Sorin E. Popa

Vă mulțumim pentru mesaj! Ne bucurăm să aflăm că informațiile primite despre investiții v-au fost utile!

Dear Sorin, we have read your updated message.

Let us clarify several fundamental points for you and for everyone reading this:

We do not “seize” money. We follow the law.
Our Terms & Conditions, accepted by every client before onboarding, clearly state that:

• we may temporarily restrict operations,
• we may request additional documents,
• we may block transactions or accounts

where there are grounds to suspect fraud, money laundering, sanctions breaches, or misuse of the account.
These measures are not our “wish”; they are a direct requirement of AML/CTF regulations and our regulators’ rules.

The legal basis exists, and it is strict.
Regulation obliges financial institutions to:

• monitor activity,
• investigate unusual patterns,
• freeze or restrict funds when transactions look suspicious or inconsistent with the declared business model,
• report such activity to the competent authorities.

Ignoring red flags, “closing eyes” for the comfort of a client, is illegal. We do the opposite. Intentionally.

If funds are blocked, there is a reason.
When:
• documentation is contradictory or fabricated,
• counterparties and flows are opaque,
• transaction logic is not aligned with the stated business,
• or a client refuses to cooperate with standard compliance checks,
we treat this as a risk.

In such cases, operations can be restricted, funds can be held pending clarification or instructions from authorities.
This can be inconvenient. It is supposed to be inconvenient for anyone trying to use our infrastructure for something they cannot transparently explain.

We open accounts for transparent businesses — and protect them from the rest.
The vast majority of our clients submit documents, answer questions, pass checks and operate without issues.

If an account becomes “unclean” three days after opening, it is usually because the activity does not match what the client declared, or triggers mandatory controls.
Calling this “fraud” by the institution is an inversion of reality. Protecting our platform and complying with AML rules is not fraud. Trying to disguise the nature of funds is.

On your “comparison” and tone.

We have zero tolerance for:
• attempts to pressure us into bypassing compliance,
• threats, insults or manipulative public posts,
• any form of money laundering, fraud, or abuse of our services.

If you are a legitimate business, you provide full documentation, answer compliance questions, and the situation is resolved through formal channels.
If you are not prepared to do that — our services are not for you.

To all readers:
Our priority is clear and non-negotiable — security, regulatory compliance, and protection of our honest clients’ funds and reputation.
If this means we rigorously scrutinize suspicious activity and block accounts that refuse transparency, we will continue to do exactly that.

Dear Sorin E. Popa,

Thank you for taking the time to leave feedback on your experience using our platform/services. We are pleased that you found our service helpful and look forward to assisting you in the future.

Kind regards,

Emma
The Reverse Lookup