Mayzus aka MoneyPolo Breach of your identity

[Pharaoh]

Merlin4x, your arguments regarding US regulation are completely missing the mark and are detracting from attention to your core issue. Dodd-Frank should have been targeted at unregulated bucketshops, but instead cut off access to all foreign brokerages, no matter how good or bad their regulation was. The majority of US retail forex traders were not happy when this happened. Unless you want to claim that every non-US regulator on the planet promotes scams and all non-US company on the planet are scams, you are wasting time barking up the wrong tree. If you truly believed this, there is no reason why would you have tried to set up a MoneyPolo account in the first place.

The core issue is that your account at MoneyPolo never was completely set up, you want your ID docs destroyed, and Mayzus says that their regulators require them to retain the documents. If the regulators Mayzus operates under do require this, then all the bluster, insults, and innuendo you can hurl at them will not get your documents erased from their files. If not, then Mayzus has some explaining to do.

You have all the information you need to pursue this. Contact the regulators that Mayzus is registered with. Explain the situation and ask if their rules really do require Mayzus to retain your documents. If even one regulator says the regulations require this, then your fight is with the regulator and not with Mayzus. If all of the regulators clearly say that there is no such requirement, I look forward to seeing how Mayzus will explain themselves.

 

[merlin4x]

Merlin4x, your arguments regarding US regulation are completely missing the mark and are detracting from attention to your core issue. Dodd-Frank should have been targeted at unregulated bucketshops, but instead cut off access to all foreign brokerages, no matter how good or bad their regulation was. The majority of US retail forex traders were not happy when this happened. Unless you want to claim that every non-US regulator on the planet promotes scams and all non-US company on the planet are scams, you are wasting time barking up the wrong tree.

Well, It was Money Polo which used their licensing reference with totally tootles agencies. I am personally unhappy with CFTC too but when I run into a broker like MayZus then I quickly change my mind. Yes it is much easier for non USA regulated broker to pull the fast one. This forum is full of them.

Any broker who wants to follow CFTC rules can accept USA clients and can have different rules for others. I know brokers who legally are doing that.

If you truly believed this, there is no reason why would you have tried to set up a MoneyPolo account in the first place.

About two years ago I have learned (at this forum) that MayZus/UWC offers their debit card for easy withdrawal (they were one of the first to do that) so I have opened trading account and got approved. Then I have applied for the card (separate section of UWC then) which was the only reason I want to give them chance. No matter what I did, even with help of my UWC trading account rep. they wouldn't accept any proof of my residency even though the trading section had no problem with it. So I let it idle for about 2 years and tried again recently and hit same BS.

So now 2 years later I truly believe it.

The core issue is that your account at MoneyPolo never was completely set up, you want your ID docs destroyed, and Mayzus says that their regulators require them to retain the documents. If the regulators Mayzus operates under do require this, then all the bluster, insults, and innuendo you can hurl at them will not get your documents erased from their files. If not, then Mayzus has some explaining to do.

All regulations they are operating under are their own and are not supported by any law. They submitted to me some guidelines titled "Know Your Customer" telling them what they may do but it seems optional. My objection is that I have never been their customer and no money of any kind were involved. There is a difference between an applicant and customer. Every time a submitted application is rejected it is always send back to the applicant.

Any decent and civilized company operated by the intelligent employes would comply with my request.

You have all the information you need to pursue this. Contact the regulators that Mayzus is registered with. Explain the situation and ask if their rules really do require Mayzus to retain your documents. If even one regulator says the regulations require this, then your fight is with the regulator and not with Mayzus. If all of the regulators clearly say that there is no such requirement, I look forward to seeing how Mayzus will explain themselves.

I have read their regulations which they submitted in their defense but it is usual Money Polo misinterpretation under which they set their rules.
To me it is waste of time to argue with stupid people.

Same as I found them attractive here 2 years ago maybe some one else will find them non-attractive to do business with based on my experience published here and elsewhere.
If they believe in positive advertising they should believe in the negative one too.
With their attitude (kicking their applicants into the teeth) they have slim chances to survive.

They will just keep changing names and countries so they are hart to be traced.

FYI, I have closed my MayZus verified trading account with my verified debit cards and bank account on the file so they will not get a penny from me. Now it is common for any broker to give debit card for withdrawal. I have such cards with several brokers now so I do not need to do any business with a bad broker MayZus IMO.

FAQ: Can you tell me why is virtually every broker and e-wallet provider Russian, operating from the London and registered on Cyprus, New Zealand, Mauritius etc etc etc and not in Moscow?

 

[Pharaoh]

In your situation, I would also prefer that any documents I submitted be destroyed/deleted, but this may not be legally possible.

Saying that you read the regulations and Mayzus isn't required to keep the documents proves nothing. You need to to be able to directly cite the exact rules dealing with when submitted documents must be retained for each and every one of the involved regulators.

Otherwise, this is nothing but Mayzus saying they are legally required to hold the documents vs. you saying that they aren't. You've brought the accusation, so please provide the evidence.

 

[merlin4x]

16 CFR 240.4 - Definition of customer.

In your situation, I would also prefer that any documents I submitted be destroyed/deleted, but this may not be legally possible.

Saying that you read the regulations and Mayzus isn't required to keep the documents proves nothing. You need to to be able to directly cite the exact rules dealing with when submitted documents must be retained for each and every one of the involved regulators.

Otherwise, this is nothing but Mayzus saying they are legally required to hold the documents vs. you saying that they aren't. You've brought the accusation, so please provide the evidence.

The underline issue here is to determine whether or not I am an applicant or a customer.

16 CFR 240.4 - Definition of customer.

CFR
Updates
Authorities (U.S. Code)

prev | next
§ 240.4 Definition of customer.
A customer is any person who buys for resale directly from the seller, or the seller's agent or broker. In addition, a “customer” is any buyer of the seller's product for resale who purchases from or through a wholesaler or other intermediate reseller. The word “customer” which is used in section 2(d) of the Act includes “purchaser” which is used in section 2(e).
16 CFR 240.4 - Definition of customer. | LII / Legal Information Institute

As you can see I am not MoneyPolo's customer as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America so all theirs alleged compliance with Money Laundering Regulations goes out of the window because it only applies to their customers, if any.

Based on the above section I would have to deposit or withdraw or bot money from MoneyPolo to become their customer.
You can't Launder the money in absence of the money.[Emphases added]

I should add that MayZus unlawfully redefined the above section as follows: "our customer relationship have started since the moment you have ticked the box "agree" in the eyes of the law"

 

[Pharaoh]

You are correct that you can't launder money since you never put any money in. However, a belief that bureaucratic rules will always be logical is a very illogical assumption.

You also have a complete failure of logic on 2 other items:

1. As you very thoroughly pointed out, Mayzus (and thus Moneypolo) are not under US regulation. It doesn't matter where you are a US citizen or resident, since any possible rules requiring the retention of documents are 100% under the control of the regulators that Mayzus is registered with. If this were not the case, some corrupt country somewhere would pass laws enabling its citizens to force foreign financial institutions to not follow AML laws. If North Korea can't force a European company to break European AML rules, then neither can the USA.

Therefore, citing a US legal definition of a "customer" is not applicable to your complaint.

However, I'll be nice and go very far out on a limb for you and assume that the European regulations just might have a closely similar definition. Even so, you are still playing word games over the term "customer", because . . .

2. You applied to be a customer. Therefor, whether or not you are defined as a customer, you submitted documents as an "applicant" to become a customer. So, in order to verify whether or not the non-US regulators of Mayzus legally require them to keep the documents, you need to see what those regulators say about retention of documents for applicants who don't make it all the way to customer status.


Still, it remains possible that the regulators Mayzus is registered with don't really require them to keep your documents.

Since you already say you "have read their regulations which they submitted in their defense", please go ahead and cite the relevant parts of the rules from all of those regulators pertaining to the retention of documents for a person who applies, but does not achieve customer status.

 

[merlin4x]

Record keeping requirements

You are correct that you can't launder money since you never put any money in. However, a belief that bureaucratic rules will always be logical is a very illogical assumption.

You also have a complete failure of logic on 2 other items:

1. As you very thoroughly pointed out, Mayzus (and thus Moneypolo) are not under US regulation. It doesn't matter where you are a US citizen or resident, since any possible rules requiring the retention of documents are 100% under the control of the regulators that Mayzus is registered with. If this were not the case, some corrupt country somewhere would pass laws enabling its citizens to force foreign financial institutions to not follow AML laws. If North Korea can't force a European company to break European AML rules, then neither can the USA.

Therefore, citing a US legal definition of a "customer" is not applicable to your complaint.

However, I'll be nice and go very far out on a limb for you and assume that the European regulations just might have a closely similar definition. Even so, you are still playing word games over the term "customer", because . . .

2. You applied to be a customer. Therefor, whether or not you are defined as a customer, you submitted documents as an "applicant" to become a customer. So, in order to verify whether or not the non-US regulators of Mayzus legally require them to keep the documents, you need to see what those regulators say about retention of documents for applicants who don't make it all the way to customer status.


Still, it remains possible that the regulators Mayzus is registered with don't really require them to keep your documents.

Since you already say you "have read their regulations which they submitted in their defense", please go ahead and cite the relevant parts of the rules from all of those regulators pertaining to the retention of documents for a person who applies, but does not achieve customer status.

I am not gone to respond to you simplistic assumptions based on your personal wisdom rather than the law.

FYI, the US law which I have cited is actually Common law which is English law, codified as "16 CFR 240.4" and because the Anti Laundering Act is US banking law forced on the entire world via the US banking system then my definition of the "customer" stays. (Maybe you should freshen up on the western world history)



Record keeping requirements (from MoneyPolo) HM Revenue & Customs: Your day-to-day responsibilities under Money Laundering Regulations

It's very important that you keep a record of all customer due diligence measures that you carry out, including customer identification documents that you've obtained. By keeping comprehensive records you'll be able to show that your business has complied with the Money Laundering Regulations. This is crucial to protect your business if there's an investigation into one of your customers.

The types of record you keep may include:

daily records of transactions
receipts
cheques
paying-in books
customer correspondence

You can keep your records in any of the following formats:

originals
photocopies
microfiche
scanned
computerised or electronic

You must keep your records for five years beginning on either:

the date a business relationship ends
the date a transaction is completed

As you can see above the five years period is triggered by business relationship and business transaction in context to the MoneyPolo financial activity.


Furthermore:

When do you need to apply customer due diligence measures?

You must apply customer due diligence measures:

when you establish a business relationship
when you carry out an 'occasional transaction' worth 15,000 Euros or more
when you suspect money laundering or terrorist financing
when you have doubts about a customer's identification information that you obtained previously
and when it's necessary for existing customers - for example if their circumstances change


As shown above submitting an application which was rejected does not establish such business relationship.[emphases added]

Therefore, an application of the customer due diligence measures is not applicable.


I am done here!

Obviously, I would prevail in the court of law where a judge and an attorney would understand meaning of the "Customer", "Business" and "Transaction" etc etc etc as related to MoneyPolo's financial business activity.

WHEREFORE, the MonyPolo is gravely violating my privacy and identity.


P.S. Let me put it to you in your simplistic logic, if you would propose to a girlfriend, you just met, and she would flatly rejected you -- would you say that you are her boyfriend and had a romantic relationship with her?

 

[Pharaoh]

English common law is not followed by all countries. If it was, laws wouldn't vary so widely from country to country. Even within the UK, I suspect you'll be able to find many examples of where common law has been overridden by newer laws.

I already stated that you are not a customer under your definition and somewhat grudgingly awarded you the point (but still say that it is very possible that at least some of the regulators Mayzus falls under may beg to differ). Still, let me reply to show that your over-simplification does not change the outcome regarding your documents:

P.S. Let me put it to you in your simplistic logic, if you would propose to a girlfriend, you just met, and she would flatly rejected you -- would you say that you are her boyfriend and had a romantic relationship with her?

If you sent love letters and cute drawings with hearts on them to the girl, it would be nice if she burned the documents or returned them to you, but not being in a romantic relationship with her does not legally bind her to do this. At least you don't have to worry about Mayzus mocking you about the failed relationship on facebook. As for the the hypothetical ex-girlfriend, freedom of speech vs. online harassment is still a developing body of law, so I wouldn't place any wagers on the outcome of such a case.


However, getting to the core of an issue is not over-simplification. It is stripping away irrelevant information so that the true heart of the matter can be addressed properly. Without it, courts would quickly grind to a halt or else whichever side can bluster the loudest and longest would automatically claim victory.

Let me lay this out so that even you can understand.

1. You willingly submitted documents. For whatever reason, the deal was not consummated. Congratulations, you are not a customer by the most common definition of the term, but instead can be better described as a rejected applicant. Therefor, customer definitions, be they from the USA, North Korea, common law, or the United Nations are no longer relevant.

2. A Mayzus employee called you a customer, which we'll all agree to agree is technically incorrect under commonly held definitions of the term. This does not change your inarguable status as a rejected applicant who willingly submitted documents. Mayzus claims that their regulators require them to retain those documents for a certain period of time.

3. You claim there regulators do not require this and actually require them to delete/destroy your ID docs upon request. You now point out the summary of the AML document retention requirements for customers. This tends to support you, except for two critical details:

A. It could be argued that the your attempt to sign up, and the work MoneyPolo did looking at your application did indeed establish a "business relationship", even though that relationship ended very quickly. Further, those documents aren't called "applicant" ID documents during the application process, so there may not be any clear differentiation between retention rules regarding rejected applicants vs. accepted applicants (customers).

B. Even if this doesn't require retention of your documents, what you quoted also doesn't require destruction. If Mayzus decides to keep your documents unnecessarily, you would have every right to complain, but that wouldn't necessarily be a violation of the law. In that case, you should consider lobbying for a change of the law to better protect individual privacy in cases like yours.


Before spending your time and money on a legal case, you should:

1. Seek clarification on points A and B. I suggest you inquire with HMRC.gov.uk and/or check the actual legal code behind the general summary you quoted from the HMRC website.

2. Check and see if any other regulators that Mayzus is regulated with have their own rules. These could support your case or render it hopeless.

3. Consider the fact that there could be additional regulatory reasons to retain rejected applicant records beyond just AML. If so, your case will be facing great difficulties.

4. Consider that just as there may be privacy laws requiring companies to delete certain documents automatically or to comply with requests to delete documents. Any such rules would strongly support your case.

 

[merlin4x]

Reiterating, I am done because you can't adhere to the letter of the law and are all over with your frivolous opposition without submitting any Points Of Authority in support thereof.

You are a clear example why people need an attorney to represent them to avoid this kind of "iffy" arguing.

Bottom line is that MayZus acted in violation of law and such lawlessness makes me believe that they are using legitimate law to obtain documents for unlawful or criminal purposes.

I can't advise readers of this blog what to do but I have learned hard way and I would never submit any application to MayZus because this kind of lawlessness is only a tip of the iceberg which always transforms into a refusal to return clients money as shown in this blog so many times with similar brokers from Russia.

If any one will steal my identity I will report MayZus as a suspect.

If MayZus believes in the positive advertising it should believe in negative one too.[Emphases added]

I should add that this is a prima facie case.

 

[Pharaoh]

Your misguided logic is the true reason that you need an attorney. If you walked into court and represented yourself with an attitude like you show here, chances are that you would quickly be locked up on a contempt charge.

The law and bureaucratic regulations don't operate according to your personal whims. You are far too in love with your own version of reality to realize that there just might be a rule out there that prevents Mayzus from giving in to your tirades.

I do agree with your sentiment about the core issue. In a case like yours, it would be nice to have ID documents destroyed. In case you hadn't noticed, bureaucracy and nice are infrequently found in the same sentence. In case you hadn't noticed, over the years, consumers have had to lobby for protection laws, not make them up as they go.

You should be aware that a prima facie argument is the beginning of many legal proceedings. As the plaintiff, you need to not just build the theory, but support it. If you can't support it, your case could be dismissed before Mazus ever gets involved. In this instance, so far you've shown a possibility that the UK laws MIGHT not require keeping your docs, and ZERO proof that there is any requirement to destroy them. This may well prove insufficient for your complaint to proceed. If it somehow is sufficient, all Mayzus has to do is show either a single regulation showing that they should keep the docs or that there are no regulations showing they are required to destroy the docs to fully rebut your prima facie argument.

Perhaps you failed to notice that UK AML regs on customer due diligence include "when establishing a business relationship". Although it was not completed, you did indeed start the process of establishing a business relationship. Finding this detail did require the extreme effort of an entire mouseclick from the page you cited.

Good luck suing Mayzus over this. Obviously, if you intend to proceed using a single web page summary of UK AML document retention regs as your only point of authority, you'll need it.

 

[merlin4x]

Well the use of " " speaks for itself. Grow up!

In this instance, so far you've shown a possibility that the UK laws MIGHT not require keeping your docs, and ZERO proof that there is any requirement to destroy them.

That is OXYMORON.


I should add that I have just closed my trading account with LiteForex because they are affiliated with MayZus/ MoneyPolo. Besides I believe that due to the Ukraine imbroglio all these Russian brokers and money handlers will be boycott by the EU so I do not want to have my eggs in that basket.