@holeydarnkness
We discovered the account in a routine check. No other bookmaker has voided these bets as far as we know. We only heard/read, that some of these matches were regarded highly suspicous. But as there was no hard proof, they were graded.
We tagged the account as highly suspicious before we even discovered that the account actually belongs to an Ukrainian individual and that these players, who lost the match seemingly on purpose were also Ukrainian.
The market maker / counterparty in this bet has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity. Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.
[...]
One question answered, that you cancelled the bets by your own initiative. May I know the answer to the second question? Under the basis of which rule do this decision carried out? I can't find any on your ToS and will highly appreciate if you can point us to it.
Just for clarification. All this happened on the same day. Tagged the account and blocked it, because the activity looked highly suspicious. Most of the incriminating facts we mentioned earlier (including user's nationality, nationality of the team's players , former allegations against these teams, footage) we were only discovering later that day. And we rarely block accounts. Anyway, we will wait for arbitrator's decision and will follow suit.
Those things, player's nationality and team's nationality, as well as former allegations against the team, are not necessarily correlative, let alone causative. Thus, I don't think that fact can be said as "incriminating" in the sense that it holds no weight, since it's hearsay at best. Unless you can produce an evidence of an established communication between
newfish1 and other party [the insider].
Shortened, it brought us to my next question: where do you know that newfish1 know in advance of the outcome of the match? As I said previously, as well as what's pointed by others, his betting history seems show a normal bets, none being indicative that he knows about specific match.
Perhaps it's time for you to spill all of the evidence you have against him? Spare no mercy, go full throttle, YOLO and all.
[...]
Pretty much what I said, I agree - I don`t get it and their response to my question didn`t explain it any better. We are talking about an exchange here and if they live off commissions purely, they couldn`t care less.
They could, as evident by the existence of this thread, but they shouldn't.
Fairlay has reached out to you themselves. They cant back out now
By this standard, then when you give your will, I am a part of that "team" too, given Fairlay also reached me as well.
Two things to note that will rather be familiar by those who follows my track on scam accusations board, "mediating" things between players and casinos, I don't take payment and I don't make the final call.
Payment, as I said numerous times [usually by those who accuse me of taking advantage of a case or being in the bed with the casinos], the benefit I get from getting those cases resolved are simply knowing that someone [be it the casino or the player, whoever actually the victim] get what's rightfully theirs, either the fund or a clean reputation.
Final call, because as I said to someone before, I don't have the wisdom of Solomon, who am I to make the final call? Who pass a judgment that other has to follow? Instead, as evident by my post history, I simply pushing for questions until things become clear and it become obvious to anyone who read which side is the victim.
That said, to eliminate any doubt that you specifically tailor your betting history on fairlay as a fail-safe, do you mind to provide your betting history of the same period from other platforms?
