The language of the flag states this:
"popek1990 alleges: SwC_Poker violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here."
Per the evidence reported from both sides in this thread, and looking at it as a whole, I don't see either side's story being totally proven. You seem to be combining factors outside of this thread when making your decision to support the flag, which I don't think is a good idea, as each flag should be handled on a case-by-case basis -- independent of what you consider to be the casino's overall reputation.
But, again, on whom does the burden of proof fall?
What the flag says would be false if the OP had not had the money taken from him, but it was taken from him, both parties agree on that. And the other guy who reported him too because he says he got his money back.
For me the agreement is that they are not going to take the money if they don't have proof. And the damages are that they have taken money from the OP.
If SWC Poker were denying that it has taken money from him, it would be a different matter. But no, they recognize that it has been taken from him.
And focusing on the specific case without going into other things, the explanations they have given on this thread and to him are poor, as far as we can see based merely on a hunch, and with no possibility of appeal.