\When funds are frozen on an AML basis, the jurisdiction of the exchanger itself rarely plays a role, because they often follow instructions from the custodial service that they use to receive and store cryptocurrency. Such services are subject to all international AML legislation of the countries in which they operate (in fact, all world). Therefore, your references and hints are inappropriate.\
The jurisdiction to which the exchanger is subject is currently completely independent of the international legal AML rules (due to sanctions).
Thank you for your subjective opinion on the matter, but firstly, it isn’t so. Secondly, please re-read our post. We have made it clear that what matters is not the jurisdiction of the exchanger, but jurisdiction of the custodial service they use for receiving and storing cryptocurrency.
And the jurisdiction according to your opinion is...... ?
And the jurisdiction according to the exchanger is.... ?
Are you happy that the exchange (Open Change) you are affiliated with have confiscated 10% of the funds of your client because he was diverted to their website as a result of clicking a link on your Best Change website?
Are you happy to continue listing Open Change on your website and are you happy to continue your affiliation with them knowing what their Terms and Conditions consist of?
Ultimately, I think Best Change are partly responsible for any financial loss customers incur as a result of directing users to their affiliate websites. Those customers would not have been diverted to (and maybe never would have found) the affiliate exchanges had they not been listed on the Best Change website. As for the exchanges themselves, the very low rates of scam allegations against them (via Best Change) means thankfully this is still at very low levels. In the case you mentioned, why was the exchange not removed for their listing?
Following your logic, if I visit a phishing website through Google, they bear financial responsibility for my loses? Sounds absurd, isn’t it? But you allow these statements in our address, because you want it this way. If you want to whitewash google saying that they don’t accept funds from fraudsters, do google that information. We can even share our case, when for many weeks we were trying to no avail to remove via their slow support a phishing of our service which was in the google Ads.
Of course, this in no away justifies financial claims that happen from time to time due to real loss of funds, and we are truly sorry for the victims in these or those situations. But we don’t have any legal binding with these services where users exchange their funds, formally we are a simple informative resource, that is why we must not make any compensations, although from the heigh of our authority we try to put pressure on exchangers when they, in our opinion, are wrong, to return the funds to the victims, and if necessary, in extreme cases, we transfer all the information we have to law enforcement agencies.
Information that we do no bear financial responsibility is clearly stated in several places on the website. And it is so, even if you want the opposite.
Speaking of the 10% loss of funds to the client that you introduced to Open Change, can you state the commission you received from Open Change from the 10% they stole?