Kære Kubo- og CashWin-teamet,
Med al respekt, CashWins svar holder ikke stik mod en granskning, og jeg vil gerne protestere kraftigt, fordi de giver en forkert fremstilling af både fakta og deres egne vilkår.
1. Jeg annullerede ikke bonussen.
CashWin hævder, at jeg "valgte at annullere den aktive bonus", før jeg gennemførte indsatsen. Det er simpelthen ikke sandt. Bonussen blev annulleret af casinoet under verifikationsprocessen. CashWin har ikke fremlagt nogen beviser overhovedet for, at jeg klikkede på en annulleringsknap, bekræftede en pop op-meddelelse eller initierede nogen annullering fra min side. De opfinder en spillerhandling for at retfærdiggøre en casinohandling. Hvis CashWin fastholder denne holdning, anmoder jeg dem om at fremvise logposten, tidsstemplet og IP-adressen for den påståede annulleringshandling fra min konto. Det vil de ikke, fordi den ikke findes.
2. CashWin har nu citeret deres egne vilkår forkert.
Se nøje på, hvordan CashWin har omformuleret paragraf 23.17 i deres svar. Selve paragrafen lyder:
"Spilleren kan anmode om en udbetaling af sin indbetaling, før kravene for bonusomsætning er opfyldt. I dette tilfælde er bonusbeløbet og gevinsterne ugyldige, og eventuelle resterende midler udbetales til spilleren."
Klausulen siger, at "resterende midler, hvis nogen, udbetales til spilleren." Det er hele pointen. Selv ifølge CashWins egen (forkerte) version af begivenhederne, hvor spilleren annullerer, før indsatsen er gennemført, kræver vilkårene udtrykkeligt, at de resterende midler udbetales til spilleren. CashWin har citeret den præcise klausul, der forpligter dem til at betale mig, og derefter konkluderet, at de ikke behøver at betale mig. Det er ikke et forsvar, det er en modsigelse.
3. Strukturen af bonuspenge gør deres position umulig.
Dette er kernen i sagen, og jeg vil have det adresseret direkte. Bonuspenge og rigtige penge er separate, afgrænsede saldi på CashWins egen platform. Dette bekræftes af:
Klausul 23.12: Rigtige penge opbruges først, bonuspenge opbevares separat.
Casinoets egen brugergrænseflade viser to forskellige linjer: "Rigtig saldo" og "Casinobonus".
Mine skærmbilleder viser begge saldi før og efter annullering.
Hvordan kan en spillers egen indbetaling og gevinsterne fra den indbetaling "knyttes" til en bonus, der stod på en separat, uberørt saldo? Det kan de ikke. Hele pointen med at adskille rigtige penge fra bonuspenge i spillerens tegnebog er netop, at rigtige penge forbliver spillerens ejendom og ikke kan konfiskeres, når en bonus annulleres.
Hvis CashWins holdning var korrekt, at enhver gevinst i en "aktiv bonusperiode" er bonusforbundet og kan annulleres, ville der slet ikke være nogen mening i at have en separat reel saldo. Adskillelsen er meningsløs under deres fortolkning. Det kan ikke være, hvad vilkårene siger, og det er ikke, hvad systemets adfærd viser.
4. Selve systemet modsiger CashWins holdning.
Det stærkeste bevis i denne sag er CashWins egen platformadfærd:
Før bonusannullering: Reel saldo €2.718,50, Casinobonus €300.
Efter bonusannullering: Reel saldo €2.718,50, Casinobonus €0.
Hvis de €2.718,50 virkelig var bonusforbundne gevinster, der burde annulleres i henhold til klausul 23.6, ville systemet have nulstillet den reelle saldo i det øjeblik, bonussen blev annulleret. Det gjorde det ikke. Platformen selv genkendte disse midler som gevinster med rigtige penge, der stammer fra indsatser med rigtige penge, og holdt dem inden for den reelle saldo. CashWin beder nu Casino Guru om at ignorere, hvad deres egen platform gjorde, og acceptere en verbal genfortolkning, der modsiger deres egne systemregistreringer.
5. Bekræftelsesfortællingen er også forkert.
CashWin hævder, at der ikke var "unødige forsinkelser", og at verifikationen ikke kunne gennemføres "uden kundens fulde samarbejde". Dette er ikke korrekt. POI og POA blev godkendt i maj 2025. Jeg indsendte derefter det anmodede MiFinity-bevis for indbetaling og MiFinity-profilskærmbillede gentagne gange fra maj 2025 og fremefter. Hver indsendelse blev afvist uden at CashWin nogensinde specificerede, hvilket element i dokumenterne der var mangelfuldt. De skærmbilleder, der blev anmodet om den 21. juni 2025, var i det væsentlige identiske med dem, jeg allerede havde indsendt den 23. maj 2025. Det er definitionen af en unødig forsinkelse.
CashWin siger også, at min indbetaling er blevet returneret. Det er ikke en løsning, det er casinoet, der ensidigt omstøder transaktionen for at undgå at skulle håndtere gevinsterne. Refusionen af indbetalingen ophæver ikke mit krav på de €2.718,50 i gevinster, der stod på min reelle saldo.
Dear Kubo and CashWin Team,
With respect, CashWin's response does not hold up to scrutiny, and I want to push back firmly because they are misrepresenting both the facts and their own terms.
1. I did not cancel the bonus.
CashWin claims I "chose to cancel the active bonus" before completing wagering. That is simply not true. The bonus was cancelled by the casino during the verification process. CashWin has not produced any evidence whatsoever that I clicked a cancellation button, confirmed a pop-up, or initiated any cancellation from my end. They are inventing a player action to justify a casino action. If CashWin maintains this position, I request they produce the log entry, timestamp, and IP address of the alleged cancellation action from my account. They will not, because it does not exist.
2. CashWin has now misquoted their own terms.
Look carefully at how CashWin has rephrased clause 23.17 in their response. The actual clause reads:
"The Player can request a withdrawal of their deposit before meeting the requirements for bonus wagering. In this case, the amount of the bonus and winnings are void, and the remaining funds, if any, are paid to the player."
The clause says "remaining funds, if any, are paid to the player." That is the entire point. Even on CashWin's own (incorrect) version of events, where the player cancels before wagering is complete, the terms expressly require the remaining funds to be paid to the player. CashWin has quoted the exact clause that obligates them to pay me, and then concluded they don't have to pay me. That is not a defence, that is a contradiction.
3. The structure of bonus money makes their position impossible.
This is the core of the matter and I want it addressed directly. Bonus money and real money are separate, ringfenced balances on CashWin's own platform. This is confirmed by:
Clause 23.12: real money is exhausted first, bonus money sits separately.
The casino's own UI showing two distinct lines: "Real Balance" and "Casino Bonus."
My screenshots showing both balances before and after cancellation.
How can a player's own deposit and the winnings on that deposit be "linked" to a bonus that was sitting in a separate, untouched balance? They cannot. The whole point of separating real money from bonus money in the player's wallet is precisely so that real funds remain the player's property and cannot be confiscated when a bonus is voided.
If CashWin's position were correct, that any winnings during an "active bonus period" are bonus-linked and voidable, then there would be no point in having a separate real balance at all. The separation is meaningless under their interpretation. That cannot be what the terms say, and it is not what the system behaviour shows.
4. The system itself contradicts CashWin's position.
The most powerful piece of evidence in this case is CashWin's own platform behaviour:
Before bonus cancellation: Real Balance €2,718.50, Casino Bonus €300.
After bonus cancellation: Real Balance €2,718.50, Casino Bonus €0.
If the €2,718.50 were truly bonus-linked winnings that should be voided under clause 23.6, the system would have zeroed the real balance at the moment the bonus was cancelled. It did not. The platform itself recognised these funds as real money winnings derived from real money wagers, and kept them in the real balance line. CashWin is now asking Casino Guru to ignore what their own platform did and accept a verbal reinterpretation that contradicts their own system records.
5. The verification narrative is also wrong.
CashWin claims there were "no undue delays" and that the verification could not be completed "without the customer's full cooperation." This is not accurate. POI and POA were approved in May 2025. I then submitted the requested MiFinity proof of deposit and MiFinity profile screenshot repeatedly from May 2025 onwards. Each submission was rejected without CashWin ever specifying which element of the documents was deficient. The screenshots requested on 21 June 2025 were identical in substance to those I had already submitted on 23 May 2025. That is the definition of an undue delay.
CashWin also says my deposit has been returned. That is not a resolution, it is the casino unilaterally reversing the transaction to avoid having to deal with the winnings. The deposit refund does not extinguish my claim to the €2,718.50 in winnings that sat in my real balance.
Automatisk oversættelse: