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.