Interesting. However, the FL group must do better than this to deny winnings. What are the discrepancies mentioned? Multiple accounts? Links with a fraud ring? The fact is the player deposited $20 and cashed out $605 risking his own money in the process. If what he said is true, he also offered identification proof. I have had something similar happening to me with both the FL Group and Riverbelle in the past. They cited identifiers to security risks (something like that) and locked all my accounts. Only after protesting here were the accounts unlocked.
I agree that certain details should not be divulged especially those related to security issues. However, the casinos should at least give a brief outline on what the problem is. Citing that there are discrepancies certainly does not make the picture any clearer and will only give the player a valid case to pursue.
Hi chuchu
Thank you for the post and the relevant questions.
I think it is important to understand that, for economic reasons in a tough environment, no casino would lock player accounts unless they have very good reason to do so... or if their intention is to deliberately withold payouts to players..... in which case no-one should even be playing with them.
Most casinos have very stringent security measures in place to protect themselves (and their players) from abuse and fraud. These measures, however, should also be commercial and we, in the majority of cases, still give the player the benefit of doubt. As these processes are often subject to human intervention and decisionmaking it is possible that mistakes could be made and we have always rectified matters where this has occurred. I am pleased to say that these cases are scarce as we have continuously improved and refined our assessment processes in the 10 years+ of our existence to the level where the sophistication eliminates most errors.
There is also a very good reason why casinos do not divulge all the details regarding why an account is locked as it may educate fraudsters on how to side-step the system.
When someone is identified as being part of a "syndicate" (as in this case) it is because of a
number of issues, including sharing technology identifiers, identical purchase and play patterns, etc, etc. In a good number of cases it actually has nothing to do with the identity of that particular player (we often find that only one or none of the players from a "syndicate" would return verification documents)
It is also important to note that, although we classify something like this as a "syndicate" we may also be incorrect as it may be the same player opening several accounts with different details. The fact still remains that it is a player / a group of players who attempt to defraud the casino.
You are right about the fact that the playthrough requirements have nothing to do with the issue. Unfortunately I failed to complete my sentence in which wanted to add the fact that he has not met the playthrough requirements like every other person from that "syndicate".
Interestingly, only some 3% of players whose accounts are locked actually dispute the locking. All of these cases involve cash-ins. Of the 3% who dispute their locked accounts only 1% will dispute it more than once.
After more than 10 years, I think the Fortune Lounge Group has proved that we do not withold payments without
very good reason and, on occasion where we made mistakes we rectified them as soon as possible.
I hope this sheds some light within the constraints I have to divulge more details.
Regards
Wim
VP Operations
Fortune Lounge
)
