This report is based on an analysis of a forum discussion and public correspondence on the BestChange monitoring platform. The case concerns a conflict between a user posting on the forum under the nickname "Cryptocurrency hipsters" (also the applicant under order ID mYWv711zvObB) and the administration of the cryptocurrency exchange service EasyBit. The essence of the incident lies in the service's refusal to return the client's funds for over six months under the pretext of conducting AML checks.

The incident began in October 2024, when the user initiated an exchange of 0.1 BTC for USDT. According to the user Cryptocurrency hipsters, after the funds were transferred, the exchange blocked the operation and demanded a KYC procedure. The client provided a comprehensive set of data: identity documents, video verification, bank statements, and screenshots of correspondence confirming that the bitcoins were borrowed from a friend for investment purposes. Despite this, according to the user Cryptocurrency hipsters, the service refused to return the funds, stating that the proof of the source of funds was insufficient, and demanding that every step of the transfer from the moment of mining to the client's account be documented.

The situation was reviewed by the administration of the BestChange aggregator. According to the BestChange administration, an independent AML analysis confirmed that the transferred cryptocurrency has a high-risk level and is associated with illegal sources such as DarkMarket or sanctions lists.

In this regard, the monitoring platform changed the status of the complaint to "neutral," citing the AML/KYC policy rules of the exchange, which the user agreed to when creating the application. However, the subsequent actions of the service raised questions within the community. According to the user Cryptocurrency hipsters, the EasyBit administration ignored questions about which specific law enforcement agencies had frozen the funds and refused to provide official legal documents. The user also noted that the exchange independently transferred his disputed funds to a Binance exchange wallet, which casts doubt on their claims that the funds were "frozen" by third parties.

Communication between the parties turned into a protracted cycle. According to the EasyBit administration, their security service allegedly requested additional documents from the user, to which he did not respond. However, the user refuted this claim by publishing an email from EasyBit support dated February 24, 2025. In it, a service employee named Olivia directly acknowledges that the user provided duplicate data, but it was not recognized as sufficient proof of the legality of the source of funds, and there are no new updates from the authorities or third parties on this case. According to the user Cryptocurrency hipsters, from February to April 2025, the EasyBit administration continued to send template responses about the ongoing check, effectively ignoring the essence of the client's claims.

A similar behavioral pattern by the service was confirmed by other market participants. According to user asidonline, the service also blocked his funds, limiting itself to template responses from the support service.