Videoslots withdrawl denied and Account blocked.

Award winning Videoslots is reviewed by Casinomeister

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
As usual with this kind of cases, there is more than has been told.

My gut is telling me that we see a fraudster here or at least a fraudulent attempt.

No casino wants to lose customers, so when one is invoking the term VS did then there must be some corroborating evidence of something fishy.


Every time we had a case of "friend", "cousin", "girlfriend", etc. here it always turned out to be some attempted fraud or someone trying to circumvent SE barriers. I see the same signs with this OP.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Shouldn’t VS system have spotted that this was a self excluded IP during the account creation part? Correct me if I am wrong.

No, main SE identifiers are name, birth date, address, email address, phone number, credit/debit card numbers.

Many people are on dynamic IPs, so that can't be the single identifier to exclude everyone signing up from the same IP.
 

dpp00

Experienced Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Location
uk
ya im sorry as usual with these cases when you see the casino point blank saying go for it you can be sure there there pretty confident

with there decision, i think id agree with them here im only saying it because i play from another country even though im UK based,

but due to family matters i find my self in Ireland a few days a week and just asked VS if its ok to play and had no problem for nearly 2 years now,

also my other 3 casinos do the same was simply a matter of asking, i suppose its the same advice thats always given here read t&cs and when in doubt ask,
 

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Have to disagree with a few here, if the account is 100% legit different person but not a fraudster then video slots should pay out. Just because he signed up his first account & didn't take the bonus & did it his mates place does not warrant them holding payment. Doesn't matter if mate is self excluded or not.
Just that the account & player is legit. Thats all what matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mac72

Threatening behaviour - PITA
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Location
n ireland
Have to disagree with a few here, if the account is 100% legit different person but not a fraudster then video slots should pay out. Just because he signed up his first account & didn't take the bonus & did it his mates place does not warrant them holding payment. Does matter if mate is self excluded or not.
Just that the account & player is legit. Thats all what matters.
Completely agree, if he is who he says he is and didn't take a bonus whats the issue? In this world of mobile play and the amount of users most of the casinos have it must be near on impossible to play on an IP address that someone else who's a customer hasn't used. I'd like to see the IP t+c's removed everywhere its akin to borrowing my mates jacket and heading to B+M where he's barred and being shown the door or worse denied winnings :) He would have had no grounds for deposit refund under SE rules and if he did that's an awful can of worms, so anyone having a bad session could pop over to their SE'd mates house and play on and then seek refund?? Doesn't make any sense
 
Last edited:

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Maybe so , but again i have not stated any different only if what i had already written is the case, don't always judge a book by its cover , video slots are no angels , neither am i saying the op is, but its a far cry when people go into auto about bad players, i've watched it many many years , not all players have done wrong.
 

zreb

Experienced Member
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Location
currently in US
No, main SE identifiers are name, birth date, address, email address, phone number, credit/debit card numbers.

Many people are on dynamic IPs, so that can't be the single identifier to exclude everyone signing up from the same IP.

I don't disagree, but if an IP address is enough to trigger problems on cashouts or to violate the bonus terms (3.6), surely it's unfair of the casino not to throw up a flag during account creation and resolve it before a deposit is made?
 

Guntis

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Location
United kingdom
Maybe I missed some bit of information, but how about opening an account at Videoslots in public places like Starbucks, McDonald's etc, using public Wifi or the internet cafe?
Will the account be blocked and winnings confiscated if from the same IP somebody else has already registered?
 

zreb

Experienced Member
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Location
currently in US
To get this out of the way: I think most here would agree that the most likely possibility here is that OP and his self excluded "friend" are the same person and are just stringing us along here. But of course we don't know that 100% for sure.

But did many people here actually look closely at term 1.4? First of all, the formatting is so messed up that it's virtually unreadable (and really needs to be fixed), but ignoring that, term 1.4 is just a reservation of rights allowed to videoslots, including account closures, removal from promotional activities, etc. The point is, term 1.4 is not a term that can be violated by a player.

The relevant part is:
"Videoslots reserves the right, at its own discretion, to: ...
  • forfeit and/or confiscate funds available on an account and/or refuse to honour a claim, in the event that, directly or indirectly, these Terms and Conditions have been violated and/or other unauthorised"
(I didn't leave anything off the end, that's how it's written.)

So the point is, 1.4 allows videoslots to reserve the right to confiscate funds in case a term has been violated. But 1.4 by itself is never sufficient justification to confiscate funds, you would also need to point out the actual term violated.

*(There is some vague allusion to "illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest activities" connected to the statements about the right to account closure, but it isn't connected to the part about confiscation of funds, and any behaviors that are legal but "fraudulent" or "dishonest" should be defined elsewhere anyway. So the only real way to violate the term would be illegal activity.)


So what about shared IP addresses? If that's really what led to the situation, the only term I see which addresses that is this:

"3.6 Only one bonus per household/IP address can be used. In case of bonus abuse, said bonus will be forfeited and any funds on this account shall be frozen."

But if OP didn't use a bonus (specifically, one already used by his self-excluded "friend"), videoslots would actually need evidence of fraudulent identity or some other term to confiscate the funds. Maybe it's a case of "Whoops, we made a mistake only having that apply to bonuses so we're just going to point to our catch-all term 1.4 instead" (which doesn't actually cover the situation, since nowhere else in the terms do I see it being a violation to have a shared IP address without a bonus.)

So in summary: Yeah OP probably is bullshitting us, but from the information given I'm not sure confiscation is justified. This goes with the obvious disclaimer: there may be other evidence of fraud we're unaware of, but still, videoslots should be able to point the player to the specific term violated. 1.4 doesn't count for the reasons above, that's just the right to confiscate funds if another term is violated.

So many casinos seem to take the lazy way and just refer to their "catch-all" term when they believe a player has done something wrong, and in this case, I don't think that works.

And in either case, someone at videoslots should really go through and fix that term and its formatting, and probably rewrite it altogether.
 
Last edited:

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Maybe @Team.Videoslots can confirm, not in regard to this case, but in general, if you use an IP that has been previously used by another customer, bonus or no bonus, what will happen.
I still think, in this particular case, there is stuff we don't know. The OP has already been caught out leaving out some very relevant information, I would be surprised there wasn't more.
 

Timo0510

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Location
Germany
This Topic growing up more and more. And a lot of Information coming up after his Account get closed.

We know the OP sign up there
He deposits €1.000,starts playing without Bonus
Win 10.000 + and want Cash out €10.000
His Account get full verified !

And after this,he wanna take a withdrawal and the Account get blocked and Closed.

I am Curious with what Information VS works to close this Account and say he breaks Terms 1.4.

All other Information,like he plays by a SE Friend,same IP / Household etc doesn't Count.All this coming up to the Story after the Disaster with the closed Account.On this Story must be more than OP or VS telling about.And more,VS paying everyday much Money instant to so many persons around the World.

I am really hopefully,that VS tell us more about this Story than say to OP to go MGA and stay quiet with this Topic.This is important for all Members in our Community here i think :)
 

Jono777

Ueber Meister
CAG
mm1
mm4
Joined
May 13, 2014
Location
Wolverhampton
Main thing is VS, a popular trusted brand have spoken up and stated that they will stand by their decision. Confidently offering involvement of an ADR.

Knowing that they are constantly spoken of on here and other forums, they will be 100% confident that any 3rd party will take their side. This being said I strongly feel OP has genuinely broken their term and that there is no middle ground nor grey areas to be found here.

Only outside and tiny hope OP has and it is tiny at that is that VS may accept a compromise with a view to fair play, giving OP a life line / second chance and great CS, nothing more.
 

Timo0510

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Location
Germany
This being said I strongly feel OP has genuinely broken their term and that there is no middle ground nor grey areas to be found here.

I also believe that OP break the rules.But as u said,VS as a popular Brand and Trusted Casino by so many sites,cant go to the OP,send an E-mail u break Terms and your Money is lost.After many request´s from OP to the Casino,he still get no Answer what he did and why it happens.This shouldn't be the Way like a Casino like VS works.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
I also believe that OP break the rules.But as u said,VS as a popular Brand and Trusted Casino by so many sites,cant go to the OP,send an E-mail u break Terms and your Money is lost.After many request´s from OP to the Casino,he still get no Answer what he did and why it happens.This shouldn't be the Way like a Casino like VS works.

How do you know he didn't get more information?
 

stokes

Experienced Greenhorn
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Location
Springfield
Let's suppose the OP and their "friend" are the same person. What they wanted to gain registering another account at VS instead of choosing another from the thousands of the online casinos? Even if they wanted to play at a trustworthy site there are still at least hundred to select from. Did they SEd from all?
 
Top