Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 11:27:00 AM

I would put the question the other way around. Do you think there is much time left legally speaking for services that are dedicated to obscuring the origin of funds?

I think we have to fight for every bit of privacy we have left!

Quote

That leaving aside that I am not very clear on the basis of what legal vacuum mixers operate, because in normal conditions a company that provides services to Italian citizens, should charge VAT and pay it to the government of Italy, which I doubt very much that the mixers do.

There's no VAT on exchanging money, right? That would make buying dollars very expensive in Italy, and just as expensive to exchange them back after your vacation.

I'll take this post from another topic here:

Quote from: LoyceV on July 01, 2022, 03:32:34 PM

Quote from: Best_Change on July 01, 2022, 02:35:07 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on July 01, 2022, 07:53:35 AM

From Janyiah's feedback:

Quote

Admin BestChange.com June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!

There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.

By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.

In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office.

Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway).

In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk.

I still don't get it. Does this mean Janyiah sent his Bitcoin to a third party, and not to OpenChange? Who thought this is a good idea?

It now sounds like OpenChange uses deposit addresses owned by another exchange, and not their own funds. If that's the case, the Reserve: $175 804 859 probably isn't correct.