Osporavam ovu odluku iz sledećih razloga.
1. Kazino nije pružio nikakve dokaze. U imejlu se ne navodi koji se nalog navodno smatra duplikatom, kada je otvoren, koje ime, imejl adresa, IP adresa, uređaj ili način plaćanja su navodno povezani sa mojim, niti bilo koji drugi konkretan podatak. Sama tvrdnja da je „izvršena revizija i da je pronađen duplikat" nije dokaz i ne može razumno da potkrepi konfiskaciju skoro 3.000 evra. Teret dokazivanja ovde u potpunosti leži na kazinu, i on ga nije ispunio.
2. Nisam imao priliku da odgovorim pre nego što je iznos zaplenjen. Kazino me nije kontaktirao da traži pojašnjenje, lična dokumenta, dokaz o adresi, informacije o uređaju ili bilo šta drugo što bi mi omogućilo da se obratim njihovim nedoumicama. Prva komunikacija koju sam primio o ovom problemu bila je imejl kojim se potvrđuje da je moj nalog već zatvoren i da su mi sredstva već konfiskovana. To nije zakonski postupak.
3. Kazino je imao sve prilike da otkrije duplikat prilikom registracije i prilikom depozita. Ako su postojale stvarne zabrinutosti zbog duplih naloga, one su trebalo da budu identifikovane tokom registracije, KYC verifikacije ili prilikom depozita — pre nego što mi je bilo dozvoljeno da igram i akumuliram dobitke. Umesto toga, kazino je prihvatio moju registraciju, prihvatio moje depozite, dozvolio mi da se kladim i da dobijam, i tek nakon što sam imao stanje koje se može isplatiti, pokrenuo je klauzulu 2.8. Selektivna primena pravila o duplim računima prilikom isplate — a ne dosledna prilikom registracije — nije sprovođenje uslova u dobroj veri.
4. Čak i ako bi se dokazao duplikat, potpuna konfiskacija je nesrazmerna. Prema principima fer kockanja koji se široko primenjuju u celoj industriji (i odraženi su u Kodeksu fer kockanja Casino Guru-a), odgovarajući lek u slučaju da se zaista uspostavi duplikat naloga je otkazivanje svih dobitaka vezanih za bonus i povraćaj igračevih depozita — a ne opšta zaplena svakog centa na računu. Konfiskacija i depozita i dobitaka na osnovu nedokazanih tvrdnji je kaznena, a ne korektivna.
5. Sama klauzula 2.8 ne ovlašćuje ono što je kazino ovde uradio. U klauzuli se kaže da kazino „zadržava pravo" da blokira duplirane naloge i „ako odlučimo da obrišemo duplirani nalog", dobici mogu biti otkazani, a depoziti „mogu" biti konfiskovani. Ona ne daje kazinu pravo da konfiskuje sredstva bez identifikacije navodnog duplikata, bez davanja igraču prilike da odgovori i bez dostavljanja bilo kakvih dokaza.
Šta tražim od Casino Guru-a da mi pomogne da dobijem
Jasna izjava od strane Wild Tokyo-a kojom se identifikuje navodni duplikat naloga: ID naloga/korisničko ime, datum registracije i specifični podaci (ime, imejl adresa, adresa, IP adresa, otisak prsta uređaja, način plaćanja itd.) za koje kazino tvrdi da se preklapaju sa mojim.
U nedostatku konkretnih dokaza, potpuno vraćanje na prethodni status i isplata mog dobitka od 2.914,50 evra.
Kao apsolutni minimum, potpuni povraćaj svih depozita uplaćenih na moj račun.
am disputing this decision for the following reasons.
1. The casino has provided no evidence whatsoever. The email does not identify which account is alleged to be the duplicate, when it was opened, what name, email address, IP address, device, or payment method is supposedly linked to mine, or any other concrete data point. A bare assertion that "an audit was performed and a duplicate was found" is not evidence and cannot reasonably support the confiscation of nearly 3,000 EUR. The burden of proof here lies entirely with the casino, and it has not discharged that burden.
2. I was given no opportunity to respond before the balance was seized. The casino did not contact me to ask for clarification, identification documents, proof of address, device information, or anything else that would have allowed me to address its concerns. The first communication I received about this issue was the email confirming that my account had already been closed and my funds already confiscated. That is not due process.
3. The casino had every opportunity to detect a duplicate at registration and at deposit. If genuine duplicate-account concerns existed, they should have been identified during onboarding, KYC verification, or at the point of deposit — before I was permitted to play and accumulate winnings. Instead, the casino accepted my registration, accepted my deposits, allowed me to wager and to win, and only invoked clause 2.8 after I had a withdrawable balance. Applying the duplicate-account rule selectively at the point of withdrawal — rather than consistently at the point of registration — is not good-faith enforcement of the terms.
4. Even if a duplicate were proven, total confiscation is disproportionate. Under fair-gambling principles widely applied across the industry (and reflected in Casino Guru's Fair Gambling Codex), the appropriate remedy where a duplicate account is genuinely established is the cancellation of any bonus-related winnings and the refund of the player's own deposits — not the wholesale seizure of every cent on the account. Confiscating both deposits and winnings on the basis of an unevidenced allegation is punitive rather than corrective.
5. Clause 2.8 itself does not authorise what the casino has done here. The clause says the casino "reserves the right" to block duplicate accounts and "if we decide to delete a duplicate account" winnings may be cancelled and deposits "may" be confiscated. It does not entitle the casino to confiscate funds without identifying the alleged duplicate, without giving the player an opportunity to respond, and without producing any supporting evidence.
What I am asking Casino Guru to help me obtain
A clear statement from Wild Tokyo identifying the alleged duplicate account: account ID/username, registration date, and the specific data points (name, email, address, IP, device fingerprint, payment method, etc.) that the casino claims overlap with mine.
In the absence of concrete evidence, full reinstatement and payout of my winnings of 2,914.50 EUR.
At the absolute minimum, a full refund of all deposits made on my account.
Automatski prevedeno: