bellerock being akward over ID - locked accs and no payouts.

[furby]

Hypothetical situation:
Let's say that you are the casino operator and you suddenly have a group of players that have signed up around the same day, they make the exact same deposits, their gameplay is nearly identical, they have made mistakes in their sign up info, they come from the same region, they submit documents that contain the same mistakes, they share computer IDs, some of their names are the similar. What do you take into consideration?

I'm sure I made the exact same deposit as every first time player at Gaming Club - deposit 50, get 200 bonus, play slots. There are no mistakes in my documents. I don't know anybody who signed up on the same day. If "Europe" is a region that arouses suspicion, then yes, I share the same region as other posters on this thread. etc etc.

Hypothesising is getting us nowhere, it's what started the problem.

 

[The Dude]

I'm sure I made the exact same deposit as every first time player at Gaming Club - deposit 50, get 200 bonus, play slots. There are no mistakes in my documents. I don't know anybody who signed up on the same day. If "Europe" is a region that arouses suspicion, then yes, I share the same region as other posters on this thread. etc etc.

Hypothesising is getting us nowhere, it's what started the problem.

I'm asking a legitimate question because I would like to hear from the regular posters on how they would have handled this.

I'm still trying to get more information on your situation. Don't be asinine - Europe is not a region that raises suspicion.

 

[Vesuvio]

It's not easy, but when you have this sort of evidence, what do you do with it?

If you were the operator, how would any of you handled this? What would you have done differently?

Ok, taking the hypothetical situation...

As a reputable on-line casino operator:

If I had conclusive evidence of fraud against particular players I'd outline the case to them (& any third-party that became involved) and confiscate funds.

If I didn't have sufficient evidence, I would pay the players in full. I would probably then ban them from subsequent play at the casino, or perhaps allow them to continue, under observation, if I thought that might help in detecting fraud.

What would I have done differently?

As a reputable casino I wouldn't have given BS responses which were patently false and then asked the players to jump through hoops that wouldn't actually get them any closer to a resolution of the issue.

Of course if I was a shady casino I'd give no reason for my actions as I know that that avoids the need to provide proof and prevents players from defending themselves. I'd ask for certified docs as that would allow me to delay paying players, and would have the added boon that if players (understandably) don't want to provide them I have an excuse to avoid paying included in my terms and conditions - again avoiding the need to prove my case.

Sadly the second approach is no doubt the more profitable, though hopefully the bad publicity can redress the balance somewhat.

 

[furby]

Don't be asinine - Europe is not a region that raises suspicion.

Well that sent me to my dictionary - nice word

 

[The Dude]

Ok, taking the hypothetical situation...

As a reputable on-line casino operator:

If I had conclusive evidence of fraud against particular players I'd outline the case to them (& any third-party that became involved) and confiscate funds.

But where the problem lies is here:

Dear Joe Blow player,

We apologize for the delay, but we have investigated your account and have found the following:

1. The address on your driver's license is that of a Walmart in Spoonville Alabama.
2. The email address you signed up with was used by Jane Blow Player last year at another one of our casinos.
3. You submitted a water bill that belongs to another one of our players (who has the same IP address as you by the way).
4. Your computer ID is being shared with five other players, all of whom have PO Box addresses in your home town

You see the problem with this? Once you explain these "deficiencies" to the player, they go back and fix where they screwed up and return in full force. That's the inherent problem with these issues, and this is what makes these situations so difficult to deal with.

What do you tell the player?

...Of course if I was a shady casino I'd give no reason for my actions as I know that that avoids the need to provide proof and prevents players from defending themselves.

Some of these players have contacted third parties (myself and eCOGRA), and we've looked over what the casino has and agree that there is evidence of multiple accounts. And there have been a couple of players that claimed to have been screwed and never came back here to follow up on this. Odd, wouldn't you say?

 

[thechap]

On the hypothetical question why cant Belle Rock/ Risk Sentinal just lay out a straight accusation which the posters can then refute or acknowledge and end this matter.

A statement on the lines of "Poster X is accused of having multiple accounts, the system has detected that players A,B,C are the same person and they have used fake ID to cover this up" should be enough.

If the poster cant refute this claim its the end of the matter, as far as I see. With this kind of statement the risk management side isn't giving away how the link is made, just stating what it is. If the poster is also players A,B and C he knows this anyway doesn't he? If not and he can show these people are not him then the matter is resolved and the casino should pay.

The whole vagueness of the accusation is what gets me, and I'm still keeping clear of belle rock until I can see they are conducting business in a clear and open way.

 

[mitch]

What do you tell the player?

This is a difficult question.

Where fraud and possible criminal activity is concerned investigating authorities will not ever want to release information about how they conducted a particular investigation or what their investigative methodologies are in general. They cannot afford to compromise their operations. Potential criminals and fraudsters are extremely clever at getting round security procedures once they know what they are and what in particular gets looked at.

In the UK this line is supported by the law.

We have a Freedom of Information Act where individuals have the right to have disclosed to them all information held by a particular authority.

However, there are exceptions in the Act and one covers fraud and other criminal investigations. Authorities have complete discretion to withold any information relating to investigative methodologies, even if the particular person concerned was not found guilty of anything.

So the Casinos are, I am afraid, only acting in line with what is considered good practise in these situations.

Mitch

 

[thechap]

But where the problem lies is here:

Dear Joe Blow player,

We apologize for the delay, but we have investigated your account and have found the following:

1. The address on your driver's license is that of a Walmart in Spoonville Alabama.
2. The email address you signed up with was used by Jane Blow Player last year at another one of our casinos.
3. You submitted a water bill that belongs to another one of our players (who has the same IP address as you by the way).
4. Your computer ID is being shared with five other players, all of whom have PO Box addresses in your home town

Post simultaneously to you, but to restate, the player will already know if he's doing these things, but also a more general statement would have surficed.

Example responses
1/ Belle Rock does comprehensive checks on ID and our expert deems that this is not genuine. If you are able to conclusively prove that this is genuine via means certification then we will refund the costs of this process and send your refund.

2/ Duplicate details between yourself and player X have been noticed. As stated in our one per person per home computer per email .... terms you were therefore not eligile for a bonus and the appropraite action has been taken

3/ Ignoring the documents bit. Your account has been linked with player A. According to our terms etc this is not allowed.

4/ Terms and conditions state one person per computer, we have found that players A,B,C,D have already used your computer, therefore you are disqualified from this promotion.

All of these statments outline the problem, but dont provide the technical means for the player to get round it.

Take the example of point 4, if the player has done this and he and belle rock both know, then by telling him belle rock has made a revelation, the player already knew!! Now this doesnt provided the player with a way around this, but sure as hell puts them in their place.

 

[soflat]

I feel it is Belle Rock's responsibility to give the players a very clear understanding of what they need to do in order to prove their innocence.

That does not mean they have to tell them what is wrong with their documents.

They are not giving legitimate players enough information to prove their innocence, and therefore it is not safe at Belle Rock casinos.

 

[The Dude]

...All of these statments outline the problem, but dont provide the technical means for the player to get round it...

Agreed, but what about areas that the player wasn't even aware that were checked. Something like a trump card that you're not willing to disclose because then they have one up on you. They win - this is a fraudster you're supplying information to - not just some bonus player.

Bellerock has provided me with evidence that indicates that Furby, MarcHolmes, and shmoo have multiple accounts. Period. These guys/gal want to know what specific information that I have. Well, sorry but you ain't going to get it.

 

[The Dude]

They are not giving legitimate players enough information to prove their innocence, and therefore it is not safe at Belle Rock casinos.

Please read my above posts. And there is not much "innocence" here as far as I can tell.

Yep, I agree - it's not safe to play at Bellerock if you have multiple accounts, or any other Microgaming casino that uses Proc Cyber.

And whatever happened to Wideboy, Josegarcia, and Chivers? I'm looking into their "issues" as well.

 

[marcholmes]

Bellerock has provided me with evidence that indicates that Furby, MarcHolmes, and shmoo have multiple accounts. Period. These guys/gal want to know what specific information that I have. Well, sorry but you ain't going to get it.

You're saying that BR/Pro C say I have multiple accounts?

CM, the trouble is, I'm confident I can explain anything away with a genuine reason, and that is the only reason I can't accept the decision they & now you have made regarding me.

I am me, I am no one else. I exist on the electoral role etc. But despite all the proof I have provided (certified by a solicitor whom they have spoken to) BR et al say I am a multi accounter?

I am still not being given opportunity to prove my innocence.
The situation is the same as it was when I started this thread I have been accused, tried and found guilty (and had deposits as well as winnings nicked) without being given the opportunity to defend myself fully - that surely cannot be right?

All this cos I happened to open accounts as some other players at the same time?

 

[mitch]

And whatever happened to Wideboy, Josegarcia, and Chivers? I'm looking into their "issues" as well.

I think you provide a very important service here Bryan.

Referring to my earlier post about the FOI act.

This and many other Acts have their functions controlled by Regulatory Bodies often under the oversight of a Commissioner.

Now, this relates to points made by many members and particularly strongly by Caruso, that industry appointed bodies such as eCOGRA are not truly independent because they ultimately derive their income from the industry they regulate. Even you can be accused (and you have been!) of not being truly independant for the same reason.

However, this could be said of any Regulatory body that oversees a Governmental function. The Commissioner and all other officials are ultimately paid from the same governments purse. This extends of course to Judges. Would Caruso et al crucify them and their independance because they judge cases brought by the Crown and are paid by the Crown themselves?

Pity Caruso is banned, it might have been interesting to hear his opinion on this.

The truth is it is hard to find Regulatory Bodies and people (Unless Government appointed to regulate an outside function or industry) who are truly independant in the way certain people bang on about.

Eventually you have to have some trust in people and their honesty especially when they have a fine track record.

You act almost in the way of a Commissioner examining the case and evidence and reaching an informed judgement whilst having to keep some information confidential as is the case in nearly all regulatory bodies. Is this a perfect process? No.

But its the best we have got at the moment until there is an International Regulatory body established. (not likely any time soon).

If people are not happy with your judgements tough in my opinion.
Let them set up their own self appointed body at their own expense. If they did do they think that would stop people criticising them?

Mitch

 

[The Dude]

I am me, I am no one else. I exist on the electoral role etc. But despite all the proof I have provided (certified by a solicitor whom they have spoken to) BR et al say I am a multi accounter?

No one is denying that you are you. But your computer ID matches several other players at each Bellerock casino to include the Japanese site. It's you and the same other players.

So why not come right out and let me and the other forum members know that other people have opened an account at each casino from your computer. The truth will set you free.

Possibilities:
Or it could be that there are other people who share your computer, and you weren't aware of this. Stuff like this happens. Or perhaps this is a computer that is in a common area. Whatever the case may be - this was probably one of the scenarios we're dealing with.

Furby is in the same situation - computer ID matches a number of other players at each BR casino.

This is really a bad situation. And each account has similarities that go beyond computer IDs - some I have already explained or pointed out within this thread. And what is even odder, these UK accounts are linked to further accounts. It's like looking at a plate of spaghetti.

And let's just say that these players were separate individuals that have been mistakenly accused of having multiple accounts. So where are their complaints? Have they submitted anything to eCOGRA? Me? Or posted on some forum "I've been ripped off by Bellerock?" Where are the complaints? There should be a flood of them, shouldn't there?

Well there were three newbie members who signed up when this thread appeared - complained about the same thing and never came back. Yeah! Way to go!

 

[Vesuvio]

If people are not happy with your judgements tough in my opinion.
Let them set up their own self appointed body at their own expense. If they did do they think that would stop people criticising them?

Of course it's "tough". No-one's saying there's a better last port of call than Casinomeister, or that there's much that can be done if you disagree with Bryan's opinion.

That's not the issue here, though - it's whether it's ok for a group of casinos to impose a fine without revealing the charge or allowing players to defend themselves.

Mitch, you brought up the question of the English legal system, but surely you can't fine or imprison someone without allowing them a defence, and the prosecution sharing the evidence with the defence? The trial can be kept behind closed doors, I think there's an option to dispense with a jury, but surely there must actually be a trial? Genuine questions, as I don't know the details.

 

[mitch]

Mitch, you brought up the question of the English legal system, but surely you can't fine or imprison someone without allowing them a defence, and the prosecution sharing the evidence with the defence? The trial can be kept behind closed doors, I think there's an option to dispense with a jury, but surely there must actually be a trial? Genuine questions, as I don't know the details.

Mainly true Vesuvio. However not entirely. Having your car clamped and having to pay a 'fine' to have it released might be one example.

Judges sending you to prison for any length of time if they don't like your behaviour in a court of law, until you have purged your contempt, might be another.

Casinos mainly could not be accused of using extra judicial fines because they have a 'catch all' clause in their T&Cs and their customers freely sign up to this when they register. (it is nasty but there it is)

I think it is possible that some rogue casinos have acted fraudulently in the past and could be accused of deception and theft. Hard to know which police force to complain to though and I am not sure many forces would commence an investigation.

Mitch

 

[Linus]

Pity Caruso is banned, it might have been interesting to hear his opinion on this.

I don't think you really need caruso. Your analogy is so weak, it pretty much refutes itself.

Consider this - if you make a deposit at a licensed, regulated casino - say, in Las Vegas - how likely is it they'll confiscate your money? What are the chances the VP machines at the Mirage are fixed, or that the dealer at the MGM Grand is dealing seconds?

Or, if consider that, in a legitimate court, some of the rights commonly afforded include:

-The right to know the allegations against you.
-The right to counsel.
-The right to call witnesses.
-The right to examine them under oath.
-The right to an unbiased jury.
-The right to testify on your own behalf.

And perhaps most importantly, the right to a judge who doesn't have a financial interest in the case. He might well be on a government salary, but he's not being paid by the other side. And he's not going to have his pay cut, if he decides the wrong way.

You said,

Eventually you have to have some trust in people and their honesty

But that advice is 100% wrong when it comes to the internet, and in particular when it comes to internet gambling.

What a gambler must do, when it comes to internet gambling, is to understand that 1.) he has little or no recourse, should an internet casino decide to confiscate his funds, and 2.) the best method he has of protecting himself, lies in not making a deposit at a particular casino in the first place.

He'd also be doing himself a service, if he considered the financial interests of advice-givers on the internet, before taking them up on their advice.

 

[mitch]

I don't think you really need caruso. Your analogy is so weak, it pretty much refutes itself.

Consider this - if you make a deposit at a licensed, regulated casino - say, in Las Vegas - how likely is it they'll confiscate your money? What are the chances the VP machines at the Mirage are fixed, or that the dealer at the MGM Grand is dealing seconds?

Or, if consider that, in a legitimate court, some of the rights commonly afforded include:

-The right to know the allegations against you.
-The right to counsel.
-The right to call witnesses.
-The right to examine them under oath.
-The right to an unbiased jury.
-The right to testify on your own behalf.

And perhaps most importantly, the right to a judge who doesn't have a financial interest in the case. He might well be on a government salary, but he's not being paid by the other side. And he's not going to have his pay cut, if he decides the wrong way.

I don't think you are getting the point.

Of course you are going to get paid in a Las Vegas Casino. That is because the casino is Regulated and Licenced and could be penalised or closed down if it breaches its licencing conditions.

What has that got to do with the arguement here where we are talking about unregulated, unlicenced internet casinos?

Judges in the UK are paid by the Crown, the very body that is the Prosecuter in the vast majority of cases so it is a close analogy for the situation with eCOGRA and Bryan.

I have already covered the situation of casinos 'fining' or confiscating funds, their T&Cs give them the right to do so and customers are agreeing with this condition when they sign up, nobody forces them to sign. I dont recall any T&Cs mentioning judges and juries!

Customers hit by a 'catch all' T&C could take a civil action on the grounds the conditon is unreasonable. Which court and jurisdiction are you going to lay a complaint at though?

My point is that eCOGRA, Montana and especially Bryan are as good as your going to get at the moment.

If you are not happy with this and do not want to take any risks with your money then you should definately not play at Internet casinos or home games or barroom games or any other form of unregulated gambling.

Mitch

 

[The Dude]

I don't think you really need caruso. Your analogy is so weak, it pretty much refutes itself.

Consider this - if you make a deposit at a licensed, regulated casino - say, in Las Vegas - how likely is it they'll confiscate your money? What are the chances the VP machines at the Mirage are fixed, or that the dealer at the MGM Grand is dealing seconds?.

This has nothing to do with Vegas nor can it be compared to Vegas. These are fraudsters that are colluding and opening multiple accounts. These are the types of guys who in Vegas would end up getting dragged out into the parking lot. Say hello to the goon squad.

What a gambler must do, when it comes to internet gambling, is to understand that 1.) he has little or no recourse, should an internet casino decide to confiscate his funds, and 2.) the best method he has of protecting himself, lies in not making a deposit at a particular casino in the first place..

Sure - no recourse if they get ripped off from some alleyway clip-shot joint operating from yo' mama's kitchen house in Guatemala.

But this situation is totally different. These players have a number of options.
1) go to eCOGRA
2.) come to me
3.) post their problem in a forum such as this or WOL
4.) contact the licensing jurisdiction - especially if it is one that is responsive.
5.) In the UK - call your lawyer/solicitor whatever
6.) contact the press if it's serious enough

I guarantee you will get answers or a response - especially from the first two. That's why it's so important to be selective when gambling online...but then, some gamblers might actually like the thrill to see if they'll get caught trying to screw over a casino, or playing at some weirdo operation from Russia. Now that's real gambling.

He'd also be doing himself a service, if he considered the financial interests of advice-givers on the internet, before taking them up on their advice.

That would be ill-advised. The ones who have financial interests sometimes have the best leverage when push comes to shove.

What are you trying to get at anyway? What does this have to do with defrauding a casino?

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

just curious, and it was probably said and I missed it, but what is the actual amount you are trying to cash in for Marc?

if it were me ... without even knowing the amount yet ... I'd probably pay the guy or at least refund his last deposit - myself. ... and then if his name ever came up for the same situation again ... I'd of course be looking at him in a different (and not so friendly) light.

This seems to me to be a bad situation where Marc is probably guilty but personally its worth it to me to have given him benefit of the doubt for reputation's sake alone if nothing else. However I have not been privvy to all of the investigation by any means, and I'd be making a judgement soley based on what I DID know and as I said; on what would continue my reputation in the industry. But that said; I'd not condemn the casino for protecting itself.

if they see what they think is something amiss ... it is their right to do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves and until such time comes that a situation such as Marc's becomes an everyday expectation ... then it is from my perspective a good business decision to not condemn the casino for what amounts to being collateral damage.

in other words you might be innocent but if you are it is just one of those instances where the system failed. Since I can't fix the system, ... and I don't want to lose the player (reputation) ..... for me it would be easier just to pay the guy and advise him to choose a different casino (network) and wait and see if this is going to become a problem that happens again and again. Ifso, i'd stop listing the casino group because at that point they stop being a smart decision to list.

I have that luxury. The casino however (apparently) feels that they are either very much in the right or at the least that they must draw a line and sadly for him, Marc's situation has fallen on the wrong side of that line.

before I go I do know for a fact that if he'd opened a second account and written support stating that he didn't want any bonuses. .... that he'd not be finding himself where he is today because I have done just that; knowing I had a first account and when I got caught they merely moved over the money in the second account to my original account. (this was at Riverbelle).

 

[Let_It_Ride]

may be I'm way of track here, but how do we know that the data the casino is looking at in order to make these statements is valid, i.e. duplicate computer ids, similar names etc.

I would guess it's a manager at BR making these calls after looking at the excel spreadsheet he has been given. I've seen it all too often a data extract from the main database with duplicate or incorrect entries, all it takes is one wrong click of the mouse and before you know it, garbage!

I only put this foward as I have experienced first hand how incompetent this casino is in dealing with players, further proof of this is in the amount to time this is taking to resolve.

I just find it very hard to accept that everyone who has a problem here is trying to defraud the casino, I mean come on, one guy has even gone to the trouble of getting his solicitor involved, you don't do this if you're trying to cheat someone.

