The bonus is granted by the software automatically to every new account, so we cant deny the bonus preventive. And in our bonus conditions is clearly announced:
All bonuses and promotions are available only once per day and per person, family, household, address, e-mail address, ip address and credit card number. In case of abuse credits resulting from deposits will be reimbursed to the betting customer(...) Gratuitous credits and bonuses as well as winnings from gratuitous credits or bonuses and winnings will be forfeited entirely.
So this user took the bonus at the same household with the same ip adress and on the same day as "his friend" - thats why we denied the bonus afterwards.
We had to be strong with that since we had have a really attractive bonus offer in August that attracted many bonus abusers.
Best regards
Florian
stryyke.com
Well, you seem to have a little more than just IP address. You have two players playing from the same house and PC. This is much closer to the profile of multiple account fraud.
HOWEVER, you continually dodge my general point about IP address logging. Players themselves DO NOT CONTROL THIS, it is down to their ISP how they allocate IP addresses. You will end up screwing over players who can PROVE they played at their own house, with only ONE account, and with their own ID details.
You also leave yourself wide open to scamming, since those terms also list "per day", so if someone played on Monday, and then again on Tuesday, with different details and a new account, this would be WITHIN your rules, despite the fact this could be one person playing two bonuses.
This will lead to a poor reputation among players, and this pair are going to be telling their friends NOT to play there, and that you are cheats.
Provided this pair can PROVE they are two different people, and used COMPLETELY different deposit methods, and registered their details as shown on their documents, they are likely to be two friends who are new to online casinos, and didn't realise this might be a problem.
The terms are always worded technically, and anyone who doesn't know much about the "black box" that connects their PC to the internet will not know that playing at a friend's house means they will probably have a problem because their IP address will match that of another customer.
As far as I know, reading MAC address is not illegal, it is used by big companies like Microsoft to enforce it's licensing rules for it's software. If it sees that ONE copy of Office, say, requests updates from TWO different MAC addresses, it knows there are TWO separate PC's using the one copy, and they can check that the correct license has been purchased.
Mudnav has done something silly though, by using a friends computer, and on the same day. This should NEVER be done, it leads to many problems, not least the fact that casinos, not just this one, cannot tell this situation apart from a single player creating multiple accounts.
In this case, there are said to be THREE accounts from this IP address, and mudnav has only explained TWO. The THIRD also has to be accounted for, and if this turns out to be "another friend" that will only be admitted to once they have been asked for documents or had a bonus removed, this will look VERY bad for mudnav.
mudnav should PAB, and tell the WHOLE truth. If THREE friends played on that PC, say so, don't try to hide this fact, as the PAB will fail due to dishonesty.
The casino also needs to realise that IP addresses alone do not show whether they have one player with duplicate accounts, or two (or more) players who have been allocated the same IP addresses by the ISP for that area at different times - when one player shuts down, the IP address is freed and will be reallocated to another user of that ISP.
MAC address identifies the actual hardware, be that the modem, router, or end PC. If MACs are duplicated on different accounts, you have a close connection between them, the usual being that both played on the same PC, and/or in the same household. Such cases are more likely to involve multiple account fraud rather than have purely innocent explanations, but nevertheless CAN have an innocent explanation, such as the PC being sold on, or given away to another person.
Having automated bonuses makes such problems worse, and having a bonus awarded after a software check into several "indicators" would be far better than the confiscation after the fact route. Players denied the bonus would have to convince the casino that they are indeed eligible, and not simply chancers creating duplicate accounts.
There should be enough talent in the industry to produce software that minimises the risk of players having winnings confiscated through silly mistakes, so one has to wonder why casino operators prefer being able to pull off a confiscation rather than ensure their customers are shielded from silly errors of judgement.