Topic: Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD - page 5. (Read 26299 times)

+1

Boy am I glad I don't trust ANY of these exchanges. There's plenty of red flags associated (IMO) with CryptoXchange, especially on the money laundering front (not to say they are, but I do suspect it's a very distinct possibility, and I won't tie my money up with them for fear that THEY will have THEIR funds seized, and that would include mine - how many other exchanges were trying to partner with casinos? - yeah I smelled a scam long ago)

OP - sorry to hear your story. Attorneys are in order - hire one and get your money out of harm's way.

IMO, if this customer had 100K there, how likely is it that the exchange actually has the funds to pay? I'm more than a little suspicious of ALL exchanges running fractional reserves, and being unable to meet their withdrawal demands.

This seems more than a little suspicious. Probably the most suspicious is that CXE is "the ethical exchange"
FFS, if you have to use it as a tag line, what are the odds it's actually true?

It seems like this is a battle between two exchanges: http://wmirk.ru.

~Bruno~

Definitely not Brazil!
Brazil might a good place to hide yourself if you're wanted by the police abroad (particularly if you're a leftist terrorist wanted for multiple murders), and even of that I wouldn't be 100% sure - if someone in the government sees an advantage for himself in turning you over, and there's nobody who would have an advantage in protecting you, then you'll likely be extradited.

Brazil is definitely not the place to hide your hard-earned money from predators, that's for sure. It's a tax hell, not a tax haven.

The government here is fucked up beyond repair and treats us like the convicts that first came here on boats. I dont blame anyone for avoiding it.

The problem with using offshore finance centres is that they're often on the blacklists of compliant countries and incoming transactions from them will be flagged.  They're fine if you're prepared to spend your offshore funds within the offshore jurisdiction, not so much if you want to be able to spend the money in the country where you reside.  Services located in offshore financial centres are often set up to cater to clients moving huge amounts of money via wire transfer, whereas Bitcoin users are often looking to minimise fees as much as possible.  And of course you have the risk of such businesses being opaque, as was the case with MyBitcoin.

The combination of losses from fraud, fraud prevention measures and AML/KYC/CTF compliance pose a significant financial challenge for exchanges and I suspect that few have any realistic idea of just how high that overhead will be when they start an exchange with a couple of people.  Not only will they always be targets for fraud and hacking attempts, they will become bigger targets the more successful they become and more money will need to be spent on protecting themselves from various threats to their viability.  Locating offshore does nothing to minimise the risk of fraud or security breaches, both of which can send an exchange broke just as surely as banks freezing their funds.


Another fun thing is that AUSTRAC doesn't tell you specifically how you must assess risk and precisely what measures you must put in place but if you get it wrong you're open to being fined or prosecuted for non-compliance.

If the thing that you say is true, then non-AU users should be afraid to use Australia-based exchanges. Simply not right jurisdiction for such international exchange. Maybe Panama, Brazil or Hong-Kong etc. could be way better.

+1

Indeed, those KYC procedures are unfortunately reasonable and exchanges have to play ball unless they want to be prosecuted.

OP, if you can show sources of funds and confirm your identity and explain any potential discrepancies (if any) with previously submitted documents, then I have a very good suggestion for you.

Stop bitching on forums, lawyer up and sue the begeesis our of whoever has wronged you. I can understand forum bitching over 1k$, over 100k$ not so much.

I'd recommend people read the MtGox AML/KYC Process Explained thread.  It addresses some of the issues which people frequently ask about and the process is pretty standard in most FATF member countries (although countries may have domestic laws which go beyond the 40 + 9 recommendations).

I don't think the people reading this thread actually know some of the nice things the legal system does.  I attended a neat compliance seminar some years ago where it was spelt out quite clearly that:  If you were under investigation or helping with an investigation, innocent or not, if you told anyone including your employer, another legal representative of the Government, or even your spouse that you were being investigated (or helping), you could be jailed.

One of the traps was not knowing if the discussion docs for possible policy were actionable (ie, they could prosecute you for breaching a guideline), or actual law/policy.

At the lower end of the scale, because the company I was with didn't file a correct FSL return, and I was commuting to/from Australia, I could have been arrested (personally) and jailed until the issue was sorted out - fortunately I could run my section remotely and it got sorted out. 

I had that feeling from about page 1 or 2. Stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I would love CryptoXChange to be able to release the funds without fear of repercussions, but I doubt that will happen unless OP releases documents.

I doubt we will ever find out though, both parties have stopped posting.

I think most people agree that if you want even quasi-anonymity and zero risk of your funds being frozen, then AML compliant organisations cannot guarantee those things.

I believe CXE has already sent them funds before and were unable to continue to do so because they were cockblocked by their own solicitors who demanded more information due to reported stolen accounts etc. Not to mention these scummyfucks are more than likely associated with the Linode hack. Who knows. These clowns are trying to pass off CXE's lack of response to the issue as some kind of denial, but they are legally bound to deal with the customer only and the customer continues to bring their slop to the forums instead of go through normal legal channels.

Kind of a no brainer who's lying here.

If that was the case, they shouldn't have sworn the money was on its way for weeks/months.
And "stolen bitcoins" alone wouldn't trigger an AML investigation on the bank side. Something more would be necessary.

Anyways, it's pointless to discuss this here.
The best option is trying to stay away from centralized exchanges, if possible.

Once AML flags go off, they can't legally send money to these scammer clowns even if they wanted to.

That's what I'd like to know too.

Thanks Patrick.

It appears to me that the OP is just trying to get attention and with the help of sock puppet #239402 Liberty Payout, basically trying to smear the exchange to put pressure on it to cave. The problem with that is that we all know Ken is honest and that CryptoXChange has a flawless reputation.

OP is a scammer who got burned by working with an exchange legally required to ask questions and like most scammers, underestimated the consistency of law abiding businesses. If he could provide the proper documents, he'd get his money, but I happen to know exactly why he won't and it's a doozy.

@OP: Why don't you bother showing the people here some proof of this supposed $100k you're missing, because that too is a lie.

I have a few prongs of interest in this case.
1: I used to run a business in Australia governed by their financial services act (and am aware of the non-disclosure rules that exist in some of the Australian legislation).
2: I have legal proceedings against someone running though the legal system in Sydney for an unpaid debt.
3: I use CryptoExchange as my exchange of choice and haven't encountered problems like those mentioned above.
4: I have recently completed a review of how people resolve legal issues (it was a meta study looking at five different countries).

On #4, of the thousands of people surveyed, there was no mention of a successful resolution from trying to pressure someone via an internet forum.  Seeking help from police, citizens advice, Government departments, lawyers, friends/family, employers, self-help and others were covered.  But the approach adopted here - no mention.

And on #2 above, in retaining legal counsel I needed to provide ID, and there are sworn documents filed, but it is an expensive and drawn out process.

Nor do I like the idea of exchanges acting like the police if anything is going to kill off BTC it will be that idea, once people don't trust that the coins they receive can be sold/traded anywhere it is dead and buried. This would already be in court if he had leg to stand on it has been as I said over a month I think since I first saw this pop up now supposedly he has lawyer but I have seen no mention of papers being served or even the attempt to get proceedings underway. Just the same tired old BS they got my money and won't give it too me and BTW I am not going out of my way to make sure they have everything needed to get the money too me thrown in for good measure. Now I don't know about you but for a $100k I would have been on plane to the land down under long time ago with my passport in hand in person at their offices to get my damn cash if this was the case and I would not be leaving until I had it in hand or the police removed me from said offices in fact I would bring the police with me in the first place which I would think would be a prudent thing to do.

This exactly.

I've done non btc business with Ken and his crew, as well as using their exchange and I find the entire concept of them holding onto funds without being forced into doing so ridiculous.


Yup that would be the right place to settle something like this. Splashing childish nonsense all over a public forum is just idiotic. Furthermore taking a developers attempts at support and reading anything authoritative into them is just as ridiculous.