Pages:
Author

Topic: Scam Report Against CryptoXchange $100k USD - page 9. (Read 26304 times)

hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Isn't it so very interesting that Liberty Payouts has such a passionate interest in this issue, when he has been "dealing" in similar amounts of similarly tainted and misappropriated funds? What's up Liberty, worried that one of your colleagues in crime might be getting slapped down while laundering stolen funds? Feel a little too close for comfort to see vigilante justice?

Funny how the scammers all stick up for each other.

Why are you so sure he is not the same guy?

Funny how the scammers stick up for each other? Funny how when there is actually a scam on this site you guys have nothing better to do then come after people like me for no reason at all. There is a mound of evidence against Crypto. Point of the matter is someone is out $100,000 which is a lot of money, and until someone starts explaining why this is, rather than making some baseless assumptions I'm going to assume Crypto is a scammer. Is that not what all you idiots were saying? That you have to "assume" until proven otherwise? Well that's what I'm doing. You guys also need to stop riding Crypto's dick so he can come in here like a man and explain himself.

Liberty Payout: One question--- how do you feel about anonymity and living in New York city?
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Isn't it so very interesting that Liberty Payouts has such a passionate interest in this issue, when he has been "dealing" in similar amounts of similarly tainted and misappropriated funds? What's up Liberty, worried that one of your colleagues in crime might be getting slapped down while laundering stolen funds? Feel a little too close for comfort to see vigilante justice?

Funny how the scammers all stick up for each other.

Why are you so sure he is not the same guy?

Funny how the scammers stick up for each other? Funny how when there is actually a scam on this site you guys have nothing better to do then come after people like me for no reason at all. There is a mound of evidence against Crypto. Point of the matter is someone is out $100,000 which is a lot of money, and until someone starts explaining why this is, rather than making some baseless assumptions I'm going to assume Crypto is a scammer. Is that not what all you idiots were saying? That you have to "assume" until proven otherwise? Well that's what I'm doing. You guys also need to stop riding Crypto's dick so he can come in here like a man and explain himself.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
It's not just a question of AML law it's also a question of privacy laws etc here. A company that is required in case of AML/KYC laws etc to hold customer information, and bank accounts/recipts/statements are very much customer information, are in most civilized countries severely restricted in what they can and can't do with such information and suggesting that they post such on the internet is frankly kinda fail.

In Australia the rules are quite clear: http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6541#k

What you're suggesting is in legal terms under AUS law the same as your bank suddenly deciding to post everything they have on you on the internet. Not really a smart move at all.

WME himself has already made the details public. So I guess he wouldn't mind giving authorization to make the receipt public as well.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 251
Well. I would like to add few cents here....

Actually if payment was done via SWIFT network, it is quite easily to track it. And sender who is doing his job correctly (i.e. sending wires at the same dates as they write in admin screens, etc.) could easily provide proof.

Sender of such payment can ask from bank copy of swift message. And still value date can be in the future,
basically SWIFT message transmitted from sender bank to receiver bank within few seconds to 15-20 minutes depending on
correspondent bank accounts. So if receiver has good relationship with his bank, he could see incoming payment
in minutes... Not in days... And look what "value date" will be.

That's SWIFT message today is standardized and called SWIFT MESSAGE MT-103 ... So copy of this SWIFT message by CryptoXChange would clarify everything. And studying more about SWIFT system would actually help to find international wires, as if some of corr. banks by some reason not transferred to recipient because OF SOME ERROR IN ORIGINATING SWIFT MESSAGE, like wrong account number or wrong company name, this can be easily and quickly resolved.

The swift message copy usually costs between $0 to $25 and contains all required information, with stamp and signature from bank. This swift message - is like GPG-signed email, which can be lawfully enforced if banker screw things. This also negates rumors about "batches"... As even if you sent to your bank "batch", it will be processed message by message using MT-103 transfers. That's why wire costs so much... And wire is irreversible.

