Scam report against Teken 0.03087 BTC | UID = 45124 | %Amount%

[Lucas]

 

 

He sent the first one on the 25th and the second on the 29th. The payment was made on the 6th (7 days after the 2nd address was sent). We are talking about DAYS here, not minutes. It wasn't just a ''mix up''. He wasn't careful with somebody else's money when you should be more careful than with your own. 

[CommanderFort]

He sent the first one on the 25th and the second on the 29th. The payment was made on the 6th (7 days after the 2nd address was sent). We are talking about DAYS here, not minutes. It wasn't just a ''mix up''. He wasn't careful with somebody else's money when you should be more careful than with your own. 

this makes sense, but why did he take so long??

[Naturare]

He sent the first one on the 25th and the second on the 29th. The payment was made on the 6th (7 days after the 2nd address was sent). We are talking about DAYS here, not minutes. It wasn't just a ''mix up''. He wasn't careful with somebody else's money when you should be more careful than with your own. 

 

I totally agree it's Teken's fault. However, I do not agree a ban should be applied as this is definitely not scam.

[bleach]

He sent the first one on the 25th and the second on the 29th. The payment was made on the 6th (7 days after the 2nd address was sent). We are talking about DAYS here, not minutes. It wasn't just a ''mix up''. He wasn't careful with somebody else's money when you should be more careful than with your own. 

Lazyness hit him too hard, and he ended up playing with someone else's money.

A mistake, that could have been avoided easily.

[K33P0]

I think if we let Teken free after scamming selling public ebooks we can let this one slide aswell!!!! 

 

[Jokerart]

Looking at what Cem said,There is a transaction which connects both addresses leading back to 2016. Which makes me assume this address might be the user's address on a website (can still be a personal wallet). Which means that in the end he should be able to withdraw the btc from and that both addresses most likely belong to the same user.

 

Still looking for the OP's reply.

[TheBigDream]

Looking at what Cem said,There is a transaction which connects both addresses leading back to 2016. Which makes me assume this address might be the user's address on a website not a wallet (can still be a personal wallet). Which means that in the end he should be able to withdraw the btc from and that both addresses belongs to the same user.

 

FUCKING THANK YOU!

 

And like I said I can guarantee once this all blows over and nobody is peaking into the value and transactions of the wallet that money will move to a different address.

 

I can bet my bottom $ on it.

[pRince0000]

Looking at what Cem said,There is a transaction which connects both addresses leading back to 2016. Which makes me assume this address might be the user's address on a website not a wallet (can still be a personal wallet). Which means that in the end he should be able to withdraw the btc from and that both addresses most likely belong to the same user.

 

Still looking for the OP's reply.

You're just making an assumption now, nothing more than that.

[Jokerart]

You're just making an assumption now, nothing more than that.

Theres no assumption, there is an actual transactions linking both addresses.

[bleach]

Looking at what Cem said,There is a transaction which connects both addresses leading back to 2016. Which makes me assume this address might be the user's address on a website not a wallet (can still be a personal wallet). Which means that in the end he should be able to withdraw the btc from and that both addresses most likely belong to the same user.

should != can

 

You can't assume things without evidence/proof, that shows us, he received the btc/OP has access to the money. And tbh, I don't even think it can get proved. It's like being in the court and sentencing someone for killing a guy, without any actual solid proof.

 

It doesn't mean anything, if they have linked transactions