Hej Branislav och jenwing116, ser ut som en saftig s?dan h?r. L?t mig g? igenom det jag kan se h?r.
N?r vi ser tillbaka p? den 12 september beg?rdes en uttagsbeg?ran p? $646,21. Detta nekades senare eftersom det saknades verifieringsdokument som kr?vdes f?r att kunna forts?tta med utbetalningsbeg?ran. Allt bra inga problem h?r.
Dokument verkade tas emot b?de den 13:e och den 14:e, men det fanns en fr?ga om varf?r efternamnet p? ditt konto hos Spinfinity ?ndrades flera g?nger. Detta h?jer r?da flaggor med alla casinon du bes?ker.
Efter viss kommunikation med spelaren, eller med spelarnas egna ord, blev hon "k?ftig" med oss, vilket i huvudsak var spelarnas underg?ng i det h?r fallet. Spelaren erk?nde att hon hade debiterat tillbaka tusentals dollar p? ett annat kasino online som inte ?r i v?r grupp, och skr?t om ?terkravet och anv?nde det som sin hoteffekt. Spelarkontot var n?stan verifierat, det verkade som att vi bara beh?vde ett dokument och utbetalningen var klar f?r henne. Tyv?rr p? grund av f?ljande skryt var v?r kassaavdelning tvungen att reflektera ?ver hotet som gavs och reagerade p? l?mpligt s?tt...
Spelaren sa...
"Det slutade med att jag var tvungen att ?terf?ra tusentals dollar till Luckyland Casino. De var inte n?jda men min bank ?lskar att ?terf?ra kasinon som inte betalar f?r vinster... S? det ligger i ditt b?sta intresse att hantera detta, annars tar jag bara betalt tillbaka alla pengar jag har spenderat hittills p? ditt kasino f?r att vinna dessa $600."
Som vi nu ser har denna spelare tidigare f?r ?terkrav och ?r helt klart en h?griskkund f?r alla onlinecasino. Som ett direkt resultat av detta togs beslutet att ?terbetala spelarnas ins?ttningar och verkst?lla f?rbudet. Detta gjordes inte f?r att undvika att betala ut en liten vinst, utan f?r s?kerheten p? casinot. Efter detta mycket tydliga hot, uppfattades det som att om vinsten p? $646 betalades ut, p? grund av spelarnas attityd och beteende, stod det klart f?r caisno att avsikten fanns d?r, vilket skulle se att ins?ttningarna skulle debiteras tillbaka oavsett kl. ett senare datum.
De olika detaljerna f?r samma spelare mellan de tv? kontona var anledningen till att spelaren tillfr?gades om korten och adresserna f?r verifiering mellan kasinon. Det ?r f?rst?eligt att folk flyttar hem eller har utg?ngna kreditkort, men som en fr?ga f?r KYC m?ste vi se till att allt ?r i sin ordning som ett ansvar f?r v?ra kunder.
Oavsett vilket skulle detta vara en f?rlustsituation f?r kasinot, om vi hade betalat ut vinsten skulle vi f? ett meddelande om ?terkrav l?ngs raden, s? att spelaren skulle g? iv?g med sina ins?ttningar ?ver tiden ($2 065) OCH vinsten belopp (646 USD). S? det ber?ttigade beslutet togs att endast ?terbetala ins?ttningarna och st?nga spelarkontot p? grund av risken som denna spelare utg?r, och f?r hennes k?rlek att ta tillbaka sina ins?ttningar p? onlinekasinon.
Med h?nsyn till allt ovanst?ende kommer kasinots beslut inte att ?ndras och det kommer inte att g?ras n?gra ytterligare ?tg?rder p? detta klagom?l. Spelaren uppger att de har kopior av meddelandena, liksom vi. Allt ?r inspelat f?r b?de v?r och spelarnas s?kerhet om det skulle beh?vas, som i den h?r situationen till exempel. F?rbudet g?ller p? obest?md tid ?ver alla v?ra systerkasinon, nej och i framtiden.
Hi Branislav and jenwing116, looks like a juicy one this one. Let me run through what I can see here.
Looking back to September 12th a withdrawal request was requested for $646.21. This was subsequently denied as there were missing verification documents which were required in order to proceed with the payout request. All fine no issues here.
Documents seemed to be received on both the 13th and the 14th, however there was a question why the surname on your account with Spinfinity was changed multiple times. This does raise red flags with any casino you visit.
After some communication with the player, or in the players own words she 'got mouthy' with us which was essentially the players downfall in this case. The player admitted that she had charged back thousands of dollars at another casino online that is not in our group, boasting about the chargeback and using that as her threat leverage. The players account was all but verified, it seemed we just needed one document and the cashout was ready for her. Unfortunately due to the following boast, our cashier department had to reflect on the threat given and reacted appropriately...
Player stated...
"I ended up having to chargeback thousands of dollars to Luckyland Casino. They were not happy but my bank loves to chargeback casinos who don't pay on winnings...So it's in your best interest to handle this or I'll simply charge back all the money I've spent to date at your casino in order to win that $600."
As we now see this player has previous for chargebacks and is quite clearly a high risk customer for any online casino. As a direct result of this, the decision was made to refund the players deposits and enforce the ban. This was not done to avoid paying out a small win, but for the security of the casino. Following this very clear threat, it was perceived that if the win of $646 was paid out, due to the players attitude and behaviour, it was clear to the caisno that the intent was there, which would see the deposits would be charged back regardless at a later date.
The differing details for the same player between the two accounts was the reason that the player was asked about the cards and addresses for verification between casinos. It's understandable that people move house or have expired credit cards, but as a matter of KYC we need to ensure that everything is in order as a responsibility to our customers.
Either way, this would be a lose lose situation for the casino, if we had paid out the win, we'd get notified of chargebacks down the line, so the player would walk away with their deposits over time ($2,065) AND the win amount ($646). So the justifyable decision was taken to refund the deposits only and close the players account due to the risk posed by this player, and for her love of charging back her deposits at online casinos.
Taking all the above into account, the decision of the casino will not change and there will be no further action on this complaint. The player states they have copies of the commincations, as do we. It's all recorded for both ours and players security should it every be called upon, as in this situation for example. The ban is in effect indefinitely across all our sister casinos no and in the future.
Automatiskt ?versatt: