On Probation The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue

[TawniVirtualAce]

Hi all,

Yes, after my extended absence, I am back. As Greedy mentioned, I had some personal issues I had to tend to. I could not have imagined I would have been out as long as I've been, and I appreciate Virtual/Ace's support of my situation. I know the obvious question will be why did no one fill in for me. The truth in this is that we believed at this point, members have gotten to sort of 'know me' and dare I say, even trust me. We felt by bringing someone else in to cover for me, more conspiracy theories would arise, which would take away from whatever real issues were here to be discussed. Was this the best route to go? Maybe/maybe not, but it's the truth.

During this period of time, I was dealing with issues that pertained to individual members, which were sent to me via PM or elsewhere. Essentially, anything that related to a player on a personal level (not relating to policies, terms, etc.), I was handling.

There was no avoidance here, no ducking and dodging. Just a very difficult time for me personally, which made it tough for me to keep my head into anything other than what was essential. I'm sure everyone has had a moment in their lives such as this, so I would hope there will be some understanding where this is concerned.

There is much for me to read through, catch up on and reply to in this thread, which I promise I will get onto, immediately. I will give thorough answers to everything in the next day or so, you have my word on this.

Tawni

 

[chuchu59]

I hope you are well Tawni and that your personal issues have been solved. Personally, I don't really see Virtual having the will to turn over a new leaf. I would say the efforts Virtual makes to derogue themselves need to be triple or quadruple the efforts of other casinos to redeem themselves given its chequered past. 'One swallow does not make a summer' and I think it applies to Virtual's case. You need to convince us that you have turned good not just temporarily as you had too many times in the past promised to become good only to rip off players when the players won big. Only by behaving well on a consistent basis will it mean anything to most of us but honestly I cant see that happening with Virtual. What I do see are half-hearted attempts aimed at deroguing yourselves. I am sorry if it sounds harsh but this outfit had been given too many chances in the past and frankly I don't believe it dserves another. The bar that is set for Virtual to climb out of the rogue pit should be set much higher than others IMHO.

 

[Casinomeister]

I hope you are well Tawni and that your personal issues have been solved. Personally, I don't really see Virtual having the will to turn over a new leaf. I would say the efforts Virtual makes to derogue themselves need to be triple or quadruple the efforts of other casinos to redeem themselves given its chequered past. 'One swallow does not make a summer' and I think it applies to Virtual's case. You need to convince us that you have turned good not just temporarily as you had too many times in the past promised to become good only to rip off players when the players won big. Only by behaving well on a consistent basis will it mean anything to most of us but honestly I cant see that happening with Virtual. What I do see are half-hearted attempts aimed at deroguing yourselves. I am sorry if it sounds harsh but this outfit had been given too many chances in the past and frankly I don't believe it dserves another. The bar that is set for Virtual to climb out of the rogue pit should be set much higher than others IMHO.

Hi Chu,

Unfortunately, we aren't getting a clear picture of what is and has been happening behind the scenes at Virtual with this thread. It has been muddled with false accusations and some real bullshit from players. Some members are distorting their stories trying to make things look worse than it really is.

The amount of complaints concerning these properties is infinitesimal. Many of the Accredited Casinos here churn out more complaints than these guys. We really need to keep things in proper perspective if we want things to be balanced and fair.

 

[anniemac]

I haven't commented on this thread, mainly because no matter what, I don't intend on playing at these casinos as long as it takes a month or longer to get paid.

Being in the US, RTG is the main software I can play. So why would I chance depositing and winning at a casino that's going to take forever to pay when I can play at one that will pay in 3 days?

If Virtuals reputation were sterling, I still am not going to wait a month for payment. Not gonna happen.

 

[BMWSTACK]

Hi Chu,

Unfortunately, we aren't getting a clear picture of what is and has been happening behind the scenes at Virtual with this thread. It has been muddled with false accusations and some real bullshit from players. Some members are distorting their stories trying to make things look worse than it really is.

The amount of complaints concerning these properties is infinitesimal. Many of the Accredited Casinos here churn out more complaints than these guys. We really need to keep things in proper perspective if we want things to be balanced and fair.

Yes indeed what you say makes complete sense. I do understand that the reputation has already had many discredit them from the beginning. I have certainly done my fair share of not being supportive, but I do base it upon facts. The facts are based upon complaints elsewhere. I am able to separate fact from fiction in terms of the complaints, and if I wasn't seeing anything legit I wouldn't be commenting. But from the time of this probation, I have seen multiple issue where Tawni has had to go get players paid. Most were slow pays and only got attention when posted in public. So now I have seen factual information that delays are still happening, and then need to make the assumption that there are plenty more that are sitting quietly not knowing the option of help from a forum.

 

[mrmark21]

Well we will just leave it to a vote... I know how I'll be voting

 

[JackMack]

I have sort of speed read through this so forgive me if I have got any details wrong or missed anything but about the player who was denied $30+k because the bank allegedly charged back the deposits.
If I read correctly the player won the $30k in quick time so I am wondering if a jackpot was won?
If it was and the cashout denied where did the $30K go?
Also why would the bank make a chargeback without contacting the card holder, especially on relatively small amounts and just a couple of transactions when they had prior knowledge the card would be used abroad?
I assume the player was in contact with the bank to see if this were true?
It sounds like very dodgy behaviour to me.

If this casino group has been so bad in the past and pulled similar PR stunts before then I'm surprised they are being given another chance without having new ownership at least - the way I understand it these are the same people that have blatantly ripped off players in the past so are we to believe they have had a change of heart because they say so?
If this website has power enough to adversely affect a casinos business (and what is the point of the rogue pit if it doesn't?) then surely this is proof that the policy of placing crooked casinos in there is working - hurting them and slowly putting them out of business. Why reverse policy now and let them off the hook?
It's good if this site puts crooked casinos that have hurty players and the industries reputation out of business isn't it?

Look, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but to me the people who vote should be the people who have been wronged by these casinos. It seems to me they are the only people who can decide whether to forgive and justice would be served in a way.

 

[zanzibar]

IMHO the missing 37k is an open and shut rip-off case that has been swept under the rug.

These casinos operate under the ridiculous rule that when you make a deposit you then have to wait at least 2 weeks to confirm that your deposits were received before you are allowed to play and win anything. Oh wait... that's not right, no they don't. You can deposit and win and 2 weeks later you can be told "sorry we didn't receive your deposits so your winnings are void, thanks for playing."

Regardless of whether you believe the casino's story that the bank cancelled the deposits, or that the casino just made it all up to avoid paying a big winner who only made a small deposit, there is no reason why anyone sane would play at a casino under those rules.

 

[bigsmile]

I know I keep saying that I like this group and some say I am crazy. But this feels like a witch hunt on many levels. Many don't seem to be giving this the open minded attention it deserves. This group is doing fine IMO and from my experiences. I like them a lot. Your just missing out if your not trying them with an open mind.

 

[bigjohn]

The only thing that is going to tell is time.

If they are not generating legitimate complaints they should be moved to the reservation if that is what the people who can see through the BS believe should be done.

If it's going to be determined by a vote from the membership you might as well throw away the key. JMO

 

[Nifty29]

In any other casino, if your deposits were charged back......by you/the bank/santa claus/whomever...then the winnings are void.

If this is the case here, and it appears that it is, then why the big hoo-hah?

At the end of the day, chargebacks cost the casinos a FORTUNE. The fee per CB transaction is exorbitant, and if the number of CBs breaches a certain percentage of the overall transactions, the processor loses it's rights to process VISA/MC/Amex etc.

Remember, we only have the player's word that they "didn't know" about the chargebacks and it was their bank that did it "without their knowledge". Over here, I get an SMS if anything like that occurs (e.g. returned payment, suspicious activity etc), and sometimes even a phone call. At the very minimum, I get a letter and email within a day or two.

It's quite possible that the player was attempting to "freeroll" the house, which is a very common tactic used by fraudsters and other n'er-do-wells in our society.

Surely the correct course of action is for the player's bank to provide a certified letter explaining that the chargebacks had nothing to do with the player and that they had no knowledge, AND they did not request them at ANY stage. I would think a good operator, perhaps 32Red or something (just speculating based on a long association here), would examine such evidence with an open mind. Provided the evidence is genuine and not open to interpretation, then I could see such a good operator agreeing to pay the winnings MINUS the deposits AND any associated fees and charges and fines from the card companies.

I too have speed read most of the stuff, but I don't remember seeing anything where the player provided official evidence or correspondence from their bank stating categorically that the bank was totally responsible for the chargebacks. So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case.

I have to wonder if the same carry-on would happen if a different casino/group made this decision.

I have NEVER been a supporter of the Virtual/Ace Group since their shady activities came to light many years ago, however I am forced to agree somewhat with Bigjohn in that there seems to be a lack of open-minded and objective discussion and debate going on in this thread, and a whole lot of old wounds being opened and fingers being pointed.

I am NOT saying they should be removed from the Pit. I don't have enough information to form a view on that yet. However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks.

I know Greedygirl personally and I can vouch for her honesty and integrity. She wouldn't be involved in this campaign if there were not a positive side for the industry as a whole, and that's enough for me to put my past prejudices aside and at least hear them out. What I will say though is that there seems to be a lot of stuff to "hear" thus far, but not a hell of a lot to "see". IMO, more positive and obvious direct action is required if these groups have any chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of this amazing site and it's members.

 

[Casinomeister]

I just wish Chillbill would chime in. I heard he has a lot of interesting things to say about this subject.

 

[gambler777]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

 

[chuchu59]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

If you cant recall the details dig them out especially if its for a large amount. Since they are still interested in being derogued you can send a pm to Tawni and see how she handles it. You might never get this opportunity again so use it please.

 

[Jasminebed]

The reason I found Casinomeister was because of being ripped off by Virtual casino group, I am pretty sure it was palace of chance, but I never remember receiving anything asking me about this. At the time, Casinomeister could not help me because they were a rogued casino. But it was a large amount of money, if I remember correctly. Has been so long I cannot remember all the details. However, recently Planet 7 gave me a $75 chip that had max cashout of 100.00. Well I have requested the payout I will let you know how it all goes.

Gotta agree with chuchu, follow up on it now. Some people have been paid thousands they were owed for years. Even if you don't recall the exact date or account number, your real details like name, birthdate and address should be enough for Tawni to investigate.

 

[JackMack]

In any other casino, if your deposits were charged back......by you/the bank/santa claus/whomever...then the winnings are void.

If this is the case here, and it appears that it is, then why the big hoo-hah?

At the end of the day, chargebacks cost the casinos a FORTUNE. The fee per CB transaction is exorbitant, and if the number of CBs breaches a certain percentage of the overall transactions, the processor loses it's rights to process VISA/MC/Amex etc.

Remember, we only have the player's word that they "didn't know" about the chargebacks and it was their bank that did it "without their knowledge". Over here, I get an SMS if anything like that occurs (e.g. returned payment, suspicious activity etc), and sometimes even a phone call. At the very minimum, I get a letter and email within a day or two.

It's quite possible that the player was attempting to "freeroll" the house, which is a very common tactic used by fraudsters and other n'er-do-wells in our society.

Surely the correct course of action is for the player's bank to provide a certified letter explaining that the chargebacks had nothing to do with the player and that they had no knowledge, AND they did not request them at ANY stage. I would think a good operator, perhaps 32Red or something (just speculating based on a long association here), would examine such evidence with an open mind. Provided the evidence is genuine and not open to interpretation, then I could see such a good operator agreeing to pay the winnings MINUS the deposits AND any associated fees and charges and fines from the card companies.

I too have speed read most of the stuff, but I don't remember seeing anything where the player provided official evidence or correspondence from their bank stating categorically that the bank was totally responsible for the chargebacks. So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case.

I have to wonder if the same carry-on would happen if a different casino/group made this decision.

I have NEVER been a supporter of the Virtual/Ace Group since their shady activities came to light many years ago, however I am forced to agree somewhat with Bigjohn in that there seems to be a lack of open-minded and objective discussion and debate going on in this thread, and a whole lot of old wounds being opened and fingers being pointed.

I am NOT saying they should be removed from the Pit. I don't have enough information to form a view on that yet. However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks.

I know Greedygirl personally and I can vouch for her honesty and integrity. She wouldn't be involved in this campaign if there were not a positive side for the industry as a whole, and that's enough for me to put my past prejudices aside and at least hear them out. What I will say though is that there seems to be a lot of stuff to "hear" thus far, but not a hell of a lot to "see". IMO, more positive and obvious direct action is required if these groups have any chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of this amazing site and it's members.

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

 

[Tirilej]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

Do we know that that was what happened or is that only what the player have told?

Sorry, I don't know this story so just asking.

 

[Nifty29]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

It's very clear that you didn't read past the first sentence. If you had you would realise that I was NOT taking ANY side.....it was a balanced view of the situation with a solution suggested.

Hence, your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Thank you.

 

[JackMack]

It's very clear that you didn't read past the first sentence. If you had you would realise that I was NOT taking ANY side.....it was a balanced view of the situation with a solution suggested.

Hence, your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Thank you.

Balanced view?

You go on for a few paragraphs ignoring the facts and framing the player before stating.

"So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case."

The end of the post was more balanced and I'm sorry you found my view irrelevant because most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the case - common sense alone tells you that people don't make a chargeback for $200 when they are having a cashout of $35k+ processed. Like I say that type of fraud is reserved for losing deposits and usually large deposits. Other chargebacks for smaller amounts can be for all sorts of reasons from bad losers to genuine grievances.

I know you are probably trying to take a balanced view and not take sides but you ended up doing just that and for a casino with a long history of rogue behaviour which is what I find strange. Especially since you yourself accuse people of just taking sides and not looking at the facts as further evidence of how this poor casino group is being ganged up upon by those nasty players by writing this;

"However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks."

You were prepared to make assumptions and use conjecture yourself, even when it went against common sense, to make a case for the casino ahead of the player so again I think your opinion was prejudiced.

I am a little prejudiced too because I don't think people who have deliberately and calculatingly ripped people off for profit should be allowed to say sorry and try to profit from their apology in the same business. I can see a valid counter view that everybody deserves another chance but I don't agree with that in a business where the only motive is profit. It would be different if this were some guy who had served his time and seen the light, this guy didn't serve any time but the people he ripped off will probably always feel bad about it.
But making excuses for them and vilifying those they have ripped off goes too far, I can't not speak out against that whether you see it as irrelevant or not.

 

[chuchu59]

I stopped reading when it became apparent you hadn't read the thread. after the firsts sentence pretty much.
The chargeback came after the player won 35K (in about 30 mins) and had made a withdrawal request and the casino accept the payer didn't make a chargeback it was done by the bank.

You really think someone is gong to put 35k at risk to chargeback $200?

Any potential fraudster would only chargeback on losses and then they would make a bigger deposit to make it worthwhile.
I find it very strange when people want to take the side of casino and call out a player even against all the evidence and doubly so when the casinos have a long history of abusing players and none payment.

Purely based on logic, no player in his/her right mind would do a chargeback of $200 to risk missing out on $35K. That said, I am not privy to what exactly transpired so we must, for the sake of fairness, allow the casino to present its version of the story. There is also the slight possibility, albeit illogically or insanely however you want to put it that this player has a habit of doing chargebacks and he/she did so out of habit. However much I detest Virtual, chargebacks are a no-no in this industry and should it be proven that it was done by the player, the winnings should rightly be confiscated. However, Virtual has, in the past, been very sleazy on many issues and for $35K they might just pull something out of thin air to deny winnings.

 

[Nifty29]

Balanced view?

You go on for a few paragraphs ignoring the facts and framing the player before stating.

"So, I have to assume, based on plenty of time passing in which this could be provided, that the player DID have some involvement in the chargebacks.....and, hence, should have their winnings forfeited just like any other chargeback case."

The end of the post was more balanced and I'm sorry you found my view irrelevant because most of what you wrote was irrelevant to the case - common sense alone tells you that people don't make a chargeback for $200 when they are having a cashout of $35k+ processed. Like I say that type of fraud is reserved for losing deposits and usually large deposits. Other chargebacks for smaller amounts can be for all sorts of reasons from bad losers to genuine grievances.

I know you are probably trying to take a balanced view and not take sides but you ended up doing just that and for a casino with a long history of rogue behaviour which is what I find strange. Especially since you yourself accuse people of just taking sides and not looking at the facts as further evidence of how this poor casino group is being ganged up upon by those nasty players by writing this;

"However, if we are going to have a debate, it should be about FACTS and not about conjecture and what happened in 2006 etc. If these groups HAVE changed for the better, the onus is on THEM to prove it IMO, but I cannot see how they have any chance of doing so while some people just automatically take every player complaint as gospel and get out the pitchforks."

You were prepared to make assumptions and use conjecture yourself, even when it went against common sense, to make a case for the casino ahead of the player so again I think your opinion was prejudiced.

I am a little prejudiced too because I don't think people who have deliberately and calculatingly ripped people off for profit should be allowed to say sorry and try to profit from their apology in the same business. I can see a valid counter view that everybody deserves another chance but I don't agree with that in a business where the only motive is profit. It would be different if this were some guy who had served his time and seen the light, this guy didn't serve any time but the people he ripped off will probably always feel bad about it.
But making excuses for them and vilifying those they have ripped off goes too far, I can't not speak out against that whether you see it as irrelevant or not.

It is also very clear that, by your own definition, you are unbalanced and biased.

It's becoming obvious that you have some kind of agenda/angle here. Time will tell if I'm right.

You've already made up your mind. I haven't....because I don't have all the facts. You obviously do, and were obviously privy to everything that went on....perhaps you know this person? Perhaps you can fill in all the details that weren't posted?

See, you're an example of why I've mainly stayed out of this thread. People like yourself aren't interested in a balanced discussion, only a witch hunt. My post presented BOTH sides, and shows that IF the player had absolutely NO part in the CB, then the casino SHOULD PAY minus all fees and fines. Can't see how that's unbalanced.

