Wow, 7 months after the seizure, Nitro changes its story. Even two months ago, they were claiming Oli violated their rule about CR being an illegal jurisdiction for players to bet online (it’s not). Now Nitro rests its hat on “They believe Elihu/Oli have purchased a historically aged account”. At a minimum, Oli had the registered email and proof of the initial deposit. Nitro's allegation is false and is likely the reason Nitro offered no proof on this point.
Nitrogen/BMR earlier stated “no bookmaker holding a Costa Rica license is allowed to service people in CR.”. There is a link to the Costa Rican criminal code. No such law exists. There is a dispute of law, and we offered proof that this claimed law does not exist. Can you show us this law you rely on? BMR suggested that license/tax law affects Nitro, but that is not applicable how their rules are written. The player must simply be able to legally bet where he is betting.
Nitrogen claims the account was not opened in 2020, and importantly, “had used a VPN for all connections logged in the months leading up to account closure.” So, there is a factual dispute. Did Nitrogen offer proof that all logins were via vpn? (No). Was Oli asked for evidence on this (e.g., phone browser logs?) No. Was I asked for any of my IP info? (No). But this whole issue does not matter, because there is it's not illegal to bet online in CR -- previous paragraph.
Nitro claimed we had inside/early information to assist in betting. What information was that, and what matches? (There was no inside information; Oli and I bet most markets using Answer Key to price derivatives, which we could show is BMR asked about it. We weren’t.) If we had such inside information, one would expect bets on full game spreads and totals, which are most liquid. In general, Oli and I don’t even price those.
BMR/Nitrogen suggests I “controlled” the account. What proof do they offer? I have never logged into it, placed a bet, seen its balance, funded it or taken a withdrawal. I’ve never even seen the login credentials.
“Nothing Oli told us turned out to be true.” Everything he has stated has been truthful. I have a simple principal in disputes: stick to the truth, even if it’s bad. If something bad is out there, it will come out. Despite all the claims of dishonesty here, I don’t see any facts or evidence, which you would expect with these damning allegations.
BMR concluded that “false information was given to BMR”. By Nitro about the law, VPNs and Insider information, certainly. Oli? What was false? How did you establish it was false?
In conclusion “BMR considers that Nitrogen have explained themselves adequately in this case.” Wow. Did you conclude that Oli violated their rule citing a non-existent law in Costa Rica? Or that I (Elihu) controlled the account without ever asking me about this new claim or looking at Oli’s proofs?