More about SWIFT:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_MT_103-23
http://www.globalgrainsvn.com/GGSVN/MT103.html

Please read also this (so you will see how it looks like.... Quite different from these shitty online forms, isn't it ? Actually bankers take responsibility for the transfers... And will be liable by laws if they screw transfer...):
http://www.wallstreetfunds.biz/bankers/MT-103format.htm

That is from google... Usually banks don't copy whole message, but only part with amounts, value date, corr. banks, etc.
They could also put signature and seal on it (useful in case if you have to deal against receiving bank, and have proof that money were actually transferred there - with small and bad banks this works very well, as when they know that you have signed swift message on hands)

Another moment - this not looks like police investigations, as usually you'll get your wire as expected with slight delay, but then you'll likely be arrested when getting these funds. If claims that false passport was used are true for example, then receiving bank would cooperate and receiver of funds would be likely under investigation. If fake ID happened on side of receiver bank, they would perform further tracking until transaction would get to recipient. This is called "paper trail"... Knowing the details helps a lot to locate crooks and then their assets as well... However that may be expensive to perform large-scale investigations.

On other side - WME is running exchange services for years, and it seems that he would not risk with CLIENTS' money by providing fake ID. Putting $100k on fake ID is like complete nonsense today, as if it would be truly dirty money, which "launderer" would know of - he would provide real person with paying him about $500-$1000 for laundering, or this transaction would be structured in smaller pieces. Although it is strange - is that WME is actually same WME ? Because being 10 years in exchanges, and not asking first for proof of transfer via asking for swift message or other similar form for systems like ACH for US accounts or SEPA for EURs is quite strange. However other side seems to have ad-hoc behavior with multiple lies. It looks more like both operate in "gray" biz zone not knowing well what they actually do.

It looks more like CryptoX stopped their money either by their own investigation, without authorities involved or they simply decided to rob WME. Maybe that is "rob the robber" action... I don't know - it's all fantasy without CORRECT investigation by authorized and trained persons (i.e. investigators, experts, etc). But in case if they're just robbing money - many would think that they are nice target for robbery as well, as they would have difficulties to deal with police then, and simply bigger and more powerful robber could take their "bank". And that fact makes additional risk to it's users.

About "stolen bitcoins" - that's the question - who is the judge - stolen they or not ? That cannot be determined from blockchain alone. If exchanger claims the right to be judge - then - what reason to use that exchange ? Somebody pays you, and then cry on forum - oh - they were stolen, I haven't sent that payment... Is it legit to trust such claims at all ?
Isn't purpose of bitcoins was to fix this issue ? If you want refund ability - then go with VISA or paypal - they have it!
Say these "hacks" in exchanges - are they hacks or security exploits by owners or insider personnel, who just decided to steal some coins knowing in advance that it is coins and unlikely there will be any legal consequences, as I written above, that would likely happen if you for example steal money from bank account and wire it even to account with fake ID.

This also raises question - is it possible to trust using bitcoin exchange 3-rd parties that aggregate clients money and operate without tight law framework, that actually protects customers (i.e. maintaining liquidity, etc.) or bitcoin exchanges should be done more in p2p manner, making p2p transactions between persons using real banking institutions that has strict regulations.

Thanks for your attention!

2 Bigpiggy01: If customer wants to disclose his private information - he could, and he could authorize doing that.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
I guess you could always just send the coins to the police to sort out but they would need a bitcoin address first  Cheesy



I know you were making a joke but it is a reasonable idea on the face of it. However once they do this, no one will ever use the exchange again as everyone sooner or later will have tainted coins.

I wonder how many transactions happened between bitcoinica withdrawal and crypto deposit of the coins ?
hero member
Activity: 1138
Merit: 523
1) They can't directly say that the bank is who triggered the AML request. Showing the receipt would absolutely prove that.

You're assuming there's an official AML investigation on the way. Posting the receipts would just prove they send the money which is now stuck at the bank, for whatever reasons. In no way that states there's an AML investigation on the way.
I really doubt that's illegal.

2) They submit the wire requests in large batches. Giving us the receipt would reveal the transactions of others.

Please, just blur the other names.

Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.

You're probably right on that one.

The thing is, OP being a thief or not, I'm very uneasy with a btc exchange "playing police", tainting coins and all that. If CryptoXChange would show us the bank is at fault here for not sending the wires, we could at least rule that out.

It's not just a question of AML law it's also a question of privacy laws etc here. A company that is required in case of AML/KYC laws etc to hold customer information, and bank accounts/recipts/statements are very much customer information, are in most civilized countries severely restricted in what they can and can't do with such information and suggesting that they post such on the internet is frankly kinda fail.

In Australia the rules are quite clear: http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6541#k

What you're suggesting is in legal terms under AUS law the same as your bank suddenly deciding to post everything they have on you on the internet. Not really a smart move at all.
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
Isn't it so very interesting that Liberty Payouts has such a passionate interest in this issue, when he has been "dealing" in similar amounts of similarly tainted and misappropriated funds? What's up Liberty, worried that one of your colleagues in crime might be getting slapped down while laundering stolen funds? Feel a little too close for comfort to see vigilante justice?

