CryptoChicken exchanger

Hello Jason,
For this exchange a 100 percent high AML risk level was detected according to the report from BitOK and GetBlock including the following categories

Enforcement Action 14.08 percent
Sanctions 0.37 percent
Gambling 0.04 percent
Mixer 0.01 percent
Scam 0.01 percent

Please note that the overall risk level is determined not only by percentages but also by the presence of high risk categories Even minimal exposure to categories such as sanctions scam or mixer automatically classifies the transaction as high risk Additionally the Enforcement Action category with 14.08 percent is a significant indicator and sufficient reason for compliance procedures

Based on this the client was requested to complete verification

The client was properly informed

An email was sent with details about the verification requirement and the list of requested documents
This information was also repeated in live chat
It was clearly stated that the request and exchange are suspended until the documents are provided

We also note that these conditions are clearly stated on our website before creating an exchange The client confirms agreement with the service rules by accepting the terms including the obligation to pass AML verification in case of increased risk

We emphasize that this is not a case of stolen funds The funds are temporarily suspended as part of the verification procedure

From our side all actions are fully compliant with the service rules and we are ready to proceed with the exchange immediately after the client provides the requested documents

Best regards
Crypto Chicken

I have already make AML check on amlbot.com before trading, you can check on there even now still pass the check, then you said there is different AML party have different result, that is too subjective, if you feel unsafe of the usdt, just refund me.

Jason,
We work with an AML provider that is recommended by the BestChange monitoring service and is used in accordance with our security and compliance policies.

Before making the exchange, you could have requested a preliminary AML check from us. This service is provided to our clients as a bonus specifically to help avoid such situations.

Please note that with a detected risk level of 100 percent, we are unable to process a refund, as this would violate our AML rules and procedures.

We value our reputation and strictly adhere to working only with verified and clean funds.

To proceed with your request, it is necessary for you to provide the documents that were requested from you via email.

Best regards.

No, you are not trusted website and well reputed team,I am not share my prive info for you to abuse, you feel not safe about the usdt, cancel the deal and refund, that is simple logic, dont scam my money.

Jason,
The funds for this transaction have already been received on our side, and from this moment we bear responsibility for their further processing in accordance with AML KYC requirements.

Please note that transactions with a high risk level are subject to mandatory verification. Since the exchange was initiated by you as a client, we are required to carry out the appropriate compliance procedure.

We understand the possible inconvenience, however these measures are mandatory and aimed at complying with regulatory requirements and ensuring the security of operations.

We are waiting for you to provide the requested documents in order to proceed with the transaction. If you have any additional questions, we will be glad to assist you.

Best regards.

Amlbot is also reputable AML service, and bestchange have several other recommended aml servie and all shows my address no problem with the aml check.

Jason,
GetBlock is also among the AML providers recommended by BestChange, and the assessment we rely on is based on its report.

Please note that different AML providers may use different data sources and risk assessment methodologies. In cases where at least one provider identifies a high risk level, we are obligated to act in accordance with AML requirements and initiate a compliance procedure.

To proceed with your transaction, it is necessary to complete verification by providing the requested documents. This is a standard regulatory requirement and applies regardless of results obtained from other AML services.

Best regards.

So why didn’t you explicitly specify getblock as an AML service from the outset? Users aren’t likely to test every AML service, after all, as there’s a charge for that.

Jason, Our users can always verify their AML before sending funds; we personally do this and provide feedback. Information about this is available on the website. We also always directly answer users' questions on this topic.

I have already verify my AML before sending funds on amlbot.com, you did not clearly state should use getblock,It's impossible for me to test every AML service before sending.

Jason,
We understand your position. We rely on internal compliance procedures and partner tools when assessing transactions. We always recommend clarifying such matters with us in advance.

Please provide the requested documents so we can continue the process. Once they are received and reviewed, we will resume work on your application.

Yon rely on internal compliance procedures and partner tools when assessing transactions,That is unfair for users, you should return my funds.

Jason, by making an exchange, you agree to our internal policies and the AML policy. A refund is possible after verification in your case, due to the extremely high risk indicators detected. We also cannot rely on personal user checks. We always provide an opportunity to receive a response from AML in advance of sending funds.

Your AML requirements are too subjective and arbitrary, which is unfair to users. Furthermore, since you are asking me to provide personal information, I need to understand your company’s background to ensure that my personal data is not misused. I therefore request the following details: the full legal name of the registered entity, its registered address, and its VASP registration number with the local regulatory authority.

Jason,
Before starting the exchange, you confirmed your agreement with the service rules, including the AML check of funds. Our AML checker is recommended on the monitoring platform you came from, and we operate in accordance with these standards.

Please note that AML requirements are not subjective - they are defined by applicable regulations and are mandatory. In case a high-risk level is detected (100% risk), we are required to request supporting documents regarding the source of funds as well as KYC. Otherwise, we would be in violation of regulatory requirements and could face sanctions.

We operate strictly within our compliance procedures and request documents only in cases where it is necessary.

I have learnt through other sources that some reputable exchange operators support the return of cryptocurrency where there are AML concerns, and there is no truth to the claim of sanctions that you have fabricated. Since your company considers the source of these funds to be risky, and in order to avoid compliance risks on my part, I hereby request that the deposit be declined and that the assets be returned to the sender’s address via the original payment method. Your withholding of ‘risky funds’ without refunding them constitutes a violation of the ‘no profit’ principle under anti-money laundering legislation.

Jason,
In certain cases, a refund to the original sending address may be possible, however only when the risk level is low and there are no restrictions under compliance-procedures.
In your case, the transaction has been classified as high risk, therefore in accordance with AML requirements and the risk-based approach, all operations are suspended until you provide the requested documents.

Since you insist asking me to provide personal information, I need to understand your company’s background to ensure that my personal data is not misused. I therefore request the following details: the full legal name of the registered entity, its registered address, and its VASP registration number with the local regulatory authority,I have the right to ensure that my information is not misused.

Jason,
all the information you are requesting is available in our AML policy, which you agreed to before initiating the exchange. You can find it at the following link: https://crypto-chicken.co/en/aml/

No, I couldn’t find the information I was looking for on the URL you provided; you’ve clearly lied, and I certainly can’t trust a team that’s capable of lying on a public message board.

Jason,
all the information you are requesting is available in our AML-Policy, which you agreed to before initiating the exchange.
Clauses 5.1, 5.2 and 10 explicitly provide for our right to request documents, verify the source of funds, and suspend transactions in cases of elevated risk. These measures are mandatory under AML/CFT requirements.
Clause 5.5, in turn, governs the processing of personal data and ensures its collection, storage, and protection in accordance with the Privacy Policy.

Your statements regarding alleged misinformation are unfounded. We ask you to refrain from making such claims.

I need to understand your company’s background to ensure that my personal data is not misused. I therefore request the following details: the full legal name of the registered entity, its registered address, and its VASP registration number with the local regulatory authority,I have the right to ensure that my information is not misused.give me VASP registration number, and Contact information for the Data Protection Officer (DPO): This is a standard requirement for a compliant business.

Jason,
We understand your concerns and respect your rights. Therefore, in response to your request, we are sending you the company's information via mail. We await your response to our request so we can resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Dear TrueChicken Ltd,

I am writing to request immediate clarification regarding your legal and regulatory status in relation to the virtual asset exchange services you appear to be offering.

You have been identified as:

TrueChicken Ltd
Registration number: ***
Jurisdiction: Republic of Seychelles
Type: International Business Company (IBC)

However, I have not been able to identify public evidence that TrueChicken Ltd holds authorization from the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) to operate a virtual asset exchange or any other virtual asset service provider business under the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2024.

Please therefore provide the following without delay:

Your exact legal entity name used for regulatory purposes.
Your Seychelles FSA VASP licence or authorization number.
The date your application was submitted and the date any authorization was granted.
The specific virtual asset activities you are authorized to conduct.
A direct link to your entry on the FSA public register of licensed VASPs, if applicable.
Confirmation of the jurisdiction from which you are legally authorized to provide virtual asset exchange services.
Confirmation that TrueChicken Ltd is currently in good standing, together with supporting corporate documents.
Copies of the relevant licence, certificate of good standing, and any official regulatory confirmation supporting your claimed status.
Please note that incorporation as a Seychelles IBC, by itself, does not constitute authorization to carry on regulated virtual asset business. If you are offering virtual asset exchange services without the required licence or authorization, that would raise serious compliance concerns.

If your business is properly authorized, this should be straightforward to verify through official records and documents. Until such evidence is provided, your regulatory status remains in question.

Dear Client,
I would like to draw your attention to an inconsistency in your position.
You received notification that the AML screening of your transaction returned a 100% risk score — the highest possible level, generated algorithmically and independently verifiable by you through any professional AML screening service.

Instead of providing documentation regarding the source of funds — which is standard procedure for any legitimate holder of crypto assets — you have shifted the discussion toward our corporate status and demands for licensing information.

This behavior is atypical for users with legitimate funds. Clients whose transactions are flagged for high risk normally provide the requested documentation and complete verification without difficulty. Refusal to provide source-of-funds documentation, combined with attempts to redirect focus toward regulatory questions, is a recognized pattern that our system flags as an additional risk indicator.

Regarding the return of funds: the possibility of refund to the originating sender address is under consideration, and any decision will be made taking into account all factors of the case, including the transaction’s risk profile and user behavior during the verification process. Specific timelines and conditions for any refund will be determined based on the outcome of our internal review.
If you possess legitimate documentation supporting the source of these funds, we recommend providing it. That remains the only path to a resolution in your favor.

Further discussion regarding the corporate or regulatory status of our service will not be conducted in this dialogue.

You said my transaction returned a 100% risk score,This is complete nonsense. My address passed AML verification on amlbot.com and was also assessed by multiple AML checking sites recommended by BestChange. Your claim of “100%” is already defamatory.

Please publish a detailed AML report for my address. Also, your company credentials are highly questionable. My request to verify your company’s legal qualifications is entirely reasonable. Since you are asking me to provide private information, I have every right to demand detailed proof of your company’s lawful status.

The company documents you provided in your previous reply were clearly fabricated and could not be verified through official channels. Please give a detailed explanation as to why you provided false information.

Jason,
Please find our response point by point

1. AML Report. A complete AML report from GetBlock, including a QR code for independent verification via the provider’s service, has been provided to you in confirmation of the AML screening result. GetBlock is listed among the AML services recommended by BestChange, the platform through which you initiated your transaction. The same report has also been submitted to BestChange administration. Our side has provided concrete documented data. Your side has presented claims of conducted checks without attaching any reports, screenshots, or other supporting materials.

2. Corporate Information. The company information published on our service’s website is accurate and can be verified through the public registries of the jurisdiction of registration. Claims of “falsification” are not supported by any evidence and constitute the dissemination of knowingly false information.

3. Return of Funds. Return of funds to the originating sender address is possible upon provision of source-of-funds documentation in accordance with AML procedures. In the absence of documentation from your side, the question of a possible refund has been referred to the relevant regulatory parties for review. The decision regarding your case will be made by these parties in accordance with their established procedures. Timelines and conditions of review are determined by the regulatory parties and are not within the control of our service.
On our side, all required AML documentation has been provided and all required procedures have been carried out in accordance with applicable standards. On your side, to date, only verbal claims have been presented without any supporting materials. The matter is within the competence of the regulatory parties, and you will be informed of the outcome of the review in due course.

