Finance Crime Scene MEXC: A $160k Account Block, a Pre-Trial Claim, and an OSINT Trail!

A Kazakhstan-based customer says MEXC froze and effectively liquidated her exchange account holding crypto assets worth roughly $160,000—then hid behind “high-risk activity” and AML boilerplate while refusing to explain or restore access. FinTelegram reviewed her formal pre-trial claim and an independently commissioned OSINT dossier that alleges shifting corporate touchpoints across jurisdictions, with an Estonian entity repeatedly surfacing as a potential accountability anchor. The case raises a hard question for customers and regulators alike: is “compliance” being used as a shield for opaque asset deprivation—while legal responsibility is routed through a fog of entities?

Key findings

• Documented by claimant (pre-trial claim): MEXC allegedly blocked a specific account on 27 June 2024, requested re-verification, then informed the customer the account was permanently blocked and denied reasons.
• Documented by claimant: MEXC support responded with a standard “high-risk activities / AML obligations” template and refused to provide details.
• OSINT dossier (allegations to be independently verified): The report claims the group’s older entities were dissolved/struck off in prior hubs while new touchpoints emerged in other jurisdictions—creating jurisdictional friction for victims seeking redress.
• OSINT dossier (allegations): A Rotterdam District Court decision in late 2024 allegedly ordered an Estonian entity linked to MEXC to pay EUR 123,724.50 in a frozen-funds case—suggesting a possible EU liability route.
• Compliance risk signal: Repeated “we can’t disclose details” responses, paired with asset access loss and entity ambiguity, create a consumer-protection and governance red-flag cluster—especially when the platform remains widely marketed as “top-tier.”

The case: What the Customer Alleges Happened

The MEXC customer aka victim writes that she stored crypto assets on MEXC and found her funds blocked without an adequate explanation. She estimates the blocked assets (USDT and ETH) at around $160,000 at current exchange rates (claimant statement).

In her formal pre-trial claim, she states that:

• On 27 June 2024, her MEXC account (UID stated in the claim) was blocked.
• Initially, withdrawals were restricted while login still worked; support then demanded re-verification (passport photo + selfie + handwritten note).
• After waiting, she was informed the account was permanently blocked, funds inaccessible, and reasons would not be disclosed.
• She formally demanded restoration of access within 30 calendar days from the letter date (16 July 2024) and threatened litigation if not remedied.

MEXC’s response, as quoted in the email, follows a familiar pattern seen across multiple offshore and grey-zone platforms: “high-risk activities,” “AML obligations,” “cannot disclose details,” and “until further notice.” The problem is not that AML controls exist—it’s the absence of due-process-like transparency when customer assets are effectively immobilized.

Compliance lens: “AML” as a Black Box

A legitimate AML restriction can be justified, but in regulated markets it typically comes with:

• a documented case rationale (even if partially redacted),
• a clear escalation channel,
• timelines and scope of restrictions,
• and a demonstrable separation between risk controls and asset deprivation.

In this case, the claimant alleges she received none of that—only a permanent restriction and silence.

The MEXC OSINT Dossier

FinTelegram also reviewed a commissioned OSINT report produced by Murkledove Intelligence in Feb 2025. The dossier is written in a strongly accusatory tone and must be treated as lead material, not a final adjudication. Still, it contains several actionable intelligence threads worth verifying.

OSINT “Core Thesis” (as alleged)

The dossier alleges that MEXC’s corporate footprint has shifted across multiple jurisdictions since 2023, and that customers seeking legal redress are pushed toward entities that may be defunct or contested—while operational continuity persists via other touchpoints.

The “EU anchor” allegation

The OSINT report repeatedly centers MEXC Estonia OÜ as a potentially relevant liability node. It alleges:

• the entity exists as an active Estonian company and has been positioned in public narratives around licensing, while representatives have disputed its connection to the global platform.
• the District Court of Rotterdam ruled against this Estonian entity in a frozen-funds dispute and ordered payment of EUR 123,724.50 (per OSINT).

Important: we have seen a redacted copy of the Rotterdam decision within this workflow. The OSINT report provides a clear pointer that can be verified through court databases and filings.

The “App Operator / US nexus” Allegation

The dossier also claims that MEXC Fintech Inc is registered as the developer/operator of the MEXC mobile app on major app marketplaces, and that its earlier corporate label was Snowbird Connect Inc, which MEXC allegedly acquired. If accurate, that matters because “app operator” status can become a legal and regulatory lever where the trading venue’s licensing posture is disputed.

OSINT Entity Map

The following table summarizes what the OSINT dossier and the claimant materials assert—not what FinTelegram has independently proven.

The following table summarizes what the OSINT dossier and the claimant materials assert—not what FinTelegram has independently proven.

Summary & FinTelegram Context

FinTelegram has repeatedly warned about MEXC’s risk profile and its disputed licensing posture across jurisdictions—especially where a large exchange appears to operate “globally” while regulatory accountability remains fragmented. This new case adds an evidence-backed customer narrative (with a formal claim letter) and an OSINT lead set that alleges an emerging pattern: asset restrictions + non-explanation + entity opacity = a recipe for consumer harm at scale.

Even if MEXC argues every freeze is “compliance-driven,” the compliance industry has a name for what customers experience when the process becomes non-transparent and irreversible: governance failure. In regulated environments, “AML” is not a magic spell that dissolves a firm’s accountability to explain and remediate—especially when customer funds appear to be treated as collateral damage.

This case perfectly aligns with FinTelegram’s previous warnings regarding MEXC’s scam-level ratings and its reliance on Finetix Ltd Limited, Paytend and HEURO to bypass AML filters. This case proves that MEXC is no longer just “unregulated”—it is actively predatory. By moving its mobile app development to a Delaware entity (MEXC Fintech Inc.) while maintaining its only regulatory thread in Estonia, MEXC has built a “Hydra” structure designed to survive national crackdowns while continuing to seize user assets.

Read reports about the Paytend / MEXC payment rail here.

Call to Action: Whistleblowers & Customers

If your funds have been frozen or “liquidated” by MEXC, or if you are an employee of OSL Pay, HEURO, or Finetix with knowledge of how these transactions are coded, your information is critical. We are specifically looking for the “High-Risk” triggers used by MEXC to automate account liquidations.