Hi Jaro
Thanks for the advice.
It was quite a pain to send emails to people who didn't reply, but I now have all the evidence of "no reply" so I'm glad I followed your advice even though it was a pain.
I would like to thank all the members of "CSINO GURU" who consulted with me.
As for the MGA, perhaps it worked out well because it was this particular case.
Their duties are solely to collect taxes and supervise.
1) The casino clearly stated that they would pay, and the dispute itself was only over "non-payment."
2) MADRE, the lawyer who should have handled the case according to the MGA's explanation, accepted the case, but never contacted the player.
These points may be key points.
Both were subjects that should have been supervised by MGA, as they were licensed by MGA...
The MGA can easily solve the "unpaid promised payments" problem that casino chains often have.
The MGA also collects casino taxes, so the government has the right to demand the records... so any lies about casino payments will be exposed.
The MGA has the right to see the books
That's what I personally think.
As you say, it may be difficult to mediate a dispute from the very beginning.
Automatic translation: