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.