The things have changed now they have confiscated saying 12.2 but now they are changing the clause to 18.1.5 and 18.1.6, when I questioned about this they again said all 3 were breached. Why not say the first time, they only mentioned when I said I need the proofs when they didn't provide any, I told them I'll proceed legally then they changed saying all 3 were breached cause they don't have any proper evidence.
I am filing this complaint regarding the confiscation of my account balance and winnings by the operator without providing clear evidence of any specific rule violation.
I had been actively using the platform for a considerable period and participated in a wide range of betting activity, including:
* sports betting such as cricket, tennis, and multi bets,
* as well as casino games including roulette, baccarat, and blackjack.
My activity was not limited to a single betting pattern or isolated gameplay style. Throughout my time on the platform, my deposits, wagers, and withdrawals were processed normally, and multiple withdrawals were successfully approved and paid by the operator in the past.
Importantly, during periods where I was losing substantial amounts, no concerns, restrictions, or investigations were ever raised against my account. The issue only began after I accumulated larger winnings.
Initially, the operator informed me that clause 12.2 had allegedly been breached, implying fraudulent, unlawful, or improper activity. However, when I requested clarification and asked them to identify the exact bet, transaction, or activity that violated their Terms, they refused to provide any specific evidence or details.
After I challenged this further, the operator later changed their reasoning and instead claimed that clauses 18.1.5 and 18.1.6 were breached. This inconsistency is highly concerning because the grounds for confiscating my funds changed during the dispute process.
It is also concerning that the operator initially relied on a clause related to fraudulent or unlawful activity, but later shifted to broad discretionary clauses after I requested specific evidence and clarification. This creates the impression that the justification for the confiscation changed during the course of the dispute, while no concrete evidence, specific prohibited transaction, or clearly identified rule violation has ever been presented to me.
The broad and discretionary nature of the later clauses makes it extremely difficult for a player to properly understand or challenge the allegations being made, especially when no specific betting activity has been identified as prohibited.
At no point was I informed of:
* any fraudulent transaction,
* any multi-accounting,
* any bonus abuse,
* any money laundering activity,
* any manipulation of the platform,
* or any specifically prohibited bet.
All wagers were placed openly through the normal betting interface and were accepted and settled by the operator in real time.
I also received cashback on certain occasions, which is a standard feature offered by the casino to players. However, those cashback amounts were ultimately lost during further gameplay and did not result in any improper or guaranteed gain.
Furthermore:
* the operator knowingly accepted my gameplay over an extended period,
* processed previous withdrawals successfully,
* and only acted after substantial winnings occurred.
I believe confiscating the entire balance without transparent evidence, while refusing to identify a clear and specific rule violation, is unfair and disproportionate.
I respectfully request:
1. A detailed explanation of the exact activity allegedly violating the Terms.
2. Identification of the specific bets or transactions in question.
3. Reconsideration of the confiscation and release of my legitimate balance and winnings.
I remain fully willing to cooperate and provide any information required to resolve this matter fairly and transparently.
I have shared all the proofs to your mail ma'am. Please look into it.
The things have changed now they have confiscated saying 12.2 but now they are changing the clause to 18.1.5 and 18.1.6, when I questioned about this they again said all 3 were breached. Why not say the first time, they only mentioned when I said I need the proofs when they didn't provide any, I told them I'll proceed legally then they changed saying all 3 were breached cause they don't have any proper evidence.
I am filing this complaint regarding the confiscation of my account balance and winnings by the operator without providing clear evidence of any specific rule violation.
I had been actively using the platform for a considerable period and participated in a wide range of betting activity, including:
* sports betting such as cricket, tennis, and multi bets,
* as well as casino games including roulette, baccarat, and blackjack.
My activity was not limited to a single betting pattern or isolated gameplay style. Throughout my time on the platform, my deposits, wagers, and withdrawals were processed normally, and multiple withdrawals were successfully approved and paid by the operator in the past.
Importantly, during periods where I was losing substantial amounts, no concerns, restrictions, or investigations were ever raised against my account. The issue only began after I accumulated larger winnings.
Initially, the operator informed me that clause 12.2 had allegedly been breached, implying fraudulent, unlawful, or improper activity. However, when I requested clarification and asked them to identify the exact bet, transaction, or activity that violated their Terms, they refused to provide any specific evidence or details.
After I challenged this further, the operator later changed their reasoning and instead claimed that clauses 18.1.5 and 18.1.6 were breached. This inconsistency is highly concerning because the grounds for confiscating my funds changed during the dispute process.
It is also concerning that the operator initially relied on a clause related to fraudulent or unlawful activity, but later shifted to broad discretionary clauses after I requested specific evidence and clarification. This creates the impression that the justification for the confiscation changed during the course of the dispute, while no concrete evidence, specific prohibited transaction, or clearly identified rule violation has ever been presented to me.
The broad and discretionary nature of the later clauses makes it extremely difficult for a player to properly understand or challenge the allegations being made, especially when no specific betting activity has been identified as prohibited.
At no point was I informed of:
* any fraudulent transaction,
* any multi-accounting,
* any bonus abuse,
* any money laundering activity,
* any manipulation of the platform,
* or any specifically prohibited bet.
All wagers were placed openly through the normal betting interface and were accepted and settled by the operator in real time.
I also received cashback on certain occasions, which is a standard feature offered by the casino to players. However, those cashback amounts were ultimately lost during further gameplay and did not result in any improper or guaranteed gain.
Furthermore:
* the operator knowingly accepted my gameplay over an extended period,
* processed previous withdrawals successfully,
* and only acted after substantial winnings occurred.
I believe confiscating the entire balance without transparent evidence, while refusing to identify a clear and specific rule violation, is unfair and disproportionate.
I respectfully request:
1. A detailed explanation of the exact activity allegedly violating the Terms.
2. Identification of the specific bets or transactions in question.
3. Reconsideration of the confiscation and release of my legitimate balance and winnings.
I remain fully willing to cooperate and provide any information required to resolve this matter fairly and transparently.
I have shared all the proofs to your mail ma'am. Please look into it.