Dragi Mihale,
Hvala vam na odgovoru.
Međutim, moram s poštovanjem da se ne složim sa zaključkom koji je donet.
Ključno pitanje nije terminologija („Odbijeno" naspram „Otkazano").
Pitanje je ko je izvršio otkazivanje i pod kojim tehničkim okolnostima.
Pretpostavljate da sam, pošto su korišćeni ispravni akreditivi, radnje morao izvršiti ja. To nije dokaz — to je pretpostavka.
Ako se sami podaci za prijavu smatraju definitivnim dokazom autorstva, onda formalno zahtevam:
IP adrese korišćene tokom navodnih događaja otkazivanja.
Otisak prsta uređaja i podaci korisničkog agenta.
Tačne vremenske oznake (UTC) akcija otkazivanja.
Zapisi koji potvrđuju da li je dvofaktorska autentifikacija (2FA) pokrenuta tokom tih radnji.
Potvrda kontinuiteta sesije između zahteva za povlačenje i njegovog otkazivanja.
Bez ovih podataka, ne postoji tehnički dokaz da sam ja lično otkazao ta povlačenja.
Dodatno:
Moj zvanični izvoz transakcija ih jasno označuje kao „Odbijene", a ne „Otkazane".
Priznajete da se terminologija razlikuje između sistema.
Oslanjate se na neotkrivene interne podatke iz pozadine.
Pa ipak, slučaj se zaključuje na osnovu dokaza koje ne smem da pregledam.
Ovo stvara jasnu proceduralnu neravnotežu:
Kazino se može osloniti na interne podatke koji ostaju neotkriveni, dok je meni - pogođenoj strani - uskraćen pristup upravo dokazima koji su korišćeni za odbacivanje moje tužbe.
Dalje, molim za formalno pojašnjenje u vezi sa ograničenjem/zatvaranjem mojih računa od trenutka kada sam podneo ovu žalbu.
Da li je ograničenje primenjeno kao mera predostrožnosti?
Da li je to bilo povezano sa tekućom istragom?
Ili je to pokrenuto kao rezultat same žalbe?
Vreme ograničenja naloga izaziva opravdanu zabrinutost, jer je pristup postao nedostupan odmah nakon pokretanja spora.
Ako je ograničenje zasnovano na usklađenosti ili regulatornim razlozima, molimo vas da dostavite pisanu potvrdu u kojoj se navodi ugovorna klauzula ili regulatorni osnov na osnovu kojeg je ova mera preduzeta.
Dok se ne podele proverljivi tehnički evidencioni zapisi, zaključak da sam lično otkazao povlačenja ostaje nedokazan.
Ostajem u potpunosti saradljiv i očekujem transparentan pregled zasnovan na objektivnim, proverljivim podacima, a ne na pretpostavkama.
Srdačan pozdrav,
Karim2910
Dear Michal,
Thank you for your response.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that has been reached.
The core issue is not the terminology ("Rejected" vs. "Cancelled").
The issue is who performed the cancellation and under what technical circumstances.
You are assuming that because the correct credentials were used, the actions must have been performed by me. That is not evidence — that is an assumption.
If login credentials alone are considered definitive proof of authorship, then I formally request:
The IP addresses used during the alleged cancellation events.
The device fingerprint and user agent data.
The exact timestamps (UTC) of the cancellation actions.
Logs confirming whether 2FA was triggered during those actions.
Confirmation of session continuity between the withdrawal request and its cancellation.
Without this data, there is no technical proof that I personally cancelled those withdrawals.
Additionally:
My official transaction export clearly marks them as "Rejected," not "Cancelled."
You acknowledge that terminology varies between systems.
You rely on undisclosed internal back-end data.
Yet the case is being concluded based on evidence I am not allowed to review.
This creates a clear procedural imbalance:
The casino may rely on internal data that remains undisclosed, while I — the affected party — am denied access to the very evidence used to dismiss my claim.
Furthermore, I request formal clarification regarding the restriction/closure of my accounts since the moment I submitted this complaint.
Was the restriction applied as a security precaution?
Was it related to an ongoing investigation?
Or was it triggered as a result of the complaint itself?
The timing of the account restriction raises legitimate concerns, as access became unavailable immediately after initiating the dispute.
If the restriction is based on compliance or regulatory grounds, please provide written confirmation specifying the contractual clause or regulatory basis under which this action was taken.
Until verifiable technical logs are shared, the conclusion that I personally cancelled the withdrawals remains unproven.
I remain fully cooperative and expect a transparent review based on objective, verifiable data — not assumptions.
Kind regards,
Karim2910
Automatski prevedeno: