Quote from: fixedfloat on December 11, 2022, 06:31:56 PM

There are many services for verifying transactions on AML, including public ones. So, in our experience, public services only help criminals in money laundering.

Could you name a few, please? Out of curiosity if any of my balance would be tagged and lost once put them in your platform or other platform with similar policy. And by the way, I think you mistyped "opinion". You're saying, "so, in our opinion," right? We got you.

Quote from: fixedfloat on December 11, 2022, 06:31:56 PM

We have developed a model for checking transactions so that the probability of suspending a customer's order that is not related to a crime in any way is minimal.

Quote from: fixedfloat on December 05, 2022, 07:19:45 PM

[...]

Regarding your screenshot, where two reviews are displayed, where we allegedly froze user funds for no reason - we all have evidence that user funds were obtained fraudulently. [...]

So the two cases pointed out by OP on the opening post, they're happen to be proven as a stolen funds? As you've state that you have nothing to hide --quoted below-- certainly it means you don't mind sharing your foundings and evidences that became the basis for both cases?

As you've assured so many times that you never asked for personal data, and the anonymity of your customer is --also quoted below-- preserved, we can infer that there are no sensitive information involved and so there will be none leaked if you share us your evidence here. Or can't you share it as well because it'll "empower" the scammer by letting them know that their act have been known, just like you can't provide your blocklist to "dis-empower" the terrorist?

Quote from: fixedfloat on December 11, 2022, 06:31:56 PM

We have answered as fully as possible all the questions that were asked to us here by other users of the forum. We have nothing to hide, we never freeze users' funds for no reason, if the user has provided all the evidence that he is not involved in the crime - we unfreeze the funds and conduct an exchange or return the funds. We want to repeat again that we do not request KYC, so that the anonymity of our customers is preserved. We always go to a meeting in solving an incident when victims or our partners come to us with information that funds were stolen or the funds are clearly fraudulent, we cooperate with the law enforcement agencies of the countries that contact us so that justice prevails, the thief was punished, and the victim received his funds back. We value our reputation and do not want to be complicit in crimes, because of ignoring which, our service may be blocked, which is why each case is considered individually. We rely only on the availability of reliable information from reputable services that are responsible for the correct data provided.

If you think you've answered all the questions here, I'd like to invite you to re-read the entire thread, there are a lot of interesting points that you conveniently missed. Like my part of FATF, or how could exactly, in your opinion that publishing your blocklist is really disadvantageous to prevent further ML or unnecessary account freezing.

You see, you keep repeating that you didn't require KYC, like that's the point we're pressing to you. It is NOT. Nor do we inquire about the why you froze an account. The answers are simple, everybody can easily whip a "he scammed someone" out of thin air. What we wanted to know is how do you prove the cases?

A casino can say they held their user's fund because the user cheated. A user can say certain platform scammed them some money by freezing without reason. A DT member --or anyone else, really-- can say a project is scam because they stole an idea somewhere, or whatnot. Eventually, everything breaks down to the how do the accusations or the statements is proven to be true, what basis, what evidence to back up the claim.

And so far, all you gave are vague answers and the ultimate weapon "we won't empower terrorist, we refuse to cooperate with scammers" or anything that fall along the line whenever you're cornered. Either that or you conveniently missed some key point in someone's question, or the entire post(s) themselves. You never presented a backup that your findings of someone's account is based on solid proof. Meanwhile, that thing is a very important here. How would you feel if in an overnight your account is marked as a scammer, flagged, there are hundreds of negative reviews about you, and when you asked why you got into that situation, people simply replied, "ohh, we have evidences that you commit a fraudulent activity, but we won't share it here because it'll help other exchange by making their action known"?

The concern is not why you suddenly froze --for instance-- my account, it's how you prove that my account is involved in fraudulent activity that deserve banning, while there's a huge probability that I'm stuck in this case simply because of my cluelessness that the fund I had was part of a ML, or I bought an XRP from a scammer.

We don't want clueless people to have their assets frozen because of their cluelessness upon depositing into your platform, specifically because --from what we may conclude from your jumbled explanation-- you played your own judge. You gathered evidences and blocklist etc. which remains private to you and your customer can't defend themselves. It is what PrivacyG prepared answer nicely describe, which you also conveniently missed.

Here, let me re-quote that for you and give you a hand a little: since your answer is positive, the question you'd want to address is marked in blue

Quote from: PrivacyG on December 10, 2022, 11:56:43 AM

[...]
If the answer is negative, then to me it becomes obvious this is selectively scamming and not about solving crime cases. Either this or they are going to request information that does affect your privacy, which means they lied. The other option is continuing to request irrelevant information from the customer until the customer gives up, similar to the way Free Wallet proceeds.

If the answer is positive, then the entire system is useless and a waste of time. On both ends.

I asked the quoted question above thinking of a setup where a criminal sets up a trade between them and themselves, deposits the funds onto Fixed Float and pretends they never knew their Bitcoins have illegal origin. They provide correspondence, although they spoke to themselves, all TXID's, confirm the address is theirs, provide a screenshot of the fake seller's Bisq profile. Then what happens is you are enabling funds with criminal origin to be used onto your service and the criminal becomes innocent.

Which begs the question, of what good is their action to freeze funds if a very simple loop hole can be done within minutes to basically make the money legitimate?

[...]
-
Regards,
PrivacyG

And please don't say "we have a system". Remember, we are all about evidences here, so the expected answer is how exactly do you determine a user is an innocent victim or they're a scammer --or terrorist-- pretending to be innocent.