BR if you're not 100% sure of your facts, and IMO there is doubt then pay these players, ban them from further play if you wish and review your procedures to ensure this does not happen again.

 

[marcholmes]

CM I can assure you I am no fraudster.
You want to know why the computer ID's could be linked? My explanation would simply be shared PC's in the communal area at where I work. That does not make me a fraudster and does not mean I have been 'colluding' with others.

For example. If say 3 people all decided to play at casinos and claim bonuses, and they happen to live close to each other does that make them fraudsters? I don't think it does but this scenario has already been played out and we're running round in circles with it.

bb1webs.

X2 deposits have been paid back.

I am due
X1 50 deposit
X1 250 deposit

The remaining winnings would be approximately 800.00+

There was a 200 bonus in one acc that had not been played on, deposit is one of the two that I've been refunded so I've dropped that acc from the complaint.

 

[The Dude]

Hi again,

just curious, and it was probably said and I missed it, but what is the actual amount you are trying to cash in for Marc?

if it were me ... without even knowing the amount yet ... I'd probably pay the guy or at least refund his last deposit - myself. ... and then if his name ever came up for the same situation again ... I'd of course be looking at him in a different (and not so friendly) light.

But if you did this 100x over, you wouldn't have a business left. By the way it was £429.67

The computer IDs are identical to several players who have opened an account at each Bellerock casino at around the same time. How is this possible? The casino operators who are reading this thread (which means just about all of them) understand exactly what I am talking about.

So either we have a few people sharing the same machine - or one person pretending he/she is others. Either way, they have violated the T&Cs.

These players all come from the same region. They have the same playing pattern - there are problems with the documents they've sent in. Some haven't sent anything at all. There are connections between them, etc.

I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I think I have been fair about it.

I'm still hoping Marc can clue us in on why his computer ID is the same as these other people who opened their accounts at roughly the same time from the same region - made the same deposits and played the same games. That would be nice.

 

[The Dude]

CM I can assure you I am no fraudster.
You want to know why the computer ID's could be linked? My explanation would simply be shared PC's in the communal area at where I work. That does not make me a fraudster and does not mean I have been 'colluding' with others...

So you admit using a computer at work, and other employees may be opening an account with Bellerock from work as well?

Did you explain this to Bellerock? That you were probably sharing the computer. Are you at the computer right now?

How many people are there at work with you? Do you know the other people who may have opened an account? If so, please have them email me and let me know what the status is on their accounts.

Where is this computer located by the way? Is it in like say the coffee room? Or is it on your desk? If it's on your desk, why would you leave it on for others to use? Please stay with me because I have a crap load of other questions. But please answer these first. Thanks!

 

[marcholmes]

So you admit using a computer at work, and other employees may be opening an account with Bellerock from work as well?

Did you explain this to Bellerock? That you were probably sharing the computer. Are you at the computer right now?

How many people are there at work with you? Do you know the other people who may have opened an account? If so, please have them email me and let me know what the status is on their accounts.

Where is this computer located by the way? Is it in like say the coffee room? Or is it on your desk? If it's on your desk, why would you leave it on for others to use? Please stay with me because I have a crap load of other questions. But please answer these first. Thanks!

I admit using a computer at work - what on earth is the problem with that?
Other employees? - I really do not know.

Bellerock never told me I had a shared computer ID issue did they? They accused me of supplying fake docs. The shared computer issue has only just come up on here. I have only just recently been told by you directly that I have a shared computer problem, all there was before was iunnuendo.

I am not at that computer now, I am at home.

There are approximately 400 people who work at our place on various shifts.

We have a large communal area where we have a number of PC's set aside for 'free use'. These are disconnected from our network. Due to the nature of our work we are given this option rather than risk use our own workstation to download or browse material that is in violation of our contract of employment at work.

 

[TheBloke]

Bellerock never told me I had a shared computer ID issue did they? They accused me of supplying fake docs. The shared computer issue has only just come up on here. I have only just recently been told by you directly that I have a shared computer problem, all there was before was iunnuendo.

It's this bit that worries me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty, but I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

Maybe I'm exagerrating, but that's what it seems like. If they've been defrauded then obviously they have the right to withhold winnings, but the certified doc step seems to make no sense at all given that they just ignored the result of it.

 

[The Dude]

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty and I don't really care. But I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

They wanted to give the players the benefit of the doubt. Vesuvio simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was cleared and received his payment.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

Maybe I'm exagerrating, but that's what it seems like. If they've been defrauded then obviously they have the right to withhold winnings, but the certified doc step seems to make no sense at all given that they just ignored the result of it.

It may seem like this, but when there are groups of players working together, it's important to identify the good from the bad. It's difficult at times. Now we find out that Marc opened all of his casino accounts at work on a shared computer.

I admit using a computer at work - what on earth is the problem with that?

Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

Gaming Club T&Cs
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

 

[soflat]

It's this bit that worries me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty, but I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

Exactly. Belle Rock should tell the players what they need to do to prove their innocence. They don't have reveal any secrets. But don't ask for something that is totally irrelevant like certified docs (which Belle Rock admitted is irrelevant).

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

That is why it is unsafe for legit players. You might have to supply private personal info to a third party if you want to get your cash out.

The simple solution is to not accept multiple players from the same machine or IP address. Oh but wait a minute, the casino would lose money if they rejected these players before they deposited. Belle Rock takes 24 hours to credit the initial match bonus, in that time their computers could check for any irregularities.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

They shouldn't have given him the bonus in the first place then. Is it a deposit bonus or a no-deposit bonus?

 

[Vesuvio]

I'm still hoping Marc can clue us in on why his computer ID is the same as these other people who opened their accounts at roughly the same time from the same region - made the same deposits and played the same games.

I can't comment on the computer ID, but I think it's underestimated to what extent players will legitimately deposit exactly the same amounts and play precisely the same optimal games and strategy. Forums are often geographically based, so of course there are going to be large groups of people who would raise all these flags - they're just bonus hunters.

I think the real story here is that some casinos are trying to clamp down on advantage players who aren't breaking any of their terms and conditions. Rather than changing the terms they're adopting a scatter-gun approach. I don't think they're worried about the baby going the same way as the bath water - that's their aim - they want to discourage bonus hunters.

It's logical - after all there's no difference to the casino if one person plays in the name of a few people from his computer, or if those same people all play on their own computer (or let's say he's looking over their shoulder giving advice at the time). In the last two scenarios, however much the casinos would wish it was otherwise, there's no question of fraud (nevermind being able to prove it).

 

[marcholmes]

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.


They wanted to give the players the benefit of the doubt. Vesuvio simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was cleared and received his payment.


It may seem like this, but when there are groups of players working together, it's important to identify the good from the bad. It's difficult at times. Now we find out that Marc opened all of his casino accounts at work on a shared computer.



Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

Gaming Club T&Cs
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

Obviously I didn't read them well enough.
Why did BR make me jump through bloody hoops? Surely bringing this to my attention earlier (since this is what it turns out the problem is) would've cut all this crap?
As I said earlier COMMUNICATION is a wonderful thing.
It doesn't explain why I still have not been paid back 300 of deposits though does it?
It does not excuse them for saying I provided false ID which I had to go to the expense of getting certified.

 

[Vesuvio]

Mainly true Vesuvio. However not entirely. Having your car clamped and having to pay a 'fine' to have it released might be one example.

I imagine I'm still free to appeal that fine in a court of law, though (I'm guessing that's why UK traffic wardens tend to photograph offending vehicles nowadays!).

I agree with you that there's no legal recourse if casinos decide to invoke their catch-all terms, but that's precisely why threads like this one are important. It's still possible to put enough pressure on casinos to make them uphold much higher standards than they could legally get away with.

As for comparing eCOGRA to the UK Crown Courts, I think you might be stretching a point a tiny little bit

 

[The Dude]

I can't comment on the computer ID, but I think it's underestimated to what extent players will legitimately deposit exactly the same amounts and play precisely the same optimal games and strategy. Forums are often geographically based, so of course there are going to be large groups of people who would raise all these flags - they're just bonus hunters.

Casinos understand this - and it's par for the course. That's why we have terms and conditions for bonus play.

BUT we are talking about fraud here - in a general sense. I've already mentioned that there were messed up documents and other things that are not kosher.

I think the real story here is that some casinos are trying to clamp down on advantage players who aren't breaking any of their terms and conditions. Rather than changing the terms they're adopting a scatter-gun approach. I don't think they're worried about the baby going the same way as the bath water - that's their aim - they want to discourage bonus hunters.

It's logical - after all there's no difference to the casino if one person plays in the name of a few people from his computer, or if those same people all play on their own computer (or let's say he's looking over their shoulder giving advice at the time). In the last two scenarios, however much the casinos would wish it was otherwise, there's no question of fraud (nevermind being able to prove it).

But if a small group of people create a large number of bogus accounts, this is fraud. If you do this, you are wrong - no ifs ands or buts about it. You are a fraudster.

And just for a few moments, imagine a world without bonuses. What a wonderful world that would be.

If marc simply played without using a bonus (I do this all of the time) he wouldn't have the problems he's having now. And neither would a lot of you.

 

[The Dude]

Next thing, Furby is going to post that he's playing from a shared environment as well

Furby - where you at??

 

[vinylweatherman]

Unworkable!

This business about shared computers verges on the unworkable for many. Although there are clearly cases of shared PC's, such as in a works communal area, OK, so WHY IS WORK PHONE A COMPULSORY FIELD then!!!!! Surely we should NOT be playing from work, as there is a chance that the PC is shared. Since no one player can actually know whether an account has actually been opened previously (unless they know their way around the Windows registry), surely no player should play away from home. If this means a lot less turnover for the casino, tough, you made that rule, but rely on the fact that many players ignore it, or don't really understand it.
Even playing on your own PC is not safe, there are many reasons why the data that is being recorded by the casino might not be genuine for the player, and this revolves around how different ISP providers handle the loads. If ID is at question, this can be verified independently of ProcCyber as a double check. Surely the original owner of an ID will be the only one able to provide genuine documents, fraudsters will have made up an ID, based on facts on public record, but will have made mistakes along the way.
Without giving anything away, casinos need to provide a series of steps that a player must take to prove they are entitled under the terms to the benefits of an account. Where issues are beyond the knowledge of the player, the software should suspend the account on registration and further checks should be made. The information that players enter at registration can be cross checked immediately, including IP addresses. As soon as a duplicate IP is detected, the registration should abort and ask for CS intervention; who will be able to find out if they are going to allow the account, such as they might for husband and wife.
Where they are going to be confiscating funds, they need to be certain that the starting data is correct, and that they actually LISTEN to what players are saying in their defense - if they are fraudsters they may give something else away that might help the casinos in future.

