Stvari su se promenile, sada su konfiskovali rekavši 12.2, ali sada menjaju klauzulu u 18.1.5 i 18.1.6, kada sam ih pitao o tome, ponovo su rekli da su sva 3 prekršena. Zašto nisu rekli prvi put, pomenuli su samo kada sam rekao da mi trebaju dokazi, a oni nisu dostavili nikakve, rekao sam im da ću postupiti po zakonu, a onda su promenili rekavši da su sva 3 prekršena jer nemaju nikakve odgovarajuće dokaze.
Podnosim ovu žalbu u vezi sa oduzimanjem stanja na mom računu i dobitaka od strane operatera, bez pružanja jasnih dokaza o bilo kakvom konkretnom kršenju pravila.
Aktivno sam koristio platformu značajan period i učestvovao sam u širokom spektru aktivnosti klađenja, uključujući:
* sportsko klađenje kao što su kriket, tenis i kombinovane opklade,
* kao i kazino igre, uključujući rulet, bakarat i blekdžek.
Moja aktivnost nije bila ograničena na jedan obrazac klađenja ili izolovani stil igre. Tokom mog vremena na platformi, moji depoziti, opklade i isplate su se obrađivali normalno, a višestruke isplate su uspešno odobrene i isplaćene od strane operatera u prošlosti.
Važno je napomenuti da tokom perioda kada sam gubio značajne iznose, nikada nisu pokrenute nikakve zabrinutosti, ograničenja ili istrage protiv mog naloga. Problem je počeo tek nakon što sam akumulirao veće dobitke.
U početku me je operater obavestio da je navodno prekršena klauzula 12.2, što implicira prevarnu, nezakonitu ili nepravilnu aktivnost. Međutim, kada sam zatražio pojašnjenje i zamolio ih da identifikuju tačnu opkladu, transakciju ili aktivnost koja je prekršila njihove Uslove, odbili su da dostave bilo kakve konkretne dokaze ili detalje.
Nakon što sam ovo dalje osporio, operater je kasnije promenio svoje obrazloženje i umesto toga tvrdio da su prekršene klauzule 18.1.5 i 18.1.6. Ova nedoslednost je veoma zabrinjavajuća jer su se razlozi za oduzimanje mojih sredstava promenili tokom postupka spora.
Takođe je zabrinjavajuće što se operater prvobitno oslanjao na klauzulu koja se odnosi na prevarnu ili nezakonitu aktivnost, ali je kasnije prešao na široke diskrecione klauzule nakon što sam zatražio konkretne dokaze i pojašnjenja. Ovo stvara utisak da se obrazloženje za konfiskaciju promenilo tokom spora, dok mi nikada nisu predstavljeni konkretni dokazi, konkretna zabranjena transakcija ili jasno utvrđeno kršenje pravila.
Široka i diskreciona priroda kasnijih klauzula izuzetno otežava igraču da pravilno razume ili ospori iznete tvrdnje, posebno kada nijedna konkretna aktivnost klađenja nije identifikovana kao zabranjena.
Ni u jednom trenutku nisam bio obavešten o:
* svaka prevarna transakcija,
* bilo koje višestruko računovodstvo,
* bilo kakva zloupotreba bonusa,
* bilo kakva aktivnost pranja novca,
* bilo kakva manipulacija platformom,
* ili bilo koja posebno zabranjena opklada.
Sve opklade su postavljene otvoreno preko uobičajenog interfejsa za klađenje i operater ih je prihvatao i obračunavao u realnom vremenu.
Takođe sam dobijao povraćaj novca u određenim prilikama, što je standardna funkcija koju kazino nudi igračima. Međutim, ti iznosi povraćaja novca su na kraju izgubljeni tokom daljeg igranja i nisu rezultirali bilo kakvim nepravilnim ili zagarantovanim dobitkom.
Dalje:
* operater je svesno prihvatao moju igru tokom dužeg perioda,
* uspešno obrađene prethodne isplate,
* i delovao je tek nakon što su se ostvarili značajni dobici.
Verujem da je konfiskacija celokupnog preostalog iznosa bez transparentnih dokaza, uz odbijanje da se utvrdi jasno i konkretno kršenje pravila, nepravedna i nesrazmerna.
S poštovanjem molim:
1. Detaljno objašnjenje tačne aktivnosti koja navodno krši Uslove.
2. Identifikacija konkretnih opklada ili transakcija o kojima je reč.
3. Ponovno razmatranje konfiskacije i vraćanje mog legitimnog stanja i dobitaka.
I dalje sam u potpunosti spreman da sarađujem i pružim sve informacije potrebne za pravedno i transparentno rešavanje ovog pitanja.
Poslao sam sve dokaze vašoj imejl adresi, gospođo. Molim vas, pogledajte to.
The things have changed now they have confiscated saying 12.2 but now they are changing the clause to 18.1.5 and 18.1.6, when I questioned about this they again said all 3 were breached. Why not say the first time, they only mentioned when I said I need the proofs when they didn't provide any, I told them I'll proceed legally then they changed saying all 3 were breached cause they don't have any proper evidence.
I am filing this complaint regarding the confiscation of my account balance and winnings by the operator without providing clear evidence of any specific rule violation.
I had been actively using the platform for a considerable period and participated in a wide range of betting activity, including:
* sports betting such as cricket, tennis, and multi bets,
* as well as casino games including roulette, baccarat, and blackjack.
My activity was not limited to a single betting pattern or isolated gameplay style. Throughout my time on the platform, my deposits, wagers, and withdrawals were processed normally, and multiple withdrawals were successfully approved and paid by the operator in the past.
Importantly, during periods where I was losing substantial amounts, no concerns, restrictions, or investigations were ever raised against my account. The issue only began after I accumulated larger winnings.
Initially, the operator informed me that clause 12.2 had allegedly been breached, implying fraudulent, unlawful, or improper activity. However, when I requested clarification and asked them to identify the exact bet, transaction, or activity that violated their Terms, they refused to provide any specific evidence or details.
After I challenged this further, the operator later changed their reasoning and instead claimed that clauses 18.1.5 and 18.1.6 were breached. This inconsistency is highly concerning because the grounds for confiscating my funds changed during the dispute process.
It is also concerning that the operator initially relied on a clause related to fraudulent or unlawful activity, but later shifted to broad discretionary clauses after I requested specific evidence and clarification. This creates the impression that the justification for the confiscation changed during the course of the dispute, while no concrete evidence, specific prohibited transaction, or clearly identified rule violation has ever been presented to me.
The broad and discretionary nature of the later clauses makes it extremely difficult for a player to properly understand or challenge the allegations being made, especially when no specific betting activity has been identified as prohibited.
At no point was I informed of:
* any fraudulent transaction,
* any multi-accounting,
* any bonus abuse,
* any money laundering activity,
* any manipulation of the platform,
* or any specifically prohibited bet.
All wagers were placed openly through the normal betting interface and were accepted and settled by the operator in real time.
I also received cashback on certain occasions, which is a standard feature offered by the casino to players. However, those cashback amounts were ultimately lost during further gameplay and did not result in any improper or guaranteed gain.
Furthermore:
* the operator knowingly accepted my gameplay over an extended period,
* processed previous withdrawals successfully,
* and only acted after substantial winnings occurred.
I believe confiscating the entire balance without transparent evidence, while refusing to identify a clear and specific rule violation, is unfair and disproportionate.
I respectfully request:
1. A detailed explanation of the exact activity allegedly violating the Terms.
2. Identification of the specific bets or transactions in question.
3. Reconsideration of the confiscation and release of my legitimate balance and winnings.
I remain fully willing to cooperate and provide any information required to resolve this matter fairly and transparently.
I have shared all the proofs to your mail ma'am. Please look into it.
Automatski prevedeno: