7Sultans Owe me £12k - Anyone Know Good Lawyer in Malta?

[threescatters]

Oh yes - of course!
But when people talk about the "Top Pay Combination" they normally mean during normal spins... at least, I do!

KK

I'm only nit picking mate no sweat, but when someone says "I hit the top pay possible on the slot" then I expect it to be just that.

Anyway back to the issue at hand. It is unfair to accuse the OP of anything, but if he wishes to be taken serious he should PAB.

3scatters

 

[turkishcem]

They have revealed a fair bit to Gambling Grumbles, including the fact that two 7 Sultans accounts were opened on the OP's computer, which suggests his girlfriend DOES play if we are to accept that no-one other than the OP and his girlfriend can get on to his PC and internet connection. The web of linkages were revealed by the processor, and amounted to 42 connected players spread over a number of operators.

Some of these connections may be spurious, but the two accounts on the one PC at least is pretty solid. If not the OP's girlfriend, it is someone else who has access to the house, and is able to use the PC.

This is news to me. This isn't mentioned in the GG report. Just searched my PC and there is no casinos on there that weren't signed up by me. No chance 7Sultans was already signed up.. When I installed the software, it would have said it was already installed. Where did you get this info from?
EDIT: Ah yes, see in the report it mentions first of all, thought it was referring to the 42 players when I first read it.

I also note that the OP was spinning at £87.50, this is an impressive bet for a newbie with one shot at the SUB, but a pretty good tactic for someone with 42 shots at it. There are certainly strong grounds for suspicion, even if not actual proof.

I still don't understand how I could have 42 shots at it, if I was "creating other identities" like they said... How could I impersonate these people? I only have one passport which I can take to their offices personally if they like.

So what they are saying is that Neteller (the payment processor) has told them that I am linked to/creating 42 other players?

As for the bet amount and casino playing, I have been playing in bricks and mortar casinos for quite a few years, I don't claim to be a newbie.. I normally play what most people would consider high stakes at Blackjack and Baccarat, and have been playing poker for a couple of years too. But this is the biggest amount I have ever won in one single session.

The PAB, KGC, and eCogra are better avenues than Gambling Grumbles, and for such a large sum, I can't understant the "can't be arsed" attitude when it comes to pursuing ALL options. They are all based on filling in a form and waiting, and all FAR easier (and cheaper) than finding a lawyer in Malta and taking them to court. I don't know about Malta, but in the UK the loser can end up paying the legal costs of the winner as well as his own.

I can be arsed.. From advice given to me, I was told to use one of the mediator sites like GG, then use the licencing authority (LGA, but they are useless), then sue them. I honestly didn't think these other mediation sites would be much use if the reccommended one I used didn't get anywhere.

 

[me_and_ed]

This is just all too weird, you tone is one of cenceding to the fact that you wont get this money which re affirms how dubious this all seems.

 

[KasinoKing]

I can be arsed.. From advice given to me, I was told to use one of the mediator sites like GG, then use the licencing authority (LGA, but they are useless), then sue them. I honestly didn't think these other mediation sites would be much use if the reccommended one I used didn't get anywhere.

I don't know much about Gambling Grumbles to be honest, but I do think your BEST possible chance of a positive outcome is though CasinoMeister's PAB service.
As others have said, trying to complain through LGA is like trying to piss into a gale force wind!
Lawyers are likely to be very expensive and unlikely to know anything about the workings and rules of online casinos IMO.

KK

 

[deucebag]

Lawyers are likely to be very expensive and unlikely to know anything about the workings and rules of online casinos IMO.

KK

There was one person who sued succesfully in Malta years and years ago. There was a thread about it on here, or maybe it was Winneronline. If your suit is successful, they'd have to pay your legal fees as well, I would think.

Found the thread on WOL:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is news to me. This isn't mentioned in the GG report. Just searched my PC and there is no casinos on there that weren't signed up by me. No chance 7Sultans was already signed up.. When I installed the software, it would have said it was already installed. Where did you get this info from?
EDIT: Ah yes, see in the report it mentions first of all, thought it was referring to the 42 players when I first read it.



I still don't understand how I could have 42 shots at it, if I was "creating other identities" like they said... How could I impersonate these people? I only have one passport which I can take to their offices personally if they like.

So what they are saying is that Neteller (the payment processor) has told them that I am linked to/creating 42 other players?

As for the bet amount and casino playing, I have been playing in bricks and mortar casinos for quite a few years, I don't claim to be a newbie.. I normally play what most people would consider high stakes at Blackjack and Baccarat, and have been playing poker for a couple of years too. But this is the biggest amount I have ever won in one single session.



I can be arsed.. From advice given to me, I was told to use one of the mediator sites like GG, then use the licencing authority (LGA, but they are useless), then sue them. I honestly didn't think these other mediation sites would be much use if the reccommended one I used didn't get anywhere.

Despite this, it is a common tactic. The revelation of Neteller as the processor means that the "42 links" are probably because of peer to peer money transfers that give the impression that the 42 players are sharing a common bankroll within Neteller. This means that you now have a lead on who these others are, they are those who sent you money via Neteller, or those you have sent money via Neteller. What Neteller can't determine is WHY the money was sent, but the assumption is that no-one would send money for no reason to someone they know nothing about, nor have transacted with. Further, these 42 players all play at online casinos, which is not that surprising since Neteller was created initially as a means to funnel money between players and casinos in the US when banks started making life difficult for the industry. The current multi purpose Neteller is down to expansion after they got kicked out of the US market by the DoJ, and lost their main source of revenue.

Creating fake details is probably not what happens in these cases, as the player has no way of knowing which account to create with the correct details until after a big hit has been made. This means that all accounts must use identities that can be backed up by documentation as soon as one wins. Often, it is a small group, even an individual, who plays on a large number of identities, either stolen, or used with the permission of the owner in exchange for a "cut" of any proceeds. Similarly, such individuals could use these identities to operate a number of individual Neteller accounts, and move money between them as needed.

This type of fiddle is similar to that employed by "benefit cheats", who often manage to fool the government by "playing" at several different local authorities to make detection much harder.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same group of people using what they have set up to defraud the country of benefit payments to scam online casinos in order to make even more money. It's not really "their" money to start with, so they are more likely to "walk away" from significant sums if pursuing them too vigorously might expose a much larger part of their scheme, leading to the whole thing getting shut down.

 

[LaHutti]

:eat:

 

[Slot Mad]

Neteller?

Why would Neteller tell an online casino about people using their service to transfer money between themselves?
It's not illegal and Neteller would surely have no right, even if they had the inclination, to reveal anything like that to any casino.
That's very odd.
I would put money on this player being in a syndicate, but syndicates aren't illegal.

 

[thelawnet]

Why would Neteller tell an online casino about people using their service to transfer money between themselves?
It's not illegal and Neteller would surely have no right, even if they had the inclination, to reveal anything like that to any casino.
That's very odd.
I would put money on this player being in a syndicate, but syndicates aren't illegal.

You make an interesting point. Somebody who was affected by this could possibly complain about Neteller to the appropriate regulator.

As I understand it the issue is this:

Casino has certain terms in its contract with the player
Casino suspects player has broken those terms, and asks Neteller for help.
Neteller discloses all kinds of info about the player to the casino.

Eh?

I don't think a bank would do this.

I'm not convinced it's legal.

 

[Realitybitez]

You make an interesting point. Somebody who was affected by this could possibly complain about Neteller to the appropriate regulator.

As I understand it the issue is this:

Casino has certain terms in its contract with the player
Casino suspects player has broken those terms, and asks Neteller for help.
Neteller discloses all kinds of info about the player to the casino.

Eh?

I don't think a bank would do this.

I'm not convinced it's legal.

I have to agree. Why would Neteller do this? How could they do this? Share confidential information with an outside party We know banks definitely dont do this, and isnt Neteller a form of bank? Blimmin heck, I am sooo being put off using Web Wallets at the moment

Anyway back on to the topic...hehe 7 Sultans has been around for awhile and one of my favourite casinos so this thread is interesting. What I dont understand is why they think you have 42 accounts? I've read about people who have had 2 or 3 or maybe even more but how on earth would someone have 42 accounts and think they'd get away with it

OP seems pretty savy so Im sure they know quite well, that the likelihood of using more than a few accounts and getting away with it is soooo not gonna happen. So where is the big mix up happening?

Just curious To the thread author. Are you in a syndicate? I dont think that's against the rules is it? And are you in fact sharing a bank roll through Neteller with said syndicate? Perhaps this is what the casino thinks is happening that you are part of a syndicate? I dont know, all guess work here

 

[Nifty29]

You make an interesting point. Somebody who was affected by this could possibly complain about Neteller to the appropriate regulator.

As I understand it the issue is this:

Casino has certain terms in its contract with the player
Casino suspects player has broken those terms, and asks Neteller for help.
Neteller discloses all kinds of info about the player to the casino.

Eh?

I don't think a bank would do this.

I'm not convinced it's legal.

Neteller is not a bank and should not be placed in the same class as a bank.

General Terms of Use 13.2 states that certain information can be disclosed to merchants. It may be that the ops neteller information closely or partially matched those of other players. Neteller allows multiple accounts in one household.

 

[Casinomeister]

@ turkishcem

I'm asking you to PAB. We have strict rules in this forum about posting complaints, and you're already in violation of them.

It's your responsibility to contact their casino rep when initiating a complaint thread. You read the rules of this forum and agreed to them. You are also not to use subjective flaming terms such as "crooks". That's violating rule 1.1 - no flaming, harassing other members. Fortune Lounge has been a member of this forum for donkey years. Before posting any further, I would recommend that you refresh your knowledge on what behavior is expected of our members. The rules can be found here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/forum-rules/

Our policies are found here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum-faq/forum-policies/

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and I truly hope that there has been an error made on the side of the casino (it's happened before). But we will not get to the bottom of this unless you submit a PAB, or contact eCOGRA now.

Please read the PAB FAQ and submit it today. Thank you.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/pab-rules/

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why would Neteller tell an online casino about people using their service to transfer money between themselves?
It's not illegal and Neteller would surely have no right, even if they had the inclination, to reveal anything like that to any casino.
That's very odd.
I would put money on this player being in a syndicate, but syndicates aren't illegal.

It's known that Neteller do this if asked by a casino to help in investigating suspicious activity. I don't know that they actually name the other persons involved, but they look at peer to peer money transfers as grounds to "link" account holders, hence we get "this player is linked to 42 other players". I think FL only know the names behind linked accounts in their group, and have only been given the quantity of other links.

Neteller work VERY closely with the merchants, and will even disclose information about customers who are also customers of a merchant without there being a legal requirement to do so. Banks on the other hand, need some kind of legal instrument served on them in order to get them to disclose information. This usually means that only the police or similar body can get such information from a bank during an investigation, with anyone else needing a court order before being given such information.

Unlike banks, Neteller have a one account per person policy. Banks will allow one customer to have separate accounts, and even promote this by suggesting it is better to have separate accounts for separate things. My bank now promotes a "second current account" to me every time I log on, saying it will allow me to better manage my finances. It probably could, but not in the way they think.


If someone could have more than one Neteller account, they could make it much harder to trace "links" between players through the peer to peer money transfers.

Since Neteller has always been intended as a vehicle to store and transfer gambling funds, such peer to peer transfers are looked at as bankroll sharing between players unless shown to be otherwise. Repeated to and fro transfers between two or more players is considered certain evidence of bankroll sharing, and creates "strong links" between players.

Bankroll sharing is considered a violation of the general terms of online casinos, as is participating as a member of a "syndicate", or when gambling as a "profession" rather than a hobby.

It is very much like you spending money with a business here in the UK, and them enforcing a rule that you cannot share the costs with other friends by checking with your bank for signs that other people have been wiring money in to share in the costs, and that you have been sending them money likewise.

You could never imagine this happening in "real world" transactions with business, but it is common practice among online casinos to check for cost sharing between players.

It's not illegal, but casinos have made it against their terms, and since Neteller is "in the pockets" of the online gambling industry, they will cooperate fully with enforcing such rules.


Depositing money into Neteller is not all that different from buying a "love to shop" gift card. Both can be spent at a number of outlets, and the money is no longer considered "real", and is thus exempt from protections such as the Financial Compensation Scheme. The only real difference is that with Neteller, the money can flow back into "real money", whereas a shopping gift card can never be redeemed back for cash.

Consider Neteller money as a "love to gamble" gift card, and look after the money there as such.

 

[Nifty29]

Just to re-iterate....Neteller's Terms state:

(iii) for identity validation and verification purposes, the following information may be provided to Merchants and other Members to or from whom you transfer funds: name, Account number, jurisdiction, country of residence, postal code, Email address, and/or IP address.

I could see how this information would be very helpful to a casino that suspected a player of fraud.

AFAIC they can share whatever they like with the casinos I frequent. I have nothing to hide, and never will have.

If it's one more effective tool to stop the cheating scum that spoil it for the rest of us, then I'm all for it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Just to re-iterate....Neteller's Terms state:


I could see how this information would be very helpful to a casino that suspected a player of fraud.

AFAIC they can share whatever they like with the casinos I frequent. I have nothing to hide, and never will have.

If it's one more effective tool to stop the cheating scum that spoil it for the rest of us, then I'm all for it.

This is what they OFFICIALLY share, but this case shows they shared MORE than this, because these 42 "links" were not all at Fortune Lounge. What Neteller have shared is information about players that were connected to one of their own players, but that did NOT play at Fortune Lounge themselves. They shared the information that their player was linked to these 42 other players through things like peer to peer transfers.

This term would only have enabled FL to link this player with other Fortune Lounge players on it's books.

This is also an insecure way to verify identity as it gives the merchant the raw data, whereas the merchant should give Neteller it's data on the player that used the Neteller account, and ask Neteller to confirm or deny the legitimacy of these details by checking with the data they hold on the account holder. Given that some merchants are located in Costa Rica and Panama, and other similar locations, Neteller should not be sending this data on request to these merchants, after all, ID verification is not the ONLY reason a dodgy operator would want such data on their players.

 

[Nifty29]

This is what they OFFICIALLY share, but this case shows they shared MORE than this, because these 42 "links" were not all at Fortune Lounge. What Neteller have shared is information about players that were connected to one of their own players, but that did NOT play at Fortune Lounge themselves. They shared the information that their player was linked to these 42 other players through things like peer to peer transfers.

This term would only have enabled FL to link this player with other Fortune Lounge players on it's books.

This is also an insecure way to verify identity as it gives the merchant the raw data, whereas the merchant should give Neteller it's data on the player that used the Neteller account, and ask Neteller to confirm or deny the legitimacy of these details by checking with the data they hold on the account holder. Given that some merchants are located in Costa Rica and Panama, and other similar locations, Neteller should not be sending this data on request to these merchants, after all, ID verification is not the ONLY reason a dodgy operator would want such data on their players.

You have no idea what they did or didn't share with FL and neither do I....it is pure speculation on your part.

If it stops fraudsters.....bring it on!

 

[vinylweatherman]

You have no idea what they did or didn't share with FL and neither do I....it is pure speculation on your part.

If it stops fraudsters.....bring it on!

Not direct from Neteller, but in the Gambling Grumbles report there is enough detail to show that Neteller shared enough with FL for them to determine that the OP was linked to a total of 42 other Neteller account holders, and that further comparisons between Neteller and other operators concerned (which must have entailed data sharing) showed that all 42 were engaged "as a group" in some kind of casino related activity.

Fortune Lounge themselves only detected TWO accounts from the same computer, one being the OP's, and the other supposedly not the OP's girlfriend, and also not his. This is the main hard evidence against the OP, and shows 2 accounts being operated from his PC where he insists there is only his. The other 41 links are down to the processor (Neteller) looking at money transfers between the OP and other account holders, and interpreting these as "links", then forwarding these findings to Fortune Lounge, although from the Gambling Grumbles report, it seems Neteller didn't actually forward the full personal details of these players. Since no single operator knows the details of all 42, it is down to Neteller to provide operators with enough data to enable all 42 players to be asked for their documents, and only when all 42 have produced, and this information has gone to FL (presumably via Neteller), will FL pay the OP.

Without this level of data sharing, Fortune Lounge would never have gotten this information, and would only see two accounts from a single PC and household, and this might make them take a more lenient view.


There are margins for error.

1) The OP is lying.
2) Gambling Grumbles have misrepresented the case in their report.
3) Fortune Lounge lied to Gambling Grumbles rather than disclose the REAL evidence they had.

Past "under the counter" deals between Neteller and operators have come to light, chiefly the arrangements whereby operators can "charge back" winnings paid to a player's Neteller account without having to give Neteller any evidence that the player did anything wrong, nor even notifying the player so that they could contest the action. This is still going on, yet OFFICIALLY, according to Neteller's own terms, "all transactions are final".

There is no reason to presume therefore that there is not an equivalent "under the counter" arrangement when it comes to casinos wanting help in investigating players, and that more than the information described in the terms is shared, and under more circumstances than to "confirm identity" as mentioned in the same terms.

The arrangements are shrouded in secrecy, and attempts to probe too deeply are met with "cannot disclose further as it could assist fraudsters...........".

When casinos confiscate winnings, much of the reasoning is speculation, rather than solid proof. Many cases have the words "suspicion of" in the reasoning given for the actions by the casino. The number of times they get it wrong demonstrates how reliable this "suspicion of" is correct. Figures from eCogra show just how wrong casino decisions are. When they say "40% resolved in the player's favour", this is actually a TERRIBLE indictment of the industry. These problems should mostly have been resolved through internal escalation, with eCogra seeing a very low single figure percentage of cases where the casino still gets it wrong after a full internal review.

The fact that such high numbers of cases are judged in the players' favour by eCogra and similar bodies show that far too much reliance is given to "suspicion of", and appeals then tend to get "stonewalled" rather than being escalated internally, which drives players to eCogra for escalation.

The PAB stats are another indication of how effective operators are at dealing with issues internally, which is why the OP was advised to PAB in order to get a review, rather than to continue fighting it out with FL or through the forum.

It would be more honest for Neteller to detail the level of cooperation they have with casinos, as it would make fraudsters realise that they WILL get caught, even though they think their scheme is too clever to get busted.

They should state that when making a deposit, the merchant is ROUTINELY sent that list of personal data (for comparision with it's own database), and does NOT have to need it for "ID verification" before being sent it. They should also mention that sending money to other Neteller users, and receiving money from them, causes their accounts to be considered as "linked", and that the number of such links can be given to merchants upon request.

 

[thelawnet]

Just to re-iterate....Neteller's Terms state:

ii) for identity validation and verification purposes, the following information may be provided to Merchants and other Members to or from whom you transfer funds: name, Account number, jurisdiction, country of residence, postal code, Email address, and/or IP address.

I could see how this information would be very helpful to a casino that suspected a player of fraud.

AFAIC they can share whatever they like with the casinos I frequent. I have nothing to hide, and never will have.

If it's one more effective tool to stop the cheating scum that spoil it for the rest of us, then I'm all for it.

Eh? Disclosing email, name and IP, is one thing, but they didn't do that, they disclosed the information that the player is 'linked to' 42 other players. That's not in the T&Cs, is it?

Also there is Data Protection law, which applies within the UK (and I think the EU).

'Q: We are a data controller, and have received a request for information that we hold about an individual from another organisation. Can we release it?

Generally the Act would not allow a disclosure to a third party data controller unless the individual had been informed of the disclosure (see the first principle - Fair Processing). However there are a number of exemptions that allow disclosure in certain circumstances.'

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Exemptions are discussed here: Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

There is one for 'legal proceedings'

Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Casinos generally don't deal with legal proceedings, they act as judge, jury and executioner, so it's difficult to see how they could avail themselves of this.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure they are riding rough-shod all over Data Protection law with this. Perhaps the OP would like to make a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Eh? Disclosing email, name and IP, is one thing, but they didn't do that, they disclosed the information that the player is 'linked to' 42 other players. That's not in the T&Cs, is it?

Also there is Data Protection law, which applies within the UK (and I think the EU).

'Q: We are a data controller, and have received a request for information that we hold about an individual from another organisation. Can we release it?

Generally the Act would not allow a disclosure to a third party data controller unless the individual had been informed of the disclosure (see the first principle - Fair Processing). However there are a number of exemptions that allow disclosure in certain circumstances.'

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Exemptions are discussed here: Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

There is one for 'legal proceedings'

Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Casinos generally don't deal with legal proceedings, they act as judge, jury and executioner, so it's difficult to see how they could avail themselves of this.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure they are riding rough-shod all over Data Protection law with this. Perhaps the OP would like to make a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner.

I suspect this is how it is justified. So long as even "prospective" legal action is being considered, the data can be released "in good faith" by Neteller. It does not mean that the casino is then obliged to pursue a legal case, they could say they received advice not to based on the data, and in cases like this where they have hold of the money, it is the PLAYER that is in a position of needing to initiate proceedings, and the casino could then argue on the last point, needing the data in order to defend against possible legal action that could result from a decision to confiscate 12K from a player.

The problem seems to be the wide scope of this part of the act, and the use to which it is put by merchants of Neteller.

"necessary" is also subjective, and what one party might deem "necessary" would not be seen as such by others.

A complaint to the ICO might be worthwhile, as it would show them how these provisions are being used by the online gambing industry, which might not be how it was INTENDED to be used when drafted. This could lead to a tightening of the scope of this exemption, perhaps requiring that the account holder being informed that the data has been disclosed, and on what grounds, so that there is an opportunity to contest it.

It would seem that in cases like this, there is never any intention to initiate legal proceedings, and the exemption is therefore being misused, even if perfectly legally in it's current form.

 

[Nifty29]

Many of you are missing a very important point.

There is NO evidence that Neteller is involved at all. The only mention of Neteller was the OP assuming it was them.

The gamgrumb report states that the players were linked via FL's PROCESSOR....and considering almost all casinos use a third party payment processor, it is VERY likely that they are referring to the external service the processes the transactions.

I don't think FL are referring to Neteller at all. It certainly explains why they were able to get detailed information about other players from other casinos, as processors usually handle multiple casinos, and all casino's terms of use allow sharing of information about player history at that particular processor.

IMO this sheds a different light on the matter, and convinces me even more that the OP is a fraudster, as the processor would know a lot more about a player than an ewallet in regards to casino play and behavior patterns.

Regardless....the OP should PAB as advised and requested. The longer they delay the guiltier they look.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Many of you are missing a very important point.

There is NO evidence that Neteller is involved at all. The only mention of Neteller was the OP assuming it was them.

The gamgrumb report states that the players were linked via FL's PROCESSOR....and considering almost all casinos use a third party payment processor, it is VERY likely that they are referring to the external service the processes the transactions.

I don't think FL are referring to Neteller at all. It certainly explains why they were able to get detailed information about other players from other casinos, as processors usually handle multiple casinos, and all casino's terms of use allow sharing of information about player history at that particular processor.

IMO this sheds a different light on the matter, and convinces me even more that the OP is a fraudster, as the processor would know a lot more about a player than an ewallet in regards to casino play and behavior patterns.

Regardless....the OP should PAB as advised and requested. The longer they delay the guiltier they look.

How could the processor get enough information to establish such links without the cooperation of Neteller? This seems to be links to other players, rather than links to other FRAUDULENT players. The processor would not have enough information to establish wrongdoing, so should not be suggesting this to the casino.

I don't however, believe the OP is giving us the full story, as he has not explained one key piece of evidence, that of 2 accounts on the same PC, that has nothing to do with information coming from any processors. If the OP ONLY uses Neteller, it would be very hard to establish links without information from Neteller about links established in it's own system.

 

[Nifty29]

How could the processor get enough information to establish such links without the cooperation of Neteller? This seems to be links to other players, rather than links to other FRAUDULENT players. The processor would not have enough information to establish wrongdoing, so should not be suggesting this to the casino.

I don't however, believe the OP is giving us the full story, as he has not explained one key piece of evidence, that of 2 accounts on the same PC, that has nothing to do with information coming from any processors. If the OP ONLY uses Neteller, it would be very hard to establish links without information from Neteller about links established in it's own system.

Since the linked players have been linked via the processor, and they were described as "players" and not just people, they must have transacted via that processor at some point....and obviously via neteller.

In that case, the processor would have access to their details via Term 13.2. It may well be that there are 42 neteller accounts registered from the same IP (just an example), since neteller don't restrict multiple accounts in a household. However, casinos obviously do have these restrictions, so this kind of information alone would be enough to launch an investigation.

Neteller may have been involved in regards to supplying some information, but from what FL says, it was the actual payment processor that raised the red flag.

The solution? The PAB service.

The OP has gone quiet, which is a good idea if they've submitted a PAB, but they aren't acting like an innocent player who is $12k out of pocket.

 

[thelawnet]

Many of you are missing a very important point.

There is NO evidence that Neteller is involved at all. The only mention of Neteller was the OP assuming it was them.

The gamgrumb report states that the players were linked via FL's PROCESSOR....and considering almost all casinos use a third party payment processor, it is VERY likely that they are referring to the external service the processes the transactions.

You might be right.

They use Datacash, which appear to have a number of customers:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Still, it could mean Neteller also.

I don't think FL are referring to Neteller at all. It certainly explains why they were able to get detailed information about other players from other casinos, as processors usually handle multiple casinos, and

Well yes, but Neteller will handle more!

all casino's terms of use allow sharing of information about player history at that particular processor.

No they don't.

IMO this sheds a different light on the matter, and convinces me even more that the OP is a fraudster, as the processor would know a lot more about a player than an ewallet in regards to casino play and behavior patterns.

Well no, not really. A processor will have only a subset of all casinos the player has played at. Neteller will have all of them.

 

[Nifty29]

You might be right.

They use Datacash, which appear to have a number of customers:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Still, it could mean Neteller also.



Well yes, but Neteller will handle more!

Umm....yes that's obvious when considering every transaction on the net.... I was referring to the fact that one processor could handle six casinos and cross check and data match that information and alert the individual casinos when a red flag is raised. AFAIK Neteller offers no such service, as casino customer screening and verification is not their area of responsibility.

No they don't.

I think you will find that in one form or another they do e.g. shared industry databases etc. How do you think casinos usually know if you charged back at another operator or wrote a dodgy cheque etc? The information comes in full or in part from payment processors in most cases.

Well no, not really. A processor will have only a subset of all casinos the player has played at. Neteller will have all of them.

Again....obviously, but Neteller would only have cause to investigate such transactions when prompted by an enquiry from the merchant. Neteller aren't in the business of tracking how much you deposit at which casino and trying to find anomalies and patterns - processors and casinos most certainly ARE.

 

[Casinomeister]

Still waiting for the PAB.