Stake.com has permanently closed my account with 17 000 USD in it

[tamadeus]

Thanks again Holy for helping me out.
Ive yet to hear anything from anyone yet, but il practice patience.

[holydarkness]

Thanks again Holy for helping me out.
Ive yet to hear anything from anyone yet, but il practice patience.

The credit should be given to efialtis, I didn't do much other than asking him to ask his Stake contact on your behalf. All the efforts, if it bear any fruits, is because of him.

As for the lack of news, I am somewhat sure that efialtis had been in touch with his contact and give his best to ask for another review for your case. If there's still no update from stake, though, then I'm afraid they are final with their decision. Or hopefully, they are currently in the middle of reviewing it.

[Dunamisx]

What happened::
Stake.com suddenly requested a new round of KYC verification, which I accepted and complied with fully. Despite submitting all required documents, including stamped payslips and bank statements for Level 4 verification multiple times, they decided to permanently close my account.

This looks rare to me for hearing something like this, i don't think there is a complete information on what happened between the two of you, you're not the only one using this platform and what applies to others applies same to you, then i see no reason why yours should be on an exceptional if you had adhere strictly with their rules, wits more better if you can tag their representative or refence this thread to their announcement thread and make your request, other experience users will as well engage you and see to the condition, but am very sure, there is something more phishy from your end you're not saying.

[holydarkness]

What happened::
Stake.com suddenly requested a new round of KYC verification, which I accepted and complied with fully. Despite submitting all required documents, including stamped payslips and bank statements for Level 4 verification multiple times, they decided to permanently close my account.

This looks rare to me for hearing something like this, i don't think there is a complete information on what happened between the two of you, you're not the only one using this platform and what applies to others applies same to you, then i see no reason why yours should be on an exceptional if you had adhere strictly with their rules, wits more better if you can tag their representative or refence this thread to their announcement thread and make your request, other experience users will as well engage you and see to the condition, but am very sure, there is something more phishy from your end you're not saying.

I will guess that you're not reading the thread carefully. All the information from OP's side are there, explained within 20 posts in page one, as well as that whole tagging their representative and linking this thread on their ANN. Do us a favor and read before you post?

[Mahdirakib]

Ive yet to hear anything from anyone yet, but il practice patience.

I can already see some development on your complaints in Casino Guru. Stake representative has said this on your complaint:

We regret to inform you that, following a comprehensive review of your account and the Know Your Customer (KYC) documentation you submitted, we have discovered that the information provided was not genuine.

In line with our terms of service and necessary regulatory standards, it is critical that all KYC documentation submitted is accurate and truthful to ensure the integrity and security of our platform. Intentionally submitting incorrect or misleading documentation constitutes a significant violation of our terms of service and has resulted in the permanent restriction of your account. Please be aware that this decision is final and cannot be reversed.

Stake representative has mentioned that it is their final decision. Now you have a very little chance there to reverse the decision. You have to provide your KYC documents to Casino Guru team, then they will verify whether those documents are genuine or not. They have taken the decision based on one of those terms which I have described in my previous post:

• Terms 4.19, 4.21 & 4.22: There are several things mentioned in these terms, including the 'source of funds verification'. It also says about withholding funds and suspending user account.

[efialtis]

As promised, I reached out to my contact and it looks like they responded, as Mahdi shared. Even though this doesn`t look great for OP, let`s see what comes out of it when both sides share the docs.

[holydarkness]

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.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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.

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.

[holydarkness]

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.

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.

[image snip]

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

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

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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

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.  

[holydarkness]

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

[image snip]

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.

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

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.  

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.

[tamadeus]

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.

[Fixelifix]

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."

[holydarkness]

Casino Guru finished the investigation. [...]

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,

Dear everyone,

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.

Dear Soffaspillern,

I'm truly sorry we couldn't be of more assistance in this matter. I understand that our decision may be neither satisfactory nor fully understandable to you. However, I recommend contacting the Curaçao Antillephone N.V. Gaming Authority, as the casino operates under a license issued by this authority. You can submit an official complaint by emailing complaints@gaminglicences.com. The Gaming Authority generally has more resources and tools to assist players with their issues.

Please let me know if you need help with submitting the complaint or if you would like to share how they responded. You can reach me at jakub.m@casino.guru.

Once again, I apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Best regards,

Kubo

[Mahdirakib]

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

~snip~ I can only share that the documentation submitted by the player exhibits signs of inaccuracy and lack of integrity.

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.

[holydarkness]

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

~snip~ I can only share that the documentation submitted by the player exhibits signs of inaccuracy and lack of integrity.

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.

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.

[Fixelifix]

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

[holydarkness]

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.

[Rating Place]

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.

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

" 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."

[holydarkness]

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.

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

" 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."

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?