Herní licence Anjouan Zodpovědná herní pravidla / chování kódu (strana 2)

Can anyone provide aojuan eamil address for make complaint

tjank you

Hello, I guess it is best to say that AOFA does not provide issue resolution services to players.

The player in need has to seek resolution through the casino internal complaint process or ask ADR services elsewhere. Casino Guru is one of the companies providing free ADR services to players.

Is it related to your Boomerang casino issue, perhaps? I spot a complaint request.

Hello Radka, yes, it is exactly about Boomerang Bet. I requested a permanent self-exclusion due to gambling problems, but the casino ignored it, kept my account open, and allowed me to deposit further. I have all the timestamps and evidence. I have already opened a formal complaint on your portal. Any help from Casino Guru as an ADR would be much appreciated.

Hello, in that case, you took the best step possible. Since Anjouan is incapable of resolving disputes, and in a similar situation the casinos' own complaint process may not be effective, my colleagues will gladly investigate.

May I know how the casino responded to your self-exclusion request, please? Those situations are usually very much about context and willingness to provide good services, so each case is investigated thoroughly, considering actions taken on both sides.

Speaking of which, is your account still open or was it closed by now?

Hi Radka, thank you for the support. To answer your questions:

Response to my request: The casino initially ignored my request for permanent self-exclusion due to gambling problems. Instead of closing the account immediately, they kept it active, which allowed me to make multiple further deposits.

Current account status: After I threatened with a formal complaint and contacted their licensing authority, they finally 'escalated' my case (Ticket ID: 8MVIM6), but the account was only restricted/closed after the damage was already done.

Marketing breach: Even after my request, I continued to receive promotional materials, which clearly shows a failure in their responsible gambling tools.

I am requesting a refund of all deposits made after my initial request for closure. Thank you for investigating this.

Thank you very much for the full-scale picture of the events. Based on what you wrote, I understand why it feels so wrong. At least the account has been restricted.

Could you perhaps help the community by explaining the way you contacted the licensor, since I thought we were discussing the Anjoan (AOFA) licensor with no resolution process? I wonder what the "trick" was, if you catch my drift.

Hi Radka, thank you for your support.

To be simple: my persistence comes from the fact that I know my rights. I didn't just wait for the casino to act; I involved the Anjouan Gaming Board, their compliance department, and I am currently reporting their illegal operations (operating without a local license) to the Croatian Tax Authorities.

It was only after this pressure that they finally acknowledged my problem, gave me Ticket ID #8MVIM6, and restricted my account.

I don't have the early emails, but their sudden reaction now is proof enough that they failed to protect me earlier. I am staying persistent until the €8,000 they allowed me to deposit after my distress signals is refunded.

Hi Radka

The casino has just confirmed to me via Telegram and email (Ticket #8MVIM6) that this is their final decision. They are officially refusing the refund, citing articles 4.1 and 6.6.2 of their Terms and Conditions.

They claim that I 'warranted' I had no addiction when I registered. This is completely irrelevant because, as I stated before, they had already recognized me as an excluded player and blocked my direct login weeks ago. Their system failed when their own promotional SMS bypassed that block.

Since they have officially closed the internal case with a refusal, I am now fully relying on your mediation. I have all the screenshots of these conversations ready if you need them.

Hello, thank you for the follow-up.

I am trying to understand how you pressured the casino by stating that you would contact the licensing authority regarding Ajouan. Can you elaborate, please?

To be honest, I understand mixing personal feelings with general rights and moral principles feels natural. However, those things wouldn't determine right from wrong. The point in these cases is to determine whether the player took all necessary steps to prevent further damage by following responsible procedures and, conversely, whether the casino also acted appropriately within the limitations of their platform.

Simply put, this should serve as a foundational principle.

The mediator will carefully review your side of the complaint during the first period, given all the circumstances you mentioned. Let's see what can be done, hoping for the best, of course.

Hello Radka,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify the sequence of events in a precise and factual way.

More than a year ago, I was active on several gambling platforms, including Boomerang Bet, and suffered significant financial losses. As a result, I made a conscious decision to stop gambling entirely and activated self-exclusion on all platforms I had used, with the intention of fully distancing myself from gambling.

