Not anti AP , anti ML
As for the judging, it really isnt so clear cut - we do look at it on case by case basis. If you were sitting on this side of the fence, the reason for early WD are so painfully obvious, there wouldn't be a doubt in your mind.
A guy depositing 100, wagering 100 and withdrawing 98 is vastly different to a guy that deposits 100, plays "normally" but strikes lucky early and withdraws winnings. its a no-brainer but to define any and every outcome of what & why we decide to give absolute clarity is more counter productive then beneficial. I'm counting on a level of trust that we have proven our capacity for fair player treatment while also noting that this much scrutiny can probably be found here alone.
I'm very glad I'm not in your shoes, or on your side of the fence Igor tbh. Running a casino sounds like a real pain in the butt!
In an effort to remain completely objective, I understand the casinos concerns from a business perspective, and the need to protect ones self from potential AP's and/or ML scammers - undesirables.
It's obviously a fine line though when it comes to deciding who fits and who doesn't fit into the undesirables category in very early stages of account membership, particularly when judging new account holders depositing for the first time.
A player attacking a LM/LV game off the cusp and wagering their deposit ~ x1 times, prior to requesting a withdrawal very close to their original deposit is a bit suspect, and may indeed point towards AP and/or money laundering efforts, I agree.
Separating the wolves from the lambs isn't always clear cut however. Understandably, cases will arise on occasion where new players opt solely to play LM/LV slots or LM table games, because their bankroll is very limited, and they simply can't afford to risk too much on sign up. Ordinarily though, they wouldn't mind having the option to deposit more, and take more risk, across a range of games - HV/MV/LV slots and live games. etc. So, they play it safe to get reasonable play time, and hopefully achieve a win.
If they were to get lucky early on playing just one select LV slot, and their total wager is < x5, do they deserve to be penalised? On this side of the fence, the majority of the answers would likely be no, but on your side of the fence, the answer may well be yes, because from a casinos perspective it appears suspect.
That's the fine line though isn't it. The casino doesn't have sufficient information about a new players intentions, or usual style of play, hence a decision is made based on experience, AP/laundering statistics etc. To be fair, I understand you guys aren't mind readers, and don't profess to be in the players heads at all times. You use the tools available to you, as do we players. It's a two sided affair, as you say.
Commenting on my own usual play style, I would easily wager my deposit x5 in most cases, so I'm not particularly fussed on the rule. Having said that, it would be comforting to know that I can request a withdrawal as a newbie, if I play any slot with my funds only (no bonus), win big after say just 2 spins of the button (however unlikely), and not have to worry about the option to withdraw immediately after wagering at least x1 (for the purposes of fulfilling the min REQ for the money laundering term).
Again, my previous paragraph implies our side of the fence philosophy, and the casino will judge in the manner it sees fit. Hopefully, the judgment would be that I'm an honest player who just happened to get lucky very early on, and hence deserves benefit of the doubt, and hence payment. Again, it's a fine line, but opting to trust a newbie isn't an AP only, and forecasting loyalty on the players part could lead to future business. Of course, it may not.
Since the T&C's don't provide 100% insurance (what some players may require, and what appears more and more to be a rather unrealistic outlook) I imagine some will shy away from depositing at this stage.
Having said that, I understand that if casinos offered such insurance, they would most likely get taken advantage of by a myriad of players, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. I really get that!
I think that players who decide they want to give Slotty Vegas a try despite discontent on select T&C's, will have to simply trust to some extent that the BetAt group will exercise good and fair judgment in the majority of the cases, when it comes to applying select T&C's particularly the up to x5 wagering rule.
As you have correctly pointed out, any player complaints that may arise as a result of issues associated with select T&C's, that haven't successfully been resolved between the player and the casino, can be protested here (in the correct way, via PAB for eg) and elsewhere. So, it's not the end of the road if a player feels he has been treated unfairly, right? Touch wood, that rarely happens.
I for one appreciate your efforts in addressing member concerns here ASAP, and whilst there will naturally be a few here, perhaps more than a few, that will not budge on their views, and unequivocally disagree with select casino rules, I think it's reasonable to give you guys the benefit of any doubt, especially after effort has been made to amend select T&C's to a standard which I feel is fairly reasonable for both sides of the fence.
To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, BetAt have had no real issues with customers to date. Hence their accreditation here. I can't imagine your latest venture will be any different based on that. Of course, time will tell.
FYI, I'm not currently a member of any of your casinos. Nor have I been in the past. Just trying to be fair.
Best wishes...
(joking of course) I'm getting to it. 
