So the flag is basically invalid because the dispute is about 0.271 BTC, not 0.373 BTC as claimed in the OP. I could understand a small discrepancy but I don't think we should be supporting "written contract" flags overstated by 37%. There's probably more reason to oppose the flag than support it based on the amount alone, i.e. the claim is "at least partially false".
Damn, you're right. Forgot about the offering for a third of it. Point well made, support withdrawn for the type 3 until flag is corrected.
I must admit I only skimmed through the thread so feel free to report me for shitposting if this has been already addressed... but those asking for proof from Sportsbet - what exactly are you expecting? Short of doxing the OP (or even then) I don't see how they can definitively prove that the OP is multiaccounting, particularly if we don't trust them and assume that proof can be fabricated.
Sportsbet.io should still privately to the client or even publicly state why the client failed the KYC procedure, while protecting the clients privacy, as they have done so previously:
Why did the Client fail the KYC procedure?
[details]
Let the KYC of third-parties happen. Ideally via PGP though.