Hvala vam na vašem trudu.
Poslao sam vam poštom razlog zašto sam zamutio neke delove mog dokumenta o platnoj listi.
Želeo bih da pružim dodatne informacije u vezi sa mojim slučajem.
Nakon moje prethodne žalbe, operater je sada (telefonom) izjavio da je moj nalog zatvoren zbog „povezanog naloga". Koliko ja razumem, ova tvrdnja može biti zasnovana na činjenici da je drugi korisnik možda pristupio kazinu sa iste Wi-Fi mreže (što i dalje mislim da nije moguće).
Međutim, želeo bih da naglasim sledeće:
Ovaj problem nikada nije pomenut tokom KYC procesa ili u vreme suspenzije naloga.
Nisu dostavljeni dokazi koji bi potkrepili tvrdnju o „povezanom računu"
Tužba je podneta tek nakon što sam odbio njihovu ponudu da obrišu moje žalbe u zamenu za delimični povraćaj novca.
Čak i ako je pristup ostvaren sa iste Wi-Fi mreže, to samo po sebi ne predstavlja dovoljan dokaz o kršenju pravila korišćenja višestrukih naloga. Deljene mreže (domaćinstva, kancelarije itd.) su uobičajene i potrebni su dodatni dokazi da bi se utvrdilo kršenje uslova.
Dalje:
Operator nije precizirao koje tačno pravilo je prekršeno
Nisu dati detalji o navodno povezanom nalogu
Moj formalni zahtev za eskalaciju dodatnih pitanja ostaje bez odgovora
Sledeći redosled događaja je veoma zabrinjavajući:
KYC odbijen bez objašnjenja
Račun suspendovan i stanje zadržano
Uslovno plaćanje ponuđeno u zamenu za brisanje žalbi
Tek nakon toga se uvodi objašnjenje „povezanog naloga"
Ovo snažno ukazuje na to da se obrazloženje koristi retroaktivno, a ne na osnovu jasnog i dokumentovanog nalaza.
Ljubazno molim tim Casino Guru-a da zatraži:
Konkretni dokazi koji podržavaju tvrdnju o „povezanom nalogu"
Identifikacija konkretnog pravila koje je navodno prekršeno
Pojašnjenje zašto ovo pitanje nije ranije pokrenuto
Ostajem u potpunosti saradljiv i spreman sam da pružim sve potrebne informacije.
Hvala vam na pomoći.
Thank you for your efforts.
I mailed you the reason why i blurred some parts of my payslip document.
I would like to provide a further update regarding my case.
Following my previous complaint, the operator has now stated (via phone) that my account was closed due to a "linked/connected account". From what I understand, this claim may be based on the fact that another user may have accessed the casino from the same Wi-Fi network ( which i still think is not possible)
However, I would like to emphasize the following:
This issue was never mentioned during the KYC process or at the time of account suspension
No evidence has been provided to support the "linked account" allegation
The claim was only introduced after I refused their offer to delete my complaints in exchange for a partial refund
Even if access from the same Wi-Fi network occurred, this alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of a multi-accounting violation. Shared networks (households, offices, etc.) are common, and additional proof is required to establish a breach of terms.
Furthermore:
The operator has not specified which exact rule has been violated
No details about the alleged linked account have been provided
My formal request for ADR escalation remains unanswered
The sequence of events is highly concerning:
KYC rejected without explanation
Account suspended and balance withheld
Conditional payment offered in exchange for deleting complaints
Only afterwards, a "linked account" explanation is introduced
This strongly suggests that the justification is being used retroactively rather than based on a clear and documented finding.
I kindly ask the Casino Guru team to request:
Concrete evidence supporting the "linked account" claim
Identification of the specific rule allegedly violated
Clarification on why this issue was not raised earlier
I remain fully cooperative and ready to provide any necessary information.
Thank you for your assistance.
Automatski prevedeno: