WestChange exchanger

Hello Danila,
We have checked your transaction: 8c617b9e469ec3b**************************2e8d7f7ec0f442
Here are the results:
Counterparty Risk Score: 25%
Low risk: Wallet - 100%
There are no issues with this transaction.
We did not do this:
The most annoying thing is that the exchanger simply shrugs and cites its own internal checks, when in fact, their liquidity doesn't meet the standard compliance standards of major exchanges.
We only asked that you provide an AML report from the exchange.

I have already submitted a formal request to Bybit’s compliance department for the detailed AML report you requested. However, dismissing the official screenshots of a frozen account and mandatory penalty fees as 'just words' is a poor way to handle a legitimate customer grievance.

The fact remains: while your internal tools show 25%, a Tier-1 global exchange (Bybit) flagged this specific transaction as High Risk, leading to immediate account restrictions and a financial penalty. This discrepancy indicates that your liquidity screening does not meet the standards of major trading platforms.

For you, this is a debate about percentages; for me, it is thousands of dollars in limbo and a compromised account reputation. I will provide the additional documentation once Bybit responds, but the measurable damage caused by the funds you provided has already occurred. I expect a resolution that acknowledges this failure in service quality.

Danila, Show the report where this transaction is high-risk.
Without this report, your words are not facts, but just words.

It is regrettable that you choose to dismiss documented account restrictions and mandatory financial penalties as 'just words.' For any user, the 'facts' are simple and undeniable: I used your service to deposit to Bybit, and the funds were immediately flagged as high-risk and frozen.

I have already provided screenshots of the official Bybit notice and the 10 USDT penalty fee I was forced to pay—these are verifiable financial losses, not opinions. While you prioritize your internal 25% score, the reality for your customers is that your liquidity fails the compliance standards of a Tier-1 global exchange.

If using Westchange leads to account termination warnings and frozen assets, your internal reports offer no protection to the end-user. I am waiting for the detailed breakdown from Bybit’s legal team, but my review serves as a factual warning: your service currently carries a high risk of causing fund seizures on major platforms. Potential customers can decide for themselves if they want to risk their accounts based on your 'internal' numbers.

Danila, Show the report where this transaction is high-risk.

Repeating the same demand for a 'report' won't change the reality: the assets you provided caused an immediate freeze and a financial penalty on a Tier-1 exchange. For a customer, an official account restriction and a forced $10 fee is the report.

You are hiding behind internal percentages while I am dealing with the actual consequences of your high-risk liquidity. If your USDT were truly clean, they wouldn't have triggered Bybit’s security systems in the first place. I have already requested the formal documentation from Bybit, but your refusal to acknowledge documented financial damage—which I have already proven with screenshots—shows a complete lack of responsibility toward your clients. This review will stand as a warning to others: Westchange’s 'internal' checks do not guarantee the safety of your funds on major platforms.

Danila, You say that the reason for the blocking is a high-risk transaction from us.
Well, show the report where our transaction is high-risk.
When there is such a report and it becomes clear that the transaction is high-risk, then we will see the problem and look for the causes and solutions.
We also always recommend (just like you wrote) to always receive transactions to your own addresses to avoid such or similar situations.

I have already requested the formal AML report from Bybit's Legal & Compliance team and will present it once it is issued. However, your attempt to shift the entire burden of proof onto the customer is a clear sign of avoiding responsibility.

The fact that Bybit—a global exchange with much more sophisticated monitoring than any private wallet—immediately froze the funds and charged a penalty fee is already an objective confirmation that your liquidity failed their compliance check. You essentially admitted this risk by agreeing with my advice to use a 'buffer' wallet; if your funds were 100% clean, such precautions would be unnecessary.

A $10 mandatory fee and a formal account warning are not 'just words'—they are documented financial and reputational damages caused by your service. I will provide the report, but for any future client, the main takeaway is clear: Westchange funds may trigger security alerts, and the service will refuse to acknowledge the issue until forced to by external documentation.

We always recommend the best options.
And the best option is to have independent control over your cryptocurrency.
Regarding your situation:
you submitted two exchange applications with us yesterday.
In both applications - You received USDT on the exchange Bybit.
In these two transactions, the sending was from the same address USDT.
But your exchange did not block the first transaction.
Why?
If the second transaction was already considered high-risk.

Your logic that 'the first transaction wasn't blocked, so the second one must be clean' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern AML systems work.

AML risk scores are dynamic, not static. A source address can be flagged at any moment as new links to illicit activities are discovered in the blockchain. The fact that the first transaction slipped through does not 'clean' the second one; it simply means the risk threshold was officially crossed or the database was updated by the time the second transfer hit Bybit’s filters.

Furthermore, major exchanges often use cumulative risk assessment. While one transfer might be tolerated, a second transfer from the same suspicious source frequently triggers an automated freeze and a manual compliance review.

Regardless of your theories on 'why,' the outcome is a documented fact: Bybit’s Compliance Team officially labeled the second transaction as High Risk, issued a formal warning against my account, and charged a $10 penalty fee. Your '25% score' failed to protect me, and the financial damage is real. I am still waiting for the formal report from Bybit, but your attempt to use 'luck' from a previous transaction as a defense for a failed one is unprofessional.

These are just your conclusions.
I didn't write that.
I just asked you a question:
why wasn't the first transaction blocked? If it was sent from the same USDT address.
Cumulative risk assessment - show me where Bybit or other exchanges write about this?
When there is an official report - then we can draw conclusions.
Without a report - it's just speculation.

It is common industry knowledge that Tier-1 exchanges do not publish their proprietary AML risk thresholds or specific 'cumulative' algorithms to prevent bad actors from gaming the system. However, the dynamic nature of blockchain monitoring is a fact: an address’s risk score can change in minutes as new links to illicit activities are mapped by providers like Chainalysis or Elliptic.

The fact that the first transaction wasn't blocked only proves that the risk database was updated or the account’s total risk threshold was finally crossed during the second transfer.

You call this 'speculation,' but the 10 USDT penalty fee and the formal 'High Risk' warning from Bybit are not speculations—they are documented financial losses and account restrictions. If your service provides liquidity that triggers such sanctions, it is a failure of your service quality, regardless of whether it happened on the first or second try. I am waiting for the official report from Bybit to close this matter, but your defensive stance against a customer who has already suffered a verified penalty speaks volumes about your approach to 'support'.

If Tier-1 exchanges do not publish their proprietary AML risk thresholds or specific 'cumulative' algorithms - so how do you know about the existence of such algorithms ?
Where did you get the information about the content of such algorithms?
An address’s risk score can change in minutes as new links to illicit activities are mapped by providers like Chainalysis or Elliptic - you have verified our transactions yourself through such providers Chainalysis, Elliptic or Crystal ?
'High Risk' warning from Bybit - you have confirmation of this information from providers such as Chainalysis, Elliptic or Crystal ?

Your attempt to turn this into a technical interrogation is a clear diversion from the actual issue. A retail customer is not required to have a $20,000 professional subscription to Chainalysis or Elliptic to prove that a service provider failed.

The 'confirmation' from these providers is exactly what Bybit uses to secure its platform. When a Tier-1 exchange like Bybit—which integrates these very tools—officially flags a transaction as High Risk, issues a formal account warning, and charges a penalty fee, that is the verification from the industry’s top security providers.

Knowledge of how AML systems work (dynamic scoring and risk thresholds) is widely available in industry whitepapers and security blogs from the very providers you mentioned. You are asking me where I got this information, but you should be asking yourselves why your '25% score' failed so miserably against Bybit’s compliance filters.

I am not a compliance officer; I am a customer who received assets from you that caused documented financial and reputational damage. I will provide the report from Bybit once it is received, but until then, your refusal to acknowledge a verified penalty on a major exchange is the only 'speculation' here.

The problem is that you are accusing us of sending a high-risk transaction.
But you do not provide a report stating that our transaction is high-risk.
Therefore, now it is worth waiting for such a report from you - to continue the dialogue.
When a Tier-1 exchange like Bybit—which integrates these very tools—officially flags a transaction as High Risk, issues a formal account warning, and charges a penalty fee, that is the verification from the industry’s top security providers - your statement is false.
To claim that a transaction is high-risk, need a report from Chainalysis, Elliptic or Crystal.

Accusing a customer’s statement of being 'false' while they are literally holding a receipt for a $10 penalty fee and an official warning from a Tier-1 exchange is a bold strategy.

Bybit does not invent 'High Risk' flags for fun; they use the very tools you mentioned—Chainalysis and Elliptic—to automate their compliance. My 'verification' is the real-world consequence of your liquidity failing those filters.

I agree on one thing: further dialogue is pointless until the documentation is presented. I have already contacted Bybit’s legal department to provide the formal analysis of your transaction. Once it arrives, we will see whose statements are 'false.' Until then, the facts remain: I used your service, and my account was penalized. See you when the report is ready.

Well then, we are waiting for your report.

Hello,

Your complaint has been processed. Our AML analysis shows zero risk markers for this transaction. Since we found no issues with the assets' purity, we consider that the exchange service has fulfilled its obligations correctly and safely.

Kind regards, BestChange administration.

Hello Bee,
Your application has been completed correctly.
The exchange rate was not recalculated.

I don't have anything to say, you're nothing but a sc*m, i will only advice people to stay completely away from your service.

If this is how you pay back your loyal customer.

Bee,
So what is the problem with your application?
You submitted an application with a course - we fulfilled the application with this course.

The rate it shows that i will receive was completely different from what you sent, i will not be soo foolish to exchange $73 to $37, does that even make sense? the purpose i needed the money for now is useless, thanks to you sc*mmer.

I'm done with your service, take that one you stole as your pension, i am going to inform the people i recommend to stay away from your service.

Show a screenshot of the email from us with the initial information about your application.
Where there is a rate and date of creation of the application.

Hello Abu Bakart,
Your application has been completed.
We have not received any requests from you regarding this application.

Hello Sergey vedenin,
We write about all conditions of exchange and commission on the website.
You saw it all - before the start of exchange and payment.

Hello Babatunde,
Thank you for your positive feedback.
We will be glad to see you again on our website.

And i choose the fastest one it was written 10 minutes… why you guys making this to us?

Hello Kelam,
Your application has been completed.
It was necessary to write to us immediately - https://help.westchange.top/

Hello Kelam,

We kindly ask you to confirm the receipt of funds from the administration of the exchanger.

Best regards, BestChange administration.

Whats going on no reply? from service has they run away with people funds?

Better luck next time [Obscene and abusive language was removed by the monitoring's administration].