Želeo bih da iznesem nekoliko ozbiljnih zabrinutosti u vezi sa načinom na koji je SlotNeo postupio sa zatvaranjem mog naloga i istragom o sprečavanju pranja novca.
1. Moja KYC verifikacija je ostala na čekanju. Poslao/la sam dokumenta za verifikaciju, ali su ona ostala u statusu „Na čekanju" nekoliko dana. Pre nego što je proces verifikacije završen, moj nalog je zatvoren.
2. Moj nalog je odmah zatvoren dok je moja isplata bila na čekanju nekoliko dana. U vreme kada je moj nalog zatvoren, imao sam zahtev za isplatu koji je nekoliko dana bio u statusu „Na čekanju". Tokom tog perioda, više puta sam kontaktirao kazino tražeći objašnjenje za kašnjenje i tražio da obrade moju isplatu. Umesto da dobijem objašnjenje ili da se moja isplata obradi, moj nalog je odmah zatvoren.
3. Nije tražena nikakva dokumentacija o izvoru sredstava pre ili posle zatvaranja. Da je operater zaista imao zabrinutosti u vezi sa sprečavanjem pranja novca, očekivao bih da zatraže izvor sredstava ili bilo koju dodatnu dokumentaciju pre donošenja konačne odluke. Umesto toga, dobrovoljno sam pružio opsežne dokaze, uključujući izvode sa Revolut-a, istoriju transakcija na MEXC-u, dokaz o prihodima i druge dokumente koji dokazuju legitimno poreklo mojih sredstava.
4. Prethodna povlačenja su odobrena. Kazino je uspešno obradio moje prethodne zahteve za povlačenje pre nego što je iznenada tvrdio da je moj nalog sumnjiv sa stanovišta sprečavanja pranja novca. Ovo postavlja pitanja o tome kada se navodna sumnja zapravo pojavila i zašto u toj fazi nije zatražena dodatna verifikacija.
5. Razlozi za zatvaranje mog naloga menjali su se tokom vremena. U početku je operater opravdavao zatvaranje pozivajući se na zabrinutost zbog sprečavanja pranja novca. Naknadno su izneli argument da se nalazim u ograničenoj jurisdikciji. Međutim, Rumunija je dodata na listu ograničenih jurisdikcija operatera nakon što je moj nalog već bio zatvoren. Štaviše, operater je od prvog dana bio potpuno svestan da se registrujem i igram iz Rumunije. Moja zemlja prebivališta je jasno deklarisana tokom registracije, a kazino je prihvatio moju registraciju, moju KYC proveru, moje depozite, moje igranje, pa čak i obradio nekoliko isplata bez ikakvih zabrinutosti u vezi sa mojom jurisdikcijom. Ovo postavlja ozbiljna pitanja o tome zašto je argument ograničene jurisdikcije uveden tek nakon zatvaranja naloga i da li je korišćen retrospektivno da bi se opravdala odluka koja je već doneta.
6. Stanje na računu je izmenjeno bez mog pristanka. Nakon što je spor napredovao, stanje na mom računu je jednostrano promenjeno na približno iznos prethodne ponude kazina za poravnanje, uprkos činjenici da nikada nisam prihvatio tu ponudu. S poštovanjem molim operatera da objasni pravni i ugovorni osnov za ovu akciju.
U potpunosti razumem da licencirani operateri imaju obaveze prema propisima o sprečavanju pranja novca i da mogu istraživati sumnjive aktivnosti. Međutim, verujem da takve istrage treba sprovoditi na dosledan, pravedan i transparentan način.
S poštovanjem molim operatera da pojasni sledeće:
Kog tačno datuma je pokrenuta istraga o sprečavanju pranja novca?
Ako je istraga već počela, zašto je moj zahtev za povlačenje čekao nekoliko dana umesto da bude odmah rešen?
Zašto je moj nalog odmah zatvoren nakon što sam više puta tražio objašnjenje i insistirao da se moje povlačenje sredstava obradi?
Koje su konkretne okolnosti izazvale sumnju na SPM?
Zašto nije zatražena dokumentacija o izvoru sredstava pre zatvaranja računa?
Kada su dokumenti koje sam dobrovoljno podneo/la zapravo pregledani?
Zašto je obrazloženje kasnije promenjeno sa pitanja sprečavanja pranja novca na pitanje ograničene nadležnosti, posebno imajući u vidu da je Rumunija dodata na listu ograničenih nadležnosti tek nakon što je moj račun već bio zatvoren?
