Topic: Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD - page 8. (Read 26299 times)

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.

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).


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.

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.

+1, OP i suggest you look at this.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

I also highly doubt this is the first or the last time Crypto has done something like this. Only a matter of time before others come out.

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

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

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.

It's really not that simple, which is why when people go to the media about their bank having allegedly done something terrible the bank only comments in general terms along the lines of "looking into the complaint".  There really isn't a blanket authorisation for public disclosure of financial information which a customer can give - the authorisation needs to be insanely specific and it needs to state the lawful purpose for which the information can be disclosed (providing information to a message board so they can form an opinion wouldn't count as the kind of "lawful purpose" required by the various privacy acts).

OP really needs to get his lawyer to file a complaint with AUSTRAC.  There'll be no problem getting his funds released if AUSTRAC determines that his identity verification documents meet the required standards for AML/KYC compliance standards and that his transactions are legitimate.

I wish the alleged scam report were a little more concise.  It's too difficult and long-winded to follow.

The first paragraph should state a precise dollar/btc amount and a date since which it's been owed and how it came to be owed (deposit? proceeds of btc sales? etc.).  Everything coming after that should support the original allegation.  All of the inline screenshots are noise - to the extent they have evidence value, they should be linked as offsite references.

haha you said I was on ignore.

Anyway, the reason no one is jumping up and down is because this is not the first thread WME has tried to make noise in. Go check the other thread. The solutions were all presented, the OP doesn't want to do what he has to do.

I don't understand your question. If you have questions PM me. In the meanwhile I want this thread on topic. People have explaining to do. I want to see how an actual scam report plays out on this site. At this point I'm pissed the fuck off, because so many of you were so adamant about me when I didn't do anything, and now that there is an actual scammer you're all lollygagging which makes the fact that you tried to persecute me my first few days here on the basis of "protecting each other" bullshit.