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

[marcholmes]

Hi CM,

Why a 250 deposit?

Pretty much the same as Vesuvio, the sign up bonus was deposit 250 get a 300 bonus (I think from memory) hence me sticking in 250.00. Again, I'd go along with Vesuvio, why would that be a problem? If say you (CM) announced a new bonus on your forum it's likely a lot of players reading would sign up at the same time surely?

It's nice to know Proccyber have flagged this - I just wish Bellerock had of told me this from the start then I wouldn't have been so hard on them initially, COMMUNICATION is a wonderful thing, they should realise this!

 

[GOCC]

Josegarcia

Will you go to Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) and post up what your IP address is. If you are as you say you are on Pipex, the reason for you shoiwng as being from Oxford though you say you are from Sheffield would be because PIPEX (The 2nd Biggest ISP in UK) are based their so you would route from there servers.



PS

I did PM you and asked where you lived but never replied. Parson Cross isnt that bad lol

 

[wideboy]

Hi,

Been unavailable for a few days. I haven't PaB yet because the Belle Rock rep has promised to look into my situation. I am giving them a chance to sort it first.

I also received a voice mail from them but it was unclear and i couldn't work out exactly what was said. I'm just waiting to find out exactly what was said.

I am also with Pipex, as is Chivers I think (he directed me to this thread). Chivers is a friend of mine. So thats all cleared up.

CM - I will def PaB if this is not resolved but no point wasting your time if its going to be all sorted tomorrow.

Thank you for all your help.

 

[shmoo]

Hi,

i'd reiterate what marc holmes and vesuvio have said, i spotted the gaming club japan offer and though tit was a good one(250 for 300) so i plumped for it! I still see no reason why proc cyber or bellerock or anyone would state there is a problem with my documents because i know for sure that there isnt, this is the bit that confuses me?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Point

Josegarcia

Will you go to Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) and post up what your IP address is. If you are as you say you are on Pipex, the reason for you shoiwng as being from Oxford though you say you are from Sheffield would be because PIPEX (The 2nd Biggest ISP in UK) are based their so you would route from there servers.

This proves my point of knowing how ISP's conduct their operations before jumping to the conclusions that the players are one individual.

I really cannot see the justification for putting players through hell and back due to this type of coincidence. Surely if thep post a bonus offer somewhere, and it has game restrictions, it's not "rocket science" to expect a number of players to see it, deposit the exact amount for the full bonus, and play the same classes of games (as in bonus T & C), and all within a short timescale. It seems I was right about it being "Risk Sentinel (Proc Cyber)" that was at the heart of this affair.
Some affiliate sites make this even worse, by posting the bonus, E-mailing members, pointing out they only have "a few days" to get on board, and providing a "strategy" for play (hence the patterns of play would be almost identical). There is nothing wrong with this, reputable portals do this, as do the "bonus whore" variety. It would ONLY be wrong if a single individual played this offer more than once by pretending to be someone else. ProcCyber need to PROVE this is the case, and give the players a chance to prove that it is NOT the case. This should not have dragged on this far, and I would like to know if eCogra made the correct ruling in the one case mentioned where they sided with BelleRock.

 

[The Dude]

If a number of players are coming from the same IP on the same day and doing the same thing (same deposits, same game play) it raises red flags at the casino and/or payment process level. Thus these accounts are scrutinized - that's all.

That was just a general statement and it wasn't intended to be based primarily on this issue or visa versa. IPs are only one indicator when it comes to situations like this. There are also computer IDs, playing styles, phony IDs, etc.

I believe there has been fraudulent activity detected, but whether or not it includes members here, that has yet to be decided - at least by me.

My questions about why players signed up on the same day, etc., weren't meant to be loaded questions. They were just questions.

 

[Tagdog]

That was just a general statement and it wasn't intended to be based primarily on this issue or visa versa. IPs are only one indicator when it comes to situations like this. There are also computer IDs, playing styles, phony IDs, etc.

I believe there has been fraudulent activity detected, but whether or not it includes members here, that has yet to be decided - at least by me.

My questions about why players signed up on the same day, etc., weren't meant to be loaded questions. They were just questions.

I think I read about gaming club Japan on a different public forum a while ago. It makes sense that people attracted to this bonus may come from similar locations. I'd think computer ID is a very reasonable way of refusing payment, but location alone is not even nearly enough reason to call fraud.

Take an example of I play at a casino and win 200 off a bonus, I tell my neighbour who plays the same bonus, in a similar way to I did and makes a profit too, we would be linked by area and playing style, but have not broke the terms and conditions, and we certainly are not a fraud ring.

 

[wideboy]

I have now been assured by the Belle Rock rep that my original 50 deposit will be returned to my neteller account immediately.

I will update again when it actually arrives in my account.

I thank you all for your help.

 

[soflat]

What was the discrepancy with the IDs and what does that have to do with IPs? Or was belle Rock and eCogra lying about the IDs?

 

[marcholmes]

What was the discrepancy with the IDs and what does that have to do with IPs? Or was belle Rock and eCogra lying about the IDs?

Can't say too much cos I have now PAB with CM.

But for me, I gave them certified docs (after they accused me of provding false docs) but that wasn't enough, they eventually phoned my solicitor who confirmed my identity and she certified etc etc.
They still refused to pay out saying something else (simply saying I am linked to other players but refusing to give me exact details and refusing to tell me why this is good reason not to pay me out), it's all on here in this thread for your amusement.

 

[Vesuvio]

ProcCyber need to PROVE this is the case, and give the players a chance to prove that it is NOT the case. This should not have dragged on this far, and I would like to know if eCogra made the correct ruling in the one case mentioned where they sided with BelleRock.

I think in at least two cases eCOGRA has ruled in favour of Bellerock (mine was one). The problem is they simply say the casino acted appropriately and within the terms and conditions (not specifying which), which can mean anything.

i.e. the Gaming Club terms include the following:

Refusal to Register, Deregistration & Exclusion
We may refuse to register you as a Player or elect to deregister and exclude you as a Player from the Casino at any time and for any reason whatsoever.
You acknowledge hereby that the Casino is not obliged to give you prior notice of its decision to refuse, deregister or exclude you, nor to furnish you with any reasons for such decision.
Consequences of Deregistration or Exclusion
If we deregister or exclude you from the Casino we shall have the right to:
withhold payment to you of any contested funds whether such contested funds are purchases, refunds, bonuses, free monies, casino credits, payouts or the like;

So not paying a player for no reason is acceptable, and eCOGRA would technically have made the correct ruling, even if the casino was utterly in the wrong by any objective assessment.

Trawling through the terms another point I'd reiterate is that asking for "notarized copies of ID" is only included as part of the provisions relating to money laundering. As it's an absurdity to consider depositing and withdrawing to the same Neteller account as potential money laundering I don't see a convincing basis for asking players to jump through that particular hoop (not that I wouldn't if I was assured it would resolve this).

This is perhaps a suggestion better aimed at the eCOGRA thread, but anyway:

As it's clearly insufficient for eCOGRA to base decisions on whether a casino is within its own terms and conditions (as these may be vague or allow anything) why don't they award a separate seal of approval specifically to casino terms? (and keep a record of the current terms and when they're changed) Of course they would only award the seal if the terms were clear, reasonable and contained no catch-all provision. Then when eCOGRA rule on the basis of the terms it would be clear cut and acceptable to both sides - and of course they would point out exactly which terms were broken.

 

[TheBloke]

Can't say too much cos I have now PAB with CM.

But for me, I gave them certified docs (after they accused me of provding false docs) but that wasn't enough, they eventually phoned my solicitor who confirmed my identity and she certified etc etc.
They still refused to pay out saying something else (simply saying I am linked to other players but refusing to give me exact details and refusing to tell me why this is good reason not to pay me out), it's all on here in this thread for your amusement.

This is farsical - clear evidence that the casino is looking for any excuse not to pay. They make you jump through hoops, you jump through them, and then they just don't pay anyway.

So this surely shows that the initial request for certified documents was purely intended to cause you inconvenience and done in the hope you simply wouldn't bother to do it. On this evidence it's clear-cut rogue behaviour, rather reminiscent of Grand Banks et al - "here are the terms/requirements, but if you meet them you still won't be paid".

I'd be very interested to hear CM's thoughts on the whole issue of 'certified' docs, and whether this can ever be justifiable behaviour. To require a player to go to the time and expense of getting certification is, to my mind, completely unacceptable and ridiculous. I don't even have to do that to open a bank account or get a credit card and I'm certainly not going to play at any casino, group, or software provider where there is even the slightest chance I might need to contact my solicitor (I don't even have a solicitor)

The very most I would stretch to is snail-mailing an original utility bill and photocopy of my passport to them, and even that is an imposition that I would resent. I'd do it if asked then take my business elsewhere.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Well this seems like another poor episode for Bellerock/Proc-cyber/Ecogra and whoever else.

The casino tells the player there is a problem with their ID and that they need to get it certified to get paid. They do this, and still the casino refuses to pay.

They now possibly claim it is a fraud ring as players use the same isp/played in a similar way etc.

Well I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense, there are loads of forums about that post bonus offers and the best way to play them. That will obviously result in several people taking advantage of the same offer when it is first posted, and playing in the same style.

Does signing up on the same day, playing in the same style and using the same isp provider prove fraud? Of course it doesn't.

I have firends who regularly discuss how best to play a partucular bonus and tell each other about various promotions. They are from the same city, possibly use the same ISP, will likely deposit on the same day, and likely play in the same style. Does that make them fraudsters? Of course not.

You need either false ID, same IP address, same computer or the likes to prove this. Hard evidence proves this, not interpretation of circumstancial evidence.

 

[The Dude]

...
Does signing up on the same day, playing in the same style and using the same isp provider prove fraud? Of course it doesn't.

You're absolutely correct - it doesn't - but it does raise the alert level up a bit and they will start scrutinizing accounts. By the way, this is a Proc Cyber issue - they are the ones who have initiated this, not Bellerock. So this is a bigger issue than a casino not wanting to pay some bonus players their winnings. If the players played according to the terms and conditions - not a problem, they'll be paid. Japanese site or not, they are legit players UNLESS they have multiple accounts.

As most of us know, there are indicators that can absolutely connect players. (computer IDs etc.). RTG does this, Playtech, Boss Media, and MG - most of you should all know this - it's been covered before in the forum. The last major incident was with a group of Israelis that nailed some Boss Media sites and Grand Virtual. Boss media provided me with the records that indicated the same 5 or 6 computers were being used for about 200 accounts. I've busted out rogue casinos in the past for submitting documents to me that were obviously created by "former owners". I just looked at the properties of the document to see who created this. (Dutch Harbour Casino - check the rogue section). I'm not saying that this happened in this case, but there are ways to nail fraudsters that go beyond the routine IP check and such.

When the red flag goes up, casinos normally ask for IDs and other docs to make sure they are dealing with separate legitimate people. Multiple accounts are a big no no. Bellerock has already provided me examples of faked documents that were submitted (they had some glaring bonehead mistakes in them) so I am sure that fraudulent activity occurred. The question is: which players are involved? This is what I'm going to try and figure out.

To be honest, at the moment - member El Nino has my doubts. He was owed a GBP 40 deposit back from Monaco Gold casino a few weeks ago. They requested his ID so they can pay the guy. He hasn't responded to them or to me about this. So I figured he's bailed out on me. He hasn't returned to the forum to PAB about his Bellerock experience. Apparently he is reluctant (or can't) provide these two casinos ID documents.

Perhaps he's on vacation, but if any one of you people know the guy, tell him to either respond to his emails or visit the forum so we can settle this. That would be great.

 

[Vesuvio]

Bellerock has already provided me examples of faked documents that were submitted (they had some glaring bonehead mistakes in them) so I am sure that fraudulent activity occurred. The question is: which players are involved? This is what I'm going to try and figure out.

Reading between the lines - Bellerock can't point to any discrepancies with the documents submitted by the players involved in this (despite requesting certified copies and denying payments on that basis), but feel it's enough reason not to pay if they prove that fraud does take place in general and that they're suspicious

Anyway, I really do appreciate the fact we're finally getting somewhere on this.

 

[The Dude]

Reading between the lines - Bellerock can't point to any discrepancies with the documents submitted by the players involved in this (despite requesting certified copies and denying payments on that basis), but feel it's enough reason not to pay if they prove that fraud does take place in general and that they're suspicious

Nope, it's not really like that. I would say they won't point to the discrepancies - the docs have errors in them that are specific glaring errors. Bellerock, eCOGRA, Proc Cyber nor I will disclose exactly what they are. But believe me, they are there.

I'm still working on this so please keep this in mind.

 

[Linus]

I won't try to read between the lines on that one.

I do hope it becomes clear eventually, though.

 

[The Dude]

To be honest, at the moment - member El Nino has my doubts. He was owed a GBP 40 deposit back from Monaco Gold casino a few weeks ago. They requested his ID so they can pay the guy. He hasn't responded to them or to me about this. So I figured he's bailed out on me. He hasn't returned to the forum to PAB about his Bellerock experience. Apparently he is reluctant (or can't) provide these two casinos ID documents.

My apologies to El Nino - I thought he mentioned in this thread that he was having the same problem as other posters here with Bellerock. I misread his post - sorry guy.

But Monaco Gold is still waiting for your docs

 

[Vesuvio]

Nope, it's not really like that. I would say they won't point to the discrepancies - the docs have errors in them that are specific glaring errors. Bellerock, eCOGRA, Proc Cyber nor I will disclose exactly what they are. But believe me, they are there.

I'm still working on this so please keep this in mind.

I can't speak for anyone else's documents, but I find this very puzzling. Is the accusation that the documents are forgeries?

I'd be happy to send someone independent the scans in the casino's possession (or others), or arrange to meet a respected CM member in person and show the original documents, if it came to that (and could be arranged).

Looking at the scans again (with paranoid eyes) the only thing I can think of is that the picture Driving Licence looks unconvincing, but that's simply the rather odd (some might say shoddy) way it's printed. It's a 100% genuine scan.

 

[Slotster!]

Looking at the scans again (with paranoid eyes) the only thing I can think of is that the picture Driving Licence looks unconvincing, but that's simply the rather odd (some might say shoddy) way it's printed. It's a 100% genuine scan.

They all look like that though Vesuvio - and presumably Belle Rock must've had hundreds/thousands of them.

I look seven years old on mine.

 

[thechap]

Nope, it's not really like that. I would say they won't point to the discrepancies - the docs have errors in them that are specific glaring errors. Bellerock, eCOGRA, Proc Cyber nor I will disclose exactly what they are. But believe me, they are there.

I'm still working on this so please keep this in mind.

Do you know what these errors are CM? I could only assume that it would be forged docs, and I'm sure looking at file details would prove whether there is signs of editing quite easily.

Also in the case of the OP didnt he get his docs verified by a solicitor? Surely this proves them genuine without a doubt?

 

[bossplayer]

I actually find this quite hillarious.

Obviously, CM has seen the documents (if not, his wording would be borderline scandalous). If this is the case, the person (not people) doing this have been caught and are beating a dead horse. If the perpetrator messed up and accidentally entered something wrong when signing up or sending in docs, it has to be killing him that he does not know what error he made.

 

[The Dude]

Do you know what these errors are CM?

In one case - yes, I know what the error is. But that's all I'm going to say about that.

Also in the case of the OP didnt he get his docs verified by a solicitor? Surely this proves them genuine without a doubt?

The only problem with this is that there is still room for doubt. Let's say you request someone to have a solicitor certify that someone's document. How do you know if that solicitor wasn't fooled by the player? One thing for sure, you have the solicitor's phone number and you can ask the guy questions about this. I'm not saying this happened in this situation, but there are potential problems.

 

[Slotster!]

I actually find this quite hillarious.

Obviously, CM has seen the documents (if not, his wording would be borderline scandalous). If this is the case, the person (not people) doing this have been caught and are beating a dead horse. If the perpetrator messed up and accidentally entered something wrong when signing up or sending in docs, it has to be killing him that he does not know what error he made.

Perpetrator of what?..

Vesuvio for one has been a member here since early 2004 - regularly posting on a variety of topics and playing at online casino's... So he suddenly decides to scam one of the largest and most notoriously poor CS groups in the business out of a few quid? I think not.

Regardless, the dreadful customer service and disinformation from Belle Rock is frightening in it's own right - irrespective of the outcome.

 

[GOCC]

I actually find this quite hillarious.

Obviously, CM has seen the documents (if not, his wording would be borderline scandalous). If this is the case, the person (not people) doing this have been caught and are beating a dead horse. If the perpetrator messed up and accidentally entered something wrong when signing up or sending in docs, it has to be killing him that he does not know what error he made.

I agree with what you say

But from reading between the lines there is more than one player affected here. It has been said about people originating from Oxford which has been shown to be due to ISP.

Now I may have been taken in by a massive fraud, but I doubt it. Can you really see all these posters coming on here, ALL fakeing docs and ALL of them repetatively protesting their innocence.

As The Chap said, the OP took his documents to a solicitor and got them to certify these. Belle Rock telephoned the solicitor who confirmed that they were original AND STILL THEY DONT PAY. FFS what does he have to do.

IMHO, they have dogged up badly. They are thinking something is faked when it will just be something that happens in the UK.

You have got to remember, Belle Rock have not only just started to ask for Certified Docs. They have done this for about 6 months. Just normally telling them to stop talking BS has suffised to get paid.

Now it seems someone has done everything that they have asked and are still not being paid.

 

[soflat]

Do I understand this correctly that ALL of the posters submitted falsified documents? Otherwise why did Belle Rock deny ALL the players their cashouts? If not then why did ecogra back the casino?

I think we need a list of players, who they file complaints with (ecogra, CM, etc), and the status of their complaints just to make things simpler to follow.

 

[GOCC]

The only problem with this is that there is still room for doubt. Let's say you request someone to have a solicitor certify that someone's document. How do you know if that solicitor wasn't fooled by the player? One thing for sure, you have the solicitor's phone number and you can ask the guy questions about this. I'm not saying this happened in this situation, but there are potential problems.

No disrepect here but in that case where does it end. We have to fly to the casino operators office with our original passport and original Electric Bill for payment????

For anyone who has never played at a casino to fall accross this thread it must be so mind boggling. A casino asks you to take some docs to a solicitor, pay the solicitor for the privelidge and then when you send them in expecting your money, they tell you to spin. Hmm, where do they go to join

 

[Slotster!]

No disrepect here but in that case where does it end. We have to fly to the casino operators office with our original passport and original Electric Bill for payment????

Only for cashouts of $50 or above. Anything below $50 just requires you post them a retina (left eye) for scanning and ID verification. We cannot guarantee eyeballs will be returned. Payouts will not be completed should any similarities in eyeballs suggest multiple accounts (eg - if we receive two blue eyes, there's a good chance they're probably from the same person we reckon, I mean, they're both blue...)

 

[Vesuvio]

For the record, and given some of the speculation above, the Bellerock representative has agreed to reopen my account and process the withdrawal.

Now to get back to watching the World Cup

 

[marcholmes]

The only problem with this is that there is still room for doubt. Let's say you request someone to have a solicitor certify that someone's document. How do you know if that solicitor wasn't fooled by the player? One thing for sure, you have the solicitor's phone number and you can ask the guy questions about this. I'm not saying this happened in this situation, but there are potential problems.

My own situation aside - That's absolutely crackers CM. If they are going suspect this sort of foul play whe bother asking players to go to the solicitor or whoever to have docs certified in the first place?

--
Glad to hear that Vesuvio, well done.

 

[The Dude]

My own situation aside - That's absolutely crackers CM. If they are going suspect this sort of foul play whe bother asking players to go to the solicitor or whoever to have docs certified in the first place?

Because this gives the casino a reputable/trustworthy third party to contact - simple as that. And there are reasons for this that I'm not willing to discuss at the moment. Hope you don't mind

 

[GOCC]

Because this gives the casino a reputable/trustworthy third party to contact - simple as that. And there are reasons for this that I'm not willing to discuss at the moment. Hope you don't mind

But as far as I can see, havent the casino contacted the OPs solicitor and confirmed things with them AND STILL not paid.

 

[The Dude]

But as far as I can see, havent the casino contacted the OPs solicitor and confirmed things with them AND STILL not paid.

I'll have more on this later. Like I said, I'm not going to go into details at the moment.

 

[bb1webs]

clear evidence that the casino is looking for any excuse not to pay

Hi all,

I'm sorry but the evidence that the casino is not guilty of the above is in the size of the cash-outs.

These casinos have very large winners on a regular basis. Where are these big winners if they aren't being paid?

Its not about not wanting to pay. I don't have an answer as to what it IS about; but i feel very confident its not about them not wanting to pay. ...

 

[furby]

I've been away for a week, just caught up on this thread.

My bitch is pitched.

 

[thechap]

Hey this thread has gone all quiet. Anyword form CM / Belle Rock / Posters on what's going on here?

 

[The Dude]

I've been afforded information pertaining to this, and to say the least it's pretty damning. I understand why Bellerock and Proc Cyber have chosen not to disclose how these players are being caught.

Vesuvio was cleared. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and met the profile (shit happens).

Shmoo and Marcholmes - it don't look too good for you two.

Furby, if possible - you need to send in docs certified by a notary. Furby's situation is separate from the UK issue, but he's connected to other players as well.

 

[The Dude]

...Its not about not wanting to pay. I don't have an answer as to what it IS about; but i feel very confident its not about them not wanting to pay. ...

Payments are not the issue. For those of you who understand the casino industry - casinos want to pay their players. It's good for business and players who win will eventually return and play back their winnings. It's common business sense. Successful casinos understand this.

On the other hand, casinos will not pay players that are breaking their terms and conditions. Proc Cyber produced evidence that convinced Bellerock that these players were creating multiple accounts. Please note that a few posters that complained about this have never returned to follow up on their complaints.

Even though certified copies of documents were submitted, after speaking with the certifier, there was still too many oddities/connections to warrant payment to MarcHolmes. You can use your imagination on this one.

 

[marcholmes]

Even though certified copies of documents were submitted, after speaking with the certifier, there was still too many oddities/connections to warrant payment to MarcHolmes. You can use your imagination on this one.

PM sent to CM

 

[bb1webs]

Hi all,

everything Brian said is what I've heard as well.

I've been assured this is not going to be the norm, but due to circumstances which cannot be disclosed here at this time ... apparently something extra needed to be done in order to separate the good from the bad ... rather than just throwing out all the bathwater and not caring whether the baby went with it.

So in other words it was decided this was the best way of making sure anybody who IS innocent (although they'll have some extra hoops to jump thru) will not get lumped in with those who are truly guilty of breaking T&Cs.

hope that helps understand. It did help for me but then I was privvy to a bit more info than is afforded to be made public at this time.

 

[TheBloke]

Thanks for the updates CM and bb1.

Does this mean that these measures are temporary? Was there some sudden glut of player fraud?

I am now reticient to play at any MG that doesn't already have my docs in case I am forced to have to prove my existance via a time consuming and expensive trip to my solicitor!

 

[Vesuvio]

Payments are not the issue. For those of you who understand the casino industry - casinos want to pay their players. It's good for business and players who win will eventually return and play back their winnings. It's common business sense. Successful casinos understand this.

Except the crux of this issue involves bonus hunters, who casinos don't want to pay. It's worth a closer look, however the individual cases pan out.

It's been said that this isn't just a casino bonus issue, as Proc Cyber have been doing the sleuthing, but I think that misrepresents what's involved. Proc Cyber, with their RiskSentinel product, are simply employed by the casino as outside contractors. They aren't an objective police force, or even simply payment processors who spotted something odd.

If you look at their website (as VinylWeatherman also suggested), you can see that everything they do is at the whim of the merchant, in this case Bellerock: Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) They can set up negative databases to weed out successful gamblers, or choose the exact profile that causes an account to be singled out.

Armed with Proc Cyber's info it's then, again, entirely up to Bellerock what they choose to do with it. Their approach here was to stone wall and lie - they clearly didn't find "discrepancies" in all the documents they received, especially those that weren't sent Their requests for certified documents served no purpose, as even when provided they made no difference. At best they were irresponsible.

They then proceeded to confiscate funds without any explanation.

I understand why Bellerock and Proc Cyber have chosen not to disclose how these players are being caught.

I'm almost willing to accept that (though the police aren't given such a privilege and have to make a choice), but there's no excuse for not at least saying what the general accusation is - i.e. opening multiple accounts, credit-card fraud or the like. Anyone actually doing those things already knows, so is hardly being given any pointers, whereas an innocent player is helped by being able to set about defending him/herself.

It does strike me as more than a little absurd that an uninvolved webmaster can be given more info than those directly affected by the situation:

I've been assured this is not going to be the norm, but due to circumstances which cannot be disclosed here at this time ... apparently something extra needed to be done in order to separate the good from the bad ... rather than just throwing out all the bathwater and not caring whether the baby went with it.

So in other words it was decided this was the best way of making sure anybody who IS innocent (although they'll have some extra hoops to jump thru) will not get lumped in with those who are truly guilty of breaking T&Cs.

I admire your faith that asking for certified docs was an attempt to identify the innocent, though I don't for a second believe that was the case. I'm speaking as a baby thrown out with the (alleged) bathwater here (until Casinomeister saved the day ).

But anyway, let's generously assume you're right - is it really acceptable for suspicion of wrong doing (and in this case it mainly looks like just playing a particular bonus in the same way at the same time) is enough to mean that innocent players need to jump through nonsensical hoops and be treated like criminals?

As companies like RiskSentinel try to enhance their products we're going to get more and more accounts "flagged" by the casinos. I'd suggest Bellerock, and other casinos groups set up in the same way, need to seriously rethink their strategy and procedures for dealing with it. Otherwise players may seriously rethink whether they want to play at the casinos in question

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

well I wasn't concerned with what isn't mine to worry about: so to speak, and I had no idea I'd be making any post about it at all but i just wanted to back up what CM had said because it was agreeable with what i'd heard.

When I talked with my contact I was asking whether or not my players were going to be possibly asked this? And we're still in correspondence over this, .. and I was asked not to say anything which could hurt their investigation ... which I'm not sure what would and wouldn't.

So I'm afraid to say anything more than echo CM's words. And quite frankly I don't know very much more than the next guy ... certainly nothing I could say publicly and feel confident it was absolutely correct.

And the worst thing would be to complicate the situation further. So you've got about all out of me that I feel comfortable sharing at this time.

You must understand when an affiliate is concerned about a situation and threatening to stop listing the casinos ... and I'm certainly NOT saying this is the case here but I have in the past had contacts tell me almost anything in order to keep listed ... if only for a while longer until the truth came out.

So it'd be irresponsible on my part to say anything because what if the reason I was told not to say anything was because I was being fed a bunch of BS in order to appease me for a time being...

I hope you can understand also that if I weren't to honor such a request today ... what chance do i have for tommorrow's situation?

But i can say that I was told this is very far from the norm and my reply to that was that we shall see how often this comes up again in the future ... if its just a matter of a current situation that will in due course have a conclusion .... then I can live with that. Despite an awkard if not unfavorable reputation for their support ... BR has always paid (and I'm talking big wins to players who have no history of any kind of fraud, multiple accounts, bonus abusers - whatever that is? personally I think they either met terms or didn't. where's the abuse? .... anyway what concerns me most is if jane average comes in thru my links and plays a game and hits a big jackpot ... that she gets paid in the end)

because I said she would and I don't like to let people down that trusted me.

 

[GrandMaster]

Porccyber and Risksentinel are registered in the UK, so they are subject to the UK Data Protection Act. This means that they have an obligation to ensure that they hold correct information, and they have to disclose all the information they hold about you for a fee not exceeding 10. If it turns out that they have given a casino incorrect information, you can sue them for libel.

 

[furby]

Furby, if possible - you need to send in docs certified by a notary.

I'm sure that would be a complete waste of my time and money. Would it result in me being paid? I don't think so. So CM are you now supporting Belle Rock's right to frig me around because they suspect I'm up to no good? It would appear that I have been tried, found guilty and sentenced in my absence, and will not be told what I am guilty of, permitted to see any evidence, and am therefor unable to deny/explain/take a position on any matter of concern to the casino.

I am being asked to prove a negative without even knowing what I haven't done! I am a real person, my id is valid, and I have only ever played at gaming club once.

If I "go quiet/don't follow up" on this thread please don't assume that it is an admission of guilt. It is simply recognition of the fact that I am going to get no help here.

 

[The Dude]

I'm sure that would be a complete waste of my time and money. Would it result in me being paid? I don't think so. So CM are you now supporting Belle Rock's right to frig me around because they suspect I'm up to no good? It would appear that I have been tried, found guilty and sentenced in my absence, and will not be told what I am guilty of, permitted to see any evidence, and am therefor unable to deny/explain/take a position on any matter of concern to the casino.

I am being asked to prove a negative without even knowing what I haven't done! I am a real person, my id is valid, and I have only ever played at gaming club once.

If I "go quiet/don't follow up" on this thread please don't assume that it is an admission of guilt. It is simply recognition of the fact that I am going to get no help here.

Jeeze, you're all acting like this is some court of law of some sort. It's a business that is trying to verify who you are. So far you are linked to other players and they want to be 100% sure that you are not. Sure, there is no guarantee that you'll be paid if you get certified copies. But in doing so, the casino can contact the certifier to ask further questions.

I'm trying to assist in this matter to get to the bottom of this.

 

[The Dude]

I know that sending in certified docs is a hell of a lot to ask, but so far what they have on you points to mutiple accounts.

 

[furby]

So far you are linked to other players and they want to be 100% sure that you are not. Sure, there is no guarantee that you'll be paid if you get certified copies. But in doing so, the casino can contact the certifier to ask further questions.

What on earth is the certifier supposed to know about me? I'm just some guy who walked in off the street, asked them to certify my id and then hang around for a phone call from an online casino who may or may not call, and may or may not accuse the certifier of being part of my supposed scam?

My withdrawal was for 498, I'm supposed to spend a quarter of that just for the chance of getting paid the remaining three quarters if Belle Rock feel like it?

I appreciate your help, but so far the certified documents thing has been shown to be nothing more than an annoying time wasting ploy by Belle Rock.

If Belle Rock have any doubts that my id is genuine (which I don't believe they do), they can contact the issuing authorities of my id at their expense.

And if they think I'm linked to other players, they should have had the common decency to tell me that at the start (over a month ago), and which other players, and why I'm linked, instead of all this "discrepancies with documents" BS.

I can only repeat that I am a real person who has only ever opened one account at gamingclub, and if the great infallable god that is Procyber and Risksentinel says otherwise, they are talking BS.

The burden of proof is on them, not me. I have a right to know what I am accused of and see the evidence. Never mind a court of law, this is a common principle that even the temporary manager of your nearest bar will have learnt on his two-week training course.

 

[Vesuvio]

But in doing so, the casino can contact the certifier to ask further questions.

That's surely going too far, though. When I was looking into having to do this I was planning on going to a bank and asking them to certify the docs, without any particular explanation (if it came to it, I'd probably say I wanted to open a savings account by mail).

The last thing they're then going to expect is for a group of on-line casinos to phone them up - not to mention the fact the conversation's probably going to be a bit abrupt:

---- Hi, do you remember one of your members of staff certified some documents a couple of days ago?

---- Errrrrm, no.

Or are they asking for docs certified by someone you know very well, who you're willing to tell you gamble on-line, who's willing to answer questions from on-line casinos, and who's willing to discuss/vouch for your character and provide details of previous credit/criminal history?

It's unrealistic. If the legitimacy of the documents isn't the issue, and it doesn't seem to be, there's no excuse for the casino group to make an issue of certification.

* I see Furby's made all the same points...

 

[The Dude]

I think what we are not understanding is that this is pretty much unprecedented, and that the casino does not have to do this. They are giving the player the opportunity to submit these docs - and the casino would take this into consideration - and contacting this person if need be.

We all know that connections beyond documents can be made - computer IDs, Software IDs, IP addresses, emails, etc. But there are many parts to this puzzle and I'm sorry I can't be totally direct with this.

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?

For one thing, as a casino operator, you are aware of groups of players who share bonus info on message boards, etc. That's a given, and it's to be expected. But every experienced operator understands that they (the casinos) are targets for gangs of players (which turn out to be a handful that masquerade as a large number), who are committing fraud by opening multiple accounts. The trick is to separate the legit player from the bath water so to speak. 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? I'd really like to know so that this thread can have some beneficial element to it instead of a screw the player/screw the casino sort of thing.

What they have now is convincing evidence that