Zašto je operater svesno prihvatio moju registraciju, KYC, depozite, igru i prethodna isplaćivanja ako se Rumunija navodno smatrala neprihvatljivom jurisdikcijom?
Na osnovu koje ugovorne ili regulatorne odredbe je stanje na mom računu izmenjeno bez mog pristanka?
Ne tražim od operatera da otkrije bilo kakve poverljive izveštaje o sprečavanju pranja novca ili informacije koje se zakonski ne mogu otkriti. Jednostavno tražim jasno objašnjenje postupka koji je primenjen u mom slučaju i pravni osnov za donete odluke.
S obzirom na redosled događaja, smatram da postoje opravdana pitanja o tome da li je postupak sprečavanja pranja novca sproveden dosledno i u skladu sa sopstvenim politikama i regulatornim obavezama operatera. S poštovanjem molim da se ova pitanja razmotre pojedinačno uz činjenična objašnjenja potkrepljena relevantnim uslovima, internim procedurama ili regulatornim zahtevima, gde je to primenljivo.
I would like to raise several serious concerns regarding the way SlotNeo handled my account closure and the AML investigation.
1. My KYC verification remained pending. I submitted my verification documents, but they remained in "Pending" status for several days. Before the verification process was completed, my account was closed.
2. My account was closed immediately while my withdrawal had been pending for several days. At the time my account was closed, I had a withdrawal request that had remained in "Pending" status for several days. During that period, I repeatedly contacted the casino requesting an explanation for the delay and asking them to process my withdrawal. Instead of receiving an explanation or having my withdrawal processed, my account was immediately closed.
3. No Source of Funds documentation was requested before the closure or after. If the operator genuinely had AML concerns, I would have expected them to request Source of Funds or any additional documentation before making the final decision. Instead, I voluntarily provided extensive evidence, including Revolut statements, MEXC transaction history, proof of income, and other documents demonstrating the legitimate origin of my funds.
4. Previous withdrawals were approved. The casino successfully processed my previous withdrawal requests before suddenly claiming that my account was suspicious from an AML perspective. This raises questions about when the alleged suspicion actually arose and why no additional verification was requested at that stage.
5. The reasons for closing my account changed over time. Initially, the operator justified the closure by referring to AML concerns. Subsequently, they introduced the argument that I was located in a restricted jurisdiction. However, Romania was added to the operator's list of restricted jurisdictions after my account had already been closed. Furthermore, the operator had been fully aware from the very first day that I was registering and playing from Romania. My country of residence was clearly declared during registration, and the casino accepted my registration, my KYC submission, my deposits, my gameplay, and even processed several withdrawals without raising any concerns regarding my jurisdiction. This raises serious questions as to why the restricted jurisdiction argument was introduced only after the account closure and whether it was used retrospectively to justify a decision that had already been made.
6. The account balance was modified without my agreement. After the dispute progressed, my account balance was unilaterally changed to approximately the amount of the casino's previous settlement offer, despite the fact that I had never accepted that offer. I respectfully request the operator to explain the legal and contractual basis for this action.
I fully understand that licensed operators have obligations under Anti-Money Laundering regulations and may investigate suspicious activity. However, I believe such investigations should be conducted in a consistent, fair, and transparent manner.
I respectfully ask the operator to clarify the following:
On what exact date was the AML investigation initiated?
If the investigation had already begun, why was my withdrawal left pending for several days instead of being promptly addressed?
Why was my account closed immediately after I repeatedly requested an explanation and insisted that my withdrawal be processed?
What specific circumstances triggered the AML suspicion?
Why was no Source of Funds documentation requested before the account was closed?
When were the documents that I voluntarily submitted actually reviewed?
Why was the justification later changed from AML concerns to a restricted jurisdiction issue, especially considering that Romania was added to the restricted jurisdictions list only after my account had already been closed?
Why did the operator knowingly accept my registration, KYC, deposits, gameplay, and previous withdrawals if Romania was supposedly considered an unacceptable jurisdiction?
Under which contractual or regulatory provision was my account balance altered without my consent?
I am not asking the operator to disclose any confidential AML reporting or information that cannot legally be revealed. I am simply requesting a clear explanation of the procedure followed in my case and the legal basis for the decisions that were made.
Given the sequence of events, I believe there are legitimate questions as to whether the AML procedure was carried out consistently and in accordance with the operator's own policies and regulatory obligations. I respectfully request that these questions be addressed individually with factual explanations supported by the relevant terms, internal procedures, or regulatory requirements where applicable.
Automatski prevedeno: