Luxembourg Court Sides with WallProfit in Dispute with Amazon

On March 14, 2025, the Arbitration Court of Luxembourg issued a decision in favor of WallProfit OÜ, dismissing Amazon’s case regarding the company’s account freeze as groundless. This marks yet another victory in the long-standing battle between the Estonian company and the tech giant. However, this victory stands out: Amazon had attempted to accuse WallProfit of money laundering by involving government authorities but withdrew its allegations just two days before the hearing, effectively admitting their lack of merit.

Allegations Withdrawn Two Days Before the Hearing: CRF Lifts Account Freeze

In April 2023, Amazon unexpectedly blocked WallProfit’s account, freezing:

• Over €390,000 held in the company’s account;
• Goods worth over €320,000 stored in Amazon’s warehouses.

No clear explanation for the freeze was provided. WallProfit only received a standard notification citing an alleged violation of the “Seller Code of Conduct,” but no evidence or further details were offered over the following two years.
When WallProfit filed a lawsuit, Amazon responded with an unusual move: rather than presenting arguments, it reported WallProfit to Luxembourg’s Financial Intelligence Unit (CRF), shifting the case from a contractual dispute to a criminal investigation by claiming suspicion of money laundering.
This tactic sought to maintain control over the frozen assets and shield Amazon from liability.

Evidence Was on WallProfit’s Side

Well before the court date, WallProfit demonstrated complete transparency regarding its operations. In August and September 2024, Amazon conducted an internal audit of the WallProfit account, reviewing documents, suppliers, logistics, and financial transactions.
The audit found no violations, and Amazon officially acknowledged that all transactions were legitimate and transparent.

Following the audit, Amazon released partial payments totaling €137,000, further confirming that no real claims existed.
Nevertheless, in November 2024, Amazon escalated the dispute by filing a suspicious transaction report with the CRF.

Based on this report, the CRF ordered the freezing of the company’s remaining balance of over €148,000.
Having failed to prove any violations through internal procedures, Amazon sought to reframe the matter as a criminal case — without offering any real evidence or concrete facts.

In preparation for trial, WallProfit’s legal team submitted substantial evidence, including:

• Bank statements verifying the legal origin of all funds;
• Invoices for goods purchased from verified suppliers;
• A clean record of customer service — no complaints were ever filed regarding product quality or delivery;
• Logistics documentation confirming all shipments were processed through DHL to Amazon warehouses.

Upon reviewing this evidence, prosecutors and the Financial Intelligence Unit recognized the weakness of their case and withdrew all allegations.

On March 12, 2025 — just two days before the hearing — the CRF formally lifted the account freeze, acknowledging that there were no longer any grounds to hold the funds.

Luxembourg Court Decision: Allegations Nullified

During the hearing on March 14, 2025, a representative of the Luxembourg Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that WallProfit’s petition had become moot. The Court formally noted:

“Il résulte du dossier qu’en date du 12 mars 2025 la CRF a ordonné la mainlevée totale du blocage FRE-2024-0200.” (The case records show that on March 12, 2025, the CRF issued an order for the complete lifting of the freeze and the release of funds.)

Without any evidence to substantiate its claims, Amazon was forced to abandon its accusations, and the Court ordered the lifting of all restrictions.
The case effectively collapsed due to lack of merit.

A Significant Victory in a Major Legal Battle

WallProfit faced frozen accounts, fabricated accusations, and attempts to turn a civil dispute into a criminal matter.
But the WallProfit team remained resilient.

They endured the full force of corporate pressure from Amazon — and prevailed — because they held onto the most important things: the truth, solid evidence, and a steadfast belief that justice still exists.
This time, justice bore a name — the Luxembourg Arbitration Court.
And as always, it stood with WallProfit, not Amazon.