zdravo Peter,
Moj kolega koji se prvobitno bavio ovim slu?ajem nedavno je pre?ao na zelenije pa?njake i ponovo sam pregledao sve istorijske informacije u vezi sa gore navedenim.
?eleo bih da razjasnim nekoliko ta?aka ovde:
1) C je povezan sa Antilephone NV (nosilac glavne licence Curacao #8048/JAZ). Kao takvi, malo je verovatno da bi odgovorili na ?albu podignutu u vezi sa kazinom koji nije registrovan pod tom glavnom licencom.
2) Na? vlasnik glavne licence je u to vreme bio Provajder usluga za igre na sre?u NV #365/JAZ i nismo primili nikakvu komunikaciju od njih u vezi sa ovim slu?ajem.
3) Dok je po?etna komunikacija od igra?a bila sa (29. 24. maja), odmah je preneta na a tim za uskla?enost je bio taj koji je komunicirao sa igra?em, odgovorili su 4. 24. juna i savetovali da im se sva dalja korespondencija uputi u prijemno sandu?e za uskla?enost.
4) Nakon pregleda i dostupnih dokaza, tim za uskla?enost je potvrdio odluku i pru?io dovoljno obrazlo?enja za tu odluku 5. juna 24.
5) Dana 18. 24. juna igra? je zvani?no ulo?io ?albu c i cc'd in , dok nije uspeo da uklju?i kao ?to je savetovano.
Jednom kada se podnese formalna ?alba, na?im timovima se razumljivo povla?i i zabranjeno im je da komentari?u slu?aj dok na? glavni nosilac licence ne zavr?i pregled i donese odluku. Iako ?e u nekim posebnim slu?ajevima, nosilac glavne licence zahtevati dodatne detalje i dokaze, nije neuobi?ajeno da izvr?i pregled i donese odluku koriste?i informacije koje su mu ve? dostupne, posebno kada izvorna zastavica dolazi od nekog od na?ih renomirani provajderi tre?e strane.
Ovaj proces je dogovoren i sproveden iz nekoliko veoma dobrih razloga za koje sam siguran da ih mo?ete priznati i ceniti:
Lo?i akteri neprestano ispituju na?e metode otkrivanja (i zaista koriste sajtove kao ?to je www.kpvfaw.com da bi dobili ove informacije) kako bi im omogu?ili da zaobi?u ove sisteme. Kao takvi, mi ne pru?amo (i nismo obavezni) da pru?amo ?dokaze" bilo kojoj nepovezanoj tre?oj strani koja nema ugovorni sporazum sa nama u pogledu kontrole i kori??enja ovih informacija. U potpunosti sara?ujemo sa regulatorom i (redovno) pru?amo ovaj dodatni dokaz na?em imaocu glavne licence i GSC-u kada se to od nas zatra?i, jer je to uslov na?e licence.
6) Na?i uslovi i odredbe nam omogu?avaju da zatvorimo nalog za koji sumnjamo da je pogre?na igra ili da nam je nalog ozna?ila tre?a strana, a u stvari smo u obavezi prema na?im uslovima sa tim dobavlja?ima tre?ih strana da uklonimo igra?e tamo gde oni savetuju od nas za sumnju na prekr?aj.
7) www.kpvfaw.com-ov proces postupanja sa ?albama u kojem se ?alba mo?e odlu?iti u korist igra?a zbog 'nedostatka dokaza' zanemaruje i zakonsku GDPR i obaveze pravnog zastupanja, kao i sve bezbednosne probleme kazina. Rollbit u potpunosti sara?uje sa dogovorenim postupkom pritu?bi organa za licenciranje, procedurom u kojoj www.kpvfaw.com nije strana. Trudimo se da budemo ?to je mogu?e susretljiviji na ovim javnim forumima, me?utim, o?ekivanje da se pru?e 'dokazi' ostavlja kazino u ?esto neodr?ivom polo?aju.
Pozivamo igra?a da podnese zvani?nu ?albu nadle?nom organu za licenciranje i mi ?emo propisno odgovoriti na sve zahteve, nakon ?to ih primimo. Molimo vas i cc .
Hvala
Rollbit Legal & Compliance
Hi Peter,
My colleague who was originally dealing with this case has recently moved on to greener pastures and i have re-reviewed all the historic information regarding the above.
I would like to clarify a few points here:
1) [email protected] is associated with Antillephone N.V. (holder of Curacao Master Licence #8048/JAZ). As such, it would be unlikely that they would respond to a complaint raised regarding a casino which is not registered under that master licence.
2) Our Master Licence holder at the time was Gaming Services Provider N.V #365/JAZ and we have not received any communication from them regarding this case.
3) While the initial communication from the player was with [email protected] (29 May 24), it was passed over immediately to [email protected] and it was the compliance team who were communicating with the player, responding on 04 June 24 and advising that all further correspondence should be directed to them at the compliance inbox.
4) Following a review and evidence available, the compliance team confirmed the decision and provided ample reasoning for that decision on 05 June 24.
5) On 18 June 24, the player formally lodged a complaint with [email protected] and cc'd in [email protected], while failing to include [email protected] as advised.
Once a formal complaint is instigated, our teams are understandably stood down and prohibited from commenting on a case until our Master Licence Holder has concluded their review and reached a decision. While in some particular cases, the Master Licence Holder will request additional details and evidence, it is not uncommon for them to carry out the review and reach a decision using the information already available to them, especially when the originating flag comes from one of our reputable 3rd party providers.
This process has been agreed and implemented for several very good reasons which im sure you can acknowledge and appreciate:
Bad actors are continually probing our detection methods (and indeed using sites like www.kpvfaw.com to help obtain this information) to enable them to circumvent these systems. As such, we do not (and are not required to) provide 'evidence' to any unrelated 3rd parties who do not have a contractual agreement to us with regard to the control and use of this information. We cooperate fully with the regulator and (regularly) provide this additional evidence to our Master Licence Holder and the GSC when requested, as this is a condition of our licence.
6) Our Terms & Conditions enable us to close an account where we suspect foul play or have an account flagged to us by a 3rd party, and in fact we are obligated under our own terms with those 3rd party providers to remove players where they advise of us of suspected foul play.
7) www.kpvfaw.com's process of complaint handling in which a complaint may be ruled in the players favour due to 'lack of evidence' disregards both the legal GDPR and legal representation obligations, and also any security concerns of the casino. Rollbit are fully cooperative with the agreed complaints procedure of the licencing authority, a procedure which www.kpvfaw.com are not party to. We try to be as accommodating as possible in these public forums however expecting 'evidence' to be provided leaves the casino in an often untenable position.
We would invite the player to submit a formal complaint to the correct licencing authority and we will duly respond to any requests, once this has been received. Please also cc in [email protected].
Thanks
Rollbit Legal & Compliance
Automatski prevedeno:
