New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Calin iHostART.Com took our $22.5K and scamming us!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So.... the latest question becomes,
Who is this @EndlessGravity
Suddenly the thread took a new turn.
He is the plot twister.
Exactly. The end is no longer nigh.
Is it tiny W? Where is that beautiful photo… Or maybe the smoker of the trees? Tadadadammm!
Smoker of the tiny W
Maybe he is @Calin alt...four dimensional chess grandmaster moves here?
Give me $22k in crypto and Ill tell you
Everything for 20k. 20k is new $7.
lol, this drama still going on
new king of scammers movin to africaaaaaaa dafuq ^^ run boy run
More context needed.
He is a walking ad for Grammarly
Parceling ip space already…
You must be fun at parties.
Damn, I had no idea about this. I did not check his profile, because he knew a lot of things that happened before and even posted the transaction chain, so I thought he's here since a long long time.
This is a new mystery now..
I took the time to read this thread. I am a small customer of iHostART and I will not buy any service from @Calin anymore
The struggle, the rise and downfall of @Calin
Inb4 an AI generated article is posted by someone with said title here
my im turn to ai
Moving his company from his locale of Romania to... South Africa? Surely that'll make banking easier.
😆
hah true, interesting choice tho
>
LoL , it's just a ASN number , https://bgp.tools/as/214209#whois
Regards
Ah. Why a new ASN?
A little Q&A with ChatGPT 4.0 as some contrast to all the "experts" in this thread.
Do you have insight into the KYC, AML, and related laws in the EU, Romania, and India?
Summary of answer: Yes, I have insight into the KYC (Know Your Customer), AML (Anti-Money Laundering), and related laws in the EU, Romania, and India.
Banks in the EU have to perform KYC and AML on their customers. What are they required to do when they detect a suspicious transaction?
In the European Union (EU), banks and other financial institutions are required to comply with Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. When a bank identifies a suspicious transaction, it is required to take several key steps:
Internal Review and Reporting:
The bank must conduct an internal review of the suspicious transaction. This involves assessing the nature of the transaction, the customer involved, and any potential risks associated with money laundering or terrorist financing.
If the transaction is deemed suspicious after the review, the bank must prepare a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), documenting the details of the transaction, the reasons for suspicion, and any relevant customer information.
Filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR):
The bank is required to file the SAR with the relevant national Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). In the EU, each member state has its own FIU responsible for receiving and analyzing SARs.
The SAR must be filed promptly, usually within a specific timeframe after the transaction is deemed suspicious. This can vary by country but is typically within a few days.
Ceasing or Continuing the Transaction:
Depending on the severity of the suspicion and local regulations, the bank may decide to stop the transaction from proceeding. However, in some cases, the bank may allow the transaction to proceed to avoid tipping off the customer that they are under investigation.
The decision to stop or continue a transaction is typically made in consultation with the FIU or other relevant authorities.
Cooperation with Authorities:
After filing the SAR, the bank is required to cooperate with the FIU and law enforcement authorities in any subsequent investigation. This may include providing additional documentation, customer information, and transaction records.
Banks must maintain confidentiality regarding the SAR filing and are prohibited from informing the customer or any third parties that a SAR has been filed (referred to as the "tipping off" prohibition).
Ongoing Monitoring:
The bank must continue to monitor the customer’s account and transactions for any further suspicious activity. This may involve enhanced due diligence or even closing the account if the risks are deemed too high.
These steps are part of the broader EU framework for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, as outlined in the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD). The goal is to detect, report, and prevent illicit activities while maintaining the integrity of the financial system.
If a Romanian bank has stopped a transaction of a business customer, is it likely they have done this on their own, or was it by instruction from authorities?
If a Romanian bank has stopped a transaction of a business customer, it could be due to either their own internal processes or an instruction from authorities.
On Their Own Initiative: Banks are required to monitor transactions as part of their Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) obligations. If a bank's internal monitoring system detects a transaction that appears suspicious or falls outside the customer's usual pattern of activity, the bank may decide to stop the transaction to prevent potential illicit activity. This decision is often made to comply with regulations and to avoid legal or financial risks associated with processing suspicious transactions.
