TheChange exchanger

Hello,

Your review contains inaccurate statements about the reasons for our domain change, the availability of communication channels, and the purpose of the transfer of funds. We address these points below.

1. Domain change

The transition from thechange.ltd to thechange.inc had been planned for approximately six months. The business originally operated under the name The Change Solutions Limited. More than a year ago, a second company, The Change Solutions Inc., was registered. The new domain reflects the name of the current operating company.

This transition is unrelated to your order or the dispute. The allegation that the domain was changed “to commit fraud” is unsupported by evidence.

2. Reason for the AML review

The AML analysis assigned the transaction a high risk rating, which triggered an enhanced source-of-funds review under the service’s AML Policy.

A risk assessment provides grounds for a review; it is not a determination that you committed a crime.

3. Submitted materials

We received and reviewed the materials you provided. However, they did not establish the origin of the funds sufficiently to complete the review with a positive result. The specific outstanding issues and the supporting evidence required were explained in our correspondence.

We do not publicly disclose the contents of documents, details of financial transactions, or private correspondence. Explanations concerning your case are provided through the official communication channel: email.

4. Allegations regarding AI and generic responses

All messages sent to you reflect the official position of The Change. The company takes responsibility for their content, regardless of the tools used to prepare the correspondence.

Certain explanations were repeated because previously identified issues remained unresolved. Our correspondence identified specific gaps in the submitted materials and the evidence required to address them.

5. Restrictions on support channels

Email was designated as the official communication channel for your compliance case.

Restrictions on Telegram and the website chat were introduced following repeated duplicate enquiries and a prior warning about the consequences of continuing this conduct.

We have imposed no restrictions on email correspondence.This channel remains available for substantive enquiries and requests for status updates. The claim that communication with you has been cut off entirely is incorrect.

6. Transfer and current custody of the funds

The funds were transferred to a cold storage wallet and remain there.

Section 3.4 of our AML Policy provides for refunds in the specified circumstances where a review has a negative outcome. It also separately addresses cases involving suspected links between a transaction and illegal activity. The second paragraph provides for freezing the transaction and transferring funds to cold storage while the investigation and AML/KYC procedure are carried out. This is the provision relevant to the transfer described above. [Section 3.4 of our AML Policy](https://thechange.inc/aml-policy)

A transfer between addresses does not, by itself, establish misappropriation. In this case, it reflects a change in the location where the funds are held.

The exchange currently remains suspended, the funds remain in cold storage, and the official communication channel remains available. Any further decisions concerning the funds must comply with applicable law. A negative SoF outcome does not, in itself, transfer ownership of the funds to the service.

We reject the allegations of fraud and misappropriation. We do not intend to provide further public comments on repeated allegations that introduce no new facts. We will continue to address substantive enquiries, new information, and requests concerning the grounds for the restrictions and the current status of the case by email.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

There are more than 10 people below alone who have been *** by you.

Please, just stop *** people.

And don't bother posting another response generated by ChatGPT or some other AI.

Your practice of freezing people's funds and simply taking control of them without any professional knowledge or proper justification is already well known.

So please, don't post another GPT-generated response. Just ignore this.

You are already very good at ignoring people anyway, aren't you?

Telegram? Ignored.
Email? Ignored.
Website inquiries? Ignored.

Wow. You're really consistent at that.

Keep up the great work.

Your claim that we are ignoring your emails is incorrect: we sent you two replies today alone.

Continuing to claim that communication is unavailable misleads readers. The official communication channel for your case remains open.

This concludes our public discussion. We will continue to address substantive enquiries and requests for updates on your order by email.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

Everyone, please be careful and do not get fooled. More victims could be affected.

They are continuing to make false statements and create more victims, including falsely claiming that they provided me with a response even though they do not even know who I am or what my case is about.

I will continue monitoring this situation closely.

I am also one of the victims, and there are currently 7 additional victims that I am aware of.

I will continue to monitor the situation and keep posting updates and documenting what happens.

Please keep this in mind before using this platform.

Please clarify what exactly you mean when you claim that we do not know who you are or what your case concerns.

Please also explain why you believe our statement that responses were provided to you is false. Are you disputing that you received responses concerning your case, or do you simply disagree with their content?

Please provide specific details supporting these claims.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

Your claim that we are ignoring your emails is true. We have not responded to you for a week.

Continuing to claim that you are unable to contact us is simply an effort to protect our readers. The official communication channel regarding your case remains open, but we are intentionally choosing not to read your messages.

With this, we are ending the public discussion. We will continue to respond to any matters raised in the future!

Hello,

Dear User, please refrain from posting duplicate reviews regarding the same issue, as this is not permitted by the administration of the BestChange monitor.

Please continue your communication with the exchange service within the existing review.

Kind regards, BestChange administration.

Hello,

We request the exchanger's administrator to respond to the user's complaint.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor.

Hello,

We are sorry that the verification process caused you inconvenience and may have seemed unclear.

We would like to clarify that the transaction was temporarily suspended as part of a standard AML/compliance procedure. For security reasons, compliance with applicable legal requirements, and protection of our internal procedures, we cannot disclose the specific reasons, criteria, or details of the review.

This type of review does not mean that the user is being accused of any wrongdoing. It is a mandatory procedure applied in cases where a transaction requires additional analysis and confirmation in accordance with our AML policy and internal regulations.

We understand that the communication from support may have caused some confusion, and we apologize for that. However, the temporary suspension of the transaction is not an arbitrary decision by support, but is related solely to mandatory compliance procedures.

Further processing of the order or a refund can only be completed after the required review has been finalized.

Please continue communication through your existing support ticket so our compliance team can complete the review as soon as possible.

Best regards,
The Change Team

"Please continue communication through your existing support ticket so our compliance team can complete the review as soon as possible." — yeah, is that the reason why you keep asking for more and more proofs and ignoring me?

Hello,

We understand your question and would like to provide additional clarification.

We cannot disclose the specific reasons, internal criteria, or details that led to the temporary suspension of the transaction. This is not due to a lack of explanation from our side, but due to AML/compliance requirements and our obligation not to disclose information that could allow a user to bypass, influence, or interfere with the review process.

In other words, we can provide the general status: the transaction is undergoing an additional compliance review. However, we cannot disclose which specific internal factors, rules, limits, algorithms, or signals triggered the review.

Regarding the step-by-step document requests: the review is conducted progressively. Our compliance team first analyzes the information already provided and then determines whether it is sufficient to complete the review. If the information is not sufficient, additional confirmations may be requested.

This approach is used to avoid requesting excessive information from the user in advance and to collect only the materials that are actually necessary to complete the review at each specific stage.

Your case is not being ignored. The review is still ongoing, and further processing of the order or a refund will be possible once the required compliance review has been completed.

Best regards,
The Change Team

"Regarding the step-by-step document requests: the review is conducted progressively. Our compliance team first analyzes the information already provided and then determines whether it is sufficient to complete the review. If the information is not sufficient, additional confirmations may be requested." — are you sure you are not abusing this tactic to stall the process and use the funds in the meantime? You seem to only answer my support tickets once I renew my claim on the bestchange. Moreover, the link to KYC you've provided me is not working, and my request to get a working one IS being ignored.

From my perspective the process is not transparent. The exchange administration first promised me a refund, them requested PoA and promised a refund, now provides me with an incorrect KYC link, then proceeds to ignore me.

Also, about the transaction hold. You guys seem to already withdrawn the money from my transaction to your exchange wallet. That's not how hold works. Am I right?

Hello,

We will respond to your points in order.

First, regarding the step-by-step document requests: a progressive review process is a standard risk-based approach used in AML/compliance procedures. The compliance team first reviews the information already provided and then determines whether it is sufficient to complete the review. If it is not sufficient, additional confirmations may be requested.

We understand that this may take more time, but this approach is used because it is more effective for AML purposes and also helps avoid requesting excessive personal information from the user at the very beginning of the process.

Second, regarding the KYC link: our team has checked the link that was sent to you, and from our side it remains active and available for verification. However, to exclude any possible technical issue outside of our control, we will send you a new KYC link in the support ticket.

Your request is not being ignored. The compliance team responds in accordance with our internal regulations, and the standard response time may be up to 48 hours.

Third, regarding the movement of funds: we accept funds directly to our exchange/liquidity infrastructure. Further movement of funds may be performed automatically by the exchange or liquidity infrastructure and does not mean that the funds are being used for any unrelated purpose.

The fact that funds may be moved within the exchange infrastructure does not cancel the compliance hold and does not mean that the review has been completed. The order can be processed further, or refunded, only after the required compliance review is finalized.

Best regards,
The Change Team

Could you please clarify what exactly is stopping you from requesting more and more information forever or until I can not provide it? Your own terms say that in the case of the negative result the user is entitled to a refund:

"In the event that the user fails to successfully complete the KYC verification and/or whose details and account(s) appear to be blacklisted and/or on sanction lists, and/or in violation of our Customer Acceptance Policy or TOS, and/or fails to provide the requested documentation, and/or what provided can not be deemed as authentic, The Change reserves the right to refuse — stop providing its services to the client, the transaction will not be processed, and the deposited amount will be refunded, however, the client is liable to compensatory charges for any damages The Change may suffer in this regard."

Hovewer, your support told me that "In the case you are not willing to pass KYC, the transaction will neither be refunded nor processed"

So practically it's a nice loophole that you're abusing right now, which, frankly, goes againts your own ToS.

UPD: I passed the KYC, hovewer the exchange administration is still stalling the process. No refund has been made. The order has not been processed.

Hello,

All information and documents that we may request during a compliance review are explicitly listed in our Terms of Service. These include KYC, Proof of Address (PoA), and Source of Funds (SoF). We do not request documents outside of those categories.

Additionally, if you refer to our Terms of Service, we kindly ask that you read the relevant provisions in full rather than quoting them selectively.

The clause you quoted applies to situations where the compliance review has been completed and a decision has been made. However, the following paragraph of our Terms clearly states:

"In cases where: we suspect that a user has failed to perform a KYC on our relevant request in the past, or the transaction is suspected of being related to illegal activities, we reserve the right to freeze the transaction and/or transfer the frozen funds to a cold storage wallet for any period of time necessary to complete the investigation and our AML/KYC procedure, and/or report the case to authorities for further investigation."

As clearly stated in this provision, we are entitled to freeze the transaction for the period reasonably required to complete the AML/KYC investigation. Your case is currently still undergoing this compliance review, and therefore no final decision regarding processing or a refund can be made until the review has been completed.

Best regards,
The Change Team

It is not my problem that your terms of service contradict itself. Thus, I have the courtesy of interpreting it my way — which is, towards a refund that I'm entitled to.

During the whole process, you keep requesting more and more information.

This, again, begs the initial question of my reply — "Could you please clarify what exactly is stopping you from requesting more and more information forever or until I can not provide it? Your own terms say that in the case of the negative result the user is entitled to a refund"

Hello,

We believe that all of your questions have already been answered in full. In your subsequent messages, you continue to repeat the same arguments based on your own interpretation of isolated provisions of our Terms while disregarding them as a whole.

1. You claim that the Service may request documents indefinitely. This is incorrect. The categories of documents that may be requested during an AML/KYC review are expressly defined and limited by our Terms of Service (KYC, Proof of Address (PoA), and Source of Funds (SoF)). Our Terms do not permit requesting documents outside of these categories.

2. You continue to rely solely on the first paragraph of Section 3.4 of our Terms while completely disregarding the paragraph that immediately follows it.

The first paragraph governs the general outcome of a completed verification process. However, the following paragraph expressly provides that where a transaction is suspected of being connected with illegal activity, the Service reserves the right to freeze the transaction for the period necessary to complete the investigation and the AML/KYC procedure and, where appropriate, report the matter to the competent authorities for further investigation.

Accordingly, your assertion that our Terms provide for a refund in every case is incorrect and is based on quoting only part of Section 3.4 while ignoring the provisions that specifically govern transactions subject to an AML investigation.

3. Your assertion that funds may be held "indefinitely" is likewise speculative and is not supported either by our Terms or by the facts of your case. Funds are held only for the period reasonably necessary to complete the AML/KYC review and to make a decision based on its outcome.

4. You continue to rely on the results of a third-party AML screening as proof that there were no grounds for our review. However, third-party AML screening services are not binding on our Compliance Department, do not replace our internal risk assessment procedures, and cannot determine the outcome of our compliance review.

At present, the compliance review of your transaction is still ongoing. A decision will be made once the review has been completed, strictly in accordance with our Terms of Service and the applicable AML/KYC requirements.

Should you have any new information or documentation relevant to the ongoing review, you may submit it through your existing support ticket. Otherwise, repeating arguments that have already been addressed multiple times will not affect the review procedure or alter the process established by our Terms of Service.

Best regards,
The Change Team

Your last message said there are only three categories of documents you can ask for: KYC, proof of address, and source of funds. Fine. Here's where those stand:

KYC — done
Proof of address — done
Source of funds — I asked what documents you actually accept. Support's answer was that source of funds is "self-explanatory."

That's not an answer. Every service that runs SoF checks tells the customer what it accepts: bank statements, tax returns, payslips, withdrawal history from another exchange, trade history, a sale contract — something specific, for a defined period. If it's really self-explanatory, it should take you ten seconds to write that list. "Self-explanatory" isn't a document request; it's a way of making sure I can never satisfy it.

Your own terms back me up here. Section 3.4 applies when a customer "fails to provide the requested documentation" — I can't fail a request that was never actually made. Section 2 of the AML policy says documents "may be requested" — by you. Naming what you need is your side of the process, not mine.

Same with the freeze. Section 3.4 lets you hold funds "for the period of time necessary to complete the investigation," and your own last message said funds are held "only for the period reasonably necessary." Okay — it's been 3 days. In that time you've had my KYC, my proof of address, and a standing offer to send SoF documents the moment you name them. So what exactly is still being investigated? From where I sit, the only thing delaying this review is you.

That's why I reopen the case — on the grounds of you not being able to comply with your own ToS and blaming me for that.

Your latest message is based on an incorrect assumption that a Source of Funds (SoF) request must always contain a predefined and exhaustive list of documents. This is not how AML/Compliance procedures operate.

There is no universal list of documents capable of proving the Source of Funds in every case. The appropriate supporting documentation depends entirely on the source of funds declared by the customer. For this reason, compliance reviews are conducted on a risk-based basis rather than by applying a fixed checklist to every customer.

The standard compliance process is straightforward:

the customer declares how the funds were obtained;
the Compliance Department assesses the declared source;
depending on that assessment, the customer is informed which supporting documents may be accepted to verify that specific source.

Different sources of funds require different supporting evidence. For example, documents suitable for employment income are not the same as those required for proceeds from business activity, investments, inheritance, gifts, or cryptocurrency trading. Accordingly, it is neither possible nor appropriate to provide a single exhaustive list applicable to every case.

Your interpretation of our Terms is therefore incorrect. Neither our Terms of Service nor our AML Policy require the Service to provide a universal catalogue of acceptable SoF documents before the compliance review can proceed.

Furthermore, the fact that you have completed KYC and Proof of Address does not automatically conclude the compliance review. AML/KYC is an integrated risk assessment process, and completion of one verification step does not eliminate the need for further review where required.

You also continue to equate the duration of the review with an alleged delay by the Service. The review is conducted in accordance with our internal compliance procedures and applicable AML requirements. It is completed when the Compliance Department has obtained and assessed the information necessary to reach a decision, not when a customer unilaterally considers that sufficient time has passed.

At present, your compliance review remains ongoing. Once it has been completed, a decision will be made in accordance with our Terms of Service and applicable AML/KYC requirements.

Repeating the same arguments or offering your own interpretation of the compliance process does not alter the procedures that the Service is legally and contractually required to follow.

Best regards,
The Change Team

The review process is going on for 10 days now. The exchange support responds only when I renew my claim.

All of the requested information and documents have been provided. I did not receive any response from the support since I've sent the Source of funds.

No time estimates, no acknowledgment, no refund. I have every proof now that the exchange is stalling the process on purpose.

Alex,

You submitted the requested documents on August 8. Our Compliance Team’s standard review time is up to 48 hours from the moment the documents are received. This period has not yet expired.

Please wait for the review to be completed. You will receive a response within the stated timeframe.

Best regards,
The Change Team

Funds are being withheld despite the provision of all available documents

I fully completed the verification requested by the exchange and provided all the documents and information I had regarding the source of my income, the origin and acquisition of the cryptocurrency, and the movement of the relevant funds.

After that, the exchanger continued to request additional confirmations, including documents and information from third parties. These individuals are not parties to my exchange transaction, have no relation to the exchanger, and are outside my control. I objectively have no way to compel them to provide their personal or financial documents to the exchange.

For my part, I have provided everything I was able to provide. I have no additional documents, and I have no means of obtaining any. Moreover, the set of documents provided by me satisfies both the enlisted above set, the set specified in the exchanger's terms of service, and the set provided to me by the support.

Despite this, the exchange refuses to cancel the transaction and return the funds to the original wallet, and continues to hold them until requirements are met that are objectively impossible to fulfill.

I believe the documents I have provided are sufficient to assess the origin of the funds and the circumstances of the transaction. I ask The Change to make a final decision based on the materials already received and either complete the transaction or return my funds to the original wallet.

Hello,

Your repeated complaint is misleading because it equates the submission of documents with the successful completion of the AML/Source of Funds verification. These are not the same: submitted documents must be internally consistent, reliable, and independently verifiable.

1. Declared source-of-funds chain

According to the version you provided, the funds originated from employment income and a private cash loan. A substantial amount of cash was then allegedly transferred to another individual in exchange for USDT.

Your assertion that the third parties concerned “have no connection to the exchange” directly contradicts your own documents:

* the lender allegedly provided approximately half of the funds used to purchase the USDT;
* another individual allegedly received the entire cash amount and transferred the USDT.

Both individuals are therefore direct participants in the declared chain through which the funds were obtained and the USDT acquired.

2. Material inconsistencies in the documents

The submitted package contains objectively verifiable discrepancies:

* the employer’s identification details stated in the employment agreement, income certificates, and company stamp do not match;
* the employment agreement provides for salary payments in Ukraine’s national currency, whereas the income certificates contain calculations exclusively in US dollars, without any amounts in Ukrainian hryvnia, applicable exchange rate, or currency-conversion calculation;
* the income certificates apply a military levy rate of 1.5% for the period under review, although the applicable rate for ordinary salary income has been 5% since 1 December 2024;
* after applying the correct tax rate, the combined declared employment income and loan do not cover the full alleged purchase price of the USDT, even before accounting for the user’s ordinary living expenses;
* no official tax records, bank statements, payroll records, payment confirmations, or cash-withdrawal evidence have been provided;
* no independent evidence confirms the actual transfer of the alleged loan, the lawful origin of the lender’s funds, or the alleged cash payment to the USDT seller.

A blockchain transaction confirms only the transfer of digital assets. It does not prove that the alleged cash payment actually occurred or establish the origin of the funds allegedly used for that payment.

Private agreements and receipts merely record statements made by their signatories. On their own, they do not create an independently verifiable financial trail. The identified issues do not concern minor formatting defects; they relate directly to the identity of the document issuer, the accuracy of the financial calculations, and the actual existence of the declared source of funds.

Accordingly, the submitted package cannot be accepted as reliable Source of Funds evidence and contains material indicators that call its authenticity and reliability into question.

3. Documents concerning third parties

The Change has not required you to obtain anyone’s information unlawfully. You were asked to provide lawful and verifiable evidence supporting the financial chain that you personally declared.

If such evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained, the declared source of funds remains unverified. It does not become verified merely because the user states that no further documents are available.

4. Current status of the review

Despite being given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies listed above, you have not addressed them substantively, have refused to continue the verification process, and continue to demand that the transaction be completed or cancelled.

The funds were placed on hold directly by The Change for the purpose of complying with applicable AML/CFT requirements. The user has been granted a final additional period of 14 calendar days to provide the requested documents and substantive explanations.

If the requested materials are not provided within that period, the review will be concluded based on the information currently available, and any further action will be taken in accordance with applicable law and established AML/CFT procedures.

Repeating the same allegations in further complaints does not resolve the identified discrepancies and will not change the status of the review. To prevent circular correspondence, only new verifiable documents or explanations directly addressing the issues listed above will be considered further.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

Hello,

You wrote that if the requested materials are not provided within 14 days,
"the review will be concluded based on the information currently available."
There is no need to wait: no further documents will be provided. That window
exists for my benefit and I waive it. The record is closed — conclude the
review on what you have.

For the file, this is an objection, not an inability. Your own messages state
that the documents you may request are "expressly defined and limited" to my
KYC, Proof of Address and Source of Funds. All three have been provided: KYC
and PoA are passed, and for SoF I declared the source, you named the
acceptable documents, and I submitted them. What remains outstanding
are two demands your Terms do not support:

1. Evidence of the lawful origin of another person's funds — a source-of-funds
check on someone who is not your customer, whose bank records can only be
volunteered by that person and cannot lawfully be obtained by me. By that
logic, you could next ask where the lender's employer got its money.

2. An "independently verifiable financial trail" for lawful cash transactions
— documents that cannot exist by the nature of cash. A request nothing can
satisfy is not a document request; it is a rejection dressed as one, exactly
like "self-explanatory" was.

Your own message concedes the consequence: "if such evidence does not exist or
cannot be obtained, the declared source of funds remains unverified." So by
your own words, "unverified" can be the product of full cooperation plus
simple impossibility. With that sentence you confirmed exactly what I asked at
the start of this correspondence and you dismissed as incorrect: nothing in
your process stops you requesting evidence until I cannot provide it. You have
now made the request I cannot satisfy and attached the failure to me.

But notice where your paragraph stops. I am not asking you to declare the
source verified. You wrote that it "does not become verified merely because
the user states that no further documents are available" — true, and it cuts
both ways: it does not become suspicious merely because verification is
impossible. "Unverified" is not limbo. It is a defined outcome in your own
Terms: under Section 3.4, verification not completed means the transaction is
not processed "and the deposited amount will be refunded." Those are the only
two outcomes your Terms define — processed (3.3) or refunded (3.4) — which is
why my request for completion or cancellation, which you presented as
unreasonable, is a direct quote of your own document. Issue one of them in
writing, with reasons and the provision you rely on. For clarity, my election
is cancellation and refund of the deposit; any deduction must be itemized and
evidenced.

A you mentioned in your message, you are not obliged to inform me of
any filing to the authorities, and in most regimes you would be prohibited
from confirming one. I will not ask. But that rule keeps the fact of a report
confidential — it does not suspend your Terms, does not extend your internal
review, and does not create a third outcome in which the source is
"unverified" and the funds are simply kept. If something other than your
review restrains these funds, you cannot describe it to me — and I am not
asking you to. You can still do the one thing I am asking: decide.

I also note, for the record, that I have never refused verification. The
ticket history shows me asking which documents you accept, being told the
matter was "self-explanatory," submitting everything you subsequently named

I expect the final written decision without further delay.

No further documents, no further argument. The next message I expect from you
is the decision.

Hello,

We have taken note of your final decision not to provide any additional documents. Accordingly, the customer-submission stage is considered closed.

The Change’s official decision is as follows:

1. The AML/Source of Funds verification was not successfully completed due to material inconsistencies and unresolved concerns regarding the authenticity and reliability of the submitted materials.

2. The transaction has been definitively rejected and will not be processed.

3. Your request for cancellation of the order with an immediate refund has not been granted.

4. The second paragraph of Section 3.4 remains applicable to the funds. The funds will remain frozen for the period necessary to complete the applicable AML/KYC procedures and comply with any related legal restrictions.

5. A refund has not been approved or scheduled. The 14-day period was provided solely as an additional opportunity to submit documents and explanations. Your decision to waive that period concludes the customer-submission stage, but it does not terminate the applicable AML/CFT procedures or create any right to an automatic refund.

This letter does not constitute a promise or guarantee that the funds will be refunded after 14 days or on any other date. The final disposition of the funds will occur only when legally permissible and, where applicable, in accordance with binding decisions or instructions issued by the competent authorities.

The Change is not permitted to confirm or deny whether information has been submitted to the competent authorities, whether any related requests have been received, or the content of any associated procedures. For this reason, no timeframe for the final disposition of the funds can be provided.

This letter constitutes our final decision regarding the order and your request for an immediate refund. Repetition of the same arguments will not change the established status.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

Hello,

1. Your stated ground — "material inconsistencies and unresolved concerns
regarding the authenticity and reliability of the submitted materials" — is
a ground of Section 3.4, first paragraph ("what provided can not be deemed as
authentic"), whose consequence is that the transaction is not processed "and
the deposited amount will be refunded." The second paragraph of 3.4, which
you invoke, has exactly two conditions: suspected past KYC evasion, or a
transaction "suspected of being related to illegal activities." Your decision
states neither. You have taken the finding from the first paragraph and the
consequence from the second.

2. Your letter declares the verification concluded and the rejection
definitive, and simultaneously holds the funds "for the period necessary to
complete the applicable AML/KYC procedures." A completed procedure cannot
justify a continuing freeze; an incomplete one cannot issue a final decision.
One of the two statements is not true, and each of them, if true, obliges
you: completion obliges the refund your Terms define; incompleteness means
your decision is not final and the hold rests entirely on the "related legal
restrictions" you decline to particularize.

3. On those restrictions: I do not ask you to confirm or deny anything —
that remains withdrawn. I note only what the law provides. A report to the
authorities is not a restraint on funds. Where reporting entities suspend
transactions, the suspension is statutorily time-boxed — in the United
Kingdom, seven working days' notice plus a 31-day moratorium under POCA
s.335, extendable only by a court to an absolute maximum of 217 days; under
Directive (EU) 2024/1640, FIU suspension of a transaction is capped at ten
working days. Restraint without an end date exists in one form only: a
binding order of a competent authority. If such an order exists here, the
funds are held under law, not under your Terms, and I will meet it through
the authorities — with the notice, time limits and appeal rights that
procedure carries. If no such order exists, then nothing is "legally
impermissible" about the refund and your own Terms command it.
Finally: no provision of your Terms transfers ownership of deposited funds
to The Change under any outcome. "Definitively rejected," "refund not
granted," and "no timeframe" together describe a permanent private taking
that your own document does not authorize.

Accordingly, and formally:

1. I demand the refund of the funds. This letter constitutes formal notice of
that demand as of its date, including for the purposes of interest and any
subsequent claim. Any deduction must be itemized and evidenced.

2. Identify the contracting legal entity: full registered name, registration
number, jurisdiction of incorporation, registered address for service of
process, and the governing law applicable to our contract.

3. State your formal complaints procedure and the name of any licensing or
supervisory body you are subject to, if one exists.

Panama has no licensing or registration regime for virtual asset
service providers — its banking and securities regulators have disclaimed
jurisdiction, and the only attempted framework was declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court in 2023.

I note the consequence, not a violation: no
license conditions this hold, no supervisor has reviewed or instructed it,
and no regulatory obligation compels it. Every "applicable AML/CTF
requirement" you are eager to cite in this correspondence is a term you drafted
yourselves. You are bound by those terms exactly as written — and where your
own drafting contradicts itself, the law construes the contradiction against
its drafter.

Hello,

Your latest complaint does not change the decision concerning order 73nzBcjBbz2h. Nevertheless, we consider it necessary to correct several inaccurate conclusions.

1. Application of Section 3.4

Our decision does not combine unrelated grounds and consequences from different provisions of Section 3.4.

The submitted materials contain material inconsistencies directly affecting their authenticity, reliability, and ability to substantiate the declared financial chain. In particular:

* the employer’s identification details in the employment agreement, income certificates, and company stamp do not match;
* the employment agreement provides for salary payments in Ukrainian hryvnia, whereas the income certificates contain calculations exclusively in US dollars, without stating the corresponding amounts in hryvnia, the applicable exchange rate, or the conversion method;
* the income certificates apply a military levy rate of 1.5% for a period during which the applicable rate for ordinary salary income was 5%;
* no bank statements, official tax records, payroll records, salary-payment confirmations, or evidence of cash withdrawals were provided;
* no independently verifiable evidence confirms the actual transfer of the alleged loan or the subsequent cash payment to the USDT seller;
* the declared financial chain as a whole remains unsupported and internally inconsistent.

These are not minor formatting deficiencies or merely the objective difficulty of documenting cash transactions. Taken together, the identified circumstances constitute risk indicators giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the transaction may be connected with unlawful activity or supported by unreliable documentation.

This is a risk assessment made within a compliance procedure. It is not an allegation that you, the lender, or any other person has committed a criminal offence. However, the second paragraph of Section 3.4 applies where suspicion exists. Its application does not require a prior criminal conviction or a final court judgment.

The transaction was therefore definitively rejected, while the funds remain frozen under the specific provision contained in the second paragraph of Section 3.4. The general refund language in the first paragraph cannot be applied separately from the exception established in the following paragraph.

2. Completion of verification and continuation of the AML procedure

There is no contradiction between our statements.

The customer-facing KYC and Source of Funds assessment has concluded with a negative result. This means:

* no further documents are expected from you;
* the transaction will not be processed;
* the submitted Source of Funds explanation has not been accepted;
* the customer-submission stage is closed.

At the same time, a separate AML/CFT procedure concerning the status and final disposition of the frozen funds remains ongoing.

The negative conclusion of the customer-verification stage does not automatically terminate the measures expressly permitted by the second paragraph of Section 3.4.

The reference in our previous response to completing the applicable AML/KYC procedures concerned this separate procedure. It did not mean that the period for submitting additional documents would be reopened.

3. References to United Kingdom and European Union law

The United Kingdom’s Proceeds of Crime Act does not govern a contractual relationship with a legal entity incorporated in the Republic of Panama. The British notice and moratorium periods cited in your complaint therefore do not determine the status of this order.

Directive (EU) 2024/1640 is addressed to the Member States of the European Union. It does not govern a Panamanian company merely because a customer refers to it. Furthermore, on the date of your complaint, the new framework contemplated by that Directive had not yet replaced the existing regime.

Consequently, time limits taken from United Kingdom or European Union legislation are not universal and cannot automatically be applied to this contractual relationship.

The absence of a separate mandatory VASP licensing regime in Panama also does not invalidate the AML/KYC provisions accepted by the user as part of the Terms of Service.

The Change does not claim to hold a banking licence, securities-market licence, or separate VASP licence. Panamanian legislation does not currently provide for such a VASP licence for the company’s activities.

Nevertheless, the company applies its own AML/CFT policy and contractual transaction-control measures. It also takes into account the requirements and principles of Law No. 23 of 27 April 2015 of the Republic of Panama concerning the prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to the extent that the relevant provisions apply to the company’s activities and the circumstances of a particular transaction.

The absence of a separate VASP licence does not require the company to process or refund a transaction contrary to the AML policy accepted by the user and the specific freezing provision contained in the second paragraph of Section 3.4.

4. Ownership and status of the funds

The Change has not asserted that ownership of the deposited funds has transferred to the company.

The funds:

* have not been declared company property;
* have not been recognised as company revenue;
* have not been confiscated by The Change;
* cannot be used by the company at its own discretion.

A restriction on the disposition of funds does not constitute a transfer of ownership. The absence of an approved refund date also does not mean that the company has decided to retain the funds permanently.

The final disposition of the funds will be determined upon completion of the applicable procedure. The company will not publicly confirm, deny, or discuss any potential reports, communications, or interactions with competent authorities.

5. Contracting legal entity

The entity providing the service is:

The Change Solutions Inc.
Registration number: 155769047
Jurisdiction of incorporation: Republic of Panama.

The company’s registered address is not disclosed in a public complaint thread. Official legally significant correspondence may be submitted through the designated communication channel, provided that its legal nature and the necessary identifying details of the sender are clearly stated.

6. Licensing and supervisory status

The Change Solutions Inc. is not a bank, securities-market participant, or holder of a Panamanian VASP licence.

Panama does not currently maintain a separate licensing or registration regime for virtual asset service providers applicable to the company’s activities. Accordingly, there is no sector-specific VASP licensing or supervisory authority to which The Change is subject in that capacity.

This does not invalidate the contractual AML/KYC provisions, Source of Funds requirements, transaction-control measures, or freezing provisions accepted by the user under the Terms of Service. Nor does it prevent the company from applying internal AML/CFT controls and taking into account the requirements and principles of Panama’s Law No. 23 of 27 April 2015 to the extent applicable.

The absence of a sector-specific VASP supervisor therefore does not create an entitlement to have a transaction processed or refunded contrary to Section 3.4.

Your demand for an immediate refund remains denied. The transaction has been definitively rejected, and the funds remain frozen under the second paragraph of Section 3.4 pending completion of the separate procedure determining their final status.

Repetition of arguments that have already been considered will be added to the case record but will not result in a further substantive response unless the communication contains new verifiable information or materially new legal grounds.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

This is a formal escalation notice, posted in the same public channel you
chose for disclosing my order and my source-of-funds file.

1. The breach, stated plainly. Your reply concedes the hold rests on no law:
asked to cite a statute, you answered that the company "applies its own
AML/CFT policy and contractual transaction-control measures." Purely
contractual, then — so here is the contract. Your Terms define one freeze,
and one only: "for any period of time necessary to complete the
investigation and our AML/KYC procedure" (Section 3.4). Your own reply
declares that procedure "concluded" with a negative result. The clause's
condition has therefore expired by your own written statement, and the only
disposition rule your Terms contain — "the deposited amount will be
refunded" — is in effect. Refusing it is a breach of contract. Since your
final decision, you have been retaining client property without any contractual
or legal cause.

2. The invented procedure. The "separate AML/CFT procedure concerning the
status and final disposition of the frozen funds" appears in no document I
ever accepted — not in your Terms of Service, not in your AML Policy. It has
no rules, no conductor, no possible inputs (you state no further documents
are expected), and no timeframe. Compliance vocabulary invented after the
dispute began does not create contractual rights. Nor does Section 3.4's
second paragraph help you: it is conditioned on suspicion that the
transaction is "related to illegal activities," and your reply states — your
words — that this "is not an allegation that you, the lender, or any other
person has committed a criminal offence." A clause whose condition you have
publicly disclaimed cannot be the basis of the freeze. Under Panamanian
civil law, as in every civil-law system, your self-drafted adhesion terms
are construed against you as drafter — on both points.

3. Panamanian law, specifically. Law 23 of 27 April 2015 — the statute you
"take into account… to the extent applicable" — provides exactly one freeze
mechanism for private entities: UN Security Council list matches under
Title VI and Executive Decree 587 of 2015, with immediate notification to
the UAF and judicial control by the Sala Segunda de lo Penal. You have
invoked no such basis. A suspicious-operation report, if one exists, freezes
nothing under Panamanian law. Meanwhile, Law 81 of 26 March 2019 on personal
data protection does apply to you, in full: publishing a client's order
identifier and the contents of their confidential source-of-funds file in a
public thread — data your own AML Policy §3.2 promises is "never disclosed"
except to competent authorities — is a confidentiality violation classified
as a serious offense, sanctionable by ANTAI with fines, suspension or
closure of data processing, and public naming. A complaint to ANTAI is being
filed on that basis, together with a complaint to ACODECO under Law 45 of
2007 concerning abusive contract practices.

4. Delisting. A formal claim is being filed with BestChange and the other
monitoring platforms that list this service, seeking suspension of the
listing pending resolution. Grounds: breach of the exchanger's own published
Terms (refusal of the refund those Terms mandate), indefinite retention of
client funds under a procedure that exists in no published document, and
public disclosure of client verification data.

5. The "designated communication channel." You direct "legally significant
correspondence" to your designated channel — the same support channel that
has not answered my emails — while withholding a registered address that is
public record. Noted, and immaterial: you disclosed registration
¹155769047, and Panamanian law fixes how a corporation is served — through
its resident agent on file at the Registro Pblico, not through a ticket
system of its choosing. Service will follow that route. Your silence on
formal demands is on record and will be presented as refusal to perform.

Hello,

Your communication and the demands contained in it have been added to the case record.

The Change did not publish your Source of Funds file, copies of your documents, exact amounts, banking details, identification data, or confidential information concerning third parties. The public response contained only a limited explanation of why the submitted materials did not allow the Source of Funds verification to be completed successfully. Your assertion that the complete SoF file was published is factually incorrect.

The assessment of the documents submitted by you has concluded with a negative result, and no further documents are expected from you. However, the investigation of the transaction contemplated by the second paragraph of Section 3.4 of the Terms of Service remains ongoing. The decision not to execute the exchange is final; this does not mean that every applicable procedure concerning the transaction and the funds has concluded.

The identified inconsistencies collectively gave rise to a reasonable compliance suspicion concerning the transaction. Such suspicion is not a criminal accusation against you or any other person and does not require a prior court judgment.

The transaction has been definitively rejected. Your demand for an immediate refund remains denied, and the funds remain subject to the status established by Section 3.4 pending completion of the investigation contemplated by that provision.

You remain free to contact ANTAI, ACODECO, BestChange, a court, or any other body you consider competent. The Change will preserve the relevant records and respond to any properly submitted official communication through the applicable procedure.

All issues raised by you have now received a final response. To protect confidentiality, The Change will not continue discussing your documents or the circumstances of the review in a public forum.

Any further messages repeating arguments that have already been considered will be added to the case record but will not receive another substantive response. A substantive response will be provided only if new verifiable information is submitted or an official communication is received from a competent authority.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

One point you did not address, so I will restate it precisely.

Your denial lists what you did not publish: my SoF file, document copies,
exact amounts, banking details, identification data, third-party
confidential information. The order identifier is absent from that list —
the one thing I actually said you published. You published it, and it is
still there.

That identifier is not a neutral reference number. It is the key to the
order record on your own website: enter it and the exchange's status and
details come up. So "we did not publish exact amounts" is answered by your
own act — you published the means of access to them.

Section 3.2 of your AML Policy permits disclosure in one situation only:
to "competent authorities and investigative bodies… after their relevant
official request.". Does the public thread satisfy this clause?

And note what you did in the very same message: you withheld your own
registered address, stating it "is not disclosed in a public complaint
thread" — an address that is public record. You applied confidentiality to your own
public information and denied it to my private information, in one message.

Your closing paragraph says you will stop discussing the review publicly
"to protect confidentiality." Then the remedy is to remove what you
published, not to cite the duty as a reason to stop answering. The
disclosure remains live as I write this.

You also promise (Section 3.1) that your outside verification providers
"will be ensured to comply with our Privacy Policy and the applicable data
protection laws to guarantee the security and confidentiality of users'
personal information." I am asking only that you meet the standard you
impose on your contractors.

Your message has been added to the case record. It contains no new verifiable information requiring reconsideration of the decision. The Change’s previously communicated position remains unchanged, and no further substantive response will be provided in this public thread.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

Formal notice of violations of the monitor's participation rules

this is addressed to the monitor's administration as much as to the exchanger,
and it raises no new argument about my documents — only the exchanger's own
written statements measured against the rules it accepted to be listed here.

The exchanger's own statements, on the record

the transaction has been "definitively rejected and will not be processed."
My "request for cancellation of the order with an immediate refund has not
been granted." "A refund has not been approved or scheduled." "No timeframe
for the final disposition of the funds can be provided." "No further
substantive response will be provided in this public thread." The exchanger
also confirms that no further documents are expected from me, that the funds
are "not company property" and "not revenue," and that its position rests on
"its own aml/cft policy and contractual transaction-control measures."

1. Rule 11 — financial obligations must follow the exchanger's own published
regulations

rule 11 requires a listed exchanger to "fulfill all financial obligations in
compliance with the exchange performance regulations stated on the exchanger's
website."

The regulations on the exchanger's website — terms of service, section 3.4 —
State that where verification is not completed successfully, "the transaction
will not be processed, and the deposited amount will be refunded."

The exchanger has declared verification unsuccessful, declared the transaction
definitively rejected, and refused the refund. It therefore stands in breach of
the regulations published on its own website, and by operation of rule 11, in
breach of the monitor's rules. No interpretation of aml policy is required to
reach this: both halves of the finding are the exchanger's own words.

Rule 11 further provides that refund fees "must not exceed the actual amount of
costs related to the refund." No cost has been itemised or evidenced here,
because no refund has been made at all.

2. Rule 5 — support until actual receipt of payment

rule 5 requires the exchanger to "support the client until the actual receipt of
the payment." I have received no payment: neither the exchanged asset nor the
returned deposit. Under the monitor's own standard, this order is not complete
and has not been for 14 days.

3. Rule 9 — a claim may be closed only on full fulfilment

rule 9 permits the exchanger to "withdraw the client's claim only if the
financial obligations to the client are fulfilled in full."

The obligations here are unfulfilled in their entirety, as the exchanger's own
statements confirm. A template reply is not a fulfilment; a declared refusal to
reply further is not a resolution; and an internal review with, in the
exchanger's words, no timeframe that can be provided is not a fulfilment
either. I request that the financial claim be restored to, and maintained in,
financial-claim status until the funds are returned.

4. Rules 6, 6.1, 6.2 And 7 — the duty to answer

rule 6 requires timely communication with counterparties and information
platforms. Rule 6.1 Requires the exchanger to "provide timely reply in a
respectful and comprehensive manner" to complaints from the user who placed a
review on its page in the monitor. Rule 6.2 Requires reasoned answers within 24
hours of notification from the monitor's administration, or 48 hours from
submission of the claim. Rule 7 requires substantive answers to the monitor
administration within 24 hours of publication or of an emailed request.

The exchanger has stated in writing that "no further substantive response will
be provided in this public thread," and that a substantive response will follow
only "if new verifiable information is submitted or an official communication is
received from a competent authority." Its subsequent messages are identical
templates. A standing refusal to answer is incompatible with rules 6.1, 6.2 And
7, and it is a refusal the exchanger has announced in advance rather than an
oversight.

5. Rule 15 — order records may be disclosed only on official authority request

rule 15 requires operation records to be retained for at least five years after
completion of the order, and to be disclosed to third parties only on official
requests from authorities.

On 2026-08-13 the exchanger published in this public thread my order identifier
together with a description of the contents of my source-of-funds file —
including details concerning my employer, the currency of my salary, tax rates
applied to my income certificates, a private loan, and a cash payment to a third
party. The published identifier resolves, on the exchanger's own website, to the
status and details of the order.

No authority requested any of this. The exchanger's own aml policy, section 3.2,
Likewise permits disclosure only to "competent authorities and investigative
bodies … after their relevant official request." I asked which of those two
exceptions a public complaint thread falls within, and asked for the identifier
to be removed. Neither question has been answered and the publication remains
live as i write this. Its section 3.1 Promises that even its outside verification
providers are "ensured to comply with our privacy policy and the applicable data
protection laws to guarantee the security and confidentiality of users' personal
information" — a standard the exchanger has not met itself.

6. Rule 14 — compensation, and the condition it depends on

rule 14 provides for compensation of documented direct losses connected with the
characteristics of a transaction, "only if the client has properly complied with
the terms of the exchanger."

