Quote from: eliale on October 30, 2018, 10:35:08 AM

Quote from: JollyGood on October 30, 2018, 10:04:00 AM

Quote from: eliale on October 30, 2018, 07:43:55 AM

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 ?