Dear Michal,
Thank you for your response.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that has been reached.
The core issue is not the terminology ("Rejected" vs. "Cancelled").
The issue is who performed the cancellation and under what technical circumstances.
You are assuming that because the correct credentials were used, the actions must have been performed by me. That is not evidence — that is an assumption.
If login credentials alone are considered definitive proof of authorship, then I formally request:
The IP addresses used during the alleged cancellation events.
The device fingerprint and user agent data.
The exact timestamps (UTC) of the cancellation actions.
Logs confirming whether 2FA was triggered during those actions.
Confirmation of session continuity between the withdrawal request and its cancellation.
Without this data, there is no technical proof that I personally cancelled those withdrawals.
Additionally:
My official transaction export clearly marks them as "Rejected," not "Cancelled."
You acknowledge that terminology varies between systems.
You rely on undisclosed internal back-end data.
Yet the case is being concluded based on evidence I am not allowed to review.
This creates a clear procedural imbalance:
The casino may rely on internal data that remains undisclosed, while I — the affected party — am denied access to the very evidence used to dismiss my claim.
Furthermore, I request formal clarification regarding the restriction/closure of my accounts since the moment I submitted this complaint.
Was the restriction applied as a security precaution?
Was it related to an ongoing investigation?
Or was it triggered as a result of the complaint itself?
The timing of the account restriction raises legitimate concerns, as access became unavailable immediately after initiating the dispute.
If the restriction is based on compliance or regulatory grounds, please provide written confirmation specifying the contractual clause or regulatory basis under which this action was taken.
Until verifiable technical logs are shared, the conclusion that I personally cancelled the withdrawals remains unproven.
I remain fully cooperative and expect a transparent review based on objective, verifiable data — not assumptions.
Kind regards,
Karim2910
Dear Michal,
Thank you for your response.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that has been reached.
The core issue is not the terminology ("Rejected" vs. "Cancelled").
The issue is who performed the cancellation and under what technical circumstances.
You are assuming that because the correct credentials were used, the actions must have been performed by me. That is not evidence — that is an assumption.
If login credentials alone are considered definitive proof of authorship, then I formally request:
The IP addresses used during the alleged cancellation events.
The device fingerprint and user agent data.
The exact timestamps (UTC) of the cancellation actions.
Logs confirming whether 2FA was triggered during those actions.
Confirmation of session continuity between the withdrawal request and its cancellation.
Without this data, there is no technical proof that I personally cancelled those withdrawals.
Additionally:
My official transaction export clearly marks them as "Rejected," not "Cancelled."
You acknowledge that terminology varies between systems.
You rely on undisclosed internal back-end data.
Yet the case is being concluded based on evidence I am not allowed to review.
This creates a clear procedural imbalance:
The casino may rely on internal data that remains undisclosed, while I — the affected party — am denied access to the very evidence used to dismiss my claim.
Furthermore, I request formal clarification regarding the restriction/closure of my accounts since the moment I submitted this complaint.
Was the restriction applied as a security precaution?
Was it related to an ongoing investigation?
Or was it triggered as a result of the complaint itself?
The timing of the account restriction raises legitimate concerns, as access became unavailable immediately after initiating the dispute.
If the restriction is based on compliance or regulatory grounds, please provide written confirmation specifying the contractual clause or regulatory basis under which this action was taken.
Until verifiable technical logs are shared, the conclusion that I personally cancelled the withdrawals remains unproven.
I remain fully cooperative and expect a transparent review based on objective, verifiable data — not assumptions.
Kind regards,
Karim2910