A freeze, a removal, and a net deposit position

The consequence of a linkage finding is a sequence rather than a single act, and its parts are worth taking separately because they answer different questions: what happens while it is reviewed, what happens to the play, and what happens to the money. This page puts the three in order and works the arithmetic of the third.

Open the partner account Start with what the clause says

Joins the two: one artefact, one person expectedKeeps them apart: a verified fact that differsA person decides: an overlap a household also produces

Direct answerA finding that two accounts are one person normally produces three things in order: a hold that freezes deposits, withdrawals and usually play while the position is worked out; a removal of anything the operator treats as placed under the unrecognised record, which can mean voided bets and reversed bonuses; and a resolution of the balance under the terms, which normally returns the deposits made into the unrecognised account and removes what was built on them. The recognised account continues, with its own limits, conditions and history intact.

1: the hold2: the removal3: the balanceKept: the earlier account

The three steps in order

step 1

the hold Everything stops, before anything is decided. A hold freezes deposits, withdrawals and normally play, because a picture of the account cannot be taken while it is moving. The balance is not seized at this point - it stays where it is, and the question is open.

step 2

the removal What is taken out of the position. Bets placed under the account the operator will not recognise are treated as not being the operator's to pay: winning bets can be voided and their stakes returned, and a bonus built on that account's play can be withdrawn under the offer's own conditions rather than as a penalty.

step 3

the balance Deposits in, built value out. The usual resolution returns the money deposited into the unrecognised account and keeps nothing that was built on top of it. It is deliberately not a confiscation of everything: what is removed is the outcome of play the operator declines to recognise, and what is returned is the principal that funded it.

step 4

the survivor One account continues. Normally the earlier record, which keeps its own terms version, its own limits, its own identity checks and its own history. A reader left with a hole in their personal limits is usually also left with the obligation to set them again.

Worked example - the net deposit position (illustrative) Account B, the unrecognised record: deposits 1,240.00; withdrawals 300.00; balance at review 3,410.00; bonus credited under an offer 240.00. Step 1: nothing moves. Balance stays at 3,410.00. Step 2: winnings on the account are voided and their stakes returned - in this example the wagers behind 3,410.00 - 1,240.00 = 2,170.00 of growth are treated as not the operator's to pay. The bonus of 240.00 goes with them, because its wagering was met by the same play. Step 3: the deposits are returned. 1,240.00 paid back; the 300.00 already withdrawn is set against that, so the sum actually paid is 1,240.00 - 300.00 = 940.00. Net to the reader: 940.00 returned against a balance of 3,410.00, a growth of 2,170.00 and a bonus of 240.00. The structure generalises even though the figures do not: a resolution is a net position, it counts what has already left, and it is the one part of the sequence no hold can freeze.

What is genuinely lost, and what is not

Read against a reader's expectation, the surprising parts are on both sides.

Deposits are normally not forfeited. The clause that permits a retention exists, but the ordinary resolution is to return principal and remove the outcome built on it. A reader braced for total loss is usually braced for more than happens.
The growth is what goes. The part that does not survive is the play, and the further the balance has moved from the deposited total the larger the amount no longer payable. On the arithmetic above, growth and bonus together - 2,410.00 - are 70.7% of the balance at review.
Time is not compensable. A hold during a review stops withdrawals that were already requested. Nothing in the mechanism provides for the delay, and the withdrawal desk is where the ordinary timeline it interrupts is described.
The recognised account is untouched in principle. Its balance, its terms version and its history stand, which is why the resolution is a pair-level operation rather than a wipe.

Why the sequence is worth knowing before it happens

Because two of the three steps are irreversible once taken and one of them - the hold - is the window in which a reader can still influence the outcome. The evidence that separates two accounts, or that explains a shared instrument, is worth most in the days a review is open and worth nothing after a finding has been applied. The appeal page is the practical half of this one for that reason: it is about what to put in front of the person deciding while the decision is still open.

The honest framing. None of the three steps is a punishment and none of it is discretionary in the ordinary case: the operator is applying the clause it published and the resolution its terms describe. What a reader can argue about is whether the finding was right - whether the accounts really are one person - and that argument is made with separating evidence rather than with the arithmetic. This page explains the arithmetic so that the argument, where it exists, is made about the correct question.