First of all, even based on the AML results from GetBlock, your previous claim of a “100% risk score” is a false statement. It is a subjective fabrication of facts. At the beginning of the conversation, you also falsely declared an “Enforcement Action” rate of 14.08%. My own verification shows it is 8.8%, and this figure can still be checked in real time. From the very start, your statements have been filled with false accusations and misinformation.

In fact, with the same address, my funds were successfully exchanged with other BestChange exchangers, because they accept AML verification results from amlbot.com, such as CrystalTrade Exchange. Compliant exchangers do not make excuses to withhold users’ funds.

Third, your company information is inconsistent and misleading. On scanbit.ua, your registered address is listed as Ukraine, while on BestChange it is shown as Seychelles—this discrepancy alone is highly suspicious. Furthermore, the company registration location and registration number you provided cannot be verified through any official channels. You just claimed they can be verified, but words alone are meaningless. Please provide specific official verification sources so that the public and administrators can independently confirm this information.

Jason,
Regarding your statements, please find our response below.
1. AML Methodology. You are conflating different AML metrics. “Enforcement Action exposure” and overall “risk score” are distinct indicators that do not contradict each other. Furthermore, any non-zero Enforcement Action exposure is classified as high risk under AML standards. Our data shows 14.08%, your reference shows 8.8%. Both values fall within the high-risk zone and require additional source-of-funds verification. The overall risk score of 100% is formed based on analysis of the entire chain of origin of funds, including direct and indirect connections with high-risk sources. This is a standard on-chain analysis methodology used by all leading AML providers. AML screening is performed on a specific transaction, not on the entire balance of your wallet. The condition of the overall balance does not negate the screening result of a specific operation.
2. Experience with Other Exchanges. The use of the same address for systematic exchanges through various services is a recognized pattern that AML systems flag as an elevated risk factor. The fact that some exchanges may conduct less thorough screening does not override our compliance standards nor create any obligation for our service.
3. Corporate Information. Our service is represented in various industry directories, while the legal entity operating the exchange service is registered in the Republic of Seychelles, as reflected in the Terms of Use and in the BestChange listing. Information in third-party directories may contain data of individual operators or partners and does not override the main corporate structure. Company registration can be verified through the public registry of the Seychelles registrar using the provided registration number.
4. Return of Funds. Refund to the originating sender address remains under consideration by the relevant parties. Timelines and conditions are determined within established AML procedures and are not within the control of our service. You will be informed of the outcome of the review.
On our side, concrete documented data has been presented: an AML report from a BestChange-recommended service with QR verification, and corporate information disclosed in the Terms of Use. On your side, verbal claims of alternative checks have been made without attaching any reports or screenshots.

Jason,
I would also like to put on record a key point that was overlooked in our correspondence.
From our very first response, we offered you a transparent procedure: provide source-of-funds documentation and complete standard KYC verification. After that, the transaction would have been completed in the ordinary course.
We are not refusing to exchange and not withholding your funds arbitrarily. We are applying a standard AML procedure mandatory for any legitimate exchange service when a high-risk transaction profile is identified.
However, instead of providing documentation, you have:
- Shifted the discussion to our corporate structure
- Accused us of falsification without evidence
- Used legal terminology as a pressure tactic
- Cited alternative AML metrics that, on closer examination, confirm the high-risk classification
Source-of-funds documentation still has not been provided by you.
Completion of the exchange is available upon verification on your side. A refund to the originating sender address remains under review by the relevant regulatory parties within the AML procedure; timelines and conditions are determined by these parties and are not within the control of our service. Both paths remain open to you.

Don’t change the subject; answer my question directly. Do you admit to fabricating facts and exaggerating the severity of the AML issues regarding my address? Given that your company is highly suspicious, it is entirely reasonable for me to request that you provide valid documentation—I am not the one Shifted the discussion.

Jason,
The facts regarding this situation have been presented incorrectly by you.
The order has been assigned a total risk level of 100%, and therefore we are required to act strictly within the established procedures.

We understand the inconvenience caused and expect you to provide the necessary documentation. At the same time, we are awaiting a response from the regulator.

You haven't directly addressed my concerns,First of all, even based on the AML results from GetBlock, your previous claim of a “100% risk score” is a false statement. It is a subjective fabrication of facts. At the beginning of the conversation, you also falsely declared an “Enforcement Action” rate of 14.08%. My own verification shows it is 8.8%, and this figure can still be checked in real time. From the very start, your statements have been filled with false accusations and misinformation.
And your company information is inconsistent and misleading. On scanbit.ua, your registered address is listed as Ukraine, while on BestChange it is shown as Seychelles—this discrepancy alone is highly suspicious. Furthermore, the company registration location and registration number you provided cannot be verified through any official channels. You just claimed they can be verified, but words alone are meaningless. Please provide specific official verification sources so that the public and administrators can independently confirm this information.

Request to Remove crypto-chicken.co from BestChange Due to Unlawful Fund Withholding and Compliance Concerns

Dear BestChange Administration Team,

I am writing to formally request that BestChange review and remove the listing of crypto-chicken.co from your platform.

This exchanger has unlawfully withheld my cryptocurrency funds under the pretext of AML verification. My wallet address has successfully passed checks through AMLBot.com as well as several AML providers recommended on BestChange. In addition, I was able to exchange cryptocurrency without any issue through other exchangers listed on BestChange using the same source of funds. Only crypto-chicken.co chose to block and retain my funds.

