Jeg bestrider denne beslutning af følgende grunde.
1. Casinoet har ikke fremlagt nogen beviser overhovedet. E-mailen identificerer ikke, hvilken konto der angiveligt er duplikatet, hvornår den blev åbnet, hvilket navn, hvilken e-mailadresse, IP-adresse, enhed eller betalingsmetode der angiveligt er knyttet til min, eller andre konkrete datapunkter. En simpel påstand om, at "der blev udført en revision, og der blev fundet en duplikat", er ikke bevis og kan ikke med rimelighed understøtte konfiskationen af næsten 3.000 EUR. Bevisbyrden ligger udelukkende hos casinoet, og det har ikke løftet denne byrde.
2. Jeg fik ingen mulighed for at svare, før saldoen blev beslaglagt. Casinoet kontaktede mig ikke for at bede om afklaring, identifikationsdokumenter, bevis for adresse, enhedsoplysninger eller andet, der ville have givet mig mulighed for at imødekomme deres bekymringer. Den første kommunikation, jeg modtog om dette problem, var en e-mail, der bekræftede, at min konto allerede var blevet lukket, og mine penge allerede var blevet konfiskeret. Det er ikke en retfærdig procedure.
3. Casinoet havde alle muligheder for at opdage en duplikatkonto ved registrering og indbetaling. Hvis der havde eksisteret reelle bekymringer om duplikerede konti, burde de have været identificeret under onboarding, KYC-verifikation eller ved indbetaling – før jeg fik lov til at spille og optjene gevinster. I stedet accepterede casinoet min registrering, accepterede mine indbetalinger, tillod mig at satse og vinde og påberåbte sig først klausul 2.8, efter jeg havde en udbetalingsbar saldo. At anvende reglen om duplikerede konti selektivt ved udbetaling – snarere end konsekvent ved registrering – er ikke en håndhævelse af vilkårene i god tro.
4. Selv hvis en duplikatkonto bevises, er total konfiskation uforholdsmæssig. I henhold til principper for fair gambling, der er bredt anvendt i hele branchen (og afspejles i Casino Gurus Fair Gambling Codex), er den passende løsning, hvor en duplikatkonto reelt er etableret, annullering af alle bonusrelaterede gevinster og tilbagebetaling af spillerens egne indbetalinger – ikke en samlet beslaglæggelse af hver en øre på kontoen. Konfiskation af både indbetalinger og gevinster på baggrund af en ubevisbelagt påstand er straffende snarere end korrigerende.
5. Selve paragraf 2.8 giver ikke tilladelse til, hvad casinoet har gjort her. Paragrafen siger, at casinoet "forbeholder sig retten" til at blokere duplikerede konti, og "hvis vi beslutter at slette en duplikatkonto", kan gevinster annulleres, og indbetalinger "kan" konfiskeres. Den giver ikke casinoet ret til at konfiskere midler uden at identificere den påståede duplikat, uden at give spilleren mulighed for at svare og uden at fremlægge nogen form for dokumentation.
Hvad jeg beder Casino Guru om at hjælpe mig med at opnå
En tydelig erklæring fra Wild Tokyo, der identificerer den påståede duplikerede konto: konto-ID/brugernavn, registreringsdato og de specifikke datapunkter (navn, e-mail, adresse, IP, enhedsfingeraftryk, betalingsmetode osv.), som casinoet hævder overlapper med min.
I mangel af konkrete beviser, fuld genoprettelse og udbetaling af min gevinst på 2.914,50 EUR.
Som et absolut minimum en fuld refusion af alle indbetalinger foretaget på min konto.
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.
Automatisk oversættelse: