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?
Developing your thought, it turns out that if KYC requirement would come from an exchanger that had openly specified its address, it would be “more legal”?
Probably, assuming the exchange follows local (national) regulations. At least you'd know who you're sending your personal data to. I also know my data will be much better protected when I send it to a company in for instance Switzerland, than when I send it to a company in, as you call it, “former USSR”.
If this case, if the user would refuse to go through verification and would agree to instead receive 90 percent of payout, then it would be OK for you?
I don't think the user can freely agree to this, it sounds a lot like: "if you don't accept 90%, you get nothing".
for security reasons, the exchanger does not advertise its details?
That sounds shady. What are they trying to hide?
We are not their lawyers; you can ask this question directly to their representatives. We hope that they soon will visit this topic.
I take it you don't know who and where they are either? If they post here, I'll ask them.
With regards to our personal attitude to this, understanding the specifics of legal position of exchangers on the territories of “former USSR”, we do not require them to openly show this information, although we encourage those who are open to doing it.
So you're saying their operations might be illegal in their country? That's not really a surprise if they're hiding behind just an email address, demand personal documents, and unlawfully confiscate funds.
a credit limit or overdraft.
That's not relevant here. OP didn't borrow money from them.
If you had at least some idea of how law enforcing authorities work
That's not needed for a civil case. You know just as well as I do that going to local police saying "this website stole my magic internet money" won't lead to an international manhunt. It will just be another statistic and end there.
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.
This would have good grounds, if this episode would be quite clearly considered as scam. But this is one of the many different positions.
You seem to be the only one who thinks the site didn't scam OP.
We cannot seriously review the case with the fine of about $500 for an exchanger with the 6-year of reputation as the risk of an “exit scam”.
Correct. Until now, it's only selective scamming.
To say it is a scam exchange monitor is false based on what has been discussed in the thread.
Agreed. But it did make me more aware of the risks involved, and especially the review system turns out to be
tricky.