Comments

• default Veteran

  September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @10thHouse said: 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

  

  Thanked by 1TimboJones
• Fazzil Member

  September 2024

  @Calin said:
  [...]I'm speak very professional with all my customers[...]

  and:

  @Calin said:

  @10thHouse said: 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

  yepp

  -> https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/what-does-it-mean-to-be-professional

  Thanked by 1blaming_f0x
• Maelstrom36 Member

  September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @10thHouse said: 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

  What is your explanation for not being able to deliver your customer's servers when you've accepted their money? Why is your customer absorbing the cost and is taking accountability for the loss caused by your actions, when it should be you?

  Thanked by 7mustafamw3 SashkaPro EndlessGravity fluffernutter BlaZe 10thHouse hyena56
• bytheWay Member

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @10thHouse said: 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

  Someone above also used similar reasoning to defend you (or is it actually you?).
  5,000 customers, none of them got scammed, so that means you're not scamming anyone? That's fallacious reasoning.
  You haven't scammed them yet because there hasn't been an order worth $20k... oh wait, maybe I'm overestimating you, only need $4.5k, paid in cryptocurrency, and that's an advantage.
  By the way, you're very clever. No one can do anything to you, and you still play the victim. I bet someone will fall for it again. Well played!

  Thanked by 2EndlessGravity blaming_f0x
• yoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

  September 2024

  @MannDude said:

  @Calin said:

  @MannDude said: Moving his company from his locale of Romania to... South Africa? Surely that'll make banking easier.

  >

  LoL , it's just a ASN number , https://bgp.tools/as/214209#whois

  Regards

  Ah. Why a new ASN?

  $75 RIPE tax.

  Thanked by 4Maelstrom36 allthemtings fluffernutter hyena56
• itachikonoha Member

  September 2024

  @xvps said:

  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:

  1. If No Suspicion of Illegal Activity:

     • If the bank determines, through its own investigation, that the transaction is legitimate and there is no suspicion of illegal activity, it may choose to release or return the transaction without involving the authorities.

  2. If Suspicion Exists:

     • If the transaction has been flagged as suspicious and reported to the relevant authorities (such as the Financial Intelligence Unit), the bank typically cannot release or return the funds without the approval of those authorities. The bank is required to follow the instructions of the authorities once a report has been made.

  3. Legal Obligations:

     • Once a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is filed, the bank must adhere to the legal process, which usually means waiting for a green light from the authorities before any action is taken on the transaction.

  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:

  1. Proof of Transaction with the Reseller:

     • The hosting business may need to provide documentation that shows the reseller made the payment on behalf of their customer. This could include invoices, contracts, or agreements between the hosting business and the reseller.

  2. Verification of the Crypto Exchange:

     • The hosting business might need to demonstrate that the crypto exchange used for the transaction is reputable and compliant with KYC/AML regulations. This could involve providing details about the exchange’s KYC/AML policies and any documentation proving that the exchange is regulated.

  3. Proof of the Reseller’s Payment:

     • The bank might ask for proof that the reseller’s payment was legitimate. This could involve providing information or documentation about the reseller's source of funds, which might trace back to the reseller's customer.

  4. Customer Due Diligence:

     • Depending on the risk assessment, the bank may require the hosting business to verify the reseller’s customer, especially if the funds are substantial or the transaction is unusual. This could involve understanding the business relationship between the reseller and their customer and providing evidence of the legitimacy of the services rendered.

  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:

  • Outcome: If the bank or hosting provider discovers that the information provided is fake, it is likely that the transaction will be permanently blocked, and the funds could be frozen. The bank may file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the relevant authorities, and further investigation could be initiated. This might lead to legal consequences for the reseller and potentially the hosting business if they are found complicit.

  b) Refusal to Provide Information About Their Customer:

  • Outcome: If the reseller refuses to provide any information about their customer, the bank will likely consider this a red flag and treat the transaction as suspicious. The funds may be blocked or returned, and the bank might again file a SAR with the authorities. The lack of transparency would likely halt the transaction until satisfactory information is provided.

  c) Legitimate Information About Their Customer:

  • Outcome: If the reseller provides legitimate and verifiable information about their customer, the bank and hosting provider are likely to process the transaction after completing any required due diligence checks. The funds would then be released and transferred as intended, assuming no other issues arise during the verification process.

  In summary:

  • Fake Information: Transaction blocked, funds potentially frozen, investigation likely.
  • Refusal to Provide Information: Transaction blocked or returned, SAR filed, further action may be taken.
  • Legitimate Information: Transaction processed after due diligence, funds released.

  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:

  1. Legal Consequences:

     • The reseller could face legal action in both Romania and India. Sending fake documents constitutes fraud and could lead to criminal charges, including fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity of the offense and the legal frameworks in both countries.

  2. Investigation and Penalties:

     • The transaction would likely trigger an investigation by the Romanian authorities, and the findings could be shared with Indian authorities. This could lead to penalties, such as financial sanctions, business restrictions, or revocation of licenses if the reseller operates under a regulated entity.

  3. Reputation Damage:

     • The reseller’s business reputation would be severely damaged, both locally and internationally. This could result in a loss of business relationships, difficulties in accessing financial services, and long-term damage to the company’s credibility.

  4. Increased Scrutiny:

     • Future transactions involving the reseller would be subject to increased scrutiny by both Romanian and Indian authorities, making it more difficult for them to conduct legitimate business activities without facing obstacles.

  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.

  Please don't bring AI shit here.

  Thanked by 1jsg
• CheepCluck Member

  September 2024

  @yoursunny said:

  @MannDude said:

  @Calin said:

  @MannDude said: Moving his company from his locale of Romania to... South Africa? Surely that'll make banking easier.

  >

  LoL , it's just a ASN number , https://bgp.tools/as/214209#whois

  Regards

  Ah. Why a new ASN?

  $75 RIPE tax.

  how ripe are your fruits and vegetables?

  Thanked by 5torchbyte tentor emgh hyena56 satorik
• 10thHouse Member

  September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @10thHouse said: 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

  My explanation is that I, like every other person currently hosting with you, may cease to be one of those customers who has had "no problem" with you. And these incidents only expose the likelihood of that happening.

  Thanked by 1blaming_f0x
• Calin Member

  September 2024

  @bytheWay said: You haven't scammed them yet because there hasn't been an order worth $20k

  True , no 20k usd , but 40k usd , just from a single customer , again , GOSSDHosting it's not my big customer , i m have a customer what paid me 40k USD+
• allthemtings Member, Megathread Squad

  September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @bytheWay said: You haven't scammed them yet because there hasn't been an order worth $20k

  True , no 20k usd , but 40k usd , just from a single customer , again , GOSSDHosting it's not my big customer , i m have a customer what paid me 40k USD+

  thats a lot of fruit

  regards
• Levi Member

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  @Calin said:

  @bytheWay said: You haven't scammed them yet because there hasn't been an order worth $20k

  True , no 20k usd , but 40k usd , just from a single customer , again , GOSSDHosting it's not my big customer , i m have a customer what paid me 40k USD+

  Well, provider tag removal is the first step to begin loosing customers. Google indexed this thread, you have no ability to promote your services in this forum anymore. You will loose even more when bf event starts and new “no dmca” star will shine.

  Today you have banked 20k. But money tends to dry up and hangover will step in

  Thanked by 1hyena56
• zGato Member

  September 2024

  @yoursunny said:

  @MannDude said:

  @Calin said:

  @MannDude said: Moving his company from his locale of Romania to... South Africa? Surely that'll make banking easier.

  >

  LoL , it's just a ASN number , https://bgp.tools/as/214209#whois

  Regards

  Ah. Why a new ASN?

  $75 RIPE tax.

  And free /24
• EndlessGravity Member

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  @Levi said:
  Is it tiny W? Where is that beautiful photo… Or maybe the smoker of the trees? Tadadadammm!

  I guess you are referring to this guy: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/156572/what-is-bitmitigate

  I don't know why people are trying to shoot the messenger here but none of my comments contain false information. It's all backed by information that's already out there mixed with first-hand experience of dealing with crypto. To be clear, I'm not related to @treesmokah and not a big fan of people who host content like "TheDailyStormer" or upload videos of themselves DDoS'ing websites.

  @Maelstrom36 said:
  What is your explanation for not being able to deliver your customer's servers when you've accepted their money? Why is your customer absorbing the cost and is taking accountability for the loss caused by your actions, when it should be you?

  I am trying to find the exact message, but I remember reading a message written by Calin that stated sums of investments he made, among others for a new router. The total of those investments was ballpark $5,000.00 - so the point is, he's using his existing customer base as an excuse. It's called selectively scamming and anyone good in their craft realizes that strategy is more profitable.

  @xvps said:
  A little Q&A with ChatGPT 4.0 as some contrast to all the "experts" in this thread.

  I think the point you've missed is that the bank supposedly stopped Calin's transfer of money, not any transactions made by the customer. At the point where money was supposedly frozen, the bank didn't even know that there was any customer involved. So, I think the way you prompted ChatGPT lead to biased answers.
• EndlessGravity Member

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  Found the comment:

  Yes , recently we investment lot of money in new hardware (we don't want our DDr3 hardware on our colocation) old hardware what usage lot of U per rack

  In same time costs for colocation it's expensive for first time , we need pay:

  1k$ installation fee for configure router and network and other things
  1.4-1.5k euros for router
  600-700 euros for caddy server (150+ caddy)
  shipping servers it's approx 600-700 euros , because the servers are heavy and long, we are talking about servers with 27 bays, more professional people are needed to help manage them and move them physically
  Rails it's approx 600 euros
  Other urgent costa approx 800 euros
  And pre-paid colocation for minimum 3 months in advance that cost for now approx 1600 euros

  If someone's business as usual means dealing with barely €5,000.00 investments, I am not surprised there are only issues with larger transactions.
• xvps Member

  September 2024

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:
  A little Q&A with ChatGPT 4.0 as some contrast to all the "experts" in this thread.

  I think the point you've missed is that the bank supposedly stopped Calin's transfer of money, not any transactions made by the customer. At the point where money was supposedly frozen, the bank didn't even know that there was any customer involved. So, I think the way you prompted ChatGPT lead to biased answers.

  It's funny that you are completely ignoring the existence of AML, and the payment has gone through at least two rounds of AML by two different companies. We don't know if, for example, the crypto exchange reported the transaction to the FIU and they asked Calin's bank to freeze the money, or if it was the AML in Calin's bank that caught the transaction.

  We also don't know why the transaction was caught by AML. It might be that all the end customer's transactions are sent through extended AML due to a known history of shady activities, and that is the reason why the money was frozen.

  In my opinion, they all bear a part of the blame, and just blaming one of them is naive.

  Secondly, many have written that Calin should refund the money. There is an extremely high risk that a refund would be blocked as well because, with 22K frozen and the authorities involved, all of Calin's transactions are likely being monitored by the bank and the involved crypto exchanges as high-risk transactions (by law). Any transaction (or series of transactions) that stands out will likely be blocked.
• EndlessGravity Member

  September 2024

  @xvps said:

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:
  A little Q&A with ChatGPT 4.0 as some contrast to all the "experts" in this thread.

  I think the point you've missed is that the bank supposedly stopped Calin's transfer of money, not any transactions made by the customer. At the point where money was supposedly frozen, the bank didn't even know that there was any customer involved. So, I think the way you prompted ChatGPT lead to biased answers.

  It's funny that you are completely ignoring the existence of AML, and the payment has gone through at least two rounds of AML by two different companies. We don't know if, for example, the crypto exchange reported the transaction to the FIU and they asked Calin's bank to freeze the money, or if it was the AML in Calin's bank that caught the transaction.

  We also don't know why the transaction was caught by AML. It might be that all the end customer's transactions are sent through extended AML due to a known history of shady activities, and that is the reason why the money was frozen.

  In my opinion, they all bear a part of the blame, and just blaming one of them is naive.

  Secondly, many have written that Calin should refund the money. There is an extremely high risk that a refund would be blocked as well because, with 22K frozen and the authorities involved, all of Calin's transactions are likely being monitored by the bank and the involved crypto exchanges as high-risk transactions (by law). Any transaction (or series of transactions) that stands out will likely be blocked.

  It's funny that you are speculating about scenarios that never happen and make no sense. If the crypto exchange reported anything to anyone, they would not have allowed the withdrawal to the bank account and additionally placed restrictions on the account.

  If the transaction was caught by AML, it was on the bank's end, with no knowledge of that transaction having any relation to a customer. For all the bank knows, the funds came from Coinbase and from Calin's account (it's not possible to withdraw on Coinbase to an account not in your name).

  If the customer's wallets were tainted, then Coinbase would have frozen the funds as they were deposited. If that did not happen, there is zero suspicion that the customer is involved in any shady activities and suggesting so is nothing but hot air.

  Finally, can you please stop pretending that there are any authorities involved? We haven't even seen proof that the bank froze anything and you are here talking of imaginary authorities.

  Does someone know what the relation between @host_c and @Calin is? I just compared the WHOIS of AS211462 and AS215740 and found some interesting clues.

  Thanked by 2blaming_f0x servers_guru
• AndreiPerju Member, Host Rep

  September 2024

  @EndlessGravity said: Does someone know what the relation between @host_c and @Calin is? I just compared the WHOIS of AS211462 and AS215740 and found some interesting clues.

  Both of them start with 21?

  what's the point? Also our AS start with 21

  Thanked by 1host_c
• xvps Member

  September 2024

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:
  A little Q&A with ChatGPT 4.0 as some contrast to all the "experts" in this thread.

  I think the point you've missed is that the bank supposedly stopped Calin's transfer of money, not any transactions made by the customer. At the point where money was supposedly frozen, the bank didn't even know that there was any customer involved. So, I think the way you prompted ChatGPT lead to biased answers.

  It's funny that you are completely ignoring the existence of AML, and the payment has gone through at least two rounds of AML by two different companies. We don't know if, for example, the crypto exchange reported the transaction to the FIU and they asked Calin's bank to freeze the money, or if it was the AML in Calin's bank that caught the transaction.

  We also don't know why the transaction was caught by AML. It might be that all the end customer's transactions are sent through extended AML due to a known history of shady activities, and that is the reason why the money was frozen.

  In my opinion, they all bear a part of the blame, and just blaming one of them is naive.

  Secondly, many have written that Calin should refund the money. There is an extremely high risk that a refund would be blocked as well because, with 22K frozen and the authorities involved, all of Calin's transactions are likely being monitored by the bank and the involved crypto exchanges as high-risk transactions (by law). Any transaction (or series of transactions) that stands out will likely be blocked.

  It's funny that you are speculating about scenarios that never happen and make no sense. If the crypto exchange reported anything to anyone, they would not have allowed the withdrawal to the bank account and additionally placed restrictions on the account.

  If the transaction was caught by AML, it was on the bank's end, with no knowledge of that transaction having any relation to a customer. For all the bank knows, the funds came from Coinbase and from Calin's account (it's not possible to withdraw on Coinbase to an account not in your name).

  If the customer's wallets were tainted, then Coinbase would have frozen the funds as they were deposited. If that did not happen, there is zero suspicion that the customer is involved in any shady activities and suggesting so is nothing but hot air.

  Finally, can you please stop pretending that there are any authorities involved? We haven't even seen proof that the bank froze anything and you are here talking of imaginary authorities.

  Does someone know what the relation between @host_c and @Calin is? I just compared the WHOIS of AS211462 and AS215740 and found some interesting clues.

  The handling of AML is not as black and white as you claim. It is normal for transactions to be reported but not blocked, sometimes because of low risk and sometimes because the FIU has instructed so.

  I find it funny that you suddenly show up and put effort into placing all the blame on Calin with all kinds of made-up claims. And at the same time, OP is no longer interested in the money.
• EndlessGravity Member

  September 2024

  @xvps said:
  The handling of AML is not as black and white as you claim. It is normal for transactions to be reported but not blocked, sometimes because of low risk and sometimes because the FIU has instructed so.

  You made that up. Source?

  I find it funny that you suddenly show up and put effort into placing all the blame on Calin with all kinds of made-up claims. And at the same time, OP is no longer interested in the money.

  Please quote a single of the "made-up claims".
• Mumbly Member

  September 2024

  @xvps said: Secondly, many have written that Calin should refund the money. There is an extremely high risk that a refund would be blocked as well because, with 22K frozen and the authorities involved, all of Calin's transactions are likely being monitored by the bank and the involved crypto exchanges as high-risk transactions (by law). Any transaction (or series of transactions) that stands out will likely be blocked.

  Extremely high risk? How high, on a scale from 1 to 10? Did you just make up a new argument?
  Let’s say there’s a chance, hypothetically, but you don’t need to make up stories and present them as facts.
• xvps Member

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:
  The handling of AML is not as black and white as you claim. It is normal for transactions to be reported but not blocked, sometimes because of low risk and sometimes because the FIU has instructed so.

  You made that up. Source?

  EU:
  The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4) and its successors (AMLD5, AMLD6) set out requirements for reporting suspicious activities to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

  Article 33 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD4) mandates reporting of suspicious transactions to the FIU without requiring the financial institution to block the transaction.

  US:
  The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970, also known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, is a key regulation. Under the BSA, financial institutions are required to file SARs with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) if they detect suspicious activity.

  31 U.S.C. § 5318(g) of the Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to report suspicious transactions but does not mandate that they block the transaction unless otherwise required by law.

  UK:
  Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), banks must report suspicious transactions by filing a SAR with the National Crime Agency (NCA).

  Section 330 of POCA mandates that banks report suspicions but does not require them to automatically block the transaction.
• xrz Barred

  September 2024 edited September 2024

  @AndreiPerju said: Both of them start with 21?

  why both of ASN have same "IT Department" ??

  role: IT Department
  address: Str. Dimitrie Cantemir Nr. 77, AP 37
  address: 410059
  address: Oradea
  address: ROMANIA
  phone: +440771125954
  nic-hdl: ID2744-RIPE
  mnt-by: lir-ro-ght-net-1-MNT
  created: 2021-04-09T13:02:04Z
  last-modified: 2021-04-09T13:02:05Z
  source: RIPE # Filtered
• Calin Member

  September 2024

  @xrz said: why both of ASN have same "IT Department" ??

  >

  https://www.host-c.com/store/ip-and-asn-services
• zed Member

  September 2024

  @xrz said:

  @AndreiPerju said: Both of them start with 21?

  why both of ASN have same "IT Department" ??

  role: IT Department
  address: Str. Dimitrie Cantemir Nr. 77, AP 37
  address: 410059
  address: Oradea
  address: ROMANIA
  phone: +440771125954
  nic-hdl: ID2744-RIPE
  mnt-by: lir-ro-ght-net-1-MNT
  created: 2021-04-09T13:02:04Z
  last-modified: 2021-04-09T13:02:05Z
  source: RIPE # Filtered

  And where does @cociu fit into this?!!
• xrz Barred

  September 2024

  @zed said: And where does @cociu fit into this?!!

  in between ^^

  Thanked by 1emgh
• AndreiPerju Member, Host Rep

  September 2024

  @xrz said:

  @AndreiPerju said: Both of them start with 21?

  why both of ASN have same "IT Department" ??

  role: IT Department
  address: Str. Dimitrie Cantemir Nr. 77, AP 37
  address: 410059
  address: Oradea
  address: ROMANIA
  phone: +440771125954
  nic-hdl: ID2744-RIPE
  mnt-by: lir-ro-ght-net-1-MNT
  created: 2021-04-09T13:02:04Z
  last-modified: 2021-04-09T13:02:05Z
  source: RIPE # Filtered

  cuz from there they rent their IP, lol... ght.net

  Not all hosting providers can afford to pay 10k for a /24 class.
• default Veteran

  September 2024

  So all this is cociu's fault?
• johndeo983 Member

  September 2024

  @EndlessGravity said:
  Does someone know what the relation between @host_c and @Calin is? I just compared the WHOIS of AS211462 and AS215740 and found some interesting clues.

  

  Thanked by 6zed sasslik host_c TimboJones satorik Thundas
• xrz Barred

  September 2024

  @AndreiPerju said: Not all hosting providers can afford to pay 10k for a /24 class.

  now he can buy 2 x /24 ^^

  Thanked by 4zed mustafamw3 fluffernutter SashkaPro
• EndlessGravity Member

  September 2024

  @xvps said:

  @EndlessGravity said:

  @xvps said:
  The handling of AML is not as black and white as you claim. It is normal for transactions to be reported but not blocked, sometimes because of low risk and sometimes because the FIU has instructed so.

  You made that up. Source?

  The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4) and its successors (AMLD5, AMLD6) set out requirements for reporting suspicious activities to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

  Article 33 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD4) mandates reporting of suspicious transactions to the FIU without requiring the financial institution to block the transaction.

  I see, I'm talking to a troll. You just pasted 2 sentences related to legislation with many pages that detail the exact requirements and procedures you did not quote (probably intentionally to make it seem like you have a point which you don't).