After that decision, I occasionally still received promotional messages from some operators. In such cases, I either deleted the messages immediately or contacted the operator to ensure that marketing communication was stopped. This approach also applied to Boomerang Bet, however promotional messages from them continued despite my efforts.

A few weeks ago, I received another promotional message from Boomerang Bet, which I deleted and reported as unwanted. A few days later, I attempted to log into my account specifically to notify the casino again that I was receiving promotional messages and to request that they stop. At that point, direct login was not possible, and I was instructed to contact customer support, which confirmed that self-exclusion was active.

I would like to note that activating self-exclusion on their platform was not straightforward and involved multiple questions and steps, but it was ultimately confirmed and active.

Several days later, I received yet another promotional message offering free games. I clicked the link with the intention of contacting the casino to request that marketing communication cease. However, the promotional content and direct access triggered a relapse, and I was able to deposit and gamble. Over the course of approximately two days, I deposited around €8,000.

Following this, I felt significant distress and contacted customer support via chat, expressing my frustration and emotional state. Shortly thereafter, my session was terminated and I was no longer able to access the platform.

The core of my complaint is not based on personal feelings or moral judgment, but on the factual sequence above: despite having active self-exclusion, I continued to receive promotional messages containing direct access links, and those links allowed deposits and gameplay. I did not create a new account or attempt to bypass restrictions manually; access was enabled through the casino’s own systems.

I understand that the mediator’s role is to assess whether both parties followed responsible procedures. From my perspective, activating permanent self-exclusion was the strongest preventive step available to me, and enforcement of that exclusion, including blocking access and marketing, rested with the operator thereafter.

I appreciate your careful and objective review of the case and remain available to provide any additional information or evidence if required.

Thank you for your clarification — I fully understand and respect the procedural approach you described.

To address your question directly: I did not pressure the casino in any improper sense. My intention has always been to pursue this matter only through legitimate and transparent channels. Mentioning the licensing authority was not used as leverage or threat, but as a factual part of the standard escalation path available to players when a dispute cannot be resolved directly with the operator. I am intentionally following formal procedures rather than emotional or confrontational approaches.

I also agree with your point that personal feelings or moral views alone cannot determine right or wrong in these cases. For that reason, I am consciously separating my emotional response from the factual assessment and focusing strictly on actions, responsibilities, and procedures.

From a procedural standpoint:

On my side, I activated permanent self-exclusion, which is the strongest responsible gambling measure available to a player.

After that point, I did not attempt to manually bypass restrictions, create alternative accounts, or conceal my identity.

Any access to gambling services occurred through links provided by the casino’s own promotional communications.

From the operator’s side, the key question is whether, after permanent self-exclusion was active, they fulfilled their responsibility to enforce restrictions, block access, and cease marketing. This is the core issue I am asking to be reviewed.

My intention is not to assign blame based on emotions, but to establish whether responsible gambling procedures were followed correctly by both parties, using facts and documented actions only.

Thank you for your careful and balanced handling of the case. I remain fully cooperative with the mediation process and available for any further clarification.

Hello, thank you for staying in touch.

To clarify, my question was intended to understand how casinos could believe Anjoan would pursue a bad call made by casinos, as I have never seen it help. I was therefore interested in understanding their response. If there has been some. I had no other motives to keep asking.

Your detailed summary is very appreciated, though, with keeping that all in mind. I'll leave the specifics to be addressed in the complaint, of course. In my opinion, including the casino's perspective is important to establish all valid points that need proper attention. To be honest, many operators approach self-exclusion in a short-sighted manner, especially when it comes to csio groups, so hopefully your case will help to change or clarify that.

Hello Radka,

thank you for the clarification.

To answer directly: Anjouan has not responded to my email, and I did not expect any real intervention from them. Contacting the licensing authority was not based on an expectation of enforcement, but on following a legitimate and transparent escalation path after the casino rejected my complaint.

The casino itself completely ignored any reference to the licensing authority and also did not address the core of the complaint. Their response focused only on unrelated T&C clauses and avoided the key issues:

active permanent self-exclusion,

continued marketing communication,

and access to deposits and gameplay despite that exclusion.

My approach has been consistent throughout — pursuing the matter through legitimate channels and procedural mechanisms, not through pressure, threats, or emotional leverage.

I agree with your point about short-sighted approaches to self-exclusion, especially within casino groups. This is exactly the systemic issue I hope this case helps to clarify: whether self-exclusion is treated as a real protective mechanism or merely a formal label without effective enforcement.

Thank you again for your careful and balanced handling of the case.

Kind regards,

Marko

You know, I was hoping you potentially found a way the others could use. Yet, as far as I understand, the situation with operators and the AOFA license works more in a "paper form."

Let me thank you for your open speech even though the subject may not be very pleasant, you mentioned edge points we have been discussing with colleagues in the last few months.

Let's hope my colleagues—the mediators can make a concrete impact.

Thank you for your reply and for taking this seriously.

I’m glad my experience helped highlight some edge cases you are already discussing internally.

My intention was not only to resolve my own case, but also to point out systemic issues that can affect vulnerable players, especially regarding self-exclusion and payment processing.

I hope the mediators can indeed make a concrete impact.

Does anyone know lawyer or law firm who handles Anjouan licensed casino cases?

Well, to be concrete, I would not expect a general impact; the thing is to find out whether the casino fairly approaches such requests. Sadly, we are not in a position to demand or regulate operators. AOFA should do that. We can use specific examples to educate both casinos and players on how to achieve the best outcomes based on their circumstances. I still believe it is worth the effort.

Hello Radka,

thank you for the clarification — I understand your position and the limits of what Casino Guru can and cannot do.

I fully agree that the key question here is not a general impact, but whether the casino fairly and responsibly approached my specific request and situation.

To clarify my position precisely:

I am not asking Casino Guru to regulate or demand actions from the operator.

I am asking for an assessment of whether the casino acted fairly and in line with responsible-gambling principles, given that a permanent self-exclusion was active.

Despite this, I received promotional SMS messages containing direct access links that enabled me to deposit and play.

Access to the account was otherwise restricted, which suggests that the self-exclusion was technically recognized, yet bypassed via marketing links.

In my view, this raises a concrete question of fairness:

whether enabling play through promotional links during an active self-exclusion can be considered an appropriate or responsible approach, regardless of what the casino’s internal T&Cs state.

I appreciate Casino Guru’s effort to examine such cases on their merits, and I believe this example can indeed help clarify expectations for both players and operators when it comes to self-exclusion enforcement.

Thank you for continuing to review the case.

Kind regards,

Marko

Hello Radka,

thank you for your message and for taking the time to explain Casino Guru’s position.

I understand that the purpose here is not to seek a general or regulatory impact, but to evaluate whether the casino handled my specific situation in a fair and responsible manner.

To clarify my expectations clearly:

I am not asking Casino Guru to demand or enforce actions from the operator.

I am asking for an assessment of whether the casino’s behavior aligns with responsible-gambling principles, given that a permanent self-exclusion was active on my account.

Despite this, I continued to receive promotional SMS messages that contained direct access links, which allowed me to deposit and play.

At the same time, standard login access was restricted, indicating that the self-exclusion was technically in place but effectively bypassed via marketing channels.

From my perspective, this raises a concrete and legitimate question of fairness:

whether enabling play through promotional links during an active self-exclusion can be considered an appropriate or responsible approach, regardless of internal terms and conditions.

I appreciate Casino Guru’s willingness to review such cases based on their individual circumstances, and I believe this case can contribute to clarifying best practices around self-exclusion enforcement.

Thank you for continuing your review.

Kind regards,

Marko

Hello Marko. Hope you're doing well.

I understand what you are saying, and even though in my opinion those situations are usually more complex, I believe trust in the account closure process plays a role too.

The mediators will take a look at the circumstances you mentioned, and since I'm not familiar with all the details, I'll save explanations perhaps for later.

In any case, if the player asks for the account closure due to gambling addiction, the casino should focus on restricting the possibility to deposit or play, verify the player to prevent future accounts from being created using the same details and finally close the account for good. That makes sense to me.

The rest, however, may not be under the direct influence of the casino, especially when talking about promotions, even though they present a challenge for the player. Marketing companies often cover email campaigns or other promotions, which sadly present a significant delay in excluding the email address from the mailing list. 🙁

(That's why I recommend closing the email box too once the player recognizes the self-exclusion is needed.)