I complied fully: kyc completed, proof of address completed, and source-of-funds
documentation submitted after the exchanger itself named the acceptable
documents. The exchanger confirms that no further documents are expected from
me. The condition in rule 14 is therefore satisfied on my side, and the losses
here are not price movements or investment decisions — they are the retained
deposit itself.

7. Platform terms of use — operator compliance with applicable law

the platform's terms of use, in the section governing operator services'
compliance, require each operator to ensure that its business complies with
applicable law both within and outside its territory — expressly including
privacy and aml/kyc law — to obtain any required licences at its own expense and
responsibility, and to remain solely liable for the compliance and legal purity
of transactions. Listing itself is conditioned on the operator passing the kyc
and aml checks required for listing.

The exchanger is the change solutions inc., Registration no. 155769047, Republic
of panama. It states in writing that it holds no banking, securities or vasp
licence and that no sector-specific supervisory authority exists for its
activity. It is nonetheless subject to panama's law 81 of 26 march 2019 on the
protection of personal data and executive decree 285 of 28 may 2021. The
disclosure described in section 5 above, and the exchanger's failure to answer
my data-subject request, are the subject of a complaint to the
autoridad nacional de transparencia y acceso a la informacin (antai),
direccin de proteccin de datos personales.

8. An aggravating circumstance, in the exchanger's own words

asked to identify the law under which my funds are held, the exchanger answered
that it applies "its own aml/cft policy and contractual transaction-control
measures." It has also stated that its position is "not an allegation that you,
the lender, or any other person has committed a criminal offence," and that the
funds are "not company property," "not revenue," and not confiscated. So: no
statute is cited, no person is accused, the funds are acknowledged not to belong
to the exchanger, its own verification is concluded, no further documents are
expected — and the only disposition its own terms provide for that outcome is
refused, with no timeframe.

Demands

1. That the financial claim on order be restored to and maintained in
financial-claim status until the exchanger's financial obligations are
fulflled in full, as rule 9 requires.
2. That the exchanger be switched off from the listing until the violations are
eliminated, in accordance with the monitor's provision permitting an
exchanger to be switched off for rule violations on a term from 4 hours, with
the violation to be eliminated while it is switched off.
3. That the swap desk be de-listed, given the nature and combination of the
breaches — rules 5, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 9, 11 And 15, and the operator compliance
obligations in the platform's terms of use — and given that repeat and
unremedied violations permit longer terms and total refusal of further
cooperation.
4. That the deposit be fully refunded

a formal complaint has been filed with the platform under the dispute resolution
policy, on the basis of the exchanger's express and explicit refusal to resolve
the matter amicably — the precondition set out in stage 2 of that policy — with
the demands above.

I will continue to post factual status updates only, or a template to preserve the status
of the financial claim (which it is).

The claim stands until thefunds are returned.

Your message has been added to the case record. It contains no new verifiable information requiring reconsideration of the decision. The Change’s previously communicated position remains unchanged, and no further substantive response will be provided in this public thread.

Kind regards,
The Change Team

For the monitor's record: that same paragraph has now been posted in answer to
(1) a request to remove my order identifier from this thread, (2) a notice of
violations of participation rules 5, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 15 with a
delisting demand, and (3) a statutory data-subject request. One paragraph
cannot be a comprehensive reply to three different submissions under rule 6.1,
and none of them asked for "reconsideration of the decision."

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all public channels of communication for 4 days now.

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all channels of communication for 5 days now.

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all channels of communication for 6 days now.

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all channels of communication for 7 days now.

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all channels of communication for 9 days now.

Status update: the exchange has been ignoring me on all channels of communication for 11 days now.

Status update, day 14. Refunded: nothing; exchange executed:
no. The claim stands under rule 9 — financial obligations unfulfilled in
full.

An update this thread's readers should have. It comes from the exchanger's
own formal response, dated 28 August 2026 to my data-subject request under Panama's
Law 81 of 2019 — signed by its Compliance Team.

1. "The order identifier was provided in connection with the public
complaint and has since been replaced as an additional precautionary
measure. The previous identifier is no longer valid." — Their words.
Companies do not take precautionary measures against risks that do not
exist. From until the undisclosed date of that
replacement, the identifier they posted in this thread resolved, on their
own website, to my order's status and details. The very same letter
concludes there was "no personal-data security incident." Both sentences
sit in one document, two paragraphs apart. Remediation of an incident and
denial of the incident, jointly signed.

2. The publication here was not a support agent's slip. The public
responses "were issued through the company's authorized customer-support
and compliance functions." Authorized, official action — their words again.

Two questions therefore remain open — neither concerns my documents, the
review, or the refund:
— Will the publication be removed from this thread: yes or no?
— Which of the two exceptions in your own AML Policy §3.2 — "competent
authorities," or "investigative bodies… after their relevant official
request" — is a public complaint thread?

Separately, for the record: the monitor's support advised me to "provide the
requested information and supporting documents in full and wait." There are
no requested documents. The exchanger's written final decision states that
"no further documents are expected from you," that "the customer-submission
stage is closed," and that the transaction is "definitively rejected." I
have asked the administration to have the exchanger name, through the
monitor, any document it still requests of me. By its own written account,
there are none — so there is nothing to wait for except the refund its own
Terms (Section 3.4) prescribe.

If the next reply is once again the identical paragraph — "no new verifiable
information requiring reconsideration of the decision" — note what that
template will be dismissing this time: the signed admissions of their own
compliance department.

Hello Valqk,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Brandon,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello,

We request the exchanger's administrator to respond to the user's complaint.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor.

Hello Rr,

Thank you for your feedback.

We would like to clarify that our exchanger strictly follows AML and compliance procedures. In situations where a transaction triggers certain risk indicators, we are obligated to temporarily suspend it and request additional verification.

This is a standard requirement of our AML policy and applies to all users without exception.
We have already informed you about the necessary steps for verification. Once the required checks are completed, we will be able to either continue processing your exchange or return the funds, depending on the result of the review.

We are not ignoring your messages — the delay in responses is due to the ongoing compliance procedure.
Please complete the verification so we can resolve your case as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,
The Change Team!

Good afternoon, the exchange service provides a link to a third-party KYS verification service that does not work in Russia. Therefore, I simply cannot complete the verification process, and the exchange service strictly refuses to offer any other verification method.

Good afternoon.

During your first verification attempt, you completed the procedure with serious violations, including the use of multiple devices and IP address substitution. Now you claim that the verification service we use does not work in your country. However, we know this is not the case, as other users from your country successfully pass verification without any issues.

If you are experiencing difficulties accessing the service, please contact your internet provider for clarification. Unfortunately, as an officially registered company, we are required to comply with regulatory standards and follow strict compliance procedures. Therefore, we cannot use any alternative methods of identity verification.

Sincerely,
The Change Team

In response to your ticket, I would like to explain that the use of anonymity tools such as VPNs is necessary because many official and public services in my country simply cannot be used without them. VPNs provide the necessary data protection and allow you to bypass geographical restrictions and blocks while maintaining security. This is not an attempt at abuse, but a necessary measure to gain full access to services.

In addition, the exchange is clearly not interested in finding a compromise solution, but is solely focused on retaining other people's legitimate funds for its own benefit. I am not refusing to undergo the KYC procedure and am actively participating in its implementation, but the exchange is doing everything possible to prevent me from passing this verification.

