Draga Martina,
Nakon detaljnog pregleda, možemo potvrditi da se nije radilo o slučaju da je jedan prethodni nalog jednostavno ponovo aktiviran, kako igrač tvrdi. Naši zapisi pokazuju četiri odvojene registracije naloga povezane sa igračem.
Istorija naloga je sledeća:
Račun 1:
Adresa e-pošte: bramwellb@outlook.com
Datum registracije: 19.06.2024. 21:29:40
Datum zatvaranja: 2024-07-01 21:46:30
Razlog zatvaranja: Igrač je izjavio da više ne oseća sreću i da želi da isproba drugi kazino. Ćaskanje uživo.
Račun 2:
Adresa e-pošte: bbramwell@mail.com
Datum registracije: 13.02.2025. 22:20:42
Datum zatvaranja: 27.03.2025. 12:12:41
Razlog zatvaranja: Igrač je bio nezadovoljan bonus ponudama koje su mu bile dostupne. „Retko dobijam ponude za razliku od kada sam prvi put počeo." Ćaskanje uživo.
Račun 3:
Adresa e-pošte: bbramwell@zohomail.com
Datum registracije: 17.10.2025. 03:00:31
Datum zatvaranja: 2026-04-07 02:24:04
Razlog zatvaranja: Igrač je bio nezadovoljan nagradama i preferirao je kazina koja nude nedeljni povraćaj novca. Ćaskanje uživo.
Račun 4:
Adresa e-pošte: bramwellbk@gmail.com
Datum registracije: 2026-05-11 06:25:57
Datum zatvaranja: 28.06.2026. 07:39:26
Ovo je bio poslednji nalog koji je igrač registrovao i nalog na kojem su generisani sporni dobici.
Gore navedena istorija pokazuje da su to bile odvojene registracije izvršene u različito vreme, a ne reaktivacija jednog prethodnog naloga. Igrač je lično zahtevao zatvaranje ranijih naloga iz različitih razloga, a potom je nastavio da registruje dodatne naloge bez dobijanja izričite dozvole kazina.
Naše interne provere duplih naloga takođe povezuju naloge kroz podudaranje ličnih i tehničkih podataka, uključujući isto ime i datum rođenja, povezane kontakt podatke i korišćenje istog pregledača. Snimak ekrana je priložen.
Verifikacija četvrtog naloga je pokrenuta tokom procesa povlačenja sredstava. Prva grupa povlačenja, u ukupnom iznosu od 12.000 dolara, obrađena je pre nego što je završen naknadni pregled naloga. Tokom pregleda, identifikovane su veze sa prethodnim nalozima igrača i potvrđeno je kršenje višestrukih naloga. Igrač je obavešten nakon što je pregled završen.
Igrač je priznao da je prethodno koristio i zatvorio nalog kod nas. Međutim, dokazi pokazuju da je igrač naknadno završio nekoliko novih registracija umesto da samo ponovo aktivira jedan postojeći nalog. Igrač je stoga bio svestan da je ranije imao naloge kod nas, ali je nastavio da kreira dodatne naloge bez dobijanja izričite dozvole od kazina.
Član 6.6 naših Uslova i odredbi navodi:
„Svaki pojedinačni korisnik može da kreira samo jedan (1) nalog na veb-sajtu. Vaša je puna odgovornost da osigurate da ne otvarate više naloga na veb-sajtu, bez obzira na status bilo kog prethodnog naloga koji su možda ranije posedovali, osim ako vam predstavnici veb-sajta to izričito ne nalože i ne potvrde."
Član 6.7 takođe predviđa da nalozi povezani sa identitetom, vlasništvom ili kontrolom jedne osobe mogu biti predmet istih sankcija.
Činjenica da su prethodni nalozi bili zatvoreni ne otklanja kršenje ugovora. Član 6.6 se izričito primenjuje bez obzira na status bilo kog prethodnog naloga. Štaviše, promotivne ili e-poruke za ponovno angažovanje ne predstavljaju izričitu dozvolu za registraciju dodatnog naloga i ne zamenjuju Uslove i odredbe.
Strogo se primenjujući ove odredbe, kazino je imao pravo da poništi dobitke ostvarene na četvrtom računu i vrati samo igračev najnoviji depozit.
Međutim, do trenutka kada je pregled završen, 12.000 dolara je već bilo obrađeno i isplaćeno. Nakon potvrđivanja kršenja uslova, kazino je odlučio da ne traži povraćaj ovog iznosa. Umesto toga, igraču je dozvoljeno da zadrži punih 12.000 dolara kao nagodbu u dobroj volji.
Isplata od 12.000 dolara stoga nije bila potvrda da su preostali dobici odobreni. Obrađena je pre nego što je završen pregled višestrukih naloga i naknadno je odobrena kao značajan delimični povraćaj igračevih gubitaka, uprkos potvrđenom kršenju ugovora.
S obzirom na jasno kršenje pravila višestrukog naloga i činjenicu da je igraču dozvoljeno da zadrži 12.000 dolara umesto da primi samo iznos svog poslednjeg depozita, smatramo da je ishod srazmeran i povoljniji od strogog pravnog leka dostupnog prema našim Uslovima i odredbama.
Verujemo da su okolnosti, dokazi koji ih podržavaju i osnova za našu odluku sada u potpunosti objašnjeni. Shodno tome, smatramo da je ovo pitanje sa naše strane zatvoreno.
Tim kazina „Srećnici"
Dear Martina,
Following a detailed review, we can confirm that this was not a case of one previous account simply being reactivated, as the player claims. Our records show four separate account registrations associated with the player.
The account history is as follows:
Account 1:
Email address: bramwellb@outlook.com
Registration date: 2024-06-19 21:29:40
Closure date: 2024-07-01 21:46:30
Closure reason: The player stated that they no longer felt lucky and wished to try another casino. Live Chat.
Account 2:
Email address: bbramwell@mail.com
Registration date: 2025-02-13 22:20:42
Closure date: 2025-03-27 12:12:41
Closure reason: The player was dissatisfied with the bonus offers available to them. "I rarely get offers unlike when I first started" Live Chat.
Account 3:
Email address: bbramwell@zohomail.com
Registration date: 2025-10-17 03:00:31
Closure date: 2026-04-07 02:24:04
Closure reason: The player was dissatisfied with the rewards and preferred casinos offering weekly cashback. Live Chat.
Account 4:
Email address: bramwellbk@gmail.com
Registration date: 2026-05-11 06:25:57
Closure date: 2026-06-28 07:39:26
This was the latest account registered by the player and the account on which the disputed winnings were generated.
The above history demonstrates that these were separate registrations made at different times, rather than the reactivation of a single previous account. The player personally requested the closure of the earlier accounts for different reasons and subsequently proceeded to register further accounts without obtaining the casino’s express permission.
Our internal duplicate-account checks also connect the accounts through matching personal and technical information, including the same name and date of birth, related contact details, and use of the same browser. Screenshot attached.
Verification of the fourth account was initiated during the withdrawal process. The first batch of withdrawals, totalling $12,000, was processed before the subsequent account review had been completed. During the review, the connections with the player’s previous accounts were identified and the multiple-account breach was confirmed. The player was notified after the review was concluded.
The player has acknowledged having previously used and closed an account with us. However, the evidence demonstrates that the player subsequently completed several new registrations rather than merely reactivating one existing account. The player was therefore aware that they had previously held accounts with us but continued to create further accounts without obtaining express permission from the casino.
Clause 6.6 of our Terms and Conditions states:
"Each individual User may create only one (1) Account with the Website. It is your full responsibility to ensure that you do not open multiple Accounts on the Website, regardless of the status of any previous Account they may have owned previously, unless explicitly instructed and confirmed by the Website’s representatives."
Clause 6.7 also provides that accounts connected to the identity, ownership, or control of one person may be subject to the same sanctions.
The fact that the previous accounts had been closed does not remove the breach. Clause 6.6 expressly applies regardless of the status of any previous account. Furthermore, promotional or re-engagement emails do not constitute express permission to register an additional account and do not override the Terms and Conditions.
Under a strict application of these provisions, the casino was entitled to void the winnings generated on the fourth account and return only the player’s most recent deposit.
However, by the time the review was completed, $12,000 had already been processed and paid. After confirming the breach, the casino decided not to seek recovery of this amount. Instead, the player was permitted to retain the full $12,000 as a goodwill settlement.
The $12,000 payment was therefore not confirmation that the remaining winnings had been approved. It was processed before the multiple-account review was completed and was subsequently allowed to stand as a substantial partial refund of the player’s losses, despite the confirmed breach.
In view of the clear multiple-account breach and the fact that the player has been allowed to retain $12,000 rather than receiving only the amount of their most recent deposit, we consider the outcome proportionate and more favorable than the strict remedy available under our Terms and Conditions.
We believe that the circumstances, supporting evidence, and basis for our decision have now been fully explained. Accordingly, we consider this matter closed from our side.
The Lucky Ones Casino Team
Automatski prevedeno: