Baggrund og indledende KYC-forsøg
For et par måneder siden havde en mindreårig eller amerikansk ven (kan ikke huske præcist, vi er online-venner - bare bundlinjen kunne han ikke verificere) af mine penge låst på deres Rollbit-konto. Jeg ved, at dette ikke var ideelt, men i god tro besluttede jeg at prøve at hjælpe ham ved at udfylde KYC på hans vegne, i håb om at hjælpe ham med at få adgang til sine midler og lukke kontoen. For at være klar, var der ingen svigagtig hensigt eller involvering i noget mistænkeligt som hvidvaskning af penge - bare mig, der forsøgte at hjælpe en ven i lidt af en knibe.
Rollbits team, inklusive en repræsentant ved navn Razer, indså hurtigt, at KYC ikke var fra kontoejeren. KYC blev afvist, og de anmodede specifikt om, at kontohaveren selv udfyldte KYC for at fortsætte ( https://imgur.com/a/Y0xJ1OH ). Dette trin viser tydeligt, at Rollbit erkendte, at kontoen ikke tilhørte mig, og det endte med at fungere - min ven var i stand til at hæve sine penge, og kontoen blev derefter lukket.
Oprettelse af min egen Rollbit-konto og efterfølgende forbud
Hurtigt frem besluttede jeg at oprette min egen Rollbit-konto, lavede en indbetaling på $1.2000 og gennemførte KYC under mit navn, og troede, at alt var ligetil. Men kort efter blev jeg ramt med et forbud for "forbudsunddragelse". Sammen med forbuddet beslaglagde Rollbit $1.200 af mine penge. Jeg rakte ud for at forklare situationen, men de fastholdt forbuddet og nægtede at frigive midlerne. ( https://imgur.com/a/F5JreBb )
Jeg forstår fuldt ud, at forsøg på at KYC på vegne af en anden er imod politik, og jeg har erkendt det over for Rollbit. Men i betragtning af, at mit KYC-forsøg for min ven blev afvist, og de udtrykkeligt anerkendte, at jeg ikke var kontoejeren, er det klart, at der aldrig var et forsøg på at oprette eller kontrollere en sekundær konto. Jeg mener, at det faktum, at Rollbit behandlede konti som adskilte under denne proces, understreger, at de faktisk var uafhængige konti.
Selvom jeg forstår, at forbuddet stadig gælder, føler jeg, at beslaglæggelse af mine penge ikke stemmer overens med de faktiske begivenheder og omstændigheder. Det virker lidt ekstremt, især når der ikke var nogen intention om at bedrage, og Rollbits egne handlinger demonstrerede deres bevidsthed om kontoadskillelsen.
Anerkendelse af Rollbits ret til at beslaglægge midler til forbud mod unddragelse
Jeg anerkender, at Rollbit i henhold til paragraf 4.2 i servicevilkårene kan begrænse konti og tilbageholde midler, hvis der opdages flere konti eller "unddragelse af forbud". Derudover tillader paragraf 5.1 Rollbit at tilbageholde midler, hvis den har mistanke om, at en konto bliver brugt uretmæssigt eller til en tredjeparts fordel.
Men i mit tilfælde:
Indledende KYC-adskillelse : Da jeg forsøgte KYC for min vens konto, blev min indsendelse afvist, og Rollbits team, inklusive Razer, anerkendte udtrykkeligt, at jeg ikke var kontoindehaveren. Denne anerkendelse og efterfølgende afvisning viser, at min personlige konto var adskilt og uafhængigt verificeret.
Ingen vildledende hensigt : Min personlige konto blev finansieret og verificeret uden nogen hensigt om at undgå tidligere forbud eller at bedrage, som Rollbits egen verifikationsproces viste.
Anmodning om tilbagetrækning af midler baseret på vilkår og kontoadskillelse
Med denne kontekst i tankerne, og i lyset af paragraf 5.3, som siger: "Hvis vi lukker din Rollbit-konto og tror […] at en del af eller hele den resterende saldo tilkommer dig, vil vi informere dig om de tilgængelige betyder at trække den resterende saldo tilbage," anmoder jeg respektfuldt om, at mine resterende midler bliver trukket tilbage. Jeg mener, at denne klausul gælder her i betragtning af kontoens uafhængige verifikation og klare adskillelse.
Background and Initial KYC Attempt
A couple of months ago, an underage or US (cannot remember exactly, we're online buddies - just bottom line he couldn't verify) friend of mine had funds locked in their Rollbit account. I know this wasn’t ideal, but in good faith, I decided to try to help him by completing the KYC on his behalf, hoping to help him access his funds and close the account. To be clear, there was no fraudulent intent or involvement in anything suspicious like money laundering—just me trying to help a friend in a bit of a predicament.
Rollbit’s team, including a representative named Razer, quickly recognised that the KYC was not from the account owner. The KYC was rejected, and they specifically requested that the account holder themselves complete the KYC to proceed (https://imgur.com/a/Y0xJ1OH). This step clearly shows that Rollbit acknowledged the account did not belong to me, and it ended up working out – my friend was able to withdraw his funds, and the account was then closed.
Creation of My Own Rollbit Account and Subsequent Ban
Fast forward, I decided to create my own Rollbit account, made a $1,2000 deposit, and completed KYC under my name, thinking everything was straightforward. However, shortly after, I was hit with a ban for "ban evasion." Along with the ban, Rollbit seized $1,200 of my funds. I reached out to explain the situation, but they maintained the ban and refused to release the funds. (https://imgur.com/a/F5JreBb)
I completely understand that attempting to KYC on behalf of someone else is against policy, and I’ve acknowledged that to Rollbit. But given that my KYC attempt for my friend was rejected, and they explicitly acknowledged that I was not the account owner, it’s clear there was never an attempt to create or control a secondary account. I believe the fact that Rollbit treated the accounts as separate during this process underscores that they were indeed independent accounts.
While I understand the ban may still apply, I feel that seizing my funds doesn’t align with the actual events and circumstances. It seems a bit extreme, especially when there was no intention to deceive, and Rollbit’s own actions demonstrated their awareness of the account separation.
Acknowledgement of Rollbit’s Right to Seize Funds for Ban Evasion
I acknowledge that, according to Clause 4.2 of the Terms of Service, Rollbit may restrict accounts and withhold funds if multiple accounts or "ban evasion" are detected. Additionally, Clause 5.1 allows Rollbit to withhold funds if it suspects an account is being used improperly or for a third party’s benefit.
However, in my case:
Initial KYC Separation: When I attempted KYC for my friend’s account, my submission was rejected, and Rollbit’s team, including Razer, explicitly acknowledged that I was not the account holder. This recognition and subsequent rejection demonstrate that my personal account was separate and independently verified.
No Deceptive Intent: My personal account was funded and verified without any intent to evade previous bans or to deceive, as Rollbit’s own verification process demonstrated.
Request for Fund Withdrawal Based on Terms and Account Separation
With this context in mind, and in light of Clause 5.3, which states, "If we close Your Rollbit Account, and believe […] that any portion or all of the remaining balance is due to You, we will inform You of the available means to withdraw that remaining balance," I respectfully request that my remaining funds be withdrawn. I believe this clause applies here, given the account’s independent verification and clear separation.
Automatisk oversættelse:
