of time, or you don't... ?

Anyways, if only you hadn't advertised your service as a wallet, but rather a changelly-esque style exchange, a lot of these arguments mentioned above would've been avoided.
(Though i must note that asking for KYC after someone performs a transaction is still scummy behaviour, whether legal or not, and rather absurd if the transaction doesn't include fiat and or gateways to fiat.)

Again, Your TOS is still ridiculous though. I'm not sure where you're based, but i'm pretty sure you can't just claim funds of customers that you deem to be "Fraudulent".

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: ?? on ??

There are established and common methods used to identify a personality, which are applied in today's AML practices.

The proper way is to establish this before the user deposits. If a user passes KYC, you know who the user is and you know funds deposited afterwards belong to that user. If anything comes up, you can always ask the same user to verify his identity again to prove ownership of the account/funds.

However, if you do this after depositing, you can't be certain the original user is the same as the person submitting KYC-documents.

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

Quote from: ?? on ??

We do not argue whether it is technically possible or not.

There is nothing to argue.
It is (and has to be) possible. Period.

Quote from: ?? on ??

We know how Bitcoin works.

Obviously not as detailed as you should.

Topic: Freewallet.org Flag - Please Support (Read 1339 times)