is this fraud?

[vinylweatherman]

That is a great point. How can the player refute this? In your examples, what if a player is a VIP at their ewallet? (like Neteller or Moneybookers?)?

what if they can prove who they are and their address?

What if they ARE real people and can prove it? Furthermore, if they can show they are using their own funds?

There HAS TO BE parameters and limits on what a casino can do with players money. They cannot simply say "I think you are in a fraud ring even though you are real and your docs match up and you fund your own ewallets and are a vip there and even though you did not abuse bonuses or in any way get an advantage on the casino".

This is the source of so much angst recently. I won't name the casino but it can't be acceptable.

EDIT: My purpose of asking is not to badger but rather to get something in place so that the playing field is level. To establish guidelines per se.

This is why numerous appeals processes are available which LEGIT casinos are often more than happy to deal with. Even beyond this, there are legal options, as well as getting local media interested. Casinos have to make sure that the evidence has can stand up to scrutiny if such an appeal is launched by a player.

A good portion of appeals end up going the players' way, even if not the majority.

If a casino decides to misuse fraud as a means to deny genuine players their winnings, they end up suffering the long term consequences. Virtual Group decided long ago that they would use bogus excuses, including bogus accusations of collusion and fraud, to increase their profits by screwing over legitimate players, as well as the fraudsters. They have suffered such damage that every experienced player knows not to go anywhere near them, and anyone who tries to argue that this is a reputable group is given a hard time over it.

Betfair decided to invoke a vague "spirit of the bonus" condition in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own incompetence. Whilst they saved money in the short term, they trashed their reputation in the process, and now they seem unable to halt a downward spiral that has caused loss of confidence among both players and investors, and every thing they touch now seems to turn to $**t, rather than gold.

Many players accused of fraud tend to back down when asked for substantive proof of their side of the story, whereas an innocent player would have much to gain.

Fraud is not necessarily confined to bonus play, and I expect many fraudsters are now exploring frauds that do NOT involve drawing attention to themselves through the obvious attacking of loopholes in the SUB.

[spiderlegz]

It actually does matter if confiscation of deposits is included in the casinos terms of use.

Remember, a player agrees to abide by all of these conditions when creating an account. The operator might say that if your name begins with "T" you can't win more than $50 on Thursdays and all excess winnings will be removed.....yes it is a stupid rule, but the player accepts it when they sign up.

If one feels they may be subject to confiscatation at some point, one should not create an account at such casinos. It's not mandatory to play at a particular casino.

As i said, these things don't matter to 99% of players because they are never in fear of being in such a situation, because they are honest legitimate players.

It doesnt matter in any civilized country. T&Cs are never waterproof especially not these kind of terms. Thats not even debatable.

Exaggerated those 99% are in other words losers who never try to play with optimal strategy to maximize return and mostly donk off their money at slots. Play with bonuses and play other games than slots (not even necessary) and you will run into problems sooner or later even if you stick with so called reputable casinos. And dolphins are caught in the tuna net every so often.

[Nifty29]

It doesnt matter in any civilized country. T&Cs are never waterproof especially not these kind of terms. Thats not even debatable.

Exaggerated those 99% are in other words losers who never try to play with optimal strategy to maximize return and mostly donk off their money at slots. Play with bonuses and play other games than slots (not even necessary) and you will run into problems sooner or later even if you stick with so called reputable casinos. And dolphins are caught in the tuna net every so often.

Well, we are debating it, so it is debatable.

If you are willing, you can test your "waterproof " theory. Just choose any casino from CM, claim a slots bonus, and play blackjack, then let us know how your arguments hold up when they confiscate your winnings. I'm guessing you wouldn't have a snowflakes chance of being paid. Remember, online casino terms may not be "waterproof" in the UK or wherever, but you won't have the chance to sue them anywhere like that, because you agree to have all litigation done in malta or wherever. If you don't like these kinds of terms, don't play at those casinos. (I'm sure VWM Q.C. will offer h wis own free legal advice here)

I also think you are insulting most of the membership here by calling them "donks" and "losers"...in fact i was very offended. I've been accused of being arrogant in my time, but I've never said anything like that.

Of course, these "losers" have little trouble, because they're not spending their days finding ways to exploit genuine offers designed for loyal players.....the people who do that are the ones responsible for the draconian terms that they spend the rest of their time complaining about.....ironic isn't it?

It's pretty simple really. If you break the rules you pay the price....if you can't abide by the rules don't play.

