Bogus Complaint Aladdin's Gold/Club World complaint - player fraud

[Casinomeister]

Just to add, Max usually waits for my input when it comes to closing a member's account concerning PAB issues. I'm looking into this today.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems unfair that the casino has asked the player to change their status, yet this is beyond their control. If there is a margin for error, this should at least be properly explored before concluding this case in favour of the casino.

The only thing in the players' power is to comply with all requests from the casino, and the OP has done this already, and the issue has nothing to do with this players' identity documents.

This will go down on record as a very odd case indeed because of the unusual factors, mainly things like the player having full access to their casino account for play during this whole process, yet never able to withdraw.

The casino seem to have told the player to PAB, yet at the same time blocking the player from doing what Max has suggested, which is to work with the casino to provide additional evidence that could deal with the remaining uncertainty that this is an innocent player caught in the net, and make the case for fraud even more watertight.

It's not just a case of the casino exercising it's right to not accept a player, they have already accepted the bets, and the casino is disputing the validity of the winnings.

They may well be right, and have busted a fraudster, but they have left themselves open to a PR mess because of the secretive and arbitrary nature of such decisions, along with the apparent reluctance to allow the player a proper third party appeal through the creation of "catch 22" situations.

In the real world, fraud goes before a criminal court, and all the evidence used to catch them is made public, and put to a jury. This could help other fraudsters improve their methods, but this is a price worth paying in order to be seen to be offering fair trials to those so charged.

When commercial organisations cry "fraud", they are really talking about a civil matter, and it is more a breach of terms. In order to brand it fraud in the legal sense, a conviction has to be obtained in court. Unfortunately, online casinos have hold of the money, and therefore do not have to go to court, leaving the player with the problem of seeking redress this way. It is different in B & M, as shown in the notorious roulette case where a laser and covert computer was used to predict the likely landing place of the ball. The money was with the players, so the casino had to go to court to recover the winnings because they viewed the use of such devices as cheating. The casino LOST the case on the grounds that the equipment did not amount to tampering with the game to alter the outcome.

Online casinos get away with a fair bit that a B & M casino would never get away with, and it is all down to the nature of the internet and how much harder the laws of individual countries are to enforce. It is only recently that the UK law changed to make it possible to sue a casino for winnings, as previously gambling debts were a matter of honour, not enforceable in law. The online situation is similar to that in the UK before this change, with the party having hold of the money being able to dictate whether or not the other party has a valid claim to a gambling debt.

Casinos suffer too, as they can be hit by chargebacks and be able to do little about getting the money back. Their best, and often only, defence is to blacklist players who charge back losses and cooperate in an industry wide warning system.

Vegas used to have such a database on undesirable players (card counters for example), but it was challenged in court and ended up being scrapped.

 

[maxd]

It seems unfair that the casino has asked the player to change their status, yet this is beyond their control. If there is a margin for error, this should at least be properly explored before concluding this case in favour of the casino.

Not sure where the confusion here originates by the "change your status" stuff comes from me, not the casino.

Regarding the margin of error I have already said that it was my opinion and that it was "slim", meaning not very significant. AFAIC it was "properly explored" during my discussions with the casino and it was taken into account when deciding the OP's case. It was instrumental in determining the OP's fate here at CM.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Not sure where the confusion here originates by the "change your status" stuff comes from me, not the casino.

Regarding the margin of error I have already said that it was my opinion and that it was "slim", meaning not very significant. AFAIC it was "properly explored" during my discussions with the casino and it was taken into account when deciding the OP's case. It was instrumental in determining the OP's fate here at CM.

Has the OP been given enough information in order to be able to prove to you that this slim margin is what applies in his case?

Has the OP shown signs of being uncooperative over some questions asked of him?

It would not be good PR for this player to be kicked to the curb, and then somehow manage to prove their innocence later as happened in the Rushmore case, and in another long running saga (can't remember the detail) some years back here.

 

[Nifty29]

I still cannot get past that a regular player would just not bother chasing up winnings like that for OVER 6 MONTHS. No, it doesn't prove anything, but it certainly is extremely unusual. I would say that 99.99% of genuine players would have kept on their backs and given DNA if it was going to clear their name.

IIRC, the issue is NOT about documents specifically, so I'm not sure why it keeps being mentioned. Plenty of fraudsters can supply convincing docs.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that there isn't something dodgy about this guy.

 

[maxd]

Has the OP been given enough information in order to be able to prove to you that this slim margin is what applies in his case?

Not applicable. It is not the purpose of the PAB process to give the OP information nor to require him to prove anything. First we try to get the parties to resolve the issue themselves. If that fails or is not possible them we gather case information from the parties involved and we evaluate it. If we have questions we pursue them. When we feel those questions have been satisfactorily answered we make a decision. The "margin of error" I mentioned is a casino issue, not a player issue, so the player's input would have no relevance.

Has the OP shown signs of being uncooperative over some questions asked of him?

Again, not applicable. More often than not we do not require the OP's commentary on the evidence in order to evaluate it. If he wants to have questions asked of him and so forth then he is welcome to take it to a court. That is not a service we provide.

It would not be good PR for this player to be kicked to the curb, and then somehow manage to prove their innocence later ....

You're basically saying "fear of making a mistake should force you to change what you are doing". I'd say we make precious few such mistakes and I'm willing to take my lumps for those few that we do. If this one turns out to be such then so be it. That said you are speculating on what we might do and what might happen after that and so forth. I don't see that being a productive exercise.

 

[P.V.]

Has the OP been given enough information in order to be able to prove to you that this slim margin is what applies in his case?

Has the OP shown signs of being uncooperative over some questions asked of him?

From what Max appears to say, it's a fine line, so I'm guessing it's not doc's, or chargeback's so maybe we're looking at another suspected student, not sure though. Only speculation on my part but the fine line theory as I read it shows something we're not reading into within this thread.

 

[skiny]

All I know at this point for sure is I have no idea what's going on. I may strongly disagree with this casino's decision. It wouldn't be the first time. It may also be that this player is just another fraud trying to get one over on the system. It certainly wouldn't be the first time for that either.

I think the problem here is with the system itself. If a player can't pass a security check and can't be told why for security reasons the player is pretty much left out in the cold.

It's entirely possible the OP is telling a series of bold faced lies but personally I don't have enough evidence to say this is true. Apparently the OP has no idea what he has to do to clear this mess up and nobody will tell him.

What I do know is if I was in that position I wouldn't be taking it nearly as well as he is.

 

[maxd]

Re the speculations: no, not a student issue. It's no mystery, I believe I stated it clearly some time ago: the OP failed basic security checks at the casino, repeatedly. THAT'S the issue. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's entirely possible the OP is telling a series of bold faced lies but personally I don't have enough evidence to say this is true.

Nor do you have any evidence to say it IS NOT true. In fact you don't have any evidence at all, either way, other than the OP's statements and a few sparse responses from me. And this gets us back to where we were before: why be so outspoken and obviously biased about something you know virtually nothing about?

If it were me and I knew about this case what you guys know I would think that the only reasonable thing I could ask on the player's behalf is that his case be given a thorough second look. And that's what Bryan is doing right now so ... there you have it. As you were.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is a thin margin for error, and is a casino issue, not a player one. The casino have clearly made their final decision, possibly some time ago, so what was the point of the PAB and leaving the case in limbo for so long?

If the casino are not going to change their mind, and there was never anything the player could do about proving their innocence, why did we have 6 months of dithering with the player still able to play the balance, and dithering that seems to continue to this day.

Why won't the casino just lock the account, and say "final decision - winnings voided for fraud". The player could then take it to court if they wanted to, or accept that they got caught doing something dodgy.

It seems the casino made this decision some time ago, and there was no real prospect of them changing their minds, even if the evidence was not 100% convincing.

I don't accept that innocent players should accept that they might be called upon to sacrifice several thousand dollars "for the greater good" when the processes are so secretive and come with no real rights for the accused to challenge the data held on them, nor have incorrect data corrected.

If the casino are so unsure that they have allowed this to drag on for 6 months, and then go to PAB, then THEY, "big business", should be the ones making that sacrifice "for the greater good". It would be the price paid for keeping the procedures so secret, which benefits the industry, not the players.

If players DID start taking such cases to court, then the secrecy of procedure that the industry currently enjoys would come to an end, and the details behind each case would be part of court, and thus public, records. This would help innocent players, but it would also speed up the learning process for organised fraudsters, who would make such court case records part of their essential reading list.

Many businesses do their best to keep disputes out of the courts, and this does mean offering settlements even though they believe they shouldn't have to, but equally do not want the matter to be aired in court for all to see. This is what the UK banks have been doing over the penalty charges issue. They were certain they were covered because it was in the terms, but for years they would cave in at the last minute rather than let a case come to court. They didn't fear an individual claim going through, but a successful challenge to the procedure as a whole that set a legal precedent that would make them liable for all claims in the future.

There is a significant risk that a court would rule the current fraud procedure used by online casinos as invalid, and this too could set an uncomfortable legal precedent.

Only a genuine fraudster would not want the matter to go to court, as the casino would win, and they would be hit with costs, and even possible arrest and criminal charges.

 

[Nifty29]

This is a thin margin for error, and is a casino issue, not a player one. The casino have clearly made their final decision, possibly some time ago, so what was the point of the PAB and leaving the case in limbo for so long?

If the casino are not going to change their mind, and there was never anything the player could do about proving their innocence, why did we have 6 months of dithering with the player still able to play the balance, and dithering that seems to continue to this day.

Why won't the casino just lock the account, and say "final decision - winnings voided for fraud". The player could then take it to court if they wanted to, or accept that they got caught doing something dodgy.

It seems the casino made this decision some time ago, and there was no real prospect of them changing their minds, even if the evidence was not 100% convincing.

I don't accept that innocent players should accept that they might be called upon to sacrifice several thousand dollars "for the greater good" when the processes are so secretive and come with no real rights for the accused to challenge the data held on them, nor have incorrect data corrected.

If the casino are so unsure that they have allowed this to drag on for 6 months, and then go to PAB, then THEY, "big business", should be the ones making that sacrifice "for the greater good". It would be the price paid for keeping the procedures so secret, which benefits the industry, not the players.

If players DID start taking such cases to court, then the secrecy of procedure that the industry currently enjoys would come to an end, and the details behind each case would be part of court, and thus public, records. This would help innocent players, but it would also speed up the learning process for organised fraudsters, who would make such court case records part of their essential reading list.

Many businesses do their best to keep disputes out of the courts, and this does mean offering settlements even though they believe they shouldn't have to, but equally do not want the matter to be aired in court for all to see. This is what the UK banks have been doing over the penalty charges issue. They were certain they were covered because it was in the terms, but for years they would cave in at the last minute rather than let a case come to court. They didn't fear an individual claim going through, but a successful challenge to the procedure as a whole that set a legal precedent that would make them liable for all claims in the future.

There is a significant risk that a court would rule the current fraud procedure used by online casinos as invalid, and this too could set an uncomfortable legal precedent.

Only a genuine fraudster would not want the matter to go to court, as the casino would win, and they would be hit with costs, and even possible arrest and criminal charges.

On what basis to you assert that there is a considerable risk of a court finding that (the) casinos security and anti-fraud processes are illegal or unlawful?

Members should remember that fraudsters WANT the casinos to tell them how they caught them. The reason is self-evident.

The OP doesn't really seem too concerned either way about whether he gets paid. The reason for this is also (IMO) self-evident.

 

[vinylweatherman]

On what basis to you assert that there is a considerable risk of a court finding that (the) casinos security and anti-fraud processes are illegal or unlawful?

Members should remember that fraudsters WANT the casinos to tell them how they caught them. The reason is self-evident.

The OP doesn't really seem too concerned either way about whether he gets paid. The reason for this is also (IMO) self-evident.

The main risk is down to the fact that players are legally classed as "consumers" by the courts. It would not make much difference where it is just a case of a casino refusing to register an account, but it can be a big deal where the casino has decided to void winnings.

The court would want to see that the procedure was fair, and that the player had a chance to exercise their rights under data protection laws to see the data held on them, and have any incorrect data corrected. It is the latter that presents the most risk, as in order to comply with this, the casino would have to give out information that could help fraudsters.

This case is one where the casino is not 100% convinced, even after 6 months. Usually, a casino has evidence that is sufficiently convincing to lock an account straight away, and issue a final decision to the player that their winnings are voided due to fraud being detected.

Very few players actually seem to take such matters to court, despite kicking up a fuss in the forums. This may be a sign that it is mostly fraudsters that are getting busted, who would not want to compound the problems by going to court, else they get 2 years for perjury as Lord Archer did when he lied to get revenge on a tabloid that published unsavoury details about his private conduct.

If a fraudster lies to court as they might do to the forum or Max, they could face 2 years here in the UK.

7K is a considerable sum for an innocent player to walk away from, and it would be expected that said player WOULD continue to pursue the case, even if it meant exposing themselves to the level of scrutiny they would face in court. As this is dollars, it is close to the upper limit for the small claims process, which is much cheaper and less risky than a full court case.

Club World (the company) are UK based, even though the casino servers are offshore.


There is also CDS or the Costa Rican gambling authority to complain to

 

[dadnazza666]

I've been in contact with Max who suggested that I write an email offering to prove my identity to them, and that they suspected me of fraud. I'd be completely fine with Max copy/pasting precisely or back and forth emailed conversation. Needless to say, I have zero emails from them asking for any sort of notarized or supplemental documentation beyond the items requested of me in November. I also am 100% certain they had confirmed both in chat and over the phone that the documents were accepted, before they later told me that my account was with a manager and awaiting review.

It seems everyone thinks that I should have thrown some enormous fit for not being paid immediately and kicked and screamed, I just assumed that the best way to go about dealing with casinos was politely and professionally, and despite that all of the representatives were completely unhelpful in getting me to a manager or explaining why my payments had not been made (and I still do not understand why, nor do I understand why it is this casino hadn't said a single word to me about "fraud" until I complained here) they were always civil and promised emails and calls back from managers that never materialized. For what its worth, I drafted the email as Max suggested, I'm perfectly happy to go through their procedures of verification and if I must I can have documents notarized from them, but unsurprisingly to me, its been over a week and a half since Max confirmed to me that he received my email and forwarded it to their management, and they STILL have not responded to it.

So, please advise me by all means what I am supposed to do next, or what rooftop I need to fiddle from to get someone in contact with me, and I'll be happy to do so. I'm exasperated at this point, I've spent six months being told everything was fine, I just need a manager review, I'll hear back from a manager shortly by email, phone call, etc, with nothing happening. I read this forum and see the casino has a good reputation, I private message the representative, and nothing. I'll be happy to post a screenshot of the private message they never responded to, I'd be happy to post screenshots of the emails I've sent that aren't responded to, I'd be happy to post a screenshot of the message I sent to max telling them I'd cooperate with their procedures that weren't responded to. Now I have the casino apparently claiming they asked for additional documentation. BY ALL MEANS forward/resend these emails to me, there's nothing more I'd like to do than comply with them and be paid. I have searched my email account in every way I can conceive of to see if I somehow missed these supposed emails, I have nothing. Max, can you ask them to respond to my forwarded email and also resend me any of the supposed emails they sent me asking for additional information please? Can you get them to explain why they still have not responded to me or provided any email or phone number at which I can directly contact a manager? I don't see how a six page thread about their practices is practical for either myself or the casino, and I don't understand what is so difficult to them about having someone in their casino with some authority respond to me as a customer rather than having to bother you with this and reading everyone on the forum chime in about how I certainly must be a dodgy individual.

Wow,if this is not fraud,goodbye FOREVER CLUBWORLD

 

[skiny]

Re the speculations: no, not a student issue. It's no mystery, I believe I stated it clearly some time ago: the OP failed basic security checks at the casino, repeatedly. THAT'S the issue. Nothing more and nothing less.



Nor do you have any evidence to say it IS NOT true. In fact you don't have any evidence at all, either way, other than the OP's statements and a few sparse responses from me. And this gets us back to where we were before: why be so outspoken and obviously biased about something you know virtually nothing about?

If it were me and I knew about this case what you guys know I would think that the only reasonable thing I could ask on the player's behalf is that his case be given a thorough second look. And that's what Bryan is doing right now so ... there you have it. As you were.

You really do only read what you want to, don't you? I have never posted a single biased post in this entire thread. Every single post I've made in this thread said either one of them could be right. I have stated over and over I don't have enough information to make any sort of judgement call and even said this time that it's entirely possible the OP could be telling bold faced lies and you still say I'm obviously biased?

I think I see where the bias is and once again, I'm done.

 

[LHofsdal]

If this is an issue with documents proving the OP to be the OP, then it should not be that hard to clear up IMP. Were are not talking a couple of hundred dollars here.

The OP should be doing whatever it takes to get the documents they need to have CWC's accept them. It may be a PITA, but for that amount of money I would do it. I am sure it may take some time to get the documents CWC's is asking for, but the OP has already been waiting for 6 months before they decided to persue it, so really what is a little more time.

@the OP-No matter what casino you play at, your going to have to submit documents anyway. Some may require more than others. I think it is in your best interest here to try and get whatever documents they are asking for. You have a lot of money riding on it.

LH

 

[maxd]

You really do only read what you want to, don't you? I have never posted a single biased post in this entire thread.

Ok, maybe it's my bad here. I've gone back, read over all of your posts in this thread, and I can see how your comments on the case could be misinterpreted which, apparently, I have. I still think you have a bias on this one but a good case could be made that I've read too much into that and taken it out of proportion. My apologies for that.

I think I see where the bias is and once again, I'm done.

That's not the first time you've got your pouty face on and tossed the toys out of the pram. WTF? Feel free to PM me if you've got a beef that needs airing. Otherwise ... maybe hitch up your panties a bit? Just saying.

 

[skiny]

Ok, maybe it's my bad here. I've gone back, read over all of your posts in this thread, and I can see how your comments on the case could be misinterpreted which, apparently, I have. I still think you have a bias on this one but a good case could be made that I've read too much into that and taken it out of proportion. My apologies for that.



That's not the first time you've got your pouty face on and tossed the toys out of the pram. WTF? Feel free to PM me if you've got a beef that needs airing. Otherwise ... maybe hitch up your panties a bit? Just saying.

I almost thanked this post when I thought you were taking the high ground.

You can call it whatever you like but it certainly didn't come with a pouty face. All your statements like "blindly championing" and "biased against the casino" do is make me roll my eyes. These comments aren't disagreeing with an opinion which I've clearly stated I don't even have. They're personal jabs and I don't have the ambition to spar with you on a subject that I don't really care about one way or the other.

And I don't know how you dress but I've never worn anything that would fit in the catagory of "panties" and even if I did I would appreciate it if you spent less time concentrating on them. Just saying.

 

[chuchu59]

I think all this speculation stems from the term 'suspected fraud' and its just normal that posters will feel the need for more transparency. The casinos need to lift their veil of secrecy and cite in, at least general terms, what fraudulent acts took place. They cannot simply shy away from this much longer and say they cannot disclose anything lest the fraudsters get smart as genuine players may also be affected. This industry needs to come up with a clearer definition of 'fraud'. Several years ago, the Riverbelle group locked all my accounts saying that I was part of a fraud ring. Subsequently I was cleared of all this but I dont know what made them reverse their decision. I had a feeling that it was 'Guilty until proven innocent' and that does not sit in well with me.

While I have my own doubts on the OP's integrity, I do think Skiny has valid concerns and IMO the issue as what constitutes fraud should be openly discussed and should not be left to the casinos, especially rogues who will use this as an excuse not to pay up.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just to add - the OP's deposits have been refunded (please confirm with Max), and his casino account is closed. Thus the PAB has been closed as well.

I know it's not an ideal situation for the OP, but it gives him the opportunity to use his money elsewhere.

 

[Slotster!]

Just to add - the OP's deposits have been refunded (please confirm with Max), and his casino account is closed. Thus the PAB has been closed as well.

I know it's not an ideal situation for the OP, but it gives him the opportunity to use his money elsewhere.

Just read through the whole thread... can't really call it either way though.

What I find utterly staggering though is the complete lack of input from Club World!?!

Right or wrong, fraudster or otherwise - this reflects dreadfully on the casino.

 

[clubworld]

Hi Slotster, we also cannot post publicly on an issue while there is an active PAB.

 

[chuchu59]

Hi Slotster, we also cannot post publicly on an issue while there is an active PAB.

Welcome to the thread Tom. I understand what you are saying but there have been some threads that went on for weeks without a PAB that you did not provide any input in. Communication is one of CW's weakest spots and I am pretty sure many will concur with me.

 

[Slotster!]

Hi Slotster, we also cannot post publicly on an issue while there is an active PAB.

Thanks Tom, understood.

A little ''we're on it" input though goes a long way to reassure people, particularly when the OP's main point of complaint is lack of contact.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Slotster, we also cannot post publicly on an issue while there is an active PAB.

I got the impression the PAB was "dead in the water" because it was now down to the casino to "change the player's status at the casino" in order for any further progress to be made.

The end result seems to have been the OP getting their deposits returned and branded a fraud, with the only further recourse open to them being to take it to court.

All we know is that the OP's documents were fine, and were verified. The issue was that they then failed some basic security checks (repeatedly), and it wasn't anything the player could do anything about, for example by getting notarised documentation.


It then became unusual in that for 6 months the player was neither branded a fraud nor cleared and paid, during which time they were still able to log on and place further wagers.

 

[EdieD]

The decision for club world casino to refund the players money and confiscate his winnings (without proving anything) is the very reason why regulation is a must. A truly reputable casino would pay in full and then perhaps ask player not to return.

Casinos get away with this as there is no legal ramification. This behavior by club world will in the end be a major contributor to their survival or demise.