Lawsuit: Dismissed zPokebr_ v. Red Reserve Bank et al.

[Poker]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zPokebr_
Plaintiff

v.

Red Reserve Bank
Defendant
Planke32
Co-Defendant
AntonFr
Co-Defendant
xxTheoryxx
Co-Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
"29/07 i asked a 67,403$ withdraw from defendant. However, after 16 days, i still did not receive it."

I. PARTIES
1. zPokebr_ (Plaintiff)
2. Red Reserve Bank (Defendant)
3. antonFr (Co-Defendant, RRB Director and RRB Operator)
4. planke32 (Co-Defendant, RRB Operator)
5. xxTheoryxx (Co-Defendant, RRB Operator)

II. FACTS​

1. Red Reserve Bank (“RRB”) is a commercial bank.
2. AntonFr is the Executive Director, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for RRB.
3. AntonFr is an operator for RRB.
4. Planke32 is an operator for RRB,
5. xxTheoryxx is an operator for RRB,
6. FIEA, PART I, 3(f) reads Operator. Any person who carries on, controls, directs, manages, finances, or materially participates in regulated financial activity, including any individual who receives, holds, or disburses customer funds.
7. FIEA, Part IV, 29(1) reads Every Operator of an operation that carries on regulated financial activity in contravention of this Act is personally, jointly, and severally liable for the repayment of customer deposits and for any penalty, disgorgement, or restitution ordered under this Act.
8. On July 29, 2026, the Plaintiff requested a withdrawal of D$67.403 from the Defendant. (P-001)
9. At the time of the withdrawal request, the Plaintiff had more than D$67.403 funds in their checking account balance. (P-001)
10. On July 31, 2026, the Plaintiff contacted Antonfr via direct messages to inquire about the status of the withdrawal request. (P-002).
11. On the same date, Antonfr stated: “I'm not managing RRB, can you please message Planke?” (P-002)
12. The Plaintiff subsequently contacted Planke32 regarding the pending withdrawal request. (P-003)
13. On the same date, Planke32 provided the Plaintiff with a screenshot indicating that the system reported that the withdrawal request “has already been sent or is being processed.” (P-003, P-004)
14. On August 7, 2026, the Plaintiff again contacted Planke32 regarding the status of the withdrawal. (P-004)
15. On August 8, 2026, the Plaintiff joined the RRB Discord server and spoke with xxTheoryxx, a senior banker at RRB.
16. On this day, xxTheoryxx added the Plaintiff to a Discord Channel with all the plaintiff transactions logs.
17. During that conversation, xxTheoryxx requested 24 hours to review the relevant logs and discuss the matter with Planke32. (P-005)
18. On August 9, 2026, Planke32 informed the Plaintiff via private message that he could not do anything regarding the withdrawal. (P-004)
19. On the same date, the Plaintiff sent another message to through the RRB Discord server regarding the unresolved withdrawal with a printscreen of what Planke32 informed the Plaintiff via private message (P-006)
20. xxTheoryxx subsequently responded: “bruh doesnt answer me.” (P-006)
21. On August 10, 2026, the Plaintiff again requested an update regarding the withdrawal (P-007).
22. On August 12, 2026, 12:59 UTC-3, 14 days passed since the withdrawal request.
23. On August 12, 2026, plaintiff asked again defendant to process the withdrawal (P-014)
24. On August 12, 2026, senior banker xxTheoryxx asked for 24 hours extension. (P-014)
25. On August 13, 2026, plaintiff opened a DoC ticket asking the DoC to trace his unpaid funds.
26. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff has received neither the requested D$67.403 withdrawal nor a substantive resolution or explanation from RRB regarding the funds.
27. P-008 is the financial history made by the RRB website about Plaintiff.
28. P-011 is the bank TOS
29. Plaintiff balance quickly drained from July 29, 2026, to August 12,2026. (P-012)
30. On August 12, 2026, Plaintiff's balance reached 0.02$ (P-013)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract
Redmont Civil Code, Part VI, 1

Breach of Contract
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the contract is void or voidable; or
(c) performance was rendered impossible by circumstances beyond the party’s control; or
(d) the other party materially breached the contract first; or
(e) the party was induced to enter the contract through misrepresentation or duress.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Contracts Act

1.1 The Contract Breach

According to the RRB Terms of Service ToS 9 (P-011),

"Transactions are processed within 24-72 hours under normal conditions (up to one to two weeks during adverse conditions), solely in Redmont Dollars.".

Defendant, to the filing of this complaint, failed to honor the withdrawal within time required by its own ToS. Plaintiff asked for a withdrawal on 29 july 2026 and today is 14 august 2028, 16 days between.

Moreover, Defendant also doesn't explain what is an adverse condition. Plaintiff thinks 'adverse condition' is a 'unexpected situation that make a task hard to do'. Based on that definition, Defendant was not on a adverse condition (as better explained in 1.2), but still unlawfully withhold Plaintiff's funds.

1.2 Breach of Contract and Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
According to The Contract Act 12

Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
(1) Parties to a contract shall perform their respective duties and exercise their rights under the contract in good faith and in a manner that is fair and just.
(2) There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.

The internal handling of the matter reflects a breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and breach of contract.

1. When first approached on July 31, 2026, Antonfr disclaimed no personal responsibility and redirected the Plaintiff to Planke32 (P-002).
2. Planke32, in turn, indicated only that the withdrawal appeared to be "already sent or being processed" (P-003, P-004), without resolving it.
3. After the Plaintiff escalated the matter within the RRB Discord server, xxTheoryxx, a senior banker, undertook to review the transaction logs and confer with Planke32 within 24 hours (P-005).
4. Before that review was ever completed (with no indication that Planke32 had even responded to xxTheoryxx's inquiries) Planke32 unilaterally informed the Plaintiff, on August 9, 2026, that he "could not do anything regarding the withdrawal" (P-004).
5. When the Plaintiff shared this refusal within the RRB Discord server, xxTheoryxx's own reaction, "bruh doesnt answer me" (P-006), confirms that Planke32 was, at that very moment, unreachable even to RRB's own staff.

From the facts, the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff had not received the funds. On July 31, 2026, the Plaintiff informed Planke32, a Senior Banker, that the withdrawal had not been received (P-004, P-005). Despite this notice, the issue remained unresolved, forcing the Plaintiff to join the RRB Discord server to make further inquiries.

Moreover, communications within the RRB Discord indicate that Planke32’s lack of communication contributed to the delay in processing the withdrawal (P-005, P-006). Staff member xxTheoryxx was awaiting a response from Planke32, while the Plaintiff had already received the response and sent it to the Discord. Nevertheless, the withdrawal remained unprocessed.

Finally, on August 12, 2026, Senior Banker xxTheoryxx stated that he was working on the matter and that the funds would be credited to the Plaintiff’s balance within 24 hours (P-014). Once again, this deadline passed without the withdrawal being completed.

Senior banker xxTheoryxx asked, in total, 2 times for 24 hours to remedy the situation (P-005, P-014). However, failed on both.

Relevant facts shows that this wasn't 'adverse conditions', nor circumstances beyond the party’s control.

2. Failure to Honour Withdrawal or Redemption
Redmont Civil Code Act, Part X (obs: Amended by FIEA)

Failure to Honour Withdrawal or Redemption
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: Specific performance; Restitution; Up to 200 Civil Penalty Units

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) without lawful excuse, fails to honour a customer's valid withdrawal, redemption, or repayment request within the time required by the agreement or by law.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) performance was prevented by a Freeze Order, court order, or other lawful restraint.
Relevant Law: Financial Institutions Enforcement Act

Defendant failed to honour the Plaintiff's valid withdrawal request within the time required by ToS 9 (P-011). P-08 is the financial history of the Plaintiff with the bank and corroborates with the facts.

3. Punitive Damages
Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, 3

Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.

(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
(c) In the event that punitive damages are being argued because an authorised statute grants it, the award shall be limited by the amount granted by law.
(d) In assessing punitive damages, courts shall consider the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm, and the defendant’s wealth.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) Punitive damages may be reduced where the defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse or taken steps to remedy the harm.

The Defendant not only failed to honor the Plaintiff's lawful withdrawal request, but the Defendant has repeatedly failed to to remedy the issue after being warned on multiples instances about it. Defendant's behavior falls on the following subparagraph of the code:

1(2)(b)(ii) Knowing disregard of the Plaintiff's interests: RRB was repeatedly informed that the Plaintiff's withdrawal remained unpaid and had sufficient information to investigate the matter. On August 10, 2026, Plaintiff even said that he was unable to upkeep his shop, and nothing was done. P-012 and P-013 demonstrates plaintiff's financial burden due to the failed withdrawal.

1(2)(b)(iii) Reckless indifference: Even after multiple contacts with different RRB personnel, the Defendant failed to ensure that the Plaintiff received funds that had already been requested from their account. Again, P-012 and P-013 shows the financial burden imposed under the Plaintiff.

1(2)(b)(v) Persistent or repeated misconduct: Plaintiff contacted multiple senior employees of RRB on July 31, August 7, August 8, August 9, and August 10. Despite these repeated attempts, the Defendant did not resolve the withdrawal.

For calculation purposes stated on 1(2)(d), it must be noted that RRB is a large corporation with over 1.2m D$ balance in the in-game plugin account. (P-010)

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant and Co-Defendant:
1. 67,403$ Restitution
2. 20,000$ for Failure to Honor Withdrawal
3. 33,701.5$ for Punitive Damages
4. 30% of the case value for legal fees

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 14 day of august 2026

 

[Poker]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Nolle Prosequi

Your honor, right after filling this case, Defedant have deposited plaintiff's funds. Plaintiff doesn't want to sue the president proceed with the lawsuit, therefore asks for a dismissal with prejudice.

 

[ko531]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Nolle Prosequi

Your honor, right after filling this case, Defedant have deposited plaintiff's funds. Plaintiff doesn't want to sue the president proceed with the lawsuit, therefore asks for a dismissal with prejudice.

Case is dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.