Quote from: examplens on September 24, 2024, 09:26:04 AM

It depends on who and how they look at it. Obviously, most of you* instant exchangers have your policy, which is very easily abused. That's why we now have 47 seized exchangers.

What certainly forces most exchangers into violation is the freezing of user funds. I'm sure none of them have a license for such a thing. But you adapted that rule to yourself* under the pretext of AML because it suits you*.
Many exchanges on your service have accusations of seized user funds, it may seem to you that it has been resolved, but it is not. Don't you think that the investigation was launched after numerous complaints about the illegal confiscation of users' funds?

* - I am deliberately including you in the group of instant exchangers, because you directly depend on them and the rules under which they work.

The irony is that the specified exchangers did not exert sufficient level of checking, which led to, according to the investigation, them passing through a part of threat actors and helping them to launder funds.

It is not a question that these services turned a blind eye to some “illegal checks.” They were closed for the insufficient number of these checks. It’s no secret that the majority of exchangers only do selective checks when the level of AML risks surpasses a specific value. The rest are passed through without checking to facilitate exchanging.

Therefore, you are not exactly right. Users will hate the exchangers if everyone starts following the financial regulators’ demands. So, some balance must be found, which, however, didn’t satisfy the biased investigators from the EU.