By Instruction from Authorities: In some cases, a bank might receive direct instructions from national authorities, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or law enforcement agencies, to stop a transaction. This can happen if the transaction is part of an ongoing investigation or if there is substantial evidence that it is linked to illegal activities, such as money laundering, fraud, or terrorism financing.
In practice, it is common for banks to stop transactions on their own as part of their regular AML/CTF compliance. However, if the transaction is particularly high-risk or part of a broader investigation, the decision may be influenced or directly mandated by authorities.
If a bank has stopped a transaction that comes from a crypto exchange, what kind of questions will they ask, and will the receiving company have to prove the source of the payment?
If a bank has stopped a transaction that comes from a crypto exchange, they are likely to ask several questions to ensure the legitimacy of the transaction and to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) regulations. The questions may include:
Nature of the Transaction:
What is the purpose of this transaction?
Is this a regular transaction for your business?
Details of the Crypto Exchange:
Which cryptocurrency exchange is involved?
Is the exchange reputable and regulated?
Source of Funds:
Can you provide details about the source of the cryptocurrency that was converted to fiat currency?
How were the funds originally acquired?
Transaction History:
Have you had previous transactions with this exchange or similar ones?
What is the relationship between your company and the entity sending the funds?
Proof of Legitimacy:
Can you provide invoices, contracts, or other documentation that justifies the payment?
Are there any records showing the origin of the funds and their intended use?
Yes, the receiving company will likely need to provide proof of the source of the payment. This could include documentation such as:
Invoices or contracts related to the transaction.
Proof of business activities or services rendered.
Bank statements or transaction records showing the flow of funds.
Any communication with the sender regarding the transaction.
Providing clear and legitimate documentation is crucial to satisfy the bank's due diligence requirements and to have the transaction processed.
Can a bank legally, at any time during the process, return a stopped transaction without the approval of the authorities?
Whether a bank can legally return a stopped transaction without the approval of the authorities depends on the specific circumstances and the applicable laws in the jurisdiction. In general:
If No Suspicion of Illegal Activity:
If Suspicion Exists:
Legal Obligations:
In most cases, if a transaction is under investigation or has been reported as suspicious, the bank is legally bound to comply with the instructions of the relevant authorities before making any decisions about returning the funds.
The bank customer is a hosting business. A reseller has ordered hosting on behalf of their customer. The payment is made with crypto via an exchange that performs KYC/AML. When the hosting business transfers the money to the bank, the bank stops the transaction. How many steps back does the hosting business have to prove the source of the money?
In this scenario, the hosting business may be required to prove the source of the money through several steps, depending on the bank's requirements and the level of scrutiny applied under Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations. Here’s how it might unfold:
Proof of Transaction with the Reseller:
Verification of the Crypto Exchange:
Proof of the Reseller’s Payment:
Customer Due Diligence:
In essence, the hosting business may need to trace the source of funds back through the reseller to the original customer, depending on how many steps the bank requires to be satisfied that the money is from a legal source. This process could involve multiple layers of documentation and verification to establish the legitimacy of the funds.
The Indian reseller has provided the following information about their customer to the Romanian hosting provider and Romanian bank. What will happen to the money in the three scenarios? a) Fake information about their customer. b) Refusal to provide information about their customer. c) Legitimate information about their customer.
In the scenarios provided, the outcome for the money depends on the nature of the information given by the Indian reseller about their customer:
a) Fake Information About Their Customer:
b) Refusal to Provide Information About Their Customer:
c) Legitimate Information About Their Customer:
In summary:
The Romanian and Indian authorities do exchange AML information. How much trouble is the Indian reseller in if they initially sent fake documents to the Romanian hosting business and its bank?
If the Indian reseller initially sent fake documents to the Romanian hosting business and its bank, they could be in significant legal trouble, especially considering that Romanian and Indian authorities exchange AML (Anti-Money Laundering) information. Here’s what could happen:
Legal Consequences:
Investigation and Penalties:
Reputation Damage:
Increased Scrutiny:
Overall, the Indian reseller could be in serious trouble, with potential legal, financial, and reputational repercussions.
What are the chances that the money will be released or refunded if the reseller has sent fake documents and information?
The likelihood of the money being released or refunded under these circumstances is extremely low, as the bank and authorities would prioritize ensuring that any illicit activity is fully addressed before making any decisions about the funds.
From a moral (not legal) perspective, who is to blame if the money is lost, given that the end customer required an agreement with the reseller for no KYC, the reseller made an agreement with the hosting provider for no KYC, but the hosting provider stated that the money had to go to the bank?
From a moral (not legal) perspective, the blame for the lost money could be attributed to several parties:
End Customer:
The end customer bears significant moral responsibility for insisting on a "no KYC" agreement. By doing so, they initiated a chain of risky actions that ultimately contributed to the loss of the money. Their decision to bypass standard verification procedures exposed everyone involved to unnecessary risk.
Reseller:
The reseller is morally responsible for agreeing to and facilitating a "no KYC" arrangement with both the end customer and the hosting provider. By participating in and perpetuating this risky practice, the reseller played a key role in the circumstances that led to the loss of the funds.
Hosting Provider:
The hosting provider, despite stating that the money had to go through the bank, is also morally accountable for agreeing to a "no KYC" arrangement with the reseller. They knowingly participated in a transaction that lacked proper verification, thereby contributing to the risk of the funds being lost.
Overall Moral Responsibility:
All parties share moral responsibility for the loss of the money. The end customer and reseller initiated and agreed to risky practices, while the hosting provider, despite some caution, still participated in the flawed arrangement. The collective decision to bypass standard KYC procedures created an environment where the loss of money was a foreseeable outcome.
On a scale of 1 to 100, where 1 is highly intelligent, 50 is average intelligence, and 100 is the dumbest person on the internet, how would you rate the reseller if he has made a thread on a forum indexed by Google and the Wayback Machine where he admits to all three parties' false intentions?
Given the scenario, where the reseller has publicly admitted to all three parties' false intentions on a forum that is indexed by both Google and the Wayback Machine, which means the information is permanently accessible and can easily be discovered:
On a scale of 1 to 100, I would rate the reseller quite close to 100. Publicly admitting to such serious misconduct in a forum that is indexed and archived reflects extremely poor judgment, especially given the potential legal and reputational consequences. This action demonstrates a lack of awareness regarding the long-term implications of making such admissions publicly available, which would certainly place the reseller closer to the "dumbest person on the internet" end of the scale.
On the same scale, how would you rate the customer and the hosting provider?
On the same scale, the rating of the customer and the hosting provider would depend on their roles and decisions in the situation:
Customer: If the customer insisted on a "no KYC" agreement, they could be rated closer to the higher end of the scale, perhaps around 80-90, as they knowingly engaged in a risky and potentially illegal practice, showing poor judgment.
Hosting Provider: The hosting provider might be rated slightly lower on the scale, perhaps around 70-80, depending on their awareness and involvement. While they did insist that the money go through the bank (which suggests some level of caution), their agreement to the "no KYC" arrangement still reflects a significant lapse in responsibility and risk management.
These ratings reflect the moral responsibility each party bears for engaging in or enabling risky financial practices.
Would it be legal for the hosting provider to just refund the money?
It would generally be risky and potentially illegal for the hosting provider to refund the money without ensuring that all legal and regulatory requirements are met. The provider should wait for guidance or clearance from the bank and authorities before taking any action to avoid legal repercussions.
Take that artificial intelligence and shove it up your (ass) mouse.
We don't need bots and robots here. Take all that copy-paste intelligence of yours and look for us somewhere else.
I'm in the same boat. @Calin can't be trusted after the 4.5k and now this.
>
I'm have 1.000+ active customers , 85% with monthly payments , and in last 4 years i thing i'm reachd over 5k+ customers
What is your explanation that those customers had no problem with us?
Regards