I hear what you are saying but I think there's another side to it too: if it is standard policy to return the deposit no matter what then what incentive is there for the scammers to stop what they're doing. In effect you're saying "go ahead and try to scam us, in fact we'll reward you for doing so by guaranteeing that you'll at least break even." Not much of a disincentive is there?
In fact this kind of thinking leads to a scenario I saw recently: a guy had used BJ bots to wind $5000 in deposits up to about $13000. He PAB'd, the casino reported his bot use and proved it by showing his play records. The guy didn't blink, had no comment at all other than "hey, do you think you can get my deposits back?"
So what's that about, now I'm supposed to spend my time and effort to help the cheats collect? I don't think so!
If some grifter tries to con you out of $100 by risking $20 of his own and you catch him what are you supposed to do? Politely return his $20? Not where I come from. The chump should be happy if he gets to walk away in one piece!
So ya, I can see where the casino feels that it is under no obligation to give the shyster back his deposit. Why should they really?
Well, I would be asking whether their software was fair. Bot use ALONE will only ensure a player loses faster. It is ONLY when combined with a bonus offer that an advantage over the casino is possible, and this is only because they make the offer slightly +EV on the understanding that a normal player will make mistakes and not consistently beat the house. Blackjack bots cannot work on the card counting principle either, as this ONLY works in land casinos, as online casinos play each hand with a new deck.
This case was not well handled by the statement that the player was merely identified as "linked to" and "potential high risk". This strongly implies no proof, just a balance of probability, and this would in no way give them any right to confiscate a deposit. With ABSOLUTE proof, of the level that would most likely lead to a criminal conviction, and for a repeat offender, then there would be a deterrent effect in not returning the deposit without a big fight.
Despite the outcome, it is still hard to understand how this player intended to gain any kind of advantage given the play he CLAIMED to have made, which was deposit $400 and play a progressive slot. There would be no value in this, and any fraudster would only profit through using new player bonuses multiple times for leverage, in which case even slots play with a generous bonus would give them an overall advantage.
Despite the outcome, Red Flush could have handled the publicity better, so as to ensure that we would feel the drastic action was a reasonable response to the fraud attack they were suffering.
Confiscation of deposits is a problem due to the many instances of a mistake being made when identifying a player as a fraud or bonus abuser. For the innocent, it is bad enough they have to fight to clear their name without seeing the evidence, let alone seeing their deposit "stolen".
More attention should be given to preventing deposits in the first place, clearly this case was down to automated checks, and had nothing to do with the player producing fake ID. The software should check things "on the fly", with any oddities triggering a referral to CS, where the player would be asked to clarify their details in order to proceed. Innocent players would be spared the problem of struggling to get paid, they would have an opportunity to double check in case they had made a mistake, and even check with other household members who may already have played there. Fraudsters would not get as far as depositing and winning, and would be unable to satisfy the CS they were genuine. Any public complaint they make would merely be about being barred "without cause", which would not look as bad for the casino as having money confiscated.
im just red flushed all over