The issue is not legitimate KYC or AML compliance itself. The issue is that crypto-chicken.co appears to use vague, overly broad, and one-sided AML terms as a mechanism to seize or indefinitely hold customer funds after the customer has already transferred cryptocurrency to them.

According to their AML page, if a transaction is considered high risk or allegedly subject to an official investigation, the funds may be held until verification or the investigation is completed. They also reserve the right to request highly sensitive personal documents, including passport photos, passport scans, proof of source of funds, a video of the customer holding a passport, and screen recordings from the sending platform showing transaction hashes, wallet addresses, amounts, and dates.

However, the platform does not clearly disclose the regulated legal entity responsible for handling these procedures, the competent supervisory authority, an independent complaint or appeal mechanism, a maximum fund-freezing period, client fund segregation arrangements, or a clear refund procedure if they refuse to complete the service. This is extremely dangerous for users because the funds are already under the exchanger’s control by the time these demands are made.

There is also a serious data protection concern. Their AML page states that customer identity information is collected, stored, shared, and protected according to their Privacy Policy, but I could not find a separate Privacy Policy link on their homepage or in their terms. I also could not locate any clear “Privacy” section on the website. Considering that crypto-chicken.co requests passports, selfie videos with identity documents, proof of funds, and transaction screen recordings, the absence of an easily accessible and legally sufficient Privacy Policy raises major compliance concerns, especially regarding GDPR, UK GDPR, cross-border data transfers, data retention periods, and user rights.

Furthermore, the company information displayed across public platforms is inconsistent and misleading. On Scanbit.ua, their registered address is listed as Ukraine, while on BestChange it is shown as Seychelles. This discrepancy alone is highly suspicious. In addition, the company registration location and registration number provided by crypto-chicken.co cannot be verified through any official public registry or reliable official channel.

In my view, this exchanger does not meet the level of transparency, reliability, and compliance expected from a service listed on BestChange. Its conduct creates a serious risk to users and may damage the credibility of BestChange itself if the listing remains active.

I respectfully request that BestChange:

Immediately investigate crypto-chicken.co’s conduct;
Require them to return my unlawfully withheld funds;
Verify their legal entity, registration number, licensing status, AML procedures, and privacy compliance;
Suspend or remove their listing until they can prove that they operate lawfully and transparently.

I am ready to provide supporting evidence, including transaction hashes, AMLBot reports, screenshots, correspondence with the exchanger, and proof that the same address passed checks and was accepted by other BestChange-listed exchangers.

Thank you for your attention. I hope BestChange will take this matter seriously and protect users from exchangers that abuse AML procedures to retain customer funds.

Jason,
Let us summarize our correspondence.
From our side, the following has been provided: an AML report from a BestChange-recommended service with a QR code for independent verification, corporate information in the Terms of Use, and possible paths forward. All transaction data, including the full AML report, was duly submitted to BestChange administration as part of standard procedure.
From your side, throughout the entire correspondence, the following has not been attached: a single AML report from the services you have referenced, a single screenshot, or a single document regarding the source of funds.
Meanwhile, the topic of discussion on your side has been continuously shifting:
- Initially you contested the AML methodology
- Then you shifted to the corporate structure of our service
- Then you cited an alternative risk metric, substituting the overall Risk Score with the Enforcement Action exposure value
- Now you are requesting that our service be removed from the monitoring platform
We act within standard AML procedures and use services recommended by BestChange. Completion of the exchange is available upon your provision of source-of-funds documentation - this is the standard procedure for transactions with a high-risk AML profile. The question of refund remains under review by the relevant regulatory parties; timelines and conditions are determined by them and are not within the control of our service.
We remain open to dialogue subject to a constructive approach on your side and the provision of concrete documents rather than verbal statements.

Dear BestChange Administration Team,

I strongly reject CryptoChicken’s latest response. Their statement does not address the core issues and instead attempts to shift responsibility onto me.

First, I have never objected to legitimate AML or KYC procedures in principle. My objection is that CryptoChicken is using unclear, inconsistent, and unverifiable AML claims to justify withholding my funds after receiving them. They repeatedly claim a “100% risk score,” yet their own explanation also refers to specific category percentages such as “Enforcement Action.” The figures they provided have not been consistent, and they have failed to directly explain the discrepancy between their claimed percentage and the result I independently verified.

Second, CryptoChicken claims that I have “shifted the discussion,” but this is false. The discussion moved to their corporate and regulatory status only because they demanded highly sensitive personal documents from me, including identity and source-of-funds materials. Before sending such information, I have a legitimate right to verify who is collecting it, which legal entity is responsible, what regulator supervises them, and how my personal data will be protected.

Third, CryptoChicken still has not provided clear and independently verifiable evidence of its legal authority to operate as a virtual asset exchange. Referring vaguely to “corporate information in the Terms of Use” is not enough. They should provide the exact registered legal entity, registered address, registration number, VASP licence or authorization number, supervisory authority, and an official public registry link where this information can be verified.

Fourth, CryptoChicken’s position is internally contradictory. They claim the funds are too risky to refund, but also say a refund is “under review” by unnamed “regulatory parties.” They have not identified these parties, provided any case reference, explained the legal basis for indefinite withholding, or given a maximum review period. This creates a serious risk that AML language is being used as a pretext to retain customer funds without due process.

Fifth, their statement that I have provided only “verbal claims” is misleading. I have repeatedly stated that I am ready to provide supporting evidence, including AMLBot results, screenshots, transaction hashes, correspondence, and proof that the same address was accepted by other BestChange-listed exchangers. However, CryptoChicken has not first satisfied the basic transparency requirements necessary for me to safely submit highly sensitive personal information to them.

Sixth, the privacy and data protection issue remains unanswered. CryptoChicken requests passports, selfie videos, source-of-funds documents, and transaction screenshots, but has not clearly shown a legally sufficient privacy framework, Data Protection Officer contact, retention policy, cross-border transfer basis, complaint mechanism, or independent supervisory authority. For a service handling sensitive identity documents, this is unacceptable.

Therefore, I respectfully ask BestChange to treat this matter not as a simple AML dispute, but as a broader transparency and user-protection issue. CryptoChicken should not be allowed to receive customer funds first and then rely on vague AML wording, unverifiable corporate information, and indefinite “regulatory review” to avoid either completing the exchange or returning the assets.

I request that BestChange require CryptoChicken to:

Provide a full, verifiable AML report and explain all disputed figures clearly;
Provide independently verifiable company registration and regulatory information;
Identify the alleged “regulatory parties” reviewing the refund;
State the exact legal basis for refusing an immediate refund to the originating address;
Provide a clear deadline for resolution;
Return my funds if they refuse to complete the exchange;
Suspend or remove their listing if they cannot prove lawful and transparent operation.

CryptoChicken’s response avoids the key questions: who exactly operates the service, under what licence, under which regulator, according to what refund procedure, and with what data protection safeguards. Until those questions are answered, their demand for sensitive personal documents is unreasonable and unsafe.

Dear BestChange Administration, Dear Client,
All technical and procedural arguments have been set out in our previous messages. Returning to the substance.
The Risk Score 100% and Enforcement Action exposure are different metrics that do not contradict each other. Our data shows Enforcement Action of 14.08%, the client’s own data shows 8.8%. Any non-zero Enforcement Action value is classified as high risk under AML standards, therefore both values confirm the high-risk profile of the transaction. This has been explained previously, and there is no point in continuing the discussion on this point.
On all other matters, the path to resolution remains the same. Provide source-of-funds documentation and complete KYC. This is the standard and only procedure for transactions with a high-risk AML profile. Without this, no other outcome is available.
All necessary corporate data and AML documentation has already been provided to BestChange administration and is available for verification.

Dear BestChange Administration,

I strongly reject CryptoChicken’s latest statement. They continue to avoid the core issues and repeat unsupported accusations instead of providing verifiable answers.

First, their claim that “Our data shows Enforcement Action of 14.08%” is a serious and defamatory allegation. My independent check shows 8.8%, and this result can still be verified in real time. If they rely on a third-party AML provider, the figures should be consistent and independently reproducible. They cannot simply state a higher number, label it as “our data,” and use it to justify withholding funds. Their own figures are inconsistent, and this undermines the credibility of their entire AML claim.

Second, CryptoChicken keeps saying that any non-zero Enforcement Action exposure is automatically high risk. This is an overbroad and abusive interpretation. If that were true, they could classify almost any transaction as high risk and demand sensitive personal documents after receiving customer funds. A legitimate AML process must be transparent, proportionate, and verifiable.

Third, their corporate information remains highly suspicious. This company appears with different registered locations on different platforms. For example, on Scanbit the registration location is shown as Ukraine, while on BestChange it is shown as Seychelles. This inconsistency is not a minor directory error; it directly affects user trust, legal accountability, and data protection. If they demand passports, selfie videos, source-of-funds documents, and transaction screenshots, they must first prove exactly who operates the service, where it is legally registered, and under which regulator it is authorized.

Fourth, their statement that “all necessary corporate data” has been provided to BestChange is not enough. The public and the affected client need independently verifiable evidence: legal entity name, registration number, official registry link, VASP licence or authorization number, supervisory authority, and data protection contact.

Finally, I have not refused legitimate AML checks. I refuse to send sensitive personal data to a company with inconsistent corporate information, unverifiable licensing status, and changing AML accusations. CryptoChicken should either provide complete verifiable proof of its claims and legal authority, or return the funds to the originating address immediately. Indefinite withholding based on disputed and non-transparent AML data is unacceptable.

Jason, Dear BestChange Administration,
The client continues to confuse the metrics. Enforcement Action exposure is one of the components of the overall Risk Score, not a standalone assessment. Our data shows an Enforcement Action value of 14.08%, the client’s own data shows 8.8%. Any non-zero value of this metric is classified as high risk under industry standards - both values confirm the high-risk profile. The overall Risk Score of 100% already includes Enforcement Action and is formed based on analysis of the entire chain of origin of funds. This has been explained three times.

On our side, the screening was performed on the specific transaction hash through a service recommended by BestChange. The result is documented, and the report with a QR code for verification has been provided to the client and to BestChange administration. What exactly and how the client screened - we do not know. From his side, no report, no screenshot, no verification link has been attached. If, as he claims, the check can be “performed in real time” - let him provide the supporting report, as we have done. Without an attached report, this is an unsupported claim that has been repeated for a week.

Procedural pressure does not work on us. We comply with AML requirements applicable to our service. The client has not fulfilled a single AML procedure requirement, has not provided a single document, and continues to change the topic of discussion instead of providing supporting evidence.
No other outcome is available. Documents - or continued procedural review on the side of the relevant regulatory parties.
Best regards

I strongly reject CryptoChicken’s latest response.

CryptoChicken continues to repeat the same unsupported statements while avoiding the essential issues: transparency, proportionality, legal authority, data protection, and the lawful handling of customer funds.

First, CryptoChicken again claims that I am “confusing the metrics.” This is not a valid answer. If CryptoChicken relies on a third-party AML provider, then the relevant figures must be transparent, reproducible, and properly explained. CryptoChicken previously stated an Enforcement Action exposure of 14.08%, while my independent check shows 8.8%. This discrepancy has never been properly explained. Simply repeating that both figures are “high risk” does not answer why CryptoChicken’s stated figure differs from independently verifiable results.

