Dragi luigi1994,
Hvala vam na strpljenju i na svim dokumentima i objašnjenjima koja ste dostavili tokom ovog procesa. U potpunosti razumem da je ova situacija bila frustrirajuća za vas, posebno imajući u vidu vreme koje je bilo potrebno da se dođe do zaključka.
Nakon pažljivog pregleda svih dostupnih informacija sa obe strane, želeo bih da sumiram ključnu tačku ovog slučaja na jasan i transparentan način.
Iako ste objasnili da je transfer od 200 evra bio otplata ličnog kredita, važan faktor ovde nije namera koja stoji iza transakcije, već poreklo sredstava u kontekstu propisa o kockanju. Na osnovu dokaza, deo sredstava korišćenih za vaš depozit potiče od druge osobe koja je takođe uključena u aktivnosti kockanja.
U takvim situacijama, kazina su dužna da primenjuju stroge politike protiv pranja novca (AML) i odgovornog kockanja. Ova pravila generalno zabranjuju korišćenje sredstava primljenih od trećih lica za kockanje, bez obzira na to da li je transfer bio legitiman u ličnom kontekstu (kao što je otplata kredita).
Takođe želim da razjasnim još jednu stvar: činjenica da je vaša aktivnost uključivala sportsko klađenje, a ne kazino igre, ne menja način na koji se ova pravila primenjuju. Isti zahtevi za finansiranje i sprečavanje pranja novca važe za sve vrste kockanja.
Istovremeno, u kontekstu sportskog klađenja, takve situacije se mogu smatrati još osetljivijim sa regulatorne tačke gledišta, jer potencijalno mogu uključivati koordinisane aktivnosti, zajedničke strategije ili druge oblike saradnje između igrača. Iz tog razloga, transakcije između pojedinaca koji su oboje uključeni u kockanje generalno se tretiraju sa povećanim oprezom od strane operatera.
Štaviše, važno je da je osoba koja vam je poslala sredstva takođe kockar, čak i ako je koristila drugi kazino (ili joj je račun zatvoren negde drugde). Sa regulatorne perspektive, ovo i dalje spada pod finansiranje trećih strana između pojedinaca povezanih sa kockarskom aktivnošću, što se smatra faktorom rizika i obično je ograničeno.
Iako cenim što ste dostavili prateću dokumentaciju kao što su vaša platna lista i komunikacija u vezi sa transferom, ona nažalost ne eliminišu dovoljno zabrinutosti vezane za izvor sredstava prema politikama kazina.
Nakon pregleda svih materijala, uključujući detaljna objašnjenja koja je pružio kazino, nisam u mogućnosti da razumno osporim njihovu odluku. Iz tog razloga, žalba mora biti odbijena.
Razumem da ovo nije ishod koji ste očekivali, ali se nadam da će gore navedeno objašnjenje razjasniti zašto je doneta ova odluka.
Hvala vam na saradnji tokom celog procesa.
Srdačan pozdrav,
Samuel
Kazino Guru
Dear luigi1994,
thank you for your patience and for all the documents and explanations you have provided during this process. I fully understand that this situation has been frustrating for you, especially given the time it has taken to reach a conclusion.
After carefully reviewing all the available information from both sides, I would like to summarize the key point of this case in a clear and transparent way.
Although you explained that the €200 transfer was a repayment of a personal loan, the important factor here is not the intention behind the transaction, but rather the origin of the funds in the context of gambling regulations. Based on the evidence, part of the funds used for your deposit originated from another individual who is also involved in gambling activities.
In such situations, casinos are required to apply strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and responsible gambling policies. These rules generally prohibit the use of funds received from third parties for gambling, regardless of whether the transfer was legitimate in a personal context (such as repaying a loan).
I also want to clarify an additional point: the fact that your activity involved sports betting rather than casino games does not change how these rules are applied. The same funding and AML requirements apply across all types of gambling.
At the same time, in the context of sports betting, such situations may be considered even more sensitive from a regulatory perspective, as they can potentially involve coordinated activity, shared strategies, or other forms of cooperation between players. For this reason, transactions between individuals who are both involved in gambling are generally treated with increased caution by operators.
Furthermore, it is relevant that the person who sent you the funds is also a gambler, even if they were using a different casino (or had their account closed elsewhere). From a regulatory perspective, this still falls under third-party funding between individuals connected to gambling activity, which is considered a risk factor and is commonly restricted.
While I appreciate that you provided supporting documents such as your payslip and communication regarding the transfer, these unfortunately do not sufficiently eliminate the concerns related to the source of funds under the casino’s policies.
After reviewing all the materials, including the detailed explanations provided by the casino, I am unable to reasonably challenge their decision. For this reason, the complaint must be rejected.
I understand this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but I hope the explanation above helps clarify why this decision was reached.
Thank you for your cooperation throughout the entire process.
Best regards,
Samuel
Casino Guru
Izmenjeno od strane Casino Guru administratora
Automatski prevedeno: