I am reposting my story because Binance removes it every time I publish it. I will not stop or give up until my case is exposed on a much larger scale..... I lost 12.93 ETH after Binance closed the dispute before Turkish police contacted them — despite a

Binance ID: 18023508

Case ID: 2262356179

Order No: 22805267579357126656

Hi everybody,

I’m sharing this revised version to elucidate my case as clearly and calmly as attainable, and to avoid misunderstandings.

I have been an lively Binance consumer and P2P dealer for about 5 years. I perceive how Binance P2P works, and I’m not new to the risks involved. I’m also not claiming that I made no mistakes.

What happened resulted in me dropping 12.93 ETH (≈ €40,000), and I consider the result deserves a good discussion — not about emotions, however about process and duty.

What happened (easy timeline)

• The seller opened a P2P order to promote me ETH. I was the customer.

• Contained in the Binance order chat, the vendor informed me his bank account was blocked and requested me to pay by way of Payeer as an alternative.

• The seller personally shared his Payeer account details contained in the Binance chat.

• I sent the cost to those actual particulars and uploaded full proof instantly.

• After cost, the vendor was alleged to launch the ETH.

What the seller claimed

After receiving the cost, the vendor claimed that: • His account was “hacked”, and

• The funds went to a third social gathering.

I need to be very clear here:

If a seller’s cost account or technique is compromised, that danger belongs to the seller, not the customer.

I paid exactly to the account details that the vendor himself offered within Binance.

Legal action in Turkey

I immediately filed an official cybercrime grievance in Turkey.

My case was registered with the Ankara Cyber Crimes Prosecutor’s Office.

A written and signed prosecutor’s order was issued, instructing Turkish cyber police to: • Contact Binance by way of official law-enforcement channels

• Request momentary freezing of the disputed crypto

• Coordinate with Binance in the course of the investigation

Where issues went improper

Despite this official order, Turkish cyber police never contacted Binance. I personally visited the cyber police workplace four occasions. Every time I used to be informed to return back later. On my final go to, I was asked to go away.

While this inactivity was ongoing, Binance closed the dispute.

On the time Binance did this: • Binance was informed that a prosecutor’s order already existed

• Binance knew an official investigation was lively

• Binance might have stored the belongings frozen, but chose to not

Overseas law-enforcement involvement

Later, Vietnamese regulation enforcement contacted Binance and supported the seller’s claim.

Binance confirmed to me that: • They acquired official communication from Vietnam

• They acquired nothing from Turkey, even after more than 60 days

Based mostly on this, Binance said they need to comply with the authority that officially contacted them.

Remaining consequence

• Binance closed the attraction

• 12.93 ETH was released back to the seller

• The vendor withdrew the ETH

My funds have been completely lost.

Necessary clarifications

I need to brazenly acknowledge one operational mistake on my aspect:

I despatched the cost to the Payeer account shared by the seller in the order chat, as an alternative of the account proven on his profile.

I absolutely settle for duty for that mistake.

Nevertheless: • I paid on time and offered proof instantly

• The seller requested and offered those cost details himself

• A seller’s compromised account shouldn't shift danger to the customer

• Closing a dispute while a legal investigation is lively raises critical considerations

I'm not asking Binance to ignore its rules or blindly compensate me.

I am asking whether or not it's applicable for a centralized trade to finalize a dispute and launch disputed belongings earlier than an official law-enforcement investigation is concluded — particularly when the platform is conscious that such an investigation exists.

Why I am sharing this publicly

• To warn others about cross-border P2P risks

• To point out how dispute dealing with can fail in uncommon but critical instances

• To ask whether or not present processes really shield customers in these situations

I have all paperwork, courtroom papers, timestamps, and transfer proofs for each step.

I’m not asking for sympathy with out information.

I’m asking for accountability, due course of, and a discussion about whether this course of could be improved.

Thank you for studying.