Once you complete the identity verification and prove your funds are legitimate, the exchanger will gladly return your tokens. Nobody confiscated them - they're just in quarantine due to your suspicious activity. Attempts at manipulation or insults won't get you anywhere.
If they are willing to return the coins, then why do they need his data? Understandably, they do not want to process the order, so just let them return the coins to the sender and end the drama.
I am unsure which law states that the exchanger holds the funds until it receives information about the owner.
6months is such a long time to be in a probable situation like that. Don’t know if the accuser was able to go through with having his data put out to prove legitimacy of the coins and still wasn’t given.
My thought after seeing this and the most recent response is that, perhaps the idea of a refund in obvious cases of fraud or criminal related deposit which would have result in confiscation would be, to return to its owner which in this case, wouldn’t have been the person who deposited on the exchanger… that’s if they could tie that person to a wallet or identity otherwise, the reasonable thing to do is to return to the same wallet from which the transaction originated while maintaining neutrality
Unfortunately, while investigations are ongoing, funds cannot be returned as they may face sanctions from law enforcement agencies. Returning such funds could be seen as aiding criminal activity, which is why they remain frozen in custodial wallets until investigations conclude.
As for timelines, it's impossible to predict – some cases resolve in minutes after documentation is provided, while others take months. Neither we nor exchangers control these deadlines; custodial services handle them, with their legal/AML teams coordinating with authorities when needed.
Crucially, fixed deadlines would empower scammers. They’d target exchanger support teams and informational services like ours (which aggregates rate data), bombarding them with complaints or public smear campaigns about 'stolen funds' instead of submitting documents.
While this system isn’t perfect, in practice it primarily affects fraudsters who cry foul over 'stolen Monero' when unable to prove fund legitimacy. Anonymity claims are red herrings – investigators simply need to rule out links to theft, drug trafficking and human exploitation.
Oh, and that ‘return to sender’ idea? Rarely works smooth, especially with CEX, where deposit and withdrawal addresses differ.