Funny how the scammers all stick up for each other.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
I guess you could always just send the coins to the police to sort out but they would need a bitcoin address first  Cheesy

rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
So why does OP post once or twice, and then some unknown members take over the discussion for him in his favor? Smacks of major sockpuppetry and fraud, to say the very least. I'm fairly sure there is a lot more at work here than many folks realize.

Those of you that want to perform actions in direct defiance of governmental or regulatory mandates, please go start your own exchange and see how far you get.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.

The OP could make a complaint to AUSTRAC if he genuinely believes that CryptoXchange is abusing AML/KYC requirements in order to keep his funds for themselves.  Of course he might have some explaining to do if he took that option.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
1) They can't directly say that the bank is who triggered the AML request. Showing the receipt would absolutely prove that.

You're assuming there's an official AML investigation on the way. Posting the receipts would just prove they send the money which is now stuck at the bank, for whatever reasons. In no way that states there's an AML investigation on the way.
I really doubt that's illegal.

2) They submit the wire requests in large batches. Giving us the receipt would reveal the transactions of others.

Please, just blur the other names.

Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.

You're probably right on that one.

The thing is, OP being a thief or not, I'm very uneasy with a btc exchange "playing police", tainting coins and all that. If CryptoXChange would show us the bank is at fault here for not sending the wires, we could at least rule that out.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?
Here's the thing with AML law: CryptoXchange legally can't tell someone that they're being investigated.
And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.
Because the money was on the way. It was the bank that flagged the transaction, after the wire request was submitted.

Why can't he provide receipts then. Some evidence to feast our eyes upon.
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.

Image 16. If Crypto thought he was laundering why would he ask the OP to help him get cheap coins, why try to engage in a joint venture with the OP's business?
Because stolen coins are cheap and Ken apparently knows how to properly launder the coins so that he can make some nice, hot, cash.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?
Here's the thing with AML law: CryptoXchange legally can't tell someone that they're being investigated.
And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.
Because the money was on the way. It was the bank that flagged the transaction, after the wire request was submitted.

Why can't he provide receipts then. Some evidence to feast our eyes upon.
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.

Image 16. If Crypto thought he was laundering why would he ask the OP to help him get cheap coins, why try to engage in a joint venture with the OP's business?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.

Wire requests normally produce receipts too.
Posting the receipts would prove CryptoXChange was telling the truth about having submitted the wires. And I can't believe that's illegal...
1) They can't directly say that the bank is who triggered the AML request. Showing the receipt would absolutely prove that.
2) They submit the wire requests in large batches. Giving us the receipt would reveal the transactions of others.

Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.

Wire requests normally produce receipts too.
Posting the receipts would prove CryptoXChange was telling the truth about having submitted the wires. And I can't believe that's illegal...
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?
Here's the thing with AML law: CryptoXchange legally can't tell someone that they're being investigated.
And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.
Because the money was on the way. It was the bank that flagged the transaction, after the wire request was submitted.

Why can't he provide receipts then. Some evidence to feast our eyes upon.
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?
Here's the thing with AML law: CryptoXchange legally can't tell someone that they're being investigated.
And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.
Because the money was on the way. It was the bank that flagged the transaction, after the wire request was submitted.

And it's clearly seen that that is why Ken has initiated each and every conversation, keeping his client well informed. That fact alone makes me believe that WME is trying to pull a fast one.

~Cackling Bear~
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?
Here's the thing with AML law: CryptoXchange legally can't tell someone that they're being investigated.
And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.
Because the money was on the way. It was the bank that flagged the transaction, after the wire request was submitted.

Why can't he provide receipts then. Some evidence to feast our eyes upon.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
Has it occurred to you that this all happen because of the police? The wire was stopped at the bank, not CryptoXchange. The bank is the one that is requiring the documents. And they can't just convert the funds to BTC, because MtGox is on their ass too.

You know this for a fact or you're supposing?
Assuming that Ken wasn't lying in the logs, it is just about a fact. If you read the logs carefully you'll see that this is mentioned indirectly several times.

Nothing about the logs makes me think that Ken is lying.
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do

Care to show what's not shown?
Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account?

And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts.

+1. Let's see how he replies.

+1. You bastard! You beat me to posting the same.

~Bruno~
Pages:
Jump to: