Prime Casino remove my money from Neteller!

[Pinababy69]

I can't answer that question D_G. Does anyone know if that term exists in any other casino's T&C's (besides XXL Club who posted here)? About processed payments being "final" I mean? Honestly, beyond reading what the wagering requirements are, it's not something that I've ever thought to look for. And I only play slots, so I've never worried about percentage of wagering requirements for various games, or being accused of "bonus abuse".

Hunterduke does have a point. If the monies had already been withdrawn from Neteller, what would have happened then? Again, this isn't something I've ever had to think of personally as I use Payspark, and anytime I get a cashout, I'm at the ATM machine within an hour or two to withdraw it, lol. My money never sits in an ewallet.

As to the fraud issue, I agree that the actual term of "fraud" should be limited to multiple accounts, using other's accounts (as Josh suggested). Who's qualified to judge that? I don't know. I'd rather have the casino manager looking at each case individually rather than leaving it up to the processor (for example). We've seen what a balls-up they can make of a situation.....re: the "certified documents" threads we've seen on here. On the other hand, you'd think that a fraud such as a multiple account scenario should be caught "prior" to a cashout being processed. You'd hope the processor could get that much right, and avoid any chargeback scenario.

Prime is a relatively new casino, and I'm hoping that this episode is due more to inexperience than to any malicious intent. I highly doubt that Josh or any other casino manager wants to see another thread such as this, and would hope that this will be a lesson learned for all. It is not good for the industry period.

As a last note, it would be helpful if Neteller would comment on what their policy is....but that will NEVER happen, not on a public forum.

[Da_Gambla]

I can't answer that question D_G. Does anyone know if that term exists in any other casino's T&C's (besides XXL Club who posted here)? About processed payments being "final" I mean? Honestly, beyond reading what the wagering requirements are, it's not something that I've ever thought to look for. And I only play slots, so I've never worried about percentage of wagering requirements for various games, or being accused of "bonus abuse".

Hunterduke does have a point. If the monies had already been withdrawn from Neteller, what would have happened then? Again, this isn't something I've ever had to think of personally as I use Payspark, and anytime I get a cashout, I'm at the ATM machine within an hour or two to withdraw it, lol. My money never sits in an ewallet.

As to the fraud issue, I agree that the actual term of "fraud" should be limited to multiple accounts, using other's accounts (as Josh suggested). Who's qualified to judge that? I don't know. I'd rather have the casino manager looking at each case individually rather than leaving it up to the processor (for example). We've seen what a balls-up they can make of a situation.....re: the "certified documents" threads we've seen on here. On the other hand, you'd think that a fraud such as a multiple account scenario should be caught "prior" to a cashout being processed. You'd hope the processor could get that much right, and avoid any chargeback scenario.

Prime is a relatively new casino, and I'm hoping that this episode is due more to inexperience than to any malicious intent. I highly doubt that Josh or any other casino manager wants to see another thread such as this, and would hope that this will be a lesson learned for all. It is not good for the industry period.

As a last note, it would be helpful if Neteller would comment on what their policy is....but that will NEVER happen, not on a public forum.

It's good to know that you see what I'm pointing out.. As I said, it appeared to me that Josh was kind of sweeping this issue aside with making NT the bad guys and instituting other non-NT issues in his casino's T&C's.

So what is "Fraud"? As you've stated, who knows, and that's the problem.

Oh wait! Josh knows!

Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc.

And there's my problem... ETC.

According to his own definition, he cites 2 explicit reasons and leaves the door open for any interpretaion he deems to fall under etc.

You're also right that most reasonable people's definition of "fraud" would be caught long before the cashout, so why does Josh holdout for the right to raid a Neteller account after the cashout has been paid? Interesting things he refuses to address. Maybe it's for security reasons?

