Sorry to hear that. I didn't play on FJ for a few years now. I had a bad experience with them. I have deposited 50 Doge and turned it into 45k. After that, I was worried about the withdrawal so I made another 5K doge deposit. Then I played more and turned it into 60K doge. After that, They forced me to wager my full balance multiple times. Luckily I was able to withdraw my fund. Recently, I visited FJ again and found they disabled my account. I didn't bother them to unlock it. Since I don't want to play there anymore. So, I would like to suggest you choose a platform wisely. Check their reputations. That's it.
I will raise this topic so that people can see that it is better not to play in the casino on fortunejack. FJ SCAM 
Topic: FortuneJack scam company? or are they berries on the cake? (Read 462 times)
Sorry to hear that. I didn't play on FJ for a few years now. I had a bad experience with them. I have deposited 50 Doge and turned it into 45k. After that, I was worried about the withdrawal so I made another 5K doge deposit. Then I played more and turned it into 60K doge. After that, They forced me to wager my full balance multiple times. Luckily I was able to withdraw my fund. Recently, I visited FJ again and found they disabled my account. I didn't bother them to unlock it. Since I don't want to play there anymore. So, I would like to suggest you choose a platform wisely. Check their reputations. That's it.
I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.
Judging by the fact that they are silent and do not want to answer anything, we see their essence. how @NotATether wrote them a mini loyalty, they exhaled that money can not be paid?)) @NotATether tell me your opinion please
I was just judging the case fairly from both sides of view (that is what DT members are supposed to do). Because I also have no financial or business relationship with fortunejack, I am not able to force them to send the money back to you.
...Of course, I'm sorry, I'm not rich, and from a poor family, and for me ~ $ 5000 that was on the balance sheet is a lot of money...
Always remember the classic adage, "don't gamble what you can't afford to lose".
I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.
Judging by the fact that they are silent and do not want to answer anything, we see their essence. how @NotATether wrote them a mini loyalty, they exhaled that money can not be paid?)) @NotATether tell me your opinion please
I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.
~
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.
But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).
Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:
- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.
Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")
I conclude this case to be resolved.
@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.
All feedback is noted, thanks for taking time to share your honest point of view.
I'll past it on to the Fraud and Prevention Department, so they can act accordingly for the next time.
-
Tornike
Cheers,
This is absolutely illegal. If they were in Europe on a regulated market, the consumer would condemn them and the regulator would revoke the license. Reviews from various sources confirm the fact that fortunejack crooks. Criminal structure
the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
That's quite absurd. I've been on about a million Zoom meetings and I still sometimes forget to look at the camera, I look at the person I'm talking to. If I was being asked questions that I didn't specifically prepare for, I'd probably sweat and stutter and look at my toes and take a few seconds to answer. I'd even say that someone who answers immediately and looks directly at the camera like an experienced news anchor is more likely to be a well-prepared scammer/fraudster/whomever you're trying to catch in this context.
This "KYC" process sounds like a load of BS you made up to separate your customers from their hard earned bitcoins.
~
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.
But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).
Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:
- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.
Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")
I conclude this case to be resolved.
@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.
All feedback is noted, thanks for taking time to share your honest point of view.
I'll past it on to the Fraud and Prevention Department, so they can act accordingly for the next time.
-
Tornike
Cheers,
the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
That's quite absurd. I've been on about a million Zoom meetings and I still sometimes forget to look at the camera, I look at the person I'm talking to. If I was being asked questions that I didn't specifically prepare for, I'd probably sweat and stutter and look at my toes and take a few seconds to answer. I'd even say that someone who answers immediately and looks directly at the camera like an experienced news anchor is more likely to be a well-prepared scammer/fraudster/whomever you're trying to catch in this context.
This "KYC" process sounds like a load of BS you made up to separate your customers from their hard earned bitcoins.
...Of course, I'm sorry, I'm not rich, and from a poor family, and for me ~ $ 5000 that was on the balance sheet is a lot of money...
Always remember the classic adage, "don't gamble what you can't afford to lose".
I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently).
When any scam accusation create by a newbie account against an old account we should first investigate about that and also wait for the reply of the accused. All the mentioned details may not be correct and/or few information might not be listed which is the reason to freeze account or fund.I noticed already fortunejack already replied and you have edited your feedback accordingly.
~
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.
But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).
Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:
- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.
Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")
I conclude this case to be resolved.
@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.
And I would also ask you to add FJ to the list of scammers. because I completely say that the truth is on my side.
Thanks
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
Thanks for (finally) replying.
I know that you're doing this action out of goodwill, and that you are coming from case of an account being blocked (which itself can have multiple interpretations).
Among other things, account blocks under these terms can be interpreted as:
- a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account (what you wrote),
- failing the KYC check as a general procedure
With the KYC procedure presumably a standard one (request for identity documents, followed by a proof of funds, and possibly a selfie as well)
I am also aware, that in the first interpretation, it would make sense, from a business point of view, to seize the funds because the ownership of the deposited funds is questionable. It might as well not belong to daniilT's bitcointalk account.
In the second interpretation (where the KYC check has simply been failed - not implying a doubt of ownership), it would be grossly inappropriate to hold the funds - like what some other casinos whose names I won't mention are doing [but you probably already know most of them by now] - because it has still been verified that the player is the owner of the funds. In that case, it would be compulsory for the entire balance to be returned back to one of the player's deposit addresses.
As your Terms of Service implies that the first interpretation of account block is what's used (a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account), this means, by seizing daniilT's balance, you have proved that his funds are of dubious origin and do not necessarily belong to him. My hypothesis would be that this happened somewhere during the proof of funds check.
Then again, how can we as users be sure that this is the case?
