Topic: Fortunejack - confiscation of my winnings (Read 1353 times)

Oh sorry, they did, actually. He'll be in holiday break until mid of this month [I guess he's part of the skeleton crew during Christmas holiday and now it's his turn], so we won't hear from him for at least until mid January. He's interested with the proposal, but it's out of his hand. He'll bring it to the table, but he sincerely doubt that the management would approve. I believe you can understand that it involves customer's data protection from their perspective. Especially as the case was already tried by an independent and more competent arbitrator.

they didn't answer anything?

I've sent them a PM aside from mentioning them here, just in case. But yeah, I can understand if they feel reluctant to provide such sensitive information to an unknown [and uncertified] third party, be it with the data owner's consent or not. I am hoping they will weight the benefits of having this "retried" with a chance of having the case with an added "bonus" as them being perceived as very transparent with the whole process.

Awesome proposal, heads off to you holydarkness. Now we only need FJ to play ball and send you the "evidence". I am sure you will make a fair and unbiased ruling.
Somehow I have doubt though, meaning that FJ will actually agree to this. Maybe they will argue with "privacy reasons" and so on but since OP gave his consent there is nothing to worry about. I hope I am wrong since this proposal would be the perfect chance to finally get this resolved in a good matter . Let's see what they say and let's hope they won't drag their reply into the next month or something.

ADante through FortuneJack, I am well aware that conventionally, once a ruling made by an ADR, the forum adhered to their findings and ruling and take it as the verdict that applies. But is it possible to take a small change and get it resolved amicably, yet irrefutably by having me to look into that file you gave CG?

I know and can perfectly understand your platform [and as a professional business entity with all of their responsibilities] reluctance, privacy and all, but I think this is a good way to meet OP in the middle and a show of good gesture [since you actually, by tradition, don't have to] that his case is treated beyond fairly and as clear as a moissanite.

And like what I said to OP, I know I don't have much to vouch myself, only that I give you my word that I'll stand from neutral ground and I'll just look at it for investigative purpose. I will not use it in any means of harm, disabuse it, or all.

Do you mind to consider this proposal?

What I have in mind is me having a clearer insight [hopefully a very clear insight] of what actually happened with those... one person this and brother that and snippet this and record that, and then explain to the forum as someone who stand in the middle and see most of the facts laid in front of him so [again, hopefully] he can tell the real narrative to the forum and we seal this ne for good.

I agree.

I am not asking for your permission, you've gave it 6 posts ago, in form of an agreement of your data being shared [thus, a permission].

I am asking for your agreement that if I can somehow convince FJ to share me the same evidence they shared to CG and what basically became their own findings and rulings, the same findings and rulings made by CG after they saw it, and if after seeing it and got a better insight of what actually transpired during that two KYC, whose face is what, whose head is in the screen, and whose room is who is in, or basically whatever that helps me understand the real narrative here, I came to the same conclusion as CG, you'll agree that this case is closed for good, FJ ruling is founded and fair, there is no further reason to accuse them or anyone of being crooked.

The case sealed there and then without any further meaningless or accusative comments.

We know this possibility is there, so let's address the elephant on the thread: if I ruled against you, I can guarantee that it is because that's the fact. I am not benefitted in any way from this case [it actually costed me and my private time] and I extremely rarely take this step. I am usually an overseer, not someone who pull an opinion, let alone the one that binds. But recently the cases on this board gets more and more creative and demanding that I have to take a step or two from my "comfort zone" just to get things cleared, and apparently, this one is.

I know I don't have much to vouch myself, only that I give you my word that I'll stand from neutral ground and I'll conclude purely from what I see... that if FJ agreed to share such sensitive and private data.

So, I will need your written agreement. If my findings is in not the same with CG, then it's probably good for you. But If it's on the same page as CG, that's it. No protest, no swearing, no mud throwing, no tantrum, nothing. I expext exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't need any further headache. If you can't accept this, simply don't agree with my proposal, and well... we'll leave it at wherever we were before this post made.

Agreed?

I give permission. To pass verification you need to pass a live check (turn your head, blink). Let them show you this video of another person passing a live check. They just showed random photos from a webcam. This is a violation. They did it without permission. I did not upload other people's photos, I did not try to pass a live check on another person (well, that's absolute stupidity). Let FJ show their evidence

I think the probability that they took random photos without the user's consent is very close to minimum, as that'll be a very serious breach of privacy, and if you'd like to insist on this point, perhaps it'll be better to start with proof that they indeed practice such gross misconduct.

And we are trying to figure it out. That's why we are here.

So, how about this as a proposal? I know you've give your consent, but I am somewhat sure FJ will refrain from sharing that KYC info with me, as casinos really protect their client's private information. But suppose, suppose, I can take a peek at it and get a clearer insight on what happened [I am somewhat sure with that image seen by my eyes, I will get an immersive understanding of the real narrative].

If what I see came to the same line as CG's findings, we close this case for good with no buts, warns, and other accusation?

I declare that I was the only one who passed the live check. They took random photos that had nothing to do with verification. Nobody wants to figure it out. I am closing this case. And I warn you all. They are scammers. They can steal your money at any time and you will not be able to prove anything.

Thank you for updating us.

I guess, with that, it kinda seal the case? The findings made by CG's arbitrator is in line with FJ's initial findings, that is contradictory with your narrative.

On the submitted KYC, according to FJ and CG, only one person appear on the, presumably, entire verification. It is not a case where the camera suddenly turned on and record everything and upload to FJ's server [without your consent] with you and your brother being in front of the camera during passport snapshot like what you're trying to explain to us.

Are you interested to explain the discrepancies in the narratives?

I apologize, it seems that my closing reply was not posted.

Thank you for providing me with the information FortuneJack Casino representative.

Dear kerosin48, from the evidence provided by the casino it is clear that your brother was the only one present during the first verification. It is an industry standard that one person can only open one account and this situation creates the issue of not being able to determine if your account was used by you or by your brother in your name. With that in mind, we believe the steps the casino has taken to be justified and we will subsequently reject your complaint. Thank you for your understanding, I am sorry we could not be of more help on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you run into any issues with this or any other casino in the future.

Kind regards,

Peter

I agree to everything. I'm already tired. No one wants to figure it out.

Umm... that goes from zero to one hundred in Barry Allen's speed. If I may propose, since OP gave their consent for everything, wouldn't an easier method is to provide the collage of the KYC process that FJ shared to CG so we [through me] can finally understand the situation surrounding those process?

Granted, I've given a pointer or two and a crash course about how to identify betting abuse from several readings by a very close relative of mine that works on a casino [they have no reps on this forum, though] when I wanted to know how somethings work for a past case.

Also had one experience identifying multi-acc.

But given the damning evidence, as well as the focal point of the case itself is the KYC, I think providing those collage will be much shorter and productive. I've verified two or three cases KYC-related, so I think I know what and where to look.

BUT, or should I say BUT, the best method right now is still to wait for CG with their closing statement and official summary. I believe it wasn't there yet simply because they were swamped.

IIRC I read somewhere [either on OP's thread or on other case's thread] that they were currently being flooded by 700 cases. I can understand that it's a chronich headache by itself. So perhaps, best way before we jump into me verifying things and all, is to wait for them and see if they'll publish their findings as their closing statement and update their summary.

Not to mention that FJ might be quite reluctant to share their evidence to me, even with the player's consent.

They accused me of letting another person go through verification instead of me.
I give permission for everything

FJ accused you of  multi-accounting. Most of the time when people multi-account they bet the same sports for similar amounts. FJ should show that info to holydarkness with your approval.

when will you understand that no one except me tried to pass verification. And they just illegally took a photo of what was happening in my apartment

A very likely possible situation here, far more likely than not, is that the mediator already convinced that the KYC submitted by FJ [and through FC, OP] indeed has some questionable factors in it. Thus they marked it as rejected. I am hoping for further explanation about why and how they make that ruling, which hopefully would be given following OP's inquiry to them.

A second fleeting thought, though, there is a slim chance the case was wrongly marked, an oversight due to the hectic situation they're currently facing.

Whichever that is, hopefully can be cleared by CG's closing statement.

They are using the simple breaking the ToS as way to confiscate your winnings. As long as you can’t proved that your KYC procedure is just pure mistake then they just keep using as an excuse to accused for trying to bypass the KYC verification by using other person identity.

The only way you can fight this kind of issue is convincing the mediator who will view your KYC materials that you honestly made a mistake.

I found myself a bit confused. The case was indeed marked as rejected by the mediator. But I can't find his closing statement, nor the summary of the case [as it usually did] provide the conclusion that the mediator draw after reviewing the provided evidences by both parties.

ADante, FortuneJack or OP, can any of you perhaps ask CG to "complete" the thread with their closing statement or a summary update of the verdict made? It'll help us get a closure on our own list.

- I wrote a letter to casinoguru. I will wait for their answer.