Jeg tror, det kunne være en af mulighederne, ja.
Senere sidste år kom der en klage, og den interessante del var, at kasinoet insisterede på, at spilleren ikke ville få kryptogevinsten, fordi kasinoet ikke var okay med den måde, som netop denne spiller købte kryptoen gennem bytte. Så forudsat at denne spiller altid kun har indbetalt med krypto og var involveret i at hæve i krypto, fortsatte kasinoet, som om vi talte om en fælles kilde til midler, AML-procedurerne.
Jeg ser bare ligheder, selvom jeg ikke er bekendt med din nuværende situation. Ser du det også? Jeg kan selvfølgelig tage fejl.
I think it could be one of the possibilities, yes.
Later on last year, there was a complaint, and the interesting part was that the casino insisted the player wouldn't get the crypto winnings because the casino was not okay with the way this particular player bought the crypto through exchange. So, assuming this player has always only deposited by crypto and was involved in withdrawing in crypto, the casino proceeded like we were talking about a common source of funds, the AML procedures.
I just see similarities, even though I'm not familiar with your current situation. Do you see it too? I could be wrong, of course.
Automatisk oversættelse: