Pages:
Author

Topic: The Rock Trading Scam www.therocktrading.com Exchange Review fraud opinion - page 40. (Read 36160 times)

full member
Activity: 653
Merit: 217
An entity is required to carry out an adequate client and/or beneficial owner due diligence in case of ongoing business relationship or occasional transaction involving the transfer or the handling of payment of an amount equal to or higher than 15,000 Euro

Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017, article 3, n.º 5, i), under the name of "subjected entities", restricts ANY application of its provisions to a crypto exchange only to operations of conversion (not trading or exchange, but definitive conversion) of crypto to fiat that only happens when the customer makes a withdrawal.

Under this Decree only FIAT withdrawals from crypto exchanges of more than 15000 euros are subject to the quoted due diligence.

It's because of this that their TOS and FAQ makes no reference at all to any 15000 euros limit and allows unverified accounts provided that they don't request fiat withdrawals.


If any transaction of more than 15000 euros were subjected to due diligence and KYC their TOS and FAQ would be illegal.

But they aren't illegal as is confirmed by the fact that their TOS and FAQ were approved by the italian authorities when they moved back from Malta to Italy this year.


There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly?Huh?

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day....

no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

His invocation of "european directives" and "Law" are just lies.

He just publicly stated (and I made scans):
1) That he covertly blocked my withdrawals in december 2017. I had no evidence of a precise month. Thank you!

2) That there are "european directives" applicable to this case, when I informed him more than a month ago that directives don't apply to private relations only to states. Clear lie.

3) That he is going to keep my money "forever" ("or we will have to wait forever"). Confession that he is willing to appropriate my money no matter how many evidence there is that is mine. Thank you!

4) That he doesn't care for the absolute evidence that the money is mine and keep raising suspicions about my ownership that no honest person can raise, which is confirmation that these are just pretexts to keep my money "forever" (quoting him).


If he wants to gamble his exchange, his money and his freedom on a criminal court, I'll be forced to comply and make a criminal complaint.

But I'm still gathering evidence and making the community aware of their practices.


legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly?Huh?

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....


The same person would not come back and say "hack". Your post is very condescending, it seems very clear you are deliberately putting obstacles in the way just to antagonise the OP.

That is same attitude the OP can show you and say that after receiving his ID you will still not release his funds.

I expected better from you. If you are a professional business you should have ended this issue 11 months ago. the OP has suffered enough. You could easily allow him to login to his account and withdraw his crypto over a period of 3 or 4 days.

Your arguments about KYC and law are out of context in this particular case and appear to be used by you as an excuse to get revenge against the OP and nothing else.
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.


That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

If they let him have his funds back and then a month or year later IF there is a request by Italian authorities or an audit then they can justify their returning of the crypto by saying the CTO gave wrong information and the funds were sent by the customer in error.

I am sure the OP would be happy to withdraw his crypto over a period of 4 days to the value of 8,750 EURO a day over a 4 day period.

The stance taken by the exchange is dubious enough but the fact that they seem to revel in the suffering of the OP makes this a very sad matter indeed.

There is nothing we can do. For sure the law and security prevails on all our arguments.

Either the customer provides to us, or to the authorities, his/her Id or we will have to wait forever.  Also, let's assume we will release the coins, without following the rules.... the same person could come back to us claiming a hack and sue us for negligence......  I wouldn't be surprise.....

Believe me, I'm the first one that would like to see this saga ending and close the account.....

Isn't strange he/she threatening us to go to the authorities, talking about jail sentences etc. and non acting accordingly?Huh?

Quite strange I would say.... or,normal if he/she is not the account owner....

I still hope this is not the case but, so far, everything is pointing in that direction.....Will see....












legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.


That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

If they let him have his funds back and then a month or year later IF there is a request by Italian authorities or an audit then they can justify their returning of the crypto by saying the CTO gave wrong information and the funds were sent by the customer in error.

I am sure the OP would be happy to withdraw his crypto over a period of 4 days to the value of 8,750 EURO a day over a 4 day period.

The stance taken by the exchange is dubious enough but the fact that they seem to revel in the suffering of the OP makes this a very sad matter indeed.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.


That is not correct. Once a customer sends funds there is a "business relationship".

I'm not familiar with Italian law specifically but I am very familiar with various other countries laws regarding AML legislation.

It is different if you are dealing with a dodgy exchange that hides behind anonymity or dodgy country that give any  legal status to Crypto.
Those exchanges are not even legal entities and therefore cannot possibly comply with AML laws.
Legal exchanges cannot return funds if the source requires to be identified. They are not likely to tell anyone publicly the exact concerns and while I have no idea of the exact reason the customer requires to provide KYC for AML purposes - my guess is that it is because their balance is over 15K euros. There could potentially also be an issue with the source or the destination of the funds.

A large number of exchanges are going through changes that require them to comply with AML laws.  

Quote
The main anti-money laundering duties (enshrined in Italian law)  relate to:

Customer due diligence
Data retention duties
and
Reporting duties.

At this regard, the obliged entity shall:

carry out an adequate client and/or beneficial owner due diligence in case of ongoing business relationship or occasional transaction involving the transfer or the handling of payment of an amount equal to or higher than 15,000 Euro or in any case, i) in case of doubts concerning the truthfulness of the data obtained or suspects of money-laundering or terrorism financing regardless of any exemption applicable; ii) clients located in high risk countries identified by the European Commission; iii) cross-border correspondence with a corresponding credit institution or financial institution in a third country; iv) ongoing professional relationships or transaction performance with clients and in case of politically exposed persons.

shall retain a copy of the documents collected during the customer's due diligence, indicating: i) the relevant date of the establishment of the business relationship; ii) personal data of the customer and/or the beneficial owner iii) the scope and nature of the legal relationship or of the transaction in place; iv) means of payment used by the customer.

shall submit without delay a suspicious transaction report to the UIF (Financial Intelligence Unit for Italy) when they become aware of, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that terrorism financing or money laundering are in process or terrorism operations are being carried out or attempted, or whatever funds, regardless of their size, come from criminal activity.
https://vanberings.com/EN/Site/News/2017/Reform-of-anti_money-laundering-regulation

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0bff31ef-0b49-11e5-8817-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
PS: The CTO is not  the Compliance officer.

So why did he give wrong advice to the OP?

Why did you continue to accept deposits from him even though you changed your ToS and then when he questioned it your CTO overstepped the mark and not only said ID was not required but also made it clear that some people from the company will try hard to make life difficult but nevertheless ID was not required?


Yes, if he/she doesn't trust us, we strongly suggest him/her to report it to the authorities in order to solve once forever this issue.

More than this we cannot do anything......

He first traded with you 6 years ago. If you treat your oldest customers in this way how can anybody take your exchange or business seriously? You could easily return his crypto to him and as long as there is no FIAT involved then there is no need for him to send ID.

I am sure the OP is doing the right thing by not sending his ID. The reason is because it seems quite clear you will not release his funds and the primary reason is simply because you want to make things more difficult after he came here asking for help. It brought bad PR for your exchange.


There is no limitation on the types of assets that can form the basis of a money laundering offence, and there is no monetary threshold to prosecution. However, where the goods laundered have a limited value, or they derive from a less serious predicate offence (punished with imprisonment for less than five years), mitigating circumstances could apply, which can decrease the amount of the effective punishment.

If somebody does not trade and just deposits, then wants his fund back in the same format he sent them, then there is no need for ID verification.

Do you expect someone to send you his ID after you accept his deposits when you already told him he does not need to send ID.

This is sounding more and more like selective scamming. I am 100% in agreement for the OP to never send you ID.

Please return his crypto in the same format (XRP, BTC etc) that he sent it to you therefore ID verification can be bypassed.

You would destroy your reputation and an old exchange by selective scamming a 6 year old loyal customer just for 35,000 EURO?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide
1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML


no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

He knows very well that european directives don't have direct effect on private relations. Only bind states to adopt internal legislation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union).

I told him that more than a month ago:
You quoted European directives?! You have to know that directives are only binding on State members in order to compel them to approve national legislation. They are completely irrelevant on the relations between private persons, as you well know.

He is invoking european directives (only the 5th AML european directive of 2018 applies to crypto exchanges, but Italy hasn't yet execute it with internal legislation) well aware that they are irrelevant to this case.

But as I said, Italy adopted their Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 on AML and KYC duties, but his article 3, n.º 5, says that crypto exchanges are restrictively ("limitatamente") subject to this duties only on their operations of conversion from crypto to fiat. That is, to customers who ask for fiat withdrawals. I left clear 4 years ago to him on an email exchange that I wouldn't ask for any fiat withdrawal. And he confirmed their TOS: that in this case verification was voluntary.

What they are doing is completely contrary to their own TOS/FAQ and to italian law.

Again I want to thank r34tr783tr78, Mirae and now JollyGood for their attention to this case.

https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/50/jurisdiction/15/anti-money-laundering-italy/

Studio Legale Pisano is an Italian boutique firm which specialises in all areas of white-collar crime, including corporate criminal responsibility, corruption, market abuse and false accounting, tax crimes, money laundering, fraud and recovery of assets, bankruptcy crimes, environmental and health-and-safety crimes.

Qualifying assets and transactions
Is there any limitation on the types of assets or transactions that can form the basis of a money laundering offence?

There is no limitation on the types of assets that can form the basis of a money laundering offence, and there is no monetary threshold to prosecution. However, where the goods laundered have a limited value, or they derive from a less serious predicate offence (punished with imprisonment for less than five years), mitigating circumstances could apply, which can decrease the amount of the effective punishment.

Reform of anti-money laundering regulation (vanberings - law firm)

https://vanberings.com/EN/Site/News/2017/Reform-of-anti_money-laundering-regulation

DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 25 maggio 2017, n. 90
http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/06/19/17G00104/sg

It specifically refers to:

I have on the Rock Trading exchange 35519 euros


An entity is required to carry out an adequate client and/or beneficial owner due diligence in case of ongoing business relationship or occasional transaction involving the transfer or the handling of payment of an amount equal to or higher than 15,000 Euro

Quote
n) identification data: name and surname, place and date of birth, residence and domicile, where different from residence of the registry, the details of the identification document and, where assigned, the tax code or, in the case of subjects other than natural person, the name, the registered office and, where assigned, the fiscal Code;
full member
Activity: 653
Merit: 217
1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML


no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

He knows very well that european directives don't have direct effect on private relations. Only bind states to adopt internal legislation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union).

I told him that more than a month ago:
You quoted European directives?! You have to know that directives are only binding on State members in order to compel them to approve national legislation. They are completely irrelevant on the relations between private persons, as you well know.

He is invoking european directives (only the 5th AML european directive of 2018 applies to crypto exchanges, but Italy hasn't yet execute it with internal legislation) well aware that they are irrelevant to this case.

But as I said, Italy adopted their Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017 on AML and KYC duties, but his article 3, n.º 5, says that crypto exchanges are restrictively ("limitatamente") subject to this duties only on their operations of conversion from crypto to fiat. That is, to customers who ask for fiat withdrawals. I left clear 4 years ago to him on an email exchange that I wouldn't ask for any fiat withdrawal. And he confirmed their TOS: that in this case verification was voluntary.

What they are doing is completely contrary to their own TOS/FAQ and to italian law.

Again I want to thank r34tr783tr78, Mirae and now JollyGood for their attention to this case.
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501
Sure,

our FAQ: https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?cid=1&lang=en_US

and our AML policy: https://www.therocktrading.com/en/service_terms/5

If all docs are going to be fine, in one or two business days funds will be released (sooner if possible)

Thank you!

Considering the OP will not send you any ID, is there please any other way to solve this issue?


Yes, if he/she doesn't trust us, we strongly suggest him/her to report it to the authorities in order to solve once forever this issue.

More than this we cannot do anything......

legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Sure,

our FAQ: https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?cid=1&lang=en_US

and our AML policy: https://www.therocktrading.com/en/service_terms/5

If all docs are going to be fine, in one or two business days funds will be released (sooner if possible)

Thank you!

Considering the OP will not send you any ID, is there please any other way to solve this issue?
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501

The user accepted the new TOS.

Still, since 2011, if we are not positive about the identity, we do have to check for security issues. Believe me, we have seen any kind of examples in the past 8 years....

I want to believe he/she is the owner. In this case, I'm positive he/she will provide to us, or to the authorities, what we need in order to promptly release funds. As simple as that

Thank you!

PS: The CTO is not  the Compliance officer.



So in order to clear this up and for the user to get access to his funds again, you want him to login to his account and upload his ID?

Specifically which ID do want from him? Please list it here.

Since there are issues between yourself and the User will you guarantee that you will not start making more problems but asking him for more and more things because under your ToS you can use (if you want to) loopholes to make things very difficult for the OP.

If he agrees, after you get the ID how long will it take for him to get either the FIAT to his bank or access to transfer the crypto out of your wallets?


Sure,

our FAQ: https://support.therocktrading.com/kb/faq.php?cid=1&lang=en_US

and our AML policy: https://www.therocktrading.com/en/service_terms/5

If all docs are going to be fine, in one or two business days funds will be released (sooner if possible)

Thank you!
sr. member
Activity: 481
Merit: 268
Medri/Eliale you are a scammer and a liar. The OP already posted europeans directives only apply to State members for them to create regulations. And the OP just posted the italian regulation created to execute these directives
My lawyer read the Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 2017.[/b]

It only applies to the activities of crypto exchanges when they convert crypto to fiat by allowing fiat withdrawals (check article 3).
You cant ask for OP documents under your TOS/FAQ or italian law.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino

The user accepted the new TOS.

Still, since 2011, if we are not positive about the identity, we do have to check for security issues. Believe me, we have seen any kind of examples in the past 8 years....

I want to believe he/she is the owner. In this case, I'm positive he/she will provide to us, or to the authorities, what we need in order to promptly release funds. As simple as that

Thank you!

PS: The CTO is not  the Compliance officer.



So in order to clear this up and for the user to get access to his funds again, you want him to login to his account and upload his ID?

Specifically which ID do want from him? Please list it here.

Since there are issues between yourself and the User will you guarantee that you will not start making more problems but asking him for more and more things because under your ToS you can use (if you want to) loopholes to make things very difficult for the OP.

If he agrees, after you get the ID how long will it take for him to get either the FIAT to his bank or access to transfer the crypto out of your wallets?
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501

Your AML/KYC rules changed after the User was an existing customer. When he became aware of it he was told by your CTO that he did not have to send ID otherwise he would have moved his crypto out earlier.



The user accepted the new TOS.

Still, since 2011, if we are not positive about the identity, we do have to check for security issues. Believe me, we have seen any kind of examples in the past 8 years....

I want to believe he/she is the owner. In this case, I'm positive he/she will provide to us, or to the authorities, what we need in order to promptly release funds. As simple as that

Thank you!

PS: The CTO is not  the Compliance officer.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Hello,

no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

But, if we could, in the specific case, we are not positive he/she is the real account owner. So, for his/her protection, and for all of us including our customers, we cannot release funds based on a chat claim....

For example: let's suppose your account has been hacked, would you be happy if we were releasing your funds based on a chat claim??  

But again, if he does not trust us, he/she can open a cliam with the authorities, they'll contact us, provide us with the information and we'll release funds.  It is a longer procedure but the choice is not up to us.

I appreciate the response and you looking in to the matter. As you mentioned in your first post to me your exchange has been going a long time so I respect you when you say you cannot release funds based on chat claims.

I read the title of thread but I cannot right now see this being selective scamming because I have seen what selective scamming looks like in the threads here and more:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/changenowio-evercode-lab-scam-defamation-abuses-threats-russian-business-5007142
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/changenowio-evercode-lab-scam-illegally-holding-of-100-bch-11-bitcoins-4619534
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/changelly-illegal-exchanger-from-russia-with-fake-team-5034589

Yours seems to be a genuine business going back all those years so sure I think there is a misunderstanding between the user and your team

The user in question stated he has the same email address which you can cross reference from the IP address from the email and he has the same email address.

Your AML/KYC rules changed after the User was an existing customer. When he became aware of it he was told by your CTO that he did not have to send ID otherwise he would have moved his crypto out earlier.

Surely there has to be a way out of this where you do not have to send FIAT and he does not have to send his ID. Please would you look at the conversation between the User and your CTO where there was incorrect information given to the OP?

Please would you kindly consider allowing the OP to write to your email address with his crypto wallet address so you can cross reference his IP address along with any questions you want to ask to verify his account (such as his previous trades and dates) then you can release his crypto to him?

Thank you

member
Activity: 416
Merit: 27
Hello and thank you for your remarks.

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day.... and, we do not understand why the customer doesn't want to comply to  rules and AML policies.

We do have 2 major problems here:


1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML

2) we do have to be sure the claimer is the real owner of the account (at this point this is a major issue....)

Even if we do have very stict laws in handling documents, If the customer does not trust us in providing his/her documents, we asked him/her multiple times to open a claim with the authorities so, we will be able to solve the issue.

However, it seems like, reading previous posts that he/she does not trust the police as well.....

Please note: TRT is the oldest exchange in existence. We started business on June 1st 2011 and, since then, we processed thousands of SEPA transfers without any major problem and handled tens of thousands customers documents without one single leak.