It makes me glad to see that you are indeed trying to address this situation without malicious intent, so my red tag goes - but the neutral tag stays until you can explain to us exactly how you differentiate between a user not being able to prove their funds source or just failed KYC in general (e.g. connection hanging or chopped images of documents). I would also prefer that you post it somewhere before or after the legal terms of service page on your site, for transparency purposes - as you know, many gamblers do not visit bitcointalk at all so won't see these posts.
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
~
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.
But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).
Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:
- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.
Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")
I conclude this case to be resolved.
@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
Thanks for (finally) replying.
I know that you're doing this action out of goodwill, and that you are coming from case of an account being blocked (which itself can have multiple interpretations).
Among other things, account blocks under these terms can be interpreted as:
- a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account (what you wrote),
- failing the KYC check as a general procedure
With the KYC procedure presumably a standard one (request for identity documents, followed by a proof of funds, and possibly a selfie as well)
I am also aware, that in the first interpretation, it would make sense, from a business point of view, to seize the funds because the ownership of the deposited funds is questionable. It might as well not belong to daniilT's bitcointalk account.
In the second interpretation (where the KYC check has simply been failed - not implying a doubt of ownership), it would be grossly inappropriate to hold the funds - like what some other casinos whose names I won't mention are doing [but you probably already know most of them by now] - because it has still been verified that the player is the owner of the funds. In that case, it would be compulsory for the entire balance to be returned back to one of the player's deposit addresses.
As your Terms of Service implies that the first interpretation of account block is what's used (a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account), this means, by seizing daniilT's balance, you have proved that his funds are of dubious origin and do not necessarily belong to him. My hypothesis would be that this happened somewhere during the proof of funds check.
Then again, how can we as users be sure that this is the case?
It makes me glad to see that you are indeed trying to address this situation without malicious intent, so my red tag goes - but the neutral tag stays until you can explain to us exactly how you differentiate between a user not being able to prove their funds source or just failed KYC in general (e.g. connection hanging or chopped images of documents). I would also prefer that you post it somewhere before or after the legal terms of service page on your site, for transparency purposes - as you know, many gamblers do not visit bitcointalk at all so won't see these posts.
Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:
The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.
All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike
Hello dear @daniilT,
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
first you talk about suspecious betting patterns secondly you say you blocked his account because he cannot prove his ownership . third you refunded 2 of his deposits Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
man if you want to scam just make your facts straight
how can you send back ltc deposits to someone didnt prove the ownership of the account i mean to wich address you sent the funds ?
then wich one is correct you blocked the account based on suspecious betting patterns or because he cant prove ownership
honestly i think you are scam
OP there better betting sites i will support a flag if you decided to make it i suggest post your post in trustpilot too
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
Thanks for (finally) replying.
I know that you're doing this action out of goodwill, and that you are coming from case of an account being blocked (which itself can have multiple interpretations).
Among other things, account blocks under these terms can be interpreted as:
- a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account (what you wrote),
- failing the KYC check as a general procedure
With the KYC procedure presumably a standard one (request for identity documents, followed by a proof of funds, and possibly a selfie as well)
I am also aware, that in the first interpretation, it would make sense, from a business point of view, to seize the funds because the ownership of the deposited funds is questionable. It might as well not belong to daniilT's bitcointalk account.
In the second interpretation (where the KYC check has simply been failed - not implying a doubt of ownership), it would be grossly inappropriate to hold the funds - like what some other casinos whose names I won't mention are doing [but you probably already know most of them by now] - because it has still been verified that the player is the owner of the funds. In that case, it would be compulsory for the entire balance to be returned back to one of the player's deposit addresses.
As your Terms of Service implies that the first interpretation of account block is what's used (a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account), this means, by seizing daniilT's balance, you have proved that his funds are of dubious origin and do not necessarily belong to him. My hypothesis would be that this happened somewhere during the proof of funds check.
Then again, how can we as users be sure that this is the case?
It makes me glad to see that you are indeed trying to address this situation without malicious intent, so my red tag goes - but the neutral tag stays until you can explain to us exactly how you differentiate between a user not being able to prove their funds source or just failed KYC in general (e.g. connection hanging or chopped images of documents). I would also prefer that you post it somewhere before or after the legal terms of service page on your site, for transparency purposes - as you know, many gamblers do not visit bitcointalk at all so won't see these posts.
Hello dear @daniilT,
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
Good afternoon, scammers. Yes, upload a video. I am ready to disassemble the video in more detail and give an answer to each question. And also make it apart. Yes, there are not ideal answers in the form "How much was the last deposit", where I indicated the total number of the last two deposits, where I decided to make not 2 Ltc, but 4.5. Where the difference between deposits was 3-4 minutes. Because of this wrong answer, did you decide to cash in on $ 5500? You can write all the timecodes of incorrect answers and I will give my point of view for each. And also the forum participants will understand who is right here and will give their assessment of the work of FJ Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
Thanks for (finally) replying.
I know that you're doing this action out of goodwill, and that you are coming from case of an account being blocked (which itself can have multiple interpretations).
Among other things, account blocks under these terms can be interpreted as:
- a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account (what you wrote),
- failing the KYC check as a general procedure
With the KYC procedure presumably a standard one (request for identity documents, followed by a proof of funds, and possibly a selfie as well)
I am also aware, that in the first interpretation, it would make sense, from a business point of view, to seize the funds because the ownership of the deposited funds is questionable. It might as well not belong to daniilT's bitcointalk account.
In the second interpretation (where the KYC check has simply been failed - not implying a doubt of ownership), it would be grossly inappropriate to hold the funds - like what some other casinos whose names I won't mention are doing [but you probably already know most