I ask you to review this situation in light of the above and show understanding, as I have no intention of violating the rules, but on the contrary, I am willing to go through all the procedures honestly and openly. The delay in the return of funds is due precisely to the lack of constructive dialogue and the unwillingness of the exchange to meet me halfway. My wallet and I have been verified more than once by exchangers that are also listed on Best Change.

Why do you state that you are using a VPN to bypass restrictions if, on November 14, you informed us that you were located in Serbia? There are no geographic limitations in Serbia that would require the use of such tools, so your explanation contradicts the information you previously provided.

Furthermore, the verification service detected multiple critical inconsistencies that indicate not only VPN usage but also additional attempts to conceal or alter your real data:

Data center usage detected

Network and browser timezone mismatch

Session traffic proxied

Document and device country mismatch

Document and network country mismatch

These findings go far beyond ordinary VPN usage and clearly show that several parameters were intentionally modified. Such discrepancies are treated as serious violations within the KYC and compliance framework.

In response to your question regarding the use of VPNs and location tracking in Serbia, I would like to clarify the following.

Although there are no direct bans on VPN use in Serbia and there are no official restrictions on access to services, the reality is different. In Serbia, internet providers are required to store user metadata, and the quality of the digital infrastructure and level of privacy do not match that of many European countries. Many popular international services and platforms (e.g., streaming services, some banking and government online services) are geographically restricted and require the use of a VPN to gain normal access or avoid blocking. VPNs in Serbia are widely used not as a means of circumventing restrictions, but as a necessary tool for full and secure access to such services, data protection, and personal information in conditions of limited digital privacy.

As for the technical inconsistencies found during the verification (e.g., IP change from the data center, time zone mismatch, device and document data mismatch), I would like to note that this may be due to the peculiarities of VPN services and Internet infrastructure, rather than intentional data distortion. I am ready to go through the KYC procedure honestly and openly, providing all the necessary documents and data without any intention to deceive the system.
However, the exchange does not seem interested in finding a constructive solution to the issue and is using the identified discrepancies as an excuse to withhold my legitimate funds. I kindly request that you review this situation, taking into account the objective technological features, and show flexibility in your approach to verification in order to help complete the process and return the funds without unnecessary delays.

In my case, the use of a VPN is solely due to the need to work with services that are restricted or blocked in the region, and not an attempt to hide data or violate the rules.

Hello,

Unfortunately, according to the AML analysis performed, the cryptocurrency you sent is High Risk or associated with illegitimate sources.

In this case, according to the information security rules, the international AML/KYC policy https://www.bestchange.com/faq.html#frozen-transaction and the exchange service regulations, additional verification is required to consider a refund. You agreed to the rules and the AML policy of the exchanger when creating the order.

The status of your complaint is changed to neutral with the capability of commenting.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor.

I would like to clarify that the exchange service provides only "Veriffy" as the KYC verification method. However, Veriff’s service is currently blocked for users with Russian IP addresses due to geoblocking and compliance with international sanctions (OFAC). This means that I am unable to complete the verification process using the provided link, as the website does not load or function properly with my real IP from Russia.
I have attempted to use various legitimate methods to access the service, but the block persists. The exchange’s refusal to offer any alternative verification method makes it impossible for me to proceed with the KYC process, despite my willingness to comply with all requirements.

The cryptocurrency exchanger is unlawfully holding your low-risk USDT due to KYC disputes, with no response despite Veriff IP blocks common for Russian users. BestChange moderation uses automated responses and does not help in resolving the problem. Read carefully about this exchanger on the forums.

I was *** by an exchanger controlled by two friends from Ukraine who are based in Poland. They took my money but never returned it or completed the transaction. Despite my attempts to contact them, no funds have been refunded, and they have gone silent.

Rr,

We categorically deny any allegation of fraud or misappropriation of funds.

In connection with your transaction, we requested information and clarification regarding the Source of Funds (SoF). These requests were made in accordance with our internal compliance policies and the applicable laws of the Republic of Panama, and we clearly indicated the relevant legal and regulatory grounds for such requests.

To date, we have not received the requested explanations or supporting documentation from you. Without this information, we are unable to complete the compliance review or proceed with the transaction.

If you wish to continue the verification process, please contact us by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
The Change Team.

Guys, if you've suffered significant losses from them please contact me through the forum. I'll help you file a *** case against these Ukrainian citizens. I'll do the same myself when I'm in Serbia.

Hello Melo,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

He send me screnshot addres in risky, aml 25% its show for all adres, but when see reports Green — 0 — 30% — Low risk.

Hello,

We request the exchanger's administrator to respond to the user's complaint.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor.

Exchager tacke my money and not answer me in email.

Prex, we made a request to the exchanger for your order. As soon as we have new information, we will notify you.

Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor

Hello Prex,

Your order has been temporarily suspended due to the need to complete standard AML (Anti-Money Laundering) compliance procedures.

As mentioned earlier, certain AML flags were detected in the assets you sent. Even if such indicators are minimal, we are legally obligated to perform additional verification according to regulatory requirements.

A request has already been forwarded to our senior compliance team for a detailed review of your case. Please note that such checks may take up to 48 hours, and this timeframe has not yet passed.

We kindly ask you to wait for the completion of the standard verification process.
As soon as the review is finished, you will receive an update at the email address linked to your order. If you would like to provide an alternative email for communication, please share it here.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Best Regards,
The Change Team!

How send aml, you say wait in email more 24 hours you not send, low risk 25% aml.

Such checks may take up to 48 hours — you say, but 48 hours was left, dont have link or insruction what need do it.

I was send all his kys document and two video verification, exchanger not whant send my money back or for order.

Hello Prex,

Thank you for your message.

Please note that your verification is still incomplete. You have provided KYC documents, however, you have not submitted the requested proof of source of funds, which is a mandatory requirement in this case.

Once we receive and review your Source of Funds documents, we will be able to proceed further with your order.

We kindly remind you that until the required documents are provided and fully verified, the transaction will remain on hold in accordance with AML compliance procedures.

Please send the requested information to continue the process.
We are awaiting your response.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Best regards,
The Change Team!

Prex,

Unfortunately, according to the AML analysis performed, the cryptocurrency you sent is High Risk or associated with illegitimate sources such as Gambling.

In this case, according to the information security rules, the international AML/KYC policy https://www.bestchange.com/faq.html#frozen-transaction and the exchange service regulations, additional verification is required. You agreed to the rules and the AML policy of the exchanger when creating the order. Please provide all required documentation to the exchanger.

The status of your complaint is changed to neutral with the capability of commenting.

Sincerely, administration of the BestChange exchanger monitor.

I was send exchagers all aml information, but they not whant refund my money back.

Hello Yan,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Alex,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello dear customer,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Woody,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Tateru,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Kaeru,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello David,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Jan,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Nikola,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Yunus,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello David,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello dear customer,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Taylor,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Flower,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Remi,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello David,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Benw,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello David,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Tommy,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Laurel,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Sahara,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Nori,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Volodya,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello MrDiamant,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Franck AREJET,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Wendelton,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Garfild,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Evie,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Dedectiv,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!

Hello Yan,

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, we really appreciate it!

Regards,
The Change Team!