So, why he/she doesn't want to provide information required by the laws to us or to the authorities?Huh

I let you answer the question.....

Thank you!  Wink


Many thanks for your post.

Now it is clear the user does not want FIAT sent to his bank. If he has 35,000 EUR worth of crypto can you allow access to it or allow him to send you his wallet address so you can send it to him?

Personally, I have never used any exchange which asks for KYC as I never trust anybody with my ID. Many people have their own reasons for not wanting to send ID to companies over the net, it is very common. It is equally common for users that are happy to trust to send their ID to exchanges. For those that do or not want to send, both have my respect.

If they ask for KYC then users who do not want to send ID should not sign up, simple. In this case your CTO advised the customer that ID would not be required.

Please could this issue be resolved and all parties involved can say it was a misunderstanding?

Is it possible maybe you could sent the crypto to the user (or allow him to withdraw it) and after that both parties will not trade with each other again.

Hello,

no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

But, if we could, in the specific case, we are not positive he/she is the real account owner. So, for his/her protection, and for all of us including our customers, we cannot release funds based on a chat claim....

For example: let's suppose your account has been hacked, would you be happy if we were releasing your funds based on a chat claim?? 

But again, if he does not trust us, he/she can open a cliam with the authorities, they'll contact us, provide us with the information and we'll release funds.  It is a longer procedure but the choice is not up to us.



how would a hacker remain in the control of that account for 11 months ? How would a hacker have access to the bank account where the early small withdrawals were sent ?
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501
Hello and thank you for your remarks.

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day.... and, we do not understand why the customer doesn't want to comply to  rules and AML policies.

We do have 2 major problems here:


1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML

2) we do have to be sure the claimer is the real owner of the account (at this point this is a major issue....)

Even if we do have very stict laws in handling documents, If the customer does not trust us in providing his/her documents, we asked him/her multiple times to open a claim with the authorities so, we will be able to solve the issue.

However, it seems like, reading previous posts that he/she does not trust the police as well.....

Please note: TRT is the oldest exchange in existence. We started business on June 1st 2011 and, since then, we processed thousands of SEPA transfers without any major problem and handled tens of thousands customers documents without one single leak.

So, why he/she doesn't want to provide information required by the laws to us or to the authorities?Huh

I let you answer the question.....

Thank you!  Wink


Many thanks for your post.

Now it is clear the user does not want FIAT sent to his bank. If he has 35,000 EUR worth of crypto can you allow access to it or allow him to send you his wallet address so you can send it to him?

Personally, I have never used any exchange which asks for KYC as I never trust anybody with my ID. Many people have their own reasons for not wanting to send ID to companies over the net, it is very common. It is equally common for users that are happy to trust to send their ID to exchanges. For those that do or not want to send, both have my respect.

If they ask for KYC then users who do not want to send ID should not sign up, simple. In this case your CTO advised the customer that ID would not be required.

Please could this issue be resolved and all parties involved can say it was a misunderstanding?

Is it possible maybe you could sent the crypto to the user (or allow him to withdraw it) and after that both parties will not trade with each other again.

Hello,

no, we cannot. Present EU AML directives are quite clear.

But, if we could, in the specific case, we are not positive he/she is the real account owner. So, for his/her protection, and for all of us including our customers, we cannot release funds based on a chat claim....

For example: let's suppose your account has been hacked, would you be happy if we were releasing your funds based on a chat claim?? 

But again, if he does not trust us, he/she can open a cliam with the authorities, they'll contact us, provide us with the information and we'll release funds.  It is a longer procedure but the choice is not up to us.


legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Hello and thank you for your remarks.

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day.... and, we do not understand why the customer doesn't want to comply to  rules and AML policies.

We do have 2 major problems here:


1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML

2) we do have to be sure the claimer is the real owner of the account (at this point this is a major issue....)

Even if we do have very stict laws in handling documents, If the customer does not trust us in providing his/her documents, we asked him/her multiple times to open a claim with the authorities so, we will be able to solve the issue.

However, it seems like, reading previous posts that he/she does not trust the police as well.....

Please note: TRT is the oldest exchange in existence. We started business on June 1st 2011 and, since then, we processed thousands of SEPA transfers without any major problem and handled tens of thousands customers documents without one single leak.

So, why he/she doesn't want to provide information required by the laws to us or to the authorities?Huh

I let you answer the question.....

Thank you!  Wink


Many thanks for your post.

Now it is clear the user does not want FIAT sent to his bank. If he has 35,000 EUR worth of crypto can you allow access to it or allow him to send you his wallet address so you can send it to him?

Personally, I have never used any exchange which asks for KYC as I never trust anybody with my ID. Many people have their own reasons for not wanting to send ID to companies over the net, it is very common. It is equally common for users that are happy to trust to send their ID to exchanges. For those that do or not want to send, both have my respect.

If they ask for KYC then users who do not want to send ID should not sign up, simple. In this case your CTO advised the customer that ID would not be required.

Please could this issue be resolved and all parties involved can say it was a misunderstanding?

Is it possible maybe you could sent the crypto to the user (or allow him to withdraw it) and after that both parties will not trade with each other again.
hero member
Activity: 838
Merit: 501
Holdings on the account belongs to the owner of the account and not to us.

Provide your information to us or, if you don't trust us to the police and I'll be more than happy to release the funds and close this issue.

Thank you



Hello eliale,

I just started following this thread yesterday.

It has be sad the OP finds himself in a very unfortunate predicament and all this negative PR really has not helped your exchange either.

Regardless of who is or is not to blame I think all parties would agree that 11 months of a customer not having access to his crypto is unacceptable.

Sure, even if you blame the customer OP for this issue may I kindly request a way out where both parties can at least achieve their objectives in a kind respectful manner?

If you feel you did not nothing then do not apologise to him and if the OP thinks he did nothing wrong then he will not apologise to you either but that should not stop a resolution which results in the OP getting back the funds/crypto that he owns but are in your control. In the end the funds belong to him and he has had them in limbo for 11 months, that is something unacceptable.

The 21 August 2018 email exchange between the OP and your CTO (as mentioned and quoted in the OP) is the basis of his defence and his argument. Please, is it possible that rather than the OP send any ID verification for FIAT deposit/withdrawals, you allow him to access his crypto just so he can send it to his desktop wallet.

Maybe both parties can say there was a misunderstanding and you will kindly allow the OP to release the crypto by sending it to his desktop. After that both you and the OP will no longer have to deal with each other.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Hello and thank you for your remarks.

Yes!! 11 months is really a lot for a issue that it could be solved in one business day.... and, we do not understand why the customer doesn't want to comply to  rules and AML policies.

We do have 2 major problems here:


1) we cannot breach the law and avoid KYC/AML

2) we do have to be sure the claimer is the real owner of the account (at this point this is a major issue....)

Even if we do have very stict laws in handling documents, If the customer does not trust us in providing his/her documents, we asked him/her multiple times to open a claim with the authorities so, we will be able to solve the issue.

However, it seems like, reading previous posts that he/she does not trust the police as well.....

Please note: TRT is the oldest exchange in existence. We started business on June 1st 2011 and, since then, we processed thousands of SEPA transfers without any major problem and handled tens of thousands customers documents without one single leak.

So, why he/she doesn't want to provide information required by the laws to us or to the authorities?Huh

I let you answer the question.....

Thank you!  Wink



legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
Holdings on the account belongs to the owner of the account and not to us.

Provide your information to us or, if you don't trust us to the police and I'll be more than happy to release the funds and close this issue.

Thank you



Hello eliale,

I just started following this thread yesterday.

It has be sad the OP finds himself in a very unfortunate predicament and all this negative PR really has not helped your exchange either.

Regardless of who is or is not to blame I think all parties would agree that 11 months of a customer not having access to his crypto is unacceptable.

Sure, even if you blame the customer OP for this issue may I kindly request a way out where both parties can at least achieve their objectives in a kind respectful manner?

If you feel you did not nothing then do not apologise to him and if the OP thinks he did nothing wrong then he will not apologise to you either but that should not stop a resolution which results in the OP getting back the funds/crypto that he owns but are in your control. In the end the funds belong to him and he has had them in limbo for 11 months, that is something unacceptable.

The 21 August 2018 email exchange between the OP and your CTO (as mentioned and quoted in the OP) is the basis of his defence and his argument. Please, is it possible that rather than the OP send any ID verification for FIAT deposit/withdrawals, you allow him to access his crypto just so he can send it to his desktop wallet.

Maybe both parties can say there was a misunderstanding and you will kindly allow the OP to release the crypto by sending it to his desktop. After that both you and the OP will no longer have to deal with each other.

Many thanks for your consideration.
Pages:
Jump to: