He was accused of double spending. All you had to do is ask Sportsbet to show proof and the case was over. We can’t shake down players looking for an excuse to steal their money.
[...]
I believe there is a misunderstanding from your side regarding that case about what I did [throwing more allegation] or did not [asking SB to prove for double spend]. Let me try to describe things in details the way I remembered it and see if we can find a common ground.
anonymousxm was initially suspected for multi acc and asked to perform KYC. On this matter, I asked him if he's the only one accessing SB from his home
1, his IP, his PC, those thing that can prove or invalidate multi-acc, whether we can cross the multi-acc allegation or if it's valid [regardless unintentionally due to cluelessness of fully deliberate]. Not long after this, OP [presumably] cleared his KYC and they found that OP utilize double spend method
2.
The situation then came to Steve's radar [I can't remember if I contacted him and notify him about it, inviting him to give his side or he came on his own, but I believe that part is irrelevant for now], he tried to get to the bottom of it, fast forward a little with some user tried to spice up the situation and stir the pot, and Steve came back with a final saying
3 that he can't overturn the decision made by the team, and he suggested anonymousxm to pursue this case to a licensor, to give it another chance.
At this point, I don't think asking SB to provide a proof of their counter-accusation will be productive, do it? They're ready [as per Steve's effort] to get it escalated to the licensor, who are better equipped to tackle all of the violation counter-accusation made by SB [multi acc and double spend] at once, so why bother asking him to provide the same evidence here? If there is a merit in asking him at that point, then it must be eluded me, because I can't see any added benefit.
Meanwhile, this response of Steve, OP misunderstood it
4 due to language barrier and thought Steve told him
not to escalate it. And I explained to him that he understood wrongly
5.
anonymousxm then escalated to the licensor, as per his commitment, and the case [apparently] got rejected with the verdict favoring SB
6, of which I still tried to deescalate it, to consider if OP once again misunderstood things due to language barrier or to lose patience [licensor response time can be significantly longer compared to AG, CG, or this forum], and asking him to show us his last correspondence with the licensor, to be sure we are all on the same page
7.
anonymousxm's response to this is to pull full Avatar Aang move, disappear when he needed him the most. If we may be exercise a bias, one might argue that he didn't come back because he knew he lost the case, that he's the wrong part. Otherwise, he'll publish those emails, even simply fueled by rage instead of trying to prove things.
He. Did. Not.
So, coming back to your initial inquiry, that I threw more allegation to anonymousxm, well, I believe I did not. I simply pointed out and brought back what SB initially wrote as their finding. And why don't I ask SB to prove the double spend counter-allegation, well [as explained above], what's the merit of it when both parties are inch away from taking it to the licensor who will validate everything with every possible private data accessible for them to verify?
Tell me which part do I did wrong on this case?
1
On that case, if your story is what actually happened and it's a simple mix up, you can rest assured that SB will sort everything up. For the time being, I noticed no one asked you yet if you're the only one accessing SB in your home. Are you?
2
3
[...]I spoke to our team (both teams concerned) and they are fine to stick with the existing decision.
Its not an ideal scenario to finish up on, but one I am unable to overturn this case.
So the next course of action would be to lodge a complaint with e-gaming Curacao - which I understand isn't ideal, as it adds more time and energy to the situation.[...]
4
He suggested me NOT to raise it to his LINCESOR, that it is going to be a waste of time and effort, WHICH I WILL DO I don't care about wasting my time just to fuck around, because I know the money is already lost, because THEY ARE SCAMMERS.
5
To be fair, he suggested you to raise to their licensor, [...]The exact word he said is "to lodge a complaint with e-gaming Curacao"
Without trying to be condesending, perhaps it's a language barrier, so I'd put the definition of "lodge" as a verb at the bottom of this page.[...]
6
finally they stealed my money, egaming curacao dont give me response.
7
In other words, they have concluded their investigation, reached a verdict, and made a decision that you're indeed double spending [and probably other violation found by sportsbet's security team], or were they simply still in the middle of their investigation, thus the silence, and you're running out of patience?
Do you mind to, perhaps, show us the last email they give and/or the last one you send?