Topic: The Rock Trading Scam www.therocktrading.com Exchange Review fraud opinion - page 39. (Read 35932 times)

Am very disappointed with this reply.

It is looking more and more like selective scamming.

Please read our FAQ:

https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?id=64

per our sole discretion we can require additional information or documents despite the status

Also read:

https://www.therocktrading.com/en/service_terms/5


and

https://www.therocktrading.com/en/service_terms/3

in particular:

8. AML REQUIREMENTS

1. When registering on the Website, the User is required to provide any necessary information and/or documents that TRT deems, in its sole discretion, to be suitable to maintain compliance with any law, regulation and internal policy (see the Anti-Money Laundering Policy adopted by TRT).

2. During the account verification process, the User must provide all documents that will be required. In particular, by registering an account on the Website, the user agrees to provide TRT, or another party delegated to carry out the anti-money laundering obligations imposed by law on behalf of TRT, with updated, accurate and complete information as required by the registration process, as well as to keep this information updated.

3. In the event of anomalous or not completely transparent operations on the User's account, TRT may request further information from the User, including but not limited to document authentication, and may also freeze all transactions pending the performance of the appropriate checks on the account.

4. TRT is entitled to block, suspend and close accounts of Users who have not been properly verified, notwithstanding any useful efforts by TRT to contact the User and urge the completion of the due verification process.

5. Documents, data, photos and other information material collected during the registration and verification of an account are subject to the retention requirement that TRT has to comply with under the anti-money laundering regulations, also using the services offered by a third party provider.

6. TRT applies regular checks on user accounts also through the request to provide information on the origin of the Assets if and when expressed or converted into virtual currency or legal tender currency. In addition, TRT is entitled to block or freeze any User account, at its discretion and without prior notice, in case of suspected illegal origin of the Assets.


As you can understand, due to GDPR laws and privacy issues, we cannot enter in further details and the specific reasons for the halt of his account.

Again we strongly suggest the customer, if he/she doesn't want to comply with our rules, to open a claim with he authorities in order to solve this issue.

Thank you

I raised the same point.

The exchange clearly has ulterior motives. I was incorrectly told KYC/AML is mandatory but I disputed it then and dispute it now.

They really should think about an exit strategy to get out of this by returning the crypto (and saving-face if they wish) otherwise the negative PR will be affecting their business badly.

Let me ad my two satoshi here.

What i gathered by reading all this is clear:

User opened account to trade crypto and nothing else.  By TOS he is not required to disclose his details unless he wish to withdraw FIAT-usd/eur or what ever they allowing.
OP is not owner of account in that exchange but it is owner of the funds deposited to this account.

What i cannot understand is , why exchange owners pushing so hard to do KYC to make sure account is really OPs not hacker's.

If therock wish to go full kyc mod i suggest inform before deposit reach account. Otherwise its just simply scam which targeting people who wish to stay anonymous.
I can see pattern here where exchanges trying scam users out of their funds using KYC/AML which only should be applied in terms of fiat.


I think its strange to ask for this even knowing your TOS didnt have that part included. So in other words: " you just make that shit up about hacker to keep his funds".
Holding/Trading FIAT is not the same as witdrawing FIAT. So again i think you just going way over the line with this KYC stuff


If THEROCK wish to make sure account is in control same person why not ask OP to deposit any crypto using same wallets as previosuly or sign message using private keys?

At the end of the day funds must be returned to who even is the owner of them.

I think wider exposure - reddit/ twitter / other forums will make people aware of this kind of practices. Might be wise for therock to recosnider stance. Or maybe funds already are gone for boong boonga parties and this type of stuff?

Thanks for making people aware OP.
Do not let it go, pussh them and make people aware everywhere.
Eventually this type of scammers will be exposed and with a bit of help from community they will be out of business.

 

Thanks for keep bumping my thread.

The CTO spoke to the OP a number of years ago. The AML laws changed in 2017. The TOS changed reasonably recently. (It was mentioned in the thread). Like I said earlier I doubt this is going to get resolved without the op lodging it with the authorities.

Unfortunately most things don't get resolved on a public forum. Some exchanges don't even bother with bitcointalk anymore since some users have no understanding of legal requirements and some just don't want to know.

Scammer Medri/eliale your paid poster gave me negative feedback working under your orders. Guess who is going to pay for this? I hope you like your picture. I just made you famous a few days ago. Check http://andrea-medri.simplesite.com
If your paid poster keeps annoying me I will add this site to my signature.

I am not connected to the OP.

I am posting here because I see the OP being treated unfairly and as with other issues I got involved with I just am trying to help out.

As for the points you raised, I broadly disagree with them all.

The CTO overstepped his remit and gave false information to the OP which resulted in all this mess. The blame lay clearly with the exchange and not the OP but this can be resolved without the customer sending ID and without the exchange sending FIAT. The resolution is for them to allow the OP to login and then send his crypto (which he is the owner of) to his desktop wallet as it will not breach any domestic/EU/international AML/KYC laws which are being exaggerated in many cases across many exchanges in order to steal funds by selective scamming. Again, not saying that is happening here but I am really not impressed with the way the exchange has handled this.

The exchange has allowed customers to deposit funds without notifying them they need to send KYC when withdrawing, they should amend that function so customers cannot deposit anything until KYC has been verified and in the interim they should return crypto to all customers in the OPs position.



@eliale

Please reply: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.47500695

Yep -sure. Me and the three articles I provided from prominent Italian law firms are wrong according to you and you and your anonymous lawyer are right.

All the points you have made I have already previously addressed or is just BS.

Prove it in court and I'll believe you. Let me know how you got on when you are done.

In the meantime I am of the opinion that the Italian government has created legislation that cracks down on money laundering and tax evasion .

You quoted opinions out of place, like quoting articles of the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, while completely ignoring that its article 3, n.º 5, i), explicitly limits its application to crypto exchanges to fiat withdrawal operations.

Or quoting articles of the 5 AML european directive of 2018 that is not in force in Italy because it hasn't been adopted yet by italian legislation.

Basically, you are saying that the Rock has been operating outside of the Law by allowing unverified customers to trade there.

But since their TOS and FAQ were approved by the italian authorities this year when they moved back to Italy, this isn't clearly the case.

Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 is very clear: there is no duty to KYC to customers who don't request fiat withdrawals.

And their FAQ is even clear: “Verification is not mandatory, but in order to deposit/withdraw fiat currencies you will need it” https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?id=27.

I have a scan, but it's also recorded here https://archive.fo/BNSfb in case they decide to change it (that would just confirm that they had no authority to do what they are doing and wouldn't apply retroactively to my case).

I'm not connected to the exchange. I hadn't even heard of them prior to seeing this thread.

I have a liking for exchanges, exchange technology and don't like seeing them unfairly tainted due to legislation forced upon them. This is currently happening worldwide. I have a strong interest in Crypto legislation and Crypto forensics.

I know that the majority of bitcoiners like to remain anonymous and while that is possible in some cases:
Where a small amount of funds is involved. (Depends on territorial limits)
Where the user is not identified as a risk.

Where exchanges are located in questionable jurisdictions or the exchange has questionable legal status like with the example that you provided.

So how are you connected to the OP ?

Have you read the applicable Italian law ? I have - and my opinion is that the exchange has the law on their side. It is pointless having a further discussion with him because he is ignoring anything that contradicts his stance.


Tax evasion, questionable source of funds, money laundering, being from a prohibited country or a compromised account are all a possibility.

Like I stated before. People who post on here - unless their RLI is known may not be who they appear to be.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--4679939 RLI of scammer exposed
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-bittrex-account-has-been-disabled-2267728 Thousands of Bittrex accounts frozen due to KYC requirements
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407402.0;all Poloniex account frozen
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1037908 money laundering exposed (Link explained here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20417703 )



The exchange is between a rock and a hard place. They don't hold all the cards. If they have been directed by a enforcement authority they may not even be able to disclose the reason for the freezing of the funds. If they have not been directed by an enforcement authority then they are acting on what they believe to be their legal obligations as advised by their lawyer.
I believe they are acting to the best of their ability based on the advise given by their lawyers. I don't know what law firm they use but I posted 3 legal opinions previously in the thread from different Italian law firms that all support the stance from the exchange.

Currently it is a Mexican standoff - with neither party likely to budge.

Exchange owners are advised by their lawyers they are not likely to know the exact laws to quote or the finer details. They rely on external opinions.

The OP will never admit that they are breaching any of the rules because it is not in their interest. He says he has a "lawyer" but has not stated who that is. He says he is taking it to the authorities but has not done so.

Another scan made. Thank you.

Look like he talks about the "new" TOS, trying to suggest there are something new and relevant about their TOS.

His "new" TOS (April?) changed nothing about verification. I already debunked it completely as a ground for what he is doing: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46225609

He has thousands of unverified customers with fiat on their wallets. Because they only need to verify if they want to withdraw their fiat as the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 and their FAQ says. I don't want to withdraw fiat.

Look how he keeps invoking EU laws, that he know aren't applicable to this case. He doesn't have courage to say directives any longer, but he keeps invoking some mysterious EU Laws.

Thank you for your post. Could you please explain how you are connected to Rock Trading.

I advocate nothing except a resolution that satisfies both parties. The status quo only benefits the exchange. As for why the OP is not sending his ID, I do not know but I would certainly never send my ID to any exchange. In this case the exchange holds all the cards so after the OP sends ID maybe he fears they will invoke other clauses and make life difficult for him.

What I do know is what I stated to eliale in a previous post:

He is one of your oldest customers, dating back to 6 years. If you wanted to apply KYC then your CTO should not have misled the OP and when he deposited his XRP you should flagged him up a warning informing him that should he continue he will have to send KYC.

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

The thread you quote is from a scammy exchange with hidden office somewhere in Russia. Of course they don't comply with KYC laws.

I challenge you to look at any exchange that is in a reputable jurisdiction. They all freeze accounts when they have to by law. Bitcointalk tends to be the moaning board when that happens. BIttrex froze over 20000 of such accounts because they were required to do so by law.

Surely you are not advocating breaking the law because that is what I'm hearing.  Why the OP doesn't want to provide KYC nobody really knows - he doesn't trust them with his id but he trusted them for 6 years with 35000 euro. What if he turns out to be a scammer, hacker or from a country the exchange is prohibited to trade with ?

I am sorry to read you are not going to assist the customer unless he sends his ID to you.

He is one of your oldest customers, dating back to 6 years. If you wanted to apply KYC then your CTO should not have misled the OP and when he deposited his XRP you should flagged him up a warning informing him that should he continue he will have to send KYC.

Please will you look at this post from another situation where there was a huge problem regarding KYC. The exchange withheld funds for 4 months and in the end released it back to the customer and then made changes to their system which advised customers that KYC was required if they went ahead with the transaction.

I kindly request you read the post and allow the OP to get his crypto back: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46792439

After that please make an alteration to your website which forces long time dormant customers to upload KYC before they can either withdraw or deposit. Please put this episode down to experience and misunderstanding and kindly allow the OP to login and withdraw his crypto.

Thank you

[/quote]
so you are still playing the "its a hacker" card ?
That has been proven as an absolute bs few pages ago.
Do you really think that the real owner wouldnt take some action after 11 months ? That the "hacker" would have access to all the personal information Coinfan (owner) has ?
You are just trying to push the money from him
[/quote]

Thank you.  The hacker card is only a safety procedure to protect customer funds.  Of course, if the account has been hacked, the hacker would have all the information posted on this forum.

Still some other facts:

1) Customer accepted all our new TOS and policies.
2) Customer has FIAT funds on the account.
3) We must follow EU laws and our legal team agreed with our procedures
4) We are in EU and not off shore. If the customer does not any longer agree with our terms, it is possible to report it to the authorities

In conclusion, we are not asking for his DNA 

we do need:

1) A valid ID
2) A selfie with the ID
3) A recent POA

We do this with thousands of customers and, since 2014 (when we started to collect documents) we never had one single security issue or leak of information.

Is the above strange for a regulated entity? It is standard......

Anyway,  if you believe we are not following the law and you do not agree on our security policies, there is nothing more we can do.

We do have thousands of customers and doing business since 2011. As you can imagine we must follow indications from our lawyers and we do have to stick with it.

So, please, again, if you feel we are making a mistake, we do not reside in an off-shore country and you can freely proceed to open a cliam with the authorities.

They'll provide to us your information according to the law and,if all is fine, we will promptly release your funds under their strict supervision.

As an alternative, comply with our TOS and the problem will be solved asap.

Thank you

Italian law isn't based on these directives.

The 4 AML directive says nothing about crypto. Doesn't apply to crypto exchanges.

The 5 AML directive from 2018 explicitly addresses crypto, but Italy has until 10 january 2020 to convert it into national law. It hasn't done it yet, so it isn't applicable on Italy.

This isn't a matter of opinion. Is the Law.

Only Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 is applicable to this issue and its article 3, under the name of obligated entities, says:
5. Rientrano nella categoria di altri operatori non finanziari:
i) i prestatori di servizi relativi all'utilizzo di valuta
virtuale, limitatamente allo svolgimento dell'attivita' di
conversione di valute virtuali da ovvero in valute aventi corso
forzoso."

The legislative decree only applies to withdrawals of fiat not of crypto.

BS? Yes, I'm spending money in lawyers for nothing... yes, shore, I'm really going to let them keep my 35500 euros "forever".

Member states are required to enforce the directives. The Italian AML law is based on those directives.

It appears that you want to be obtuse about the intent of those directives. I have posted 3 legal opinions from Italian law firms that disagree with your "lawyer".

It would be interesting to know who the lawyer is because the AML directives also specifically apply to lawyers.




Nope - that is not what he said. He said that if you don't comply with their interpretation of the law then they cannot release the funds. He even said he is keen to resolve it and close the account.


Do it.

Laying a complaint with the authorities and providing them with your identity is one way of resolving it.




Threatening legal action is usually bullshit. This is what happened with the last person that threatened legal action in a thread that I took an interest in. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--4679939

so you are still playing the "its a hacker" card ?
That has been proven as an absolute bs few pages ago.
Do you really think that the real owner wouldnt take some action after 11 months ? That the "hacker" would have access to all the personal information Coinfan (owner) has ?
You are just trying to push the money from him