The maximal amount of a “fine” accepted in OTC-segment and by us is not more than 10 percent of the transaction.
Lol. So you're okay with it.
In this specific case a blatant violation of the exchanger’s rules happened, the user had been informed but deliberately send a risky operation and refused to pass KYC-procedure necessary by the conditions of this service.
You can't seriously expect someone to send KYC-documents to an anonymous exchange with just an email address, right?
The very practice of fine although being very unpopular among users, often has real grounds for its existence. This is due to the increased risks of blocking part of the receipts or even the entire exchange service account in the custodial wallet they use. Thus, they try to reduce their losses from potential sanctions for such transfers in the future.
All this is caused by using a third-party for deposits, without sharing that information.
AML laws and regulations differ around the world, and neither you nor OpenChange have been forthcoming about what jurisdiction they are based in, which third party payment processor they are using, and which jurisdiction that third party is based in. I've got to say though, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which says "If you think money is illicit, keep 10% for yourself."
For a general user, it does not matter in what country this or that exchanger is registered.
Are they even registered? If so, why doesn't their website show it?
The aspects you describe are written in the rules of exchange, you either agree with them and finish the transaction, or refuse and leave the website with unacceptable for you conditions. There is nothing extraordinary in the service conditions of the exchanger. We make sure that various conditions and rules do not go beyond the boundaries of reasonable and legal.
Where I live, stealing 10% from a customer is not legal. Period. Terms and Conditions are not above the law. It's also not reasonable under any circumstances, and basing it on unproven accusations like "100% stolen" is just plain BS.
In the context of the current generally accepted norms, we do not see anything reprehensible and illegal in the actions of OpenChange, so the question of their exclusion has not yet been raised.
I've seen reputations on Bitcointalk destroyed for less.
And the questions of whether this or that practice is ethical, are very subjective. However, we don’t exclude the possibility of their removal, if the community (and not several people on bitcointalk) will decide that this practice in this context is incorrect
How about a questionaire on your website:
Q. Do you think it is acceptable for an exchange to steal 10% of your deposit based on unproven criminal accusations?
A. Yes/No.
I will probably go first and leave a red tag unless there is a full refund within 48 hours.
What, according to you, has our service done to deserve the “red tag”?
I can't speak for icopress, but only for myself: I don't think you deserve negative feedback. "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk." doesn't apply.
However, a Newbie Flag seems to describe the risk very well: "Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.".
the user agreed with the exchange rules
You keep saying an anonymous website gets to set rules based on legislation somewhere on the planet. If OP wanted to sue them, where does he have to go?
“all they do is stealing money." This one-sided position is very biased and condones "consumer terrorism"
If confiscating funds is warranted, this is how you handle it:
I'd like to stop this right here and make clear that this is not a matter of money but rather a matter of principle. I'm happy to donate at minimum the funds involved in this claim to a charity of the community's choosing. The trust of this community is not something we take for granted and is why we elected to post here to further explain this unusual situation.
of course Best_Change must be responsible for what partners like (OpenChange) do, to their users.
I partially disagree: if an exchanger suddenly pulls an exit scam, I wouldn't blame BestChange for that. But if BestChange keeps recommending them after the fact, they deserve to be blamed.