Quote from: erk on August 10, 2017, 10:42:05 AM

Quote from: A.Zimmerer on August 10, 2017, 10:31:46 AM

I absolutely agree with you @figmentofmyass
Finally someone asking the right questions!
Verification doesn't make sense at this point of
time and with a busted exchange like BTC-E
this is a security risk for every customer.
BTC-E didn't care 7 years about any AML
laws now they get busted and want to verifiy
every customer. People wake up this is fishy!

Not true, BTC-e introduced verification on May 30th. 2017.
Here is a copy of the announcement.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170603055634/https://btc-e.com/news/241

One of the reasons was:

Quote

In the near future verified users will be able to deposit via such popular payment systems as WebMoney, Visa/MasterCard, China UnionPay, Payza.

So obviously they were interested in trying to comply with AML laws.

It doesn't matter what they were doing in May 2017. The money laundering charges stem from 2012, and the unlicensed MSB charge likely stems from inception of the exchange.

I believe they are trying to salvage funds by deterring some people from making a claim on their funds. I can't think of any other rational explanation. The new exchange refunding balances tied to BTC-E (along with the token scheme) will clearly tie them to the original exchange. Mandatory KYC at this point (especially with no fiat processing) doesn't further their compliance efforts; they are already tainted. It's just to scare people away from asking for refunds. Undecided