1. And the details like username [which understandably some will prefer to be a private matter] are important on this investigation... how? I am once again bringing your older statement here for everyone's attention:
seems the exact opposite to me, you're violating the confidentiality of your customer by forcing him to reveal his contact info, and you're not only asking about the source of the fund.
There are many cases where the client can provide information about the source of the funds received without providing personal data. Also, in some cases, when there are problems with providing evidence, we can ask the user to pass verification. 2. Still not explaining about the counterproductive-ness of having OP to ask for his client to provide the info. As mentioned, if we suppose OP did involved in the crime, there's nothing stopping him to work with this client to fabricate that evidence you asked. So...?
All evidence provided is verified. Providing fake data greatly aggravates the existing incident.3. Thus... innocent? Your words, and I quote, "Since the OP is not the sender of the funds, he has nothing to do with the funds sent to us."
In this case, the user is not related to this order for us, therefore, in principle, he does not have the right to claim a refund and provide information about the source of funds4. Quite contradictive, is it not? "As we have already said, in this case, the OP has nothing to do with the funds sent to our addresses from a legal point of view. When accepting criminal funds to their own addresses, there are other legal consequences for users." So does he have nothing to do with the fund sent to your address or is he involved in it and thus have to face legal consequences?
In this case, two different possible cases are described. If the user accepted funds to their addresses, and then sent them to us, and if the user simply gives the address from the order to his client. In the second case, the user has nothing to do with the funds being sent.5. Oh, wow! All of it? But I thought you send him a screenshot of analysis that shows the tainted money from darknet is just 2.2%? With 3.1% at best if we consider everything shady as "tainted"? Tsk... tsk... tsk... now now, which one of your employee published that analysis and which one of you is lying?
There are various services for analyzing cryptocurrency funds. Our partners use exclusively analysis services that are used by law enforcement agencies around the world. There are only a few companies that are able to effectively accurately determine the direct connection of funds with an illegitimate source.
We do not use services whose data can be accessed by anyone, as the publicity of the data plays in favor, including for criminals.