Quote from: caveden on June 07, 2012, 08:13:42 AM

Quote from: Maged on June 07, 2012, 08:04:03 AM

1) They can't directly say that the bank is who triggered the AML request. Showing the receipt would absolutely prove that.

You're assuming there's an official AML investigation on the way. Posting the receipts would just prove they send the money which is now stuck at the bank, for whatever reasons. In no way that states there's an AML investigation on the way.
I really doubt that's illegal.

Quote from: Maged on June 07, 2012, 08:04:03 AM

2) They submit the wire requests in large batches. Giving us the receipt would reveal the transactions of others.

Please, just blur the other names.

Quote from: Maged on June 07, 2012, 08:04:03 AM

Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.

You're probably right on that one.

The thing is, OP being a thief or not, I'm very uneasy with a btc exchange "playing police", tainting coins and all that. If CryptoXChange would show us the bank is at fault here for not sending the wires, we could at least rule that out.

It's not just a question of AML law it's also a question of privacy laws etc here. A company that is required in case of AML/KYC laws etc to hold customer information, and bank accounts/recipts/statements are very much customer information, are in most civilized countries severely restricted in what they can and can't do with such information and suggesting that they post such on the internet is frankly kinda fail.

In Australia the rules are quite clear: http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6541#k

What you're suggesting is in legal terms under AUS law the same as your bank suddenly deciding to post everything they have on you on the internet. Not really a smart move at all.