Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
This needs to change, because their systems are not 100% accurate. They need to be able to prove that you cheated or broke ToS before they can ban you and effectively steal any money you've paid them.
Conclusions about what? Whether he actually cheated or not? If there isn't enough evidence to tell someone is guilty or not, your conclusion should be "not guilty", not "it is impossible to make conclusions".
I think we actually agree, although I would use not guilty in the court of law standard, whereby it means not enough evidence to convict, not in the not guilty == innocent way some use it.