Personally, I'm sick of all the extra security checks and huge WRs and cashout restrictions, so when some fraudster gets caught, I don't lose a wink of sleep, and neither would most others. The ones that protest continually are often doing it as well and feel the need to defend their cohorts or try to find out how to avoid the same fate. I've got a great strategy for not getting caught - don't cheat.

[Casinomeister]

It doesnt matter in any civilized country. T&Cs are never waterproof especially not these kind of terms. Thats not even debatable.

Exaggerated those 99% are in other words losers who never try to play with optimal strategy to maximize return and mostly donk off their money at slots. Play with bonuses and play other games than slots (not even necessary) and you will run into problems sooner or later even if you stick with so called reputable casinos. And dolphins are caught in the tuna net every so often.

Let's keep this flame free, Spiderlegz. Many players in this forum play for entertainment. They don't scrutinize each and every word of the T&Cs, play perfect strategy, and only make a deposit if a bonus is involved. Just because they are in a different place than you doesn't mean they are "donks" or "losers".

It's rare that dolphins get caught in the tuna net when it comes to fraud. There have been scores of fraud cases just in the past couple of years that have come through the PAB system - and maybe one or two dolphins. And I'm pretty sure they were cleared. So what is the issue?

[gaydave]

This is why numerous appeals processes are available which LEGIT casinos are often more than happy to deal with. Even beyond this, there are legal options, as well as getting local media interested. Casinos have to make sure that the evidence has can stand up to scrutiny if such an appeal is launched by a player.

A good portion of appeals end up going the players' way, even if not the majority.

If a casino decides to misuse fraud as a means to deny genuine players their winnings, they end up suffering the long term consequences. Virtual Group decided long ago that they would use bogus excuses, including bogus accusations of collusion and fraud, to increase their profits by screwing over legitimate players, as well as the fraudsters. They have suffered such damage that every experienced player knows not to go anywhere near them, and anyone who tries to argue that this is a reputable group is given a hard time over it..

I agree, VWM. In Inetbet's case, however, they are not made to go under any scrutiny it seems. That is incredibly frustrating to watch. They actually did lie on this forum and more than once. Nobody makes them answer for this or it is blown off as a minor detail. Well, the player wants to and is adamant about giving proof of any kind necessary but they are rebuffed and told too bad.
Again, if the player can provide any and all proof and docs and didn't use a bonus then keeping the players deposits and winnings is nothing short of theft.
It is not good enough that "some players get caught up wrongfully". They are still wrongfully caught up and should be given the opportunity to provide proof of identity or whatever else is necessary.

What is different about inetbet and Virtual? The answer is that the right person(s) actually gave a crap and looked into it. The same stuff is happening at virtual and there are apologists defending them because it didn't happen to them. Virtual had people look at them and call them what they are. inetbet has apologists.

If it cannot be clearly defined and there is no recourse for players then what are we doing? AliceK, Louse S. These people are being stolen from IN MY OPINION. They have proved their ID and claim they are not linked to other players. They are willing to submit to any test to prove it. inetbet just claims fraud and takes the money. unaccpetable. Can they not be made to at the least explain why they lied on this forum? Can they not be questioned? Even their response to shumantic was ridiculous. Never had to be explained. It was just accepted with no recourse or explanation.

[gaydave]

It's rare that dolphins get caught in the tuna net when it comes to fraud. There have been scores of fraud cases just in the past couple of years that have come through the PAB system - and maybe one or two dolphins. And I'm pretty sure they were cleared. So what is the issue?

nothappy. That guy was caught up from Australia in a USA supposed fraud ring. What is the issue??? What if you were nothappy and had a big win only to be stolen from? Then it would be a big issue and you would want a way to get your money.
That is paramount to saying "only a small % of people are beaten by police and most of them are criminals". So what is the big deal? None, unless you are one of the innocents that get beaten I guess.

[Casinomeister]

I think you ought to give it a rest. AliceK and Louse S. are part of a fraud ring. They are all connected, and not only at iNetBet. You keep hammering away - well, I know what you are doing, and I'm not giving the info you are looking for. Just get over it.

Nothappy was connected to the PA group through an affiliate he signed up with. She has a history of sending mostly fraudsters to these casinos - she's even been banned from this forum for being a troll and for multiple accounts. Some affiliate, eh? His play matched those who were multi-accounting. The casino was convinced that his ID docs had been doctored. But Max and I weren't. That's why he's still a member here.

Your agenda laden threads are tiring. Can this be the last one, or do we need to continue? we know you don't like iNetBet. We know you don't like it that we've banned your PA buddies.

[gaydave]

I think you ought to give it a rest. AliceK and Louse S. are part of a fraud ring. They are all connected, and not only at iNetBet. You keep hammering away - well, I know what you are doing, and I'm not giving the info you are looking for. Just get over it.

Nothappy was connected to the PA group through an affiliate he signed up with. She has a history of sending mostly fraudsters to these casinos - she's even been banned from this forum for being a troll and for multiple accounts. Some affiliate, eh? His play matched those who were multi-accounting. The casino was convinced that his ID docs had been doctored. But Max and I weren't. That's why he's still a member here.

Your agenda laden threads are tiring. Can this be the last one, or do we need to continue? we know you don't like iNetBet. We know you don't like it that we've banned your PA buddies.

ok, I will not talk about inetbet then after this. how do you know louise s. is related to alicek? did louise S put in a pab along with her gambling grumbles complaint?

After that lets move on.

Regarding the Nothappy issue. What is your policy on that? If the casino says the docs were doctored and you don't believe that to be the case than can't Nothappy just get them notarized and sent? Wouldn't that end the whole issue? Also, what is your policy regarding not making a casino like that rogue? They basically blew you off it sounds like and Nothappy is still a member of the board then if he is a real player I am sure he would send more and further docs, correct? If the casino won't abide by that mediation then how are they not in the pit? I am Just asking, not demanding or trying to put you on the spot.

What was this affiliates username here at casinomeister please?

Also, not to be a pain but your post to me was a bit insinuating, baiting and insulting. You are now linking me to a fraud group? Really? And trying to discredit me openly on the forum? Please lets be better than that to each other moving forward as I am genuinely interested in this topic and have agreed to stop on inetbet since they are never going to have to answer anyways.

[Casinomeister]

ok, I will not talk about inetbet then after this. how do you know louise s. is related to alicek? did louise S put in a pab along with her gambling grumbles complaint?

She doesn't need to PAB. I'm sure she knows what I know. For her to PAB would be futile.

Regarding the Nothappy issue. What is your policy on that? If the casino says the docs were doctored and you don't believe that to be the case than can't Nothappy just get them notarized and sent? Wouldn't that end the whole issue? Also, what is your policy regarding not making a casino like that rogue? They basically blew you off it sounds like and Nothappy is still a member of the board then if he is a real player I am sure he would send more and further docs, correct? If the casino won't abide by that mediation then how are they not in the pit? I am Just asking, not demanding or trying to put you on the spot.

We just decided to agree on disagreeing. They were 120% convinced that he was a fraudster (their words) Max and I weren't. They "abided" by the mediation, and just because we didn't agree on something doesn't mean that they're rogue. This is Casinomeister not Blackmailmeister. Mind you, that issue went on for months.

What was this affiliates username here at casinomeister please?

That's a poker hand I'll keep close to my chest, thank you.

Also, not to be a pain but your post to me was a bit insinuating, baiting and insulting. You are now linking me to a fraud group? Really? And trying to discredit me openly on the forum? Please lets be better than that to each other moving forward as I am genuinely interested in this topic and have agreed to stop on inetbet since they are never going to have to answer anyways.

I'm not linking you to a fraud group. I just know you probably know these people. No big deal. Just behave in the forum, that's all.

[KasinoKing]

2). If you are playing at a casino without a bonus and you are only playing single player games. Can this possibly be fraud? How in the world would you be at an advantage on the casino by pretending to be someone else then playing with your own money?

I myself used to think along the same lines until someone pointed it out to me about 2 years ago. No-one here is going to spell it out specifically (I hope) but there ARE ways for groups to de-fraud casinos even though each individual in that group appears as a totally independent & fully verified player. Bryan has already alluded to the method - let's just leave it at that.

Remember, a player agrees to abide by all of these conditions when creating an account. The operator might say that if your name begins with "T" you can't win more than $50 on Thursdays and all excess winnings will be removed.....yes it is a stupid rule, but the player accepts it when they sign up.
If one feels they may be subject to confiscatation at some point, one should not create an account at such casinos. It's not mandatory to play at a particular casino.

I agree 100%!
If a casino said, for example, that the maximum withdrawal is $500 per week - players can decide up front if they want to play under those conditions, or chose a different casino. You are right; having a condition like that does not make a casino "rogue" - ultimately it is the player's right to chose.

KK