Recently, the Chile based cryptocurrency exchange, Buda has been accused of tampering with the information of the documents and withdrawing client funds without proper authorization. The lawsuit has been filed by the bank Itau in Competition Court (TLDC) however the exchange has denied all the accusations.
Badu Accused of Transferring $26000 From Client’s Account Without any Authority
The Brazil based banking institution, Itau had filed the lawsuit a few days ago on 2nd September and accused Buda of not acting according to the rules and regulations of the authority and charged the exchange for conducting fraudulent activities. As per the legal documents, in February 2020 the cryptocurrency exchange that transferred a total of $26000 from the Itau’s client to their own platforms. Moreover, the exchange has been accused of faking personal information, an email ID to be specific and a digital copy of the ID was obtained which was later used during the transaction.
The Forgery Took Place in the Bank Itself
The bank confirmed that the account was set up in the name of the client whose information was illegally forged by Buda’s management. Consequently, the victim approached the bank’s legal representative and blamed the bank for not taking appropriate measures and not complying with the regulatory framework. This isn’t the first time that disputes have taken place between a bank and cryptocurrency exchange. Previously in 2018, CryptoMKT, another cryptocurrency exchange sued Itau for closure of their accounts without any prior notice. Moreover Itau told that Badu had not acted according to rules which generally involved the user completing the KYC procedures.
Badu Denies all Accusations From Itau
However, the cryptocurrency exchange has denied all the allegations charged by Itau. Diego Vera the official spokesman of the Badu exchange has commented on the charges and has expressed his grievances for the inconvenience caused to the user. Vera said that it is unclear as to why the bank has accused them of fraud. It was quite clear that the forgery of the client information took place in Itau and not in the exchange. He substantiated his claim by saying that in case a thief robbed a bank and bought a television with that amount, the shop won’t be blamed. Instead the bank with low security was to be blamed.