Second, CryptoChicken’s claim that any non-zero Enforcement Action exposure automatically justifies blocking funds and demanding sensitive personal documents is overly broad and abusive. A legitimate AML process must be risk-based, proportionate, transparent, and subject to clear procedures. If any non-zero exposure can be used to freeze funds indefinitely after the customer has already transferred assets, then the service can arbitrarily classify almost any transaction as high risk and force users into unsafe disclosure of private data.

Third, CryptoChicken says that it provided a report with a QR code. However, merely providing a report does not resolve the dispute. CryptoChicken must explain the methodology, the disputed figures, the exact transaction screened, the difference between “overall risk score” and category exposure, and why a refund to the originating address is allegedly impossible. They cannot simply invoke a “100% risk score” as a final answer while refusing to provide a clear legal basis for holding the funds.

Fourth, CryptoChicken keeps accusing me of “changing the topic,” but this is false. The discussion moved to corporate and regulatory status only because CryptoChicken demanded highly sensitive documents from me, including identity documents and source-of-funds information. Before submitting such private information, I have a legitimate right to verify exactly who is collecting it, which legal entity is responsible, what regulator supervises that entity, and how my personal data will be protected.

Fifth, CryptoChicken still has not publicly provided independently verifiable corporate and regulatory information. Saying that “all necessary corporate data” was provided to BestChange is not enough. The affected customer and the public should be able to verify the following:

Full legal entity name;
Registered address;
Company registration number;
Official company registry link;
VASP licence or authorization number, if applicable;
Name of the supervisory authority;
Data protection contact or DPO contact;
Privacy policy, retention period, cross-border transfer basis, and complaint mechanism.

CryptoChicken’s corporate information appears inconsistent across public platforms, including different stated locations such as Ukraine and Seychelles. This is a serious transparency issue, especially for a company requesting passports, selfie videos, source-of-funds documents, and transaction screenshots.

Sixth, CryptoChicken’s position on refund remains contradictory. They claim that no refund is possible without KYC, but also say the refund is under review by unnamed “relevant regulatory parties.” If such parties exist, CryptoChicken should identify them, provide a case reference, state the legal basis for the review, and provide a maximum review period. Otherwise, this looks like an indefinite withholding of customer funds under vague AML wording.

Seventh, I have not refused legitimate AML compliance. I refuse to provide sensitive personal data to a company whose legal status, licensing status, data protection framework, and refund procedure remain unclear and unverifiable. This is a reasonable and necessary precaution.

CryptoChicken’s latest message again fails to answer the key questions:

Who exactly operates the exchange service?
Under what legal entity?
Under what licence or authorization?
Under which regulator?
Under what lawful basis are the funds being withheld?
What is the maximum review period?
What data protection safeguards apply to the requested personal documents?
Why is a refund to the originating address refused if CryptoChicken does not want to complete the exchange?

Until these questions are answered with independently verifiable evidence, CryptoChicken’s demand for sensitive personal documents is unreasonable and unsafe.

I respectfully request that BestChange require CryptoChicken to provide full verifiable corporate, regulatory, AML, refund, and data protection information, or require them to return my funds to the originating address immediately. If CryptoChicken cannot prove lawful and transparent operation, its listing should be suspended or removed to protect other users.

Jason,

1. We have performed our own verification. Our screening through AMLBot does not correspond to what you present as the result of your check. In parallel, the public blockchain explorer of OKX exchange (https://www.oklink.com) shows direct attribution of addresses associated with you to the Money Laundering cluster - this is visible free of charge, without paid services and without special subscriptions.
2. You came to us and accepted our rules. By conducting an exchange on our service, you accepted our rules and AML procedures. AML responsibility for the specific transaction lies with us as the operator, and decisions on it are made by us - in accordance with applicable legislation. Pressure through appeal to BestChange does not work: BestChange is a monitoring platform, not a regulator. Do not confuse the functions.
3. If you refuse to complete KYC and refuse to wait, we will be forced to file a report with the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Republic of Seychelles. After that, you will receive a case number through official channels and will be able to provide data directly to the state authority.
No other outcome is available.

Best regards

CryptoChicken’s latest response is another attempt to intimidate the user instead of answering the core questions.

First, they have repeatedly changed or failed to explain their AML figures. They claim a 100% risk score and 14.08% Enforcement Action exposure, while the user’s independent checks show different results. Repeating “high risk” does not explain the discrepancy.

Second, they now cite OKX/OKLink and a “Money Laundering cluster” without providing a clear report, exact address attribution, methodology, or proof that this relates to the specific transaction. This is a serious allegation, yet they present it vaguely.

Third, their corporate and regulatory status remains unclear. A company demanding passports, selfie videos, source-of-funds documents, and transaction screenshots must first prove its legal entity, licence, regulator, privacy policy, retention rules, and complaint mechanism.

Fourth, threatening to report the user to the Seychelles FIU while still withholding funds looks like coercion, not transparent compliance.

CryptoChicken should either provide verifiable legal, AML, and data-protection evidence, or return the funds to the originating address immediately. Indefinite withholding based on disputed and unverifiable claims is unacceptable.

Jason, Dear BestChange Administration,

A few clarifications on substance.
1. On AML discrepancies. The discrepancy between our GetBlock report (Risk Score 100%) and your statement about “other results from independent checks” is explained simply: throughout the entire correspondence, you have not provided a single AML report supporting your “independent checks.” On our side, we have provided BestChange administration with two independent AML reports — from GetBlock and AMLBot Pro+ — both based on the hash of the same transaction. If you have different results, we understand your reluctance to post the report publicly — therefore we propose that you send it to our corporate email [email protected]. We will review it in good faith and take it into account when considering the case.
2. On OKX/OKLink. We referred to the public OKX blockchain explorer, where addresses associated with this transaction display attribution of connection to the Money Laundering cluster. This is public information, accessible to any user free of charge. We deliberately do not post the specific address or exact link in public correspondence — this is your personal data, and disclosing it in an open channel would be a violation on the part of our service. Full information has been provided to BestChange administration privately. You know your own addresses and can verify them via OKLink independently.
3. On the legal framework. The operator’s obligation to verify the source of funds and to refuse the exchange when a high-risk profile is identified is directly prescribed by the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act of Seychelles (2020) and by FATF standards regarding customer due diligence. Disclosure of full corporate structure, regulatory details, and legal addresses is provided upon request from a regulator or state authority — not at the demand of a client in public correspondence. This is an information security requirement, not avoidance of transparency.
4. On the level of detail in public correspondence. The full breakdown of the AML check is deliberately not posted by us in the public correspondence. This information has been provided to BestChange administration privately, in full PDF reports. If you insist on public disclosure of all details — we are ready to do so openly, but we note that such disclosure is primarily not in your interest.
5. On the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Republic of Seychelles. This is not a threat, but a normal legal solution that resolves your claims rather than creating new ones. From the very beginning of the correspondence, you have been demanding that we disclose a regulator, legal entity, and official communication channels, while at the same time refusing to transfer personal documents directly to the exchange service. Transferring the case to FIU Seychelles gives you exactly what you demand: a state regulator, an official case reference number, a direct communication channel with a state body, and the ability to provide documents directly to the regulator, bypassing the exchange service.

Best regards

I strongly reject CryptoChicken’s latest response, which continues to evade core issues with new unsubstantiated claims, deflection, and what appears to be further misinformation. Their pattern of behavior — shifting explanations, inconsistent figures, unverifiable corporate details, and now vague new allegations — raises serious concerns about their legitimacy and practices. I address their points directly below with facts.
1. AML Discrepancies and Reports
CryptoChicken claims to have provided reports from GetBlock and AMLBot Pro+, yet they have never transparently explained the major inconsistencies in public. They initially stated 14.08% Enforcement Action exposure and a 100% overall risk score. My independent checks (still verifiable in real time) show significantly lower figures (e.g., 8.8% on Enforcement Action). These are not minor differences — they go to the heart of whether their “high risk” classification is legitimate or fabricated to justify withholding funds.
There is no room for further excuses or “methodology” deflection. I formally request that BestChange Administration conduct an independent verification using both GetBlock and AMLBot on the exact transaction hash. I am fully willing to cover the costs of these third-party checks. This would be objective, reproducible, and eliminate any possibility of manipulation. If CryptoChicken’s figures still do not match even under independent admin review, it will demonstrate that their statements have been deliberately misleading from the start — a clear pattern of dishonesty.
2. Fabricated “Money Laundering Cluster” Claim on OKLink
CryptoChicken has now introduced a new allegation of “Money Laundering cluster” attribution on the public OKX/OKLink explorer. After thorough checking, I could not locate any such connection related to my addresses or this transaction. This appears to be another unsubstantiated escalation.
Notably, this attribution is not mentioned in their original GetBlock or AMLBot reports as a basis for the hold. It is an arbitrary, post-hoc standard they invented to strengthen their position. Legitimate AML providers like GetBlock and AMLBot have their own methodologies — CryptoChicken cannot simply layer on vague public explorer labels as justification for indefinite fund withholding after receiving customer assets. If this cluster truly exists and is material, they should provide a clear, specific, verifiable link or screenshot (redacted appropriately) rather than vague references.
3. Corporate Information and Transparency
CryptoChicken’s corporate details remain highly problematic and unverifiable through official channels. The information they previously provided cannot be independently confirmed in public registries. Compounding this, there are clear inconsistencies across platforms: their registered address appears as Ukraine on scanbit.ua but Seychelles on BestChange. This is not a trivial directory error — it directly undermines trust in any entity demanding sensitive personal data (passports, selfies, source-of-funds proof, video recordings, etc.).
I have every right — and responsibility to other users — to verify exactly who holds my funds and personal data before complying with their demands. Referring vaguely to “Terms of Use” or promising private disclosure to BestChange is insufficient. For the protection of myself and all other BestChange users, I insist on full public disclosure of:

Exact legal entity name
Registered address
Company registration number with official public registry link
VASP license/authorization number (if any) and supervisory authority
Link to the relevant public regulator register
Data Protection Officer contact and full Privacy Policy details (retention periods, cross-border transfers, complaint mechanisms)

Until this basic transparency is provided, their demands for my sensitive documents are unreasonable and unsafe.
4. Overall Conduct and Next Steps
Throughout this dispute, CryptoChicken has:

Provided inconsistent AML figures without clear explanation
Introduced new vague allegations when pressed
Failed to offer verifiable corporate/regulatory proof
Refused straightforward refund to the originating address despite claiming the funds are “risky”
Used regulatory language as pressure while avoiding accountability

I have never refused legitimate AML/KYC in principle. However, I will not send passports, videos, and source-of-funds documents to an entity with unverifiable credentials and a track record of inconsistencies in this very case. Other BestChange exchangers accepted the same address/funds without issue using standard AMLBot checks.
I respectfully request that BestChange:

Perform the independent AML verification I proposed (at my expense).
Require CryptoChicken to provide full verifiable corporate, licensing, and regulatory documentation publicly.
Mandate an immediate refund to the originating address if they cannot complete the exchange transparently and lawfully.
Suspend or remove crypto-chicken.co’s listing until they demonstrate they operate with genuine transparency and compliance.

