I'm truly appalled that you failed to consult not only Poirot, but Columbo. No wonder your theory is is whackJust to pitch in, failure to return deposits could be justified if there was clear evidence of a player using stolen/fraudulent payment sources/identification etc. In this case I imagine it would be handed over for criminal investigation/charges and/or returned to the actual owner of said funds..
The OP slamming bitstarz based on licensing and the use of bitcoin implying this basically indicates their shadiness and in the same thread stating they still happily play and are a vip at another site with the same licensing that accepts all of the same crypto currency certainly takes the wind out of the slander sails..
There is a lot of talk about what the casino is or is not doing, should be doing etc. How do we know what they are doing or have already done? As I understand it all we know is the OP is long on public dialogue & slanderous accusations - short on action or follow through, while the casino is short on public dialogue and who knows what if any actions have been/will be taken on their part?
I consulted with matlock, perry mason, ironside, jessica tandy and TMZ and our working theories are:
1. Fraudulent user screams the house is on fire but remains seated...
2. OP is rival casino in disguise on undercover sabotage mission...
3. Sasha Baron Cohen has just introduced us to his latest character
4. Casino pays millions, unjustly steals thousands to support future insanity plea.
oh and shaggy and scooby think the OP is honest and righteous and whoever is wearing the monster costume is probably the guilty party.
ps Jessica Fletcher can be useful too
pss when she's not indirectly consigning someone to death by her very presence