That's a very poor analogy, bordering on irresponsible. Consider this analogy instead: "A landlord (Betcoin) believes that someone broke the posted rules of the apartment complex they manage, and know that the culprit had a grey Honda Civic with license plate XYZ (the bitcoin address) playing Wu-Tang (his bet choices). When Jimin Jibao pulls up to the apartment complex in the same vehicle playing Ghostface's Fishscale album, the landlord takes away Jimin's keys (account access). Jimin still has furniture and personal effects in his apartment, but does not know their value (current account balance)."

Based on that:

1) Can you see the difference in implied knowledge between your analogy (You watch it happening) and what Betcoin has publicly admitted (We know that Jimin and KILLYMNE used the same address and made similar bets)?
 
2) In the apartment analogy, do you believe that the landlord should refuse to answer any questions from a tenant whose property they currently hold? Can you see how the phrasing choice of "a murder" might be emotionally loaded in a way that "a property dispute" isn't?

You might find this nitpicky, but for someone representing Betcoin even marginally, you need to. Any professional relationship with them - especially a monetary one - means you should be holding yourself to a higher standard than regular posters to avoid any perception of dishonesty. In this case, I think you failed, champ.