As for marcholmes, although he may be gulity as sin, the communal room he describes sounds like one of those jobs where you need to be there at a moment's notice, but can spend hours with nothing to do, which is why a communal area with PC's is provided. Possibly the Fire Service, or similar rapid response job, or it could be a power plant, where staff need to be present "just in case", but normally have nothing to do. BelleRock and ProcCyber are showing how dangerous it can be to assume it is OK to use online casinos in such an environment. BelleRock have not mentioned whether it is the IP at time of REGISTRATION that is used, or whether it is where you play from.
Calls to pay because it is only "a small amount" are rejected because hundreds of small amounts add up!! Many scams work on the principle of "little and often" to rack up huge profits.

 

[Vesuvio]

But if a small group of people create a large number of bogus accounts, this is fraud. If you do this, you are wrong - no ifs ands or buts about it. You are a fraudster.

Yes, but if you trawl for those players by treating anyone who fits a bonus hunting pattern as a fraudster, you're going to have uproar, and your casino should rightly be dumped in the rogue section of every on-line watchdog. It's just not acceptable behaviour.

And just for a few moments, imagine a world without bonuses. What a wonderful world that would be.

It'd be a truly depressing world. As I wrote once before: Link Outdated / Removed

 

[The Dude]

If bonuses were abolished tomorrow half the casinos would close through lack of custom. The rest would cut back on their support staff, and we'd just be left with a few servers running in an empty room, making money for an overweight man sunbathing by a pool in Hawaii. Even Casinomeister would have to shut up shop and go back to teaching English, or waging war...

Ha ha ha. I missed that one.

 

[TheBloke]

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.

Ok, but then I'm still confused.

The point of their request was to get a trusted third party to confirm the docs. That was done, so why did they still not pay? Or to put it another way, if the non-payal was due to other discrepancies, why was the certification even asked for? Basically it sounds like they asked for certification knowing that, if provided, it would still make no difference. I don't understand the justification for that. If he's guilty, it's fine not to pay him - but don't make him jump through meaningless hoops as well. That's why I felt it might have been done out of spite, or in the hope that he would just go away.

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

 

[GOCC]

I believe Granmaster touched on this earlier on but because of the rapid amount of responses it has got lost.

Proccyber/Risk Sentinel are Registered in the UK. As such, they are bound by the data protection act 1998. I would urge anyone who has been caught up in the, particularly marcholmes to do the following.

Write to
PROC CYBER SERVICES (UK) LIMITED
5-7 TANNER STREET
LONDON
SE1 3LE

Subject Access Request.

Tell them you want EVERYTHING they have on there computer records about you. This will be emails from CM, BR, notes the lot. Send a cheque in for 10 as this is THE MAXIMUM that they can charge yet it could be less.

Advise them that they have FORTY DAYS to reply, these are not working days. Advise if they do not respond, you will apply to the information commisioner for a court order for such. I will be happy to draft a letter if you PM.

This isnt jumping on Bryan but this seems to me to be all hypothetical. Vesuvio has been freed as he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe, maybe not but ever thought marcholmes was too.

It always surprises me when people say the joined at same time, played same type of play and deposited the same. The fact is there was possibly an email doing the rounds and that they all were led to the well of Belle Rock. Deposit X, get Y and play slots. Not exactly a fingerprint of guilt, more of a way that the casinos WANT you to play.

The chastisement of the players is just if they are fraudulent but the BS that BR have portrayed IE Certify Docs is disgracefull and I will spend by 5 a week elsewhere

 

[marcholmes]

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

Be careful here. Questioning my solicitors integrity is well wide of the mark, all details were provided to BR and can be checked with the UK law society.

I don't seem to be getting any response to my last set of Q's on the bottom of the last page either It's like talking to BR again

 

[The Dude]

Ok, but then I'm still confused.

The point of their request was to get a trusted third party to confirm the docs. That was done, so why did they still not pay? Or to put it another way, if the non-payal was due to other discrepancies, why was the certification even asked for? Basically it sounds like they asked for certification knowing that, if provided, it would still make no difference. I don't understand the justification for that. If he's guilty, it's fine not to pay him - but don't make him jump through meaningless hoops as well. That's why I felt it might have been done out of spite, or in the hope that he would just go away.

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

It could be that they requested these documents from all individuals involved when they became suspicious that something was up, and Marc was the only one who came through with the request. Maybe Marc should have these other individuals contact the same solicitor since they all work together.

I'm not saying why they decided to still not to go through with the payment after speaking with the solicitor. But there are a number of things they had taken into account. The computer IDs for one. Even though Marc proved he was a real person, it didn't mean he hadn't set up several accounts. Now if the other people all of a sudden pop up...well this could become interesting.

 

[marcholmes]

It could be that they requested these doucuments from all individuals involved when they became suspicious that something was up, and Marc was the only one who came through with the request. Maybe Marc should have these other individuals contact the same solicitor since they all work together.

I'm not saying why they decided to still not to go through with the payment after speaking with the solicitor. But there are a number of things they had taken into account. The computer IDs for one. Even though Marc proved he was a real person, it didn't mean he hadn't set up several accounts. Now if the other people all of a sudden pop up...well this could become interesting.

CM

Give me a list of names of the other people involved and I will confirm whether they work at my place or not - that's all I can do on that score.

The bottom line is I have not set up accounts for anyone else, stuff me, am I really going to go to all this hassle for a grand? If i've got hundreds of accs (as you implied this runs to earlier) I'm not going to miss a grand am I? As it is, this total of a grand+ is a big hole in my pocket, as is the total of 300 of deposits.

I really apprecaite the efforts you've put in here, I've been caught out by the t+c's, fair enough, my fault for not paying attention. That does nto make me a fraudster.

GOCC, nice post and thanks for that, looks like a letter is going in the post I do like the data protection act At least they admit I am real after all

 

[The Dude]

I don't seem to be getting any response to my last set of Q's on the bottom of the last page either It's like talking to BR again

I'm trying to write a newsletter here - and it's 11:30 pm

Why did BR make me jump through bloody hoops? .

Because they probably wanted to make sure they were dealing with real people. You are sharing you computer with other individuals.

Surely bringing this to my attention earlier (since this is what it turns out the problem is) would've cut all this crap?.

I'm not Bellerock - but this may not be the only problem.

It doesn't explain why I still have not been paid back 300 of deposits though does it??

I'll remind them to get this to you.

It does not excuse them for saying I provided false ID which I had to go to the expense of getting certified.

I don't think they said they docs false.

Please note, I'm dealing with several issues here - shmoo's, Marcs, Furby's, and the three disappearing members. So I might be referring to things that are not associated with certain cases.

 

[The Dude]

CM

Give me a list of names of the other people involved and I will confirm whether they work at my place or not - that's all I can do on that score.

Sorry dude. I don't give out names. You'll have to take that up with Bellerock when he comes back tomorrow.

The bottom line is I have not set up accounts for anyone else, stuff me, am I really going to go to all this hassle for a grand? If i've got hundreds of accs (as you implied this runs to earlier) I'm not going to miss a grand am I? As it is, this total of a grand+ is a big hole in my pocket, as is the total of 300 of deposits..

I never implied you had hundreds of accounts.

I really apprecaite the efforts you've put in here, I've been caught out by the t+c's, fair enough, my fault for not paying attention. That does nto make me a fraudster...

Where do you work by the way? You can PM me that info if you like.

 

[marcholmes]

Sorry CM, didn't realise it was newsletter writing time, just you'd come back with other replies in the meantime etc.
I'll resume again in the morning

 

[The Dude]

Sorry CM, didn't realise it was newsletter writing time, just you'd come back with other replies in the meantime etc.
I'll resume again in the morning

Sure, but before you go - please PM me your work place. Thanks!

Also, have you accessed this site from work? I need to know that too. Thanks!

 

[Vesuvio]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

 

[GOCC]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

More like The Bill

 

[GrandMaster]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

Maybe because of this?

 

[Slotster!]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

Ah, listen... Just one more thing... About the photographs on the ID... See, my Wife, she's crazy about having her photo taken, and she says to me, she says - I don't see how those photo's can be used like that on the licence... and this got me thinking... My dog you see, the vet he goes, he takes photo's too - and he says this sure don't add up.. Probably nothing you understand... Sorry to bother you m'aam...

 

[mitch]

Its like drawing teeth sometimes when dealing with these issues.

Marcholmes why where you not upfront at the beginning that you were playing on a shared machine and that other people at your work had all decided to sign up at BR at around about the same time? You surely must have realised that this was a possible reason for the casinos suspicion. You only mention the fact when faced up with the issue of the same computer.

Or are you trying to say you that didn't know that these other people had signed up and had not discussed BR or internet gambling using bonuses with these people?

If that is the case you are therefore asking us to believe that, out of a very small sample of people, compared to the overall percentage of the population who are willing to sign up at any casino, a group of people all decided, completely independantly, to sign up at the same casino at the same time.They then deposit similar sums and play in a similar way and by using the works computer not their own. Hmmm!

When the casino asks for ID from this group, apparently, as far as we know, only one person responds and follows up.

If you were a bookmaker what odds would you lay on this happening by accident?

Any of you gamblers out there who work for a living as well and know the situation at the workplace like to place odds?

It's a pity you were not more forthcoming at the beginning because unfortunately a sign that investigators are taught to look for is whether people give lots of information and detail when talking about a situation. Innocent people tend to give lots of information and detail, often too much in fact. People with something to hide tend to say as little as possible and tend only to respond to questions.

Marcholmes you may be completely innocent but I am not surprised that the casino has raised the red flag here.

Mitch