I remain ready to provide all my supporting materials (AMLBot reports, screenshots, transaction details, etc.) to BestChange Administration.
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. User protection and platform integrity require addressing exchangers who appear to use AML procedures as a tool for arbitrary fund retention rather than legitimate compliance.
Best regards.

Jason, Dear BestChange Administration,

1. AML report figures based on a transaction hash are a technical result of a query to the AML provider’s database - they cannot differ when checking the same transaction through the same service. We performed the check through GetBlock and AMLBot Pro+. Full reports with QR codes for verification have been provided to BestChange administration. If needed, we are ready to resend copies to your email, so you can verify the reports yourself via the QR codes. We are also open to any additional checks - propose a service, and we will run the transaction through it.
2. You came to our service and conducted an exchange. Acceptance of the exchanger’s rules when placing the order constitutes consent to AML procedures, including KYC upon identification of a high-risk profile.
3. You have not addressed the simplest option that resolves all your stated concerns - contacting the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Republic of Seychelles. This state regulator provides you with verifiability, an official case reference number, a direct communication channel, and the ability to submit documents directly to the state, bypassing the exchanger.
You say you are concerned about the situation. We are also concerned - but not about hypothetical questions regarding corporate structure, rather about quite real ones: that law enforcement may arrive tomorrow and ask why we processed a transaction with a confirmed high-risk profile without a proper AML procedure. We hold two independent AML reports for this transaction showing connections to sanctioned addresses, money laundering infrastructure, and Stolen Coins. This responsibility lies with the service operator, and we cannot ignore it.

Best regards

Dear Client, Dear BestChange Administration,

A direct question to close the case.
Given your repeated statements about reluctance to transfer personal documents directly to the exchange service - we are ready to arrange KYC through a third-party regulated KYC provider. Documents (passport, selfie, source of funds) in this case would be transferred not to us, but to an independent company with its own license and data protection framework. We would only receive the verification result - passed / not passed / which risk categories are confirmed.
This addresses all your stated data protection concerns at once.
Do you agree to undergo KYC through a third-party regulated KYC provider?
Please give an unambiguous answer - yes or no.

Best regards

I chose to use crypto and the BestChange platform partly because privacy protection is very important to me. I believe many other users have the same concern.

You have proposed handing the AML process over to a third-party company. In that case, I need detailed information about this third party’s qualifications and credentials, so that I can be sure my private information will be properly protected.

As far as I know, some major platforms, such as Godex.io, ChangeNOW, Changelly, StealthEX, Swapzone, and ChangeHero, have clear policies: if KYC/AML verification fails, the funds will be returned to the original sending address.

Why, then, should a small and relatively unknown company like yours, whose qualifications cannot be properly verified, be allowed to repeatedly force me to complete KYC? This is unreasonable.

My requests are very clear:

First, I am concerned about the security of my personal information, and I request that the crypto be unconditionally returned to my original sending address.

Second, CryptoChicken must clearly disclose on its homepage the specific AML platform it uses. You must also clearly state which GetBlock AML indicators may trigger mandatory KYC, and publicly disclose your company’s own qualifications and licensing information.

Even if your company outsources KYC to a trusted third party, that does not exempt CryptoChicken from its own responsibility to have the proper legal authorization and qualifications to operate a crypto exchange business.

Jason, Dear BestChange Administration,

You have not answered the direct question - do you agree to undergo KYC through a third-party regulated provider, yes or no. Instead of an answer, you raise new claims.
1. Godex.io, ChangeNOW, Changelly, StealthEX, Swapzone, ChangeHero also require sender KYC when AML is triggered - this is the standard procedure for high-risk cases. The claim about “automatic refund to the sender address without KYC” is untrue.
2. As a third-party KYC provider, we propose AMLBot KYC. We do not use this service in our standard procedure - we are integrating it specifically in response to your stated concerns about transferring documents to the exchanger. Documents are transferred not to us, but to an independent regulated company; we receive only the verification result.
3. Disclosure of internal AML procedures, specific providers, and triggering thresholds on the main page of the website is not a public obligation of an exchange service. This information is disclosed to a regulator, not at a client’s demand.
4. The size of a company does not determine the obligation to comply with AML legislation. Any exchange service is obligated to verify the source of funds in case of a high-risk profile.
5. For the third time, we draw attention - you continue to bypass our proposal to contact the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Republic of Seychelles. This is a state regulator, a neutral institution for you, with direct authority to request any information from us.
On our side: two independent AML reports with BestChange administration, readiness to integrate AMLBot KYC, readiness to transfer the case to FIU Seychelles.
On your side - no documents, no reports, no direct answers.

Best regards

Hello Yuki,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fabio,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fernando,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Jiro,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Giuseppe,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Thor,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Ahmed,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Orlando,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Orlando,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Adnan,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Juan,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Hugo,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Nicolas,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Anders,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Emir,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Louis,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Louis,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Ivan,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Julien,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Laurent,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Omar,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Suresh,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Franois,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Hans,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fabio,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Abdul,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Dmitro,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello James,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Dmitro,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fabio,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Pranav,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fritz,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Thiago,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Salvador,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Francesco,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Pedro,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello John,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Nikhil,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Joon,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Enzo,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Bogdan,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Enzo,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Leonardo,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Franois,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello David,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Amit,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Kenji,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Fritz,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Klaus,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Orlando,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Klaus,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Riccardo,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Faisal,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello Vladislav,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.

Hello William,
Thank you for review. Will be glad to see you again.