Follow-Up: WhiteBIT Clarifies KYC Dispute, Client Claims for Withdrawal Loss

Following the posting of a Risk Alert about a WhiteBIT client reporting withheld funds and unreasonable KYC practices by the crypto exchange, BrokersView received a response and clarification from WhiteBIT. To ensure an objective and fair resolution, we've also requested further feedback from the client. This piece provides follow-up details on the case.

Client's pending withdrawal: WhiteBIT's response

Regarding the client's pending withdrawal since September 30, 2024, WhiteBIT stated that the client was able to withdraw his funds on October 10, 2024. 

As of October 16, the date of publication, the client's issue had already been resolved. The client was able to withdraw his funds on October 10, 2024. (WhiteBIT’s response)

In a reply dated October 24, the client said: “I would like to clarify that I did not withdraw €11,888, but rather I managed to withdraw only 12,875.6 USDT from WhiteBIT.” The client reported successfully withdrawing 12,875.6 USDT but incurred a loss of 424 USDT in the process.

Details of Funds Lost During Withdrawal

The client provided more context. He initially deposited 13,300 USDT. Due to “prolonged delays and excessive verification requests” by WhiteBIT, he was forced to convert funds between EUR and USDT multiple times, resulting in a loss of over 424 USDT during the withdrawal process.

Client's Request for Reimbursement

The client believes that WhiteBIT is liable for the loss resulting from the processing of his withdrawals, which he attributes to a direct result of WhiteBIT's actions. He is requesting that WhiteBIT reimburse his lost 424 USDT. “It is only fair that they rectify the situation and compensate for the financial harm caused by their delays and inconsistencies,” the client said.

WhiteBIT's KYC Policy Clarification

The “inconsistencies” highlighted by the client involve his claim in his complaint that withdrawals below the verification threshold of €12,977.5 set by WhiteBIT do not require additional KYC but he faced continuous demands for extra documents, a point also covered in the previous post.

In his latest response, the client said: “This loss could have been avoided had WhiteBIT adhered to their own verification policies and processed my withdrawal in a timely manner, as their stated policy does not require additional KYC for amounts below €12,977.5.”

WhiteBIT clarified this stance:

The claim that only customers withdrawing over €12,977.5 undergo KYC verification is inaccurate. WhiteBIT's policy requires all users to complete the KYC procedure whenever necessary, regardless of the withdrawal amount. This is crucial for ensuring secure transactions and complying with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, which prevent illegal activities and fraudulent schemes. Due to legal obligations, we cannot always disclose the specifics of internal audits, but in this case, we communicated professionally with the client, explaining the need for KYC verification before successfully completing the requested transaction. 

Given the limited specifics about the communication between WhiteBIT and the complainant, it is challenging to determine the exact facts. Our research into WhiteBIT's KYC, AML, and User Agreement found little information on specific KYC requirements for withdrawal amounts despite the statement that KYC is required for deposits and withdrawals.

statements about KYC found on WhiteBIT’s website

Bottomline

This situation may suggest a need for WhiteBIT to improve policy transparency and withdrawal processing practices. As the client continues to seek compensation, we are left waiting for a resolution from the WhiteBIT team.

Stay tuned for any updates we may make to this article.