Thank you for forwarding the casino’s response.
I would like to clarify several factual inconsistencies in the operator’s statement to ensure the record reflects the actual sequence of events.
1. The casino did not “resolve” the case by reinstating the balance.
The amount of €153,146.11 represented a legitimate withdrawal claim, not a “courtesy reinstatement”.
My withdrawal request had already been submitted and was refused by the operator based on Bonus Terms 1.4/1.5. Re-crediting a balance inside the gaming account is not equivalent to fulfilling a withdrawal obligation. Industry-wide, a reinstatement does not extinguish the operator’s liability.
2. The casino omits the critical point that my account carried an internal GA (Gambling Addiction) flag.
This flag was visible on my dashboard and recorded on several screenshots.
According to standard Responsible Gaming protocols, a GA-flagged account must not be reopened, must not have access to real-money play, and cannot receive further gaming opportunities.
The operator’s explanation that “GA is only a technical label for permanently closed accounts” is incorrect and does not align with known Altacore N.V. internal classifications. A GA flag creates a duty of care and restricts activity. Reopening such an account and allowing further gameplay violates basic RG obligations.
3. I never requested a reopening.
The account was reopened unilaterally by the operator despite the GA flag.
This directly contradicts the operator’s public claim and is documented in the evidence I have already submitted.
4. The operator’s initial refusal of the withdrawal is fully documented.
Their own emails cite Bonus Terms 1.4 and 1.5 as reason for deleting the €153,146.11 balance.
These terms are structurally unclear, internally inconsistent, and—based on independent expert feedback—applied in a way that removes legitimate real-money winnings after the bonus phase was already completed.
5. The subsequent gameplay occurred only because the operator denied the original payout.
The losses occurred after the operator re-credited the funds while keeping the withdrawal block in place.
From a regulatory perspective, a player cannot be held responsible for losses that occur after a withdrawal request was unlawfully rejected and the account was reopened despite an RG flag.
6. My claims are therefore fully substantiated.
The operator:
- refused a valid withdrawal request,
- deleted €153,146.11 citing internally inconsistent bonus rules,
- re-opened a GA-flagged account,
- re-credited funds instead of processing the payout,
- allowed further gameplay despite an active RG indicator.
These actions are not aligned with basic Responsible Gaming, AML, or consumer-protection expectations.
For transparency, all relevant evidence (emails, timestamps, screenshots, audit data) has already been organised and can be shared with regulators or LCB if required.
I remain available to provide all documentation.
Regards,
Jonil Deskaj
Translation 
