Consumer complaint received 2023-05-30
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Foris DAX, Inc. (NH)

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20552
[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]
URGENCY: HIGH
IMPORTANCE: HIGH
This is to complain against Crypto.com. 
I wish to practice my right as a customer of CRYPTO.COM to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation 
to amicably settle my dispute with CRYPTO.COM. 
In order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to CRYPTO.COM respecting my complaint, I believe it 
will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing 
the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.
It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my 
embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.
My complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of CRYPTO.COM to be 
commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their 
money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.
During the complaints process with CRYPTO.COM, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to 
management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing 
world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules 
and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. 
General Obligation:
Commencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by WTN  which involved me making 
deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my CRYPTO.COM account to fraudulent investment firms. 
When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, 
the following (i) whether CRYPTO.COM did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements 
of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of 
CRYPTO.COMs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that 
duty was breached; (iii) whether CRYPTO.COM promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the 
transaction(s) in question (iv) whether CRYPTO.COM was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether 
CRYPTO.COM owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CRYPTO.COM did not uphold those duties; (vi) 
whether CRYPTO.COMs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether CRYPTO.COM has within its power the ability to, and should, 
compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.
Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors 
making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the 
customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.
In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. 
In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that 
their customer is being scammed. In other words, CRYPTO.COM must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted 
to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing 
with a scammer.
Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care 
of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. 
However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most 
people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although 
reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CRYPTO.COM did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the 
most obvious dangers in this respect. 
Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person 
should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.
CRYPTO.COMs Position:
On XXXX XXXX XXXX, CRYPTO.COM wrote in a letter ADDENDUM 2  DIGITAL ASSET WALLET 2. Crypto.com processes all 
Digital Asset Transfers according to the Instructions received from you and does not guarantee the identity of any recipient. You 
should verify all transaction information prior to submitting Instructions for a Digital Asset Transfer to Crypto.com as the Digital 
Asset Transfer may not be canceled or reversed once processed by Crypto.com unless Crypto.com decides at its sole discretion that 
the transaction should be canceled or reversed and is technically capable of such cancellation or reversal. You acknowledge that 
you are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of any Instructions submitted to Crypto.com and that any errors may result in the 
irreversible loss of your Digital Asset...2- The general position is that customers are free to transact as they wish on their accounts 
without interference from their bank. It is the customers responsibility to make enquiries about the persons or businesses they are 
dealing with and to ensure they are genuine. There is no general obligation on banks to monitor customers accounts or to raise 
questions regarding payments from their accounts in circumstances where the customer has made the transactions.
Refuting CRYPTO.COMs arguments from a purely logical perspective:
CRYPTO.COMs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless 
victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account 
of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention 
it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.
In CRYPTO.COMs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, 
reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such 
views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.
Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make CRYPTO.COM morally obligated to do something is having it 
written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if CRYPTO.COMencounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated 
to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such 
as CRYPTO.COM. 
I have reviewed the material hereto sent by CRYPTO.COM carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental 
argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far 
greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected 
to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.
It is perfectly obvious that CRYPTO.COM, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner 
which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.
It is CRYPTO.COM here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that CRYPTO.COM
adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is 
CRYPTO.COM that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and 
that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with CRYPTO.COMs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope 
of services in any way. To reemphasize, CRYPTO.COMs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions 
in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast 
capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.
Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all CRYPTO.COM has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not 
havingthe legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, 
has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich 
experience.
CRYPTO.COM is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you 
don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the 
red flags indicate the customer is:
 particularly vulnerable, or
 if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.
There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or 
financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual 
and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.
These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:
1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for
the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are 
developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised 
and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and 
financial abuse, it says the organisation:
A) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that 
might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:
a. multiple cheque books;
b. sudden increased spending;
c. transfers to other accounts;
d. multiple password attempts;
e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;
f. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, 
characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market 
parameters or have no apparent legal justification.
g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;
h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;
i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.
B) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial 
activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.
CRYPTO.COM are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of 
specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a
multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently 
reasonable and well-justified.
Rather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad 
and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role 
in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  CRYPTO.COM adopts 
a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.
I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is 
adopted by CRYPTO.COM in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by 
strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems 
to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby 
keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.
Conclusion:
Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forwardthinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk 
management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the 
digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat 
landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and 
experience related to popular fraudulent practices.
Astonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that CRYPTO.COMs business conduct was insufficient insofar as 
background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein 
discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. CRYPTO.COMs non-observance of the fundamental 
principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is 
inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like 
myself. 
If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have 
absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the 
transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that CRYPTO.COMpushes quite hard for me to believe 
all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.
In summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair 
and reasonable investigation into the complaint.
I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.
Thank you.
XXXX XXXX