Topic: Stake.com has permanently closed my account with 17 000 USD in it - page 2. (Read 1041 times)

Yep, he is talking about Casino Guru. They have already made their final decision regarding this complaint and suggested OP to reach the licensing authority. I would like to quote the key fact here again which I had highlighted before


They have already tried to verify the documents of OP, but found those signs. Stake has taken the decision according to their terms of such situation.

Is this  casino guru?
Casino Guru have a good reputation in solving issues between sportsbook and their customers. Obviously you will need to tell them your side of story and the other party will show their documents too.

Im sorry for the late reply. I had to get away, as this is quite a large amount for me to be taken from me..

I dont really know what to say. Im very disapointed in CG, as they deem it to complex, to even tell me why my funds have been seized.

I was sure that a serious bookie as this would try to cooperate with me and solve this. I have provided every document they have asked. If need be, il take a selfie with my boss? 

As I see it ive exhausted any possibility i know. Stake has not tried to talk with me or solve this, nor provided any proof for what they allegede ive done to deceive them in any way.

I can also provide screens or what is needed for them to see that im fully verified at several other large bookies.

So.. I dont know what more to do. I will for sure never keep any more than 1000 usd at any crypto bookie that seizes customers funds at will any more. As I see it, they answer to no-one (As their licensholder still haven`t responded to my email)

As this is a KYC problem (I think) I dont know what more I can do. Ive provided everything, and I am who I say I am. Wich they could probably comfirm trough a video interview for instance..

So ive lost 17k usd without any proof nor a fair attempt from stake to resolve this. Not the best way to start my summer vacation.

nah, I'm done disagreeing. You put a lot of time into this stuff so I shouldn't be so critical. Time to watch the rest of England/Switz and then Netherlands/Turkey.

No, no, don't stop here. Please, by all means. My thread [and I] is not authoritarian, it's open for public and at no time all of its content is my call just because it's my thread, as I stated in the intro of my thread,


So, you seems to have an opinion that the case shouldn't be marked [be it by CG or me] as what I proposed I will. The room is yours.

Could go either way but it's your thread and I don't have a really strong case against. Your call is fine by me.

CG's final verdict is to take favor in Stake. They uphold Stake's decision and perceive it as the one that's likely to happened. I understand you're trying to say that I shouldn't mark the case as resolved on my list? Then, do tell, what status should I wrote it and why?

CG rejected the case. Stake didn't tell CG what rule the OP broke.

OP was online today, but seemingly have no intention to address his case further by replying this thread. As such, I am abiding CG's findings and will mark this as resolved as well on my list.

OP, I hope you can get better resolution through their licensor. Please update us when or if they made a ruling that's different from what CG gave.

tamadeus, will you give us any more information? Did you receive the funds? Or are you back to Norsk tipping?

Oh my... I stand corrected. I initially thought that Stake won't disclose their specific evidence. I must have somehow misread CG's final words yesterday, not sure how [though I think having half of my mind elsewhere contributed to certain degree], given it's clearly very far from what I understood.

I don't think so, let's look into this part of CG staff post


It means, they are not sure whether the submitted document of the player is legit or not. Which gives a hint that there might be something wrong with the provided documents of OP.  However, it is pretty clear that OP's account was closed for the inability of Stake to verify the 4th step (source of funds) of KYC documents.

How they can verify the documents if there is really "exhibits signs of inaccuracy and lack of integrity"? I had highlighted some clauses from Stake terms on my first post here which could be the cause of this inconvenience. Looks like the decision was taken according to terms 4.19, 4.21 & 4.22.

To be fair, they rejected it due to [from what I think happened] the complexity of the case and the lack of verifiable proof from Stake's side. I think CG consider themselves unauthorized to make the final ruling and suggested OP to reach to the licensor. The complete final words from CG was,

Casino Guru finished the investigation. " After thoroughly reviewing the case and all the evidence provided by the casino, we have decided to reject this case. While the casino has chosen not to disclose the specific reasons for the account closure, I can only share that the documentation submitted by the player exhibits signs of inaccuracy and lack of integrity. Unfortunately, this case is too complex for us to resolve conclusively. Given the substantial evidence, we are compelled to uphold the casino's decision."

Thanks for all your help.


Stake and I now have sent in all required documentations. So im very curious to what they deem me to have deceited them with, as I have no idea what they are even talking about.
Hopefully they will treat me fairly and let me withdraw my money.

I will keep you posted.

I was thinking the same and took a quick search on the net, trying to find old article with this occupation field being exist, I initially thought that was added when they revamped their KYC system [the now mandatory to perform KYC prior to any play, and those suddenly revoked verified status], but apparently they've been around since at least one year ago.


https://www.casinokrypto.com/en/review/stake-casino/

Another image showing that field was also provided [accidentally] by a redditor who posted around three months ago.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Stake/comments/1bjpurr/verification/?rdt=36013


I am in agreement with this.

Previously, with my post about having the occupation info supplied during level-1 KYC, I wanted to say that I guess if the root of OP's case is indeed this simple problem, it tells us that Stake does not only check if our fund come from legit source, it also confirms whether it matched the information we gave previously, which a bit inconvenient [an understatement, I know], if such minor misunderstanding can grant for our account being completely locked, given people change occupation from time to time, and not strictly speaking the nature of their employer, but can also cover a wider scope of change-of-occupation as in the field that they work for.

I am level 2 verified and I never filled out any occupation as you can see in the picture. So this was, at least in the past, not mandatory.

Maybe they added that later, I don't know. Who are they to ask anyway what occupation players have, never filled that out anywhere anytime so I see this for the first time.



Failing KYC because of a changed job, which happens all the time, would be the biggest joke of them all. It's not like he provided a wrong name, date of birth or anything.
Jobs as well as an address to change is the most common thing ever.

I honestly think this cannot be the issue here. They are talking about "misleading documentation constitutes a significant violation of our terms of service", I think a different job is nowhere close to that.

One more example, my address changed 2 years ago, I never updated it on stake. I asked my VIP host if I should do the update and even she told me it's not really necessary. Just for my own safety I now screen shotted this conversation with her about that subject.  

You provide that piece of information during your level-1 KYC.

What I don't understand is, at KYC level 4 you don't make any statements about your employment or whatever, you simply upload documents that prove where your funds are coming from, that's all.



There is no window or whatever where you fill out additional information such as employer or job description.

I wonder the ingenuity of the information being provided that they were referring to was the situation of your occupation, tamadeus? Do you mind to perhaps clarify that matter to them?

For those who follow this case and seemingly [yet understandably] lost the context, OP supplied me with additional, seemingly mundane at that time, information when he gave me his username through PM, that he changed job and this fact was not updated [a mistake from his side, as he forgot to do so] on his Stake account. I wonder if what they refer as incorrect documentation [especially given the documentation being referred here is the level-4 KYC, Source of Wealth] was that your payslips said that you get your wealth from a source that's completely different from what you previously stated.