How do you can say that the OP couldn't possibly CB for that amount? Maybe they were short on cash, or their spouse found out, or they had cashflow problems and knew it would take weeks to get paid. Who the hell knows? One things for sure....there's endless possibilities and nobody can discount them all.

Here's a question/challenge for Tawni:

Do you have irrefutable evidence that it was the BANK that initiated the chargeback?

If YES......show that the new leaf has been turned and PAY the player.

If NO.....then give the player 7 days to produce certified documents to that effect, and a direct contact at their bank for verification....and if it checks out, then PAY the player.

If you have irrefutable proof that it was the player who initiated the chargeback, then please provide it to Bryan or in this thread.

Either way, this needs to be settled ASAP IMO.

Words and intentions are great. Time for action. Do what 32Red or 3Dice would do and look at evidence and intention, and take the logical steps to close the case once and for all.


P.S. Any payment should be minus any and all costs related to the chargeback. I would also think the player might consider a donation to a CM charity of a reasonably generous sum via deduction from the payment.

 

[zanzibar]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

 

[Nifty29]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

OK....assuming that the player WAS "new to online gambling"....and I would think this would be relatively easy to confirm one way or the other.....AND everything posted above is true.....then:

Here's a question/challenge for Tawni:

Do you have irrefutable evidence that it was the BANK that initiated the chargeback?

If YES......show that the new leaf has been turned and PAY the player.

If NO.....then give the player 7 days to produce certified documents to that effect, and a direct contact at their bank for verification....and if it checks out, then PAY the player.

If you have irrefutable proof that it was the player who initiated the chargeback, then please provide it to Bryan or in this thread.

Either way, this needs to be settled ASAP IMO.

Words and intentions are great. Time for action. Do what 32Red or 3Dice would do and look at evidence and intention, and take the logical steps to close the case once and for all.


P.S. Any payment should be minus any and all costs related to the chargeback. I would also think the player might consider a donation to a CM charity of a reasonably generous sum via deduction from the payment.

IMO that is a fair and equitable resolution if, as it appears, it WAS the bank that stopped the charges. It is, of course, possible that the player KNEW the bank would do this, but this would depend on the above question about how familiar they were with online gambling. As I said, there are a myriad of reasons why someone might do such a thing, and we hear new forms of fraudulent behaviour every day. Still, if everything is above board as the player states, then I see no obstacle to paying their winnings as per above.

Let's see what Tawni can do.

 

[SlotsLover]

chargebacks

I am not in any way saying or implying that the OP is not telling the truth. However, I just want to state that I have been using multiple credit cards at least 50x each week (maybe I should go to GA) since NT went down and I have only had one instance of a bank canceling a deposit and that was to a sports book for $1000. Not saying it didn't happen this way, but my banks never cancel the deposits once they are made. They do often block the cards or block deposits, but not after the fact, at least in my experience.

 

[chuchu59]

The 37k ripoff has all been covered before earlier in this thread and I agree, there's a few opinions here that show that they haven't read it, or more likely they have but it was a while ago so they forgot.

The player informed their bank that they would be using their card for an overseas transaction before making their deposits, specifically to avoid having them declined. These are the actions of a reasonable person, not a fraudster. They got the ok then deposited, the casino accepted their money, credited their account and they shortly after won $37k. 2 weeks later after being congratulated by casino staff and waiting through the ridiculously long withdrawal process they get told that the bank cancelled the deposits and they can kiss their $37k goodbye. Unlucky or entirely too convenient?

We do have evidence that the player did not charge back, straight from the horse's mouth. This was confirmed by the rep and discussed here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

and here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-virtual-casino-group-and-ace-revenue.59668/

Thanks for the info. If the deposits had been cancelled by the bank due to concerns on the player's transactions in a foreign country then some casinos will jump on this to deny winnings and remember this is Virtual not some reputable outfit like 32RED or 3Dice. The way I see it, the player can only have solid claims to the money if the bank reversed the charges due to something initiated by the casino eg it sent a signal to the bank that raised red flags. This is a possibility especially with payments by credit cards as the bank could view some transactions as dubious and they act to protect the customer. I wont have time to read everything again but really want to know whether the player had contacted the bank stating she was going to make a couple of transactions in a foreign country. Should Tawni be right about this I honestly don't believe a bank will act against a customer's will and unilaterally reverse the charges. It must have been an act from either the player or casino that triggered this. By an act I don't mean the act of the player in contacting the bank she was going to charge her card for transactions in a foreign country. Usually, this only facilitates the transactions and wont raise red flags as Tawni claims.