Let me start from the beginning, again.

So, basically, about few months ago, Rollbit tries an approach by funneling all complaints into one channel, namely their compliance team. This decision was taken because Rollbit got overwhelmed by players who raise their dispute in multiple platform at once, which not only create confusion as they probably addressing a matter in one platform [let's say reddit] only to realize it same issue that they've addressed in other platform [like AG or their X-twitter], it also drain manpower as several staffs address similar matters. Thus funneling it into one channel and triaging the severity of the case and assigning people to it.

Razer was quite confident with this approach as Rollbit has significantly boost their compliance team to handle issues. I assume they're prepared to face the tsunami of complaint once they funnel dozen of complaints media to one channel. And apparently, the tsunami here is the level of that Miller's-Planet on Interstellar. Backlog happens, so cases gets slowed down.

Now, to address the confusion of "other account", "AML", and the actual violation. I've addressed it here and voiced my suggestion to Razer too.

I believe it is due to their new system and they still have to finetue their response, where, instead of tailoring an opening reply with specific explanation of possible violation and why a player need to undergo further investigation, they throw a blanket email of multi-acc and ask to reach compliance team. Then, after a findings were made following an investigation, they also made a poor decision of throwing a blanket response of AML.

Razer explained to me why this blanket statement of AML is technically accurate to cover the verdict, but I personally think it should be tailored better to avoid confusion.

Bottom line: your case was a flag by provider.