I don't know when other casinos (besides XXLClub) will address this issue in their T&C's. I do know one thing, however... Almost every single type of complaint, whether by player or casino, hits these Forums sooner than later. If Josh's contentions that all vendors can do this chargeback with NT is true, then he is the first one to have abused it. So, this is a new issue and will have to trickle down over the weeks, but in the meantime, Josh pulled the trigger, it's been posted here what he is capable and willing to do, and so the burden is on him to step up and put in writing that it will not occur within his business structure again. We will have to deal with the other casinos as they come up. Hopefully this hole will be plugged by Neteller and this whole discussion will be moot. After it is no longer an issue, Josh's obstinance on this topic will still stand, however. That's the unfortunate part for him.

- Keith

[refre]

When I play at RTG's, my neteller security code is stored. I entered it when I signed up at the casinos, but never since. This, I would imagine, opens the door for rogue operators to remove money from neteller, without having to make a "chargeback". Just do the transaction, pretending to be the customer. I'm sure this wasnt how neteller intended it. I've never heard of this happening though.

[paul02085]

Even though i am in US and cant play anymore, I would really love it if somebody with clout like CM or Jetset would present these cases to Neteller and get their official explanation of why they allowed the casino to take back these funds.
I can see casinos trying to do this (i can see it VERY easily,lol), so to me it is way more a Neteller problem.

[indievertigo]

Even though i am in US and cant play anymore, I would really love it if somebody with clout like CM or Jetset would present these cases to Neteller and get their official explanation of why they allowed the casino to take back these funds.
I can see casinos trying to do this (i can see it VERY easily,lol), so to me it is way more a Neteller problem.

They do do it in the case of 2X payments, but never before in a situation like this. I can't see casinos doing it in a similar instance TBH.

So josh has closed this discussion. Not going to happen josh, the issue is still here. As dg pointed out, etc. can be twisted into anything you like, and as some casinos now get mixed up between advantage play and fraud, then who's to say you won't either?

Until you fully accept it was a completed unjust thing to do, and show that by putting it in writing that you shall not ever commit such a crime again, then the issue remains open (The issue will remain open until theres a response from neteller, but the issue involving your casino will diminish).

Lets not forget, we (I?) are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the investigation - what was actually said between Prime and neteller to instigate this charegback in the first place. I can't believe that a claim of 'mistaken payment' would be accepted by neteller as a valid reason.

[vinylweatherman]

As much as I would like to sit here all day long each day and debate the morality of my decisions, it's simply not practical. The origin of this thread came from two players who complained their funds were removed from their Neteller accounts. This money was never meant to be credited in the first place but I did the right thing and put it back into their Casino account which would have been the default situation had our software supported our T&C's.

I can't help but feel that I'm bearing the brunt of your anger regarding things many have done before me and as much as I've tried to appease the lot of you, it's in the end, impossible to please everyone. As important as these issues are, this thread is taking up far too much of my time and since there is no governing body here other than CM, I'm forced to leave this in his capable hands.

1. I have told you that I will not initiate Neteller chargebacks in the future for any reason other than fraud. I will not change our T&C's to restrict our ability to do this. If you're not defrauding our Casino, you have nothing to worry about. Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc. If I need to define Fraud for you then we have a much larger problem here.

2. I have put the players' money back into their Casino account and allowed them to play out their wagering requirements. Perhaps Mohammed and Anders aren't doing backflips over this but they are happy with the resolution and have said so in the thread. What more would like me to do exactly?

3. I have agreed to date our T&C's and to put a note on our index page notifying when recent changes have been made with a link to the new terms. I will not make this a massive road-sign on the index page though. It will sit around where the No-US Players and the Powered by Microgaming logos are. If this is unnaceptable to you I'm sorry but it's more than anyone else is doing.

4. I have not paid out Jens because she blatantly broke our T&C's, made one bet, and cashed out. This is classic promo abuse and our terms ecist to protect us from just this kind of player. Why should Jens be the only player to become an exception to this rule? Though my decision here was solely based on breaking the T&C's, I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default. Lastly, assuming our terms are like every other MGS Casino is a ridiculous excuse for not reading them. I notice how now you have our terms under a microscope but had you read them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. My answer is no and it's final.

5. Regarding downloading a casino first and then registering several days later, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's common sense that before you deposit, you should read the terms and conditions. I think it's a real stretch to think that someone would download our software, spend the time studying our T&C's, but then not even registering until several days after. I feel I've done enough to protect the players' interests if the terms are valid at the time of fun player registration. I am not going to email every fun player about changes to the terms. Also, I have a fun account with at least 20 Casinos and none of them have ever done this either. Not only that but none of them as far as I have seen are notifying people of T&C changes anywhere on the site. Nevermind the index page.
This has gone on long enough. Some of you have made some very good points and suggestions that I am going to enact. However, I am not going to spend my time each day going through this thread and becoming a doormat for the Casino industry. I think it's time for CM to step in here and decide what he thinks should be done. We're an accredited Casino here and the actions I've taken are the final actions that will be taken in this issue. If he feels that we shouldn't be accredited after this, so be it. My decisions are final and that is literally the end of this discussion. Again, I appreciate all the civilized input I've received and your suggestions will be enacted next week.

Thanks and good luck,

Josh.

4. Jens,

Yes, this play is what casinos consider "bonus abuse", however, Bryan has clear rules as to what is expected of an eccredited casino. Unless the single bet play was specifically against the T & C, this alone cannot be used as a reason for non-payment, This leaves the issue of withdrawing early. Jens says she didn't understand that particular term, which she clearly read BEFORE depositing, so there is a clear case of player ineptitude in not getting CS to explain to her what this meant BEFORE withdrawing.

Jens is guilty of playing to win with the SUB, rather than lose it playing the games. This is EXACTLY what happened with Fortune Lounge, they confiscated winnings from a number of players that employed this aggressive betting strategy on the SUB, however, Fortune Lounge lost their case for doing this, and were pretty much told to pay players who had not committed actual fraud (multiple accounts, false details etc), so why should Prime be any different? No exception was made for Fortune Lounge, so I don't see why one should be made for Prime.
Confiscating winnings is an EXTREME sanction that has become all too common nowdays. Yesterday, I played Blackjack at another MG casino, howeve the dealer hardly ever busted out on 15 or 16, but time and time again got 20 or 21, and I lost hand after hand that I should have won. The deck behaved as though it was a "10 poor" shoe, which is against the "shuffle every hand" rules. Now, this looked to me like "deposit abuse" by the virtual dealer, and normally is treated like "bad luck", with the dealer allowed to keep the winnings. Now, if players started acting more like casinos do when they don't like OUR style of play, we would be making chargebacks (our equivalent of confiscating winnings after the bet was made and accepted) whenever we had a truly unbelievable session, and naturally WE would get to be the judge, jury, and executioner as to what constituted "rigged" as opposed to "unlucky".

5.
To say that registering a few days after registration is "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous. Granted, the casinos would rather we deposited immediately, and preferrably lost, but in the real world there ARE many players who register days later. Naturally, given what a "ball-ache" downloading an MG casino is, theyb will read and digest the T & C BEFORE deciding whether they want to play, and this is why it is important for casinos to place expiry dates on terms, such that players can immediately tell how long what they have read is GUARANTEED to be valid for.

Promotion Abuse.

Here is a case with Fortune Lounge that closely resembles the case of Jens:-

I have queried your account and I can confirm the following. The withdrawal that you requested has been cancelled as your casino account has been locked due to promotional abuse. They have advised us that due to suspicious wagering by you on 100 Play Power Poker-Aces and Faces game in particular, the account was closed and will remain closed. Your game play was highly unnatural and improbable for any bona fide player with intent to play with us in future. Similarly, placing all your money on one single bet is also highly unlikely for any serious gambler.

For this reason the account has been locked and will remain locked.

Highlighted is the exact strategy Jens used on Roulette.
The later cashout was a mistake, and against the terms and conditions, however a good casino should give the player the chance to fulfill WR by returning the funds to the account, not use a player oversight as an excuse to void winnings.
The advantage play itself is NO EXCUSE for voiding winnings, so in effect, the casino are still of the opinion that should any player make the mistake of withdrawing before WR, despite the problems with the cashier page suggesting this is OK, should be given NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER, but suffer an instant confiscation.

Bryan's explanation as to WHY this practice earned a spell in the rogue pit was this:-

The problem with the term "promotional abuse" is that it's too subjective. The casino looks at this sort of behavior as abuse - the player looks at this as "beating the house". Don't get me wrong, the casino has every right in the world to pick and chose who their customers are. But once the casino makes the offer, accepts the bet, and the player plays according to the terms and conditions meeting the wagering requirements, then the casino ought to honor the winnings. It's the casino that is responsible for making the rules. If they make mistakes by forgetting to say that making a single bet on Blackjack is not allowed, then it should be allowed. It is not the responsibility of the player to try and guess what the casino considers "abuse".

Subjective language has no place in enforcing rules. Casinos can enforce policies by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future, but it is unacceptable to garnish winnings after the player has met the wagering requirements of the bonus.

We understand that the casino wishes to bring in new players who will remain loyal by them offering bonuses. But the bottom line is that the casino writes the terms for these bonuses, the casino should be expected to write terms that protect it from players they don't want.

I understand that during this period, they was a high level of player fraud. But advantage players are not fraudsters - if you are tuna fishing, you don't kill the dolphines in the tuna net.

Advantage players, avoid these casinos at all costs.

This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.

Bryan goes on to say how casinos should be reacting to "abusive" play:-

by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future

It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.

If Prime wish to continue to confiscate winnings when players slip up, they should not feel hurt when their own slipups are met with such "draconian" action by forum members - it works both ways.

[Da_Gambla]

VWM!

Really valid argument. I'm afraid that since this issue was interjected into a very crowded thread, I did not, and still don't know exactly what specific T&C TravelMaxx violated to the degree of being stripped of the winnings.

Was the only wrong move the cashout attempt? So if TM had moved on to another game that counted towards WR, completed the WR and then cashed out, would they have been stripped of the winnings?

I'd like to know the specific T&C, because I've gone back and skimmed over the relevant threads and cannot see it anywhere.

I might suggest that TravelMaxx file an official PAB with Bryan at this point, as instead of being denied the winnings, maybe all they deserved was being banned from the casino as an "undesireable" player. From what VWM has quoted from Bryan in the past, there is argument here that Jens was simply an advantage player with no fraud involved.

- Keith

4. Jens,

Yes, this play is what casinos consider "bonus abuse", however, Bryan has clear rules as to what is expected of an eccredited casino. Unless the single bet play was specifically against the T & C, this alone cannot be used as a reason for non-payment, This leaves the issue of withdrawing early. Jens says she didn't understand that particular term, which she clearly read BEFORE depositing, so there is a clear case of player ineptitude in not getting CS to explain to her what this meant BEFORE withdrawing.

Jens is guilty of playing to win with the SUB, rather than lose it playing the games. This is EXACTLY what happened with Fortune Lounge, they confiscated winnings from a number of players that employed this aggressive betting strategy on the SUB, however, Fortune Lounge lost their case for doing this, and were pretty much told to pay players who had not committed actual fraud (multiple accounts, false details etc), so why should Prime be any different? No exception was made for Fortune Lounge, so I don't see why one should be made for Prime.
Confiscating winnings is an EXTREME sanction that has become all too common nowdays. Yesterday, I played Blackjack at another MG casino, howeve the dealer hardly ever busted out on 15 or 16, but time and time again got 20 or 21, and I lost hand after hand that I should have won. The deck behaved as though it was a "10 poor" shoe, which is against the "shuffle every hand" rules. Now, this looked to me like "deposit abuse" by the virtual dealer, and normally is treated like "bad luck", with the dealer allowed to keep the winnings. Now, if players started acting more like casinos do when they don't like OUR style of play, we would be making chargebacks (our equivalent of confiscating winnings after the bet was made and accepted) whenever we had a truly unbelievable session, and naturally WE would get to be the judge, jury, and executioner as to what constituted "rigged" as opposed to "unlucky".

5.
To say that registering a few days after registration is "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous. Granted, the casinos would rather we deposited immediately, and preferrably lost, but in the real world there ARE many players who register days later. Naturally, given what a "ball-ache" downloading an MG casino is, theyb will read and digest the T & C BEFORE deciding whether they want to play, and this is why it is important for casinos to place expiry dates on terms, such that players can immediately tell how long what they have read is GUARANTEED to be valid for.

Promotion Abuse.

Here is a case with Fortune Lounge that closely resembles the case of Jens:-

I have queried your account and I can confirm the following. The withdrawal that you requested has been cancelled as your casino account has been locked due to promotional abuse. They have advised us that due to suspicious wagering by you on 100 Play Power Poker-Aces and Faces game in particular, the account was closed and will remain closed. Your game play was highly unnatural and improbable for any bona fide player with intent to play with us in future. Similarly, placing all your money on one single bet is also highly unlikely for any serious gambler.

For this reason the account has been locked and will remain locked.

Highlighted is the exact strategy Jens used on Roulette.
The later cashout was a mistake, and against the terms and conditions, however a good casino should give the player the chance to fulfill WR by returning the funds to the account, not use a player oversight as an excuse to void winnings.
The advantage play itself is NO EXCUSE for voiding winnings, so in effect, the casino are still of the opinion that should any player make the mistake of withdrawing before WR, despite the problems with the cashier page suggesting this is OK, should be given NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER, but suffer an instant confiscation.

Bryan's explanation as to WHY this practice earned a spell in the rogue pit was this:-

The problem with the term "promotional abuse" is that it's too subjective. The casino looks at this sort of behavior as abuse - the player looks at this as "beating the house". Don't get me wrong, the casino has every right in the world to pick and chose who their customers are. But once the casino makes the offer, accepts the bet, and the player plays according to the terms and conditions meeting the wagering requirements, then the casino ought to honor the winnings. It's the casino that is responsible for making the rules. If they make mistakes by forgetting to say that making a single bet on Blackjack is not allowed, then it should be allowed. It is not the responsibility of the player to try and guess what the casino considers "abuse".

Subjective language has no place in enforcing rules. Casinos can enforce policies by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future, but it is unacceptable to garnish winnings after the player has met the wagering requirements of the bonus.

We understand that the casino wishes to bring in new players who will remain loyal by them offering bonuses. But the bottom line is that the casino writes the terms for these bonuses, the casino should be expected to write terms that protect it from players they don't want.

I understand that during this period, they was a high level of player fraud. But advantage players are not fraudsters - if you are tuna fishing, you don't kill the dolphines in the tuna net.

Advantage players, avoid these casinos at all costs.

This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.

Bryan goes on to say how casinos should be reacting to "abusive" play:-



It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.

If Prime wish to continue to confiscate winnings when players slip up, they should not feel hurt when their own slipups are met with such "draconian" action by forum members - it works both ways.

[Pinababy69]

I might suggest that TravelMaxx file an official PAB with Bryan at this point, as instead of being denied the winnings, maybe all they deserved was being banned from the casino as an "undesireable" player. From what VWM has quoted from Bryan in the past, there is argument here that Jens was simply an advantage player with no fraud involved.

- Keith

I think that is the best suggestion that I've heard yet, the PaB I mean. I assumed the cashout was denied and winnings removed because they placed only one bet, and thus didn't come anywhere near to meeting the WR. I really think it's better if Bryan has the chance to look at this himself and discuss it with the casino. It doesn't sound like Josh is gonna budge, but let them hash it out and let us find out the result when it's resolved (or not).

[XXLClubCasino]

the issue of Neteller allowing casinos to remove funds from our accounts - even if Prime promised never to do this again, it is the rogue operators we need to look out for, they will be looking at how easily Prime managed this, and some no doubt will have a go at this themselves. Anyone recently paid by Action Online to Neteller should be wary of letting the funds linger, as should any who feel they got one past Oliver Curran in the past.

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

[indievertigo]

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

I'm not sure, but it does mean that we now have to worry about them not charging back. Before the worry was up until one was paid. and I guess they could initiate a mass chargeback then shut up shop and disappear.