Update regarding the case,
We froze OP's account under the username 'Drukkola' 4 days ago, on the 22nd of August cause of the request of our payments team.
As per the behaviors of our identification system, it automatically sends out KYC requests to the FJ accounts that tend to have a chance of having an unusual activity. So was the case for the OP.
On the same day (22 August), the OP uploaded only the front and back sides of the ID to the system. Note to mention, to complete the standard KYC procedure, the account needs to upload, the front/back sides of the identification document and the selfie picture of the account owner. In this case, only the first one was completed and no selfie was submitted. As per system requirements, the KYC failed.
After the first failure, Drukkola tried to complete the KYC the second time, but this time the user uploaded both front/back sides of the ID on top of the selfie but the violation part comes in place as the document he uploaded was different from the one he sent in the first try. Note to mention, that the new document the OP uploaded did match the selfie he sent on the second try.
Cause of the fact that there was a match between the 'fake' ID and a selfie, the KYC system automatically gave out the notification of the successful compilation (Even though the submission process was successful, our Customer Support Department did notify the OP that the final decision letter comes after the part of the team reviewing the case). According to our procedure, our Fraud and Prevention Department manually reviews the case after the successful submission of the documents. We did follow the guidelines and after finding out that there were different documents used in the first and the second attempt of the verification process, the corresponding account was terminated.
FJ owns all the documents we mentioned above, including the IDs and a selfie of the account associated with the case. However, we don't have the legal right to publish it publicly without particular notice from the official entities or from the user himself agreeing to the fact of us doing it so.
We think the case must be considered closed, as no proofs were provided from the username against us. If there's anything from us to add to the community to make all of this fair and transparent, we're more than welcome to do so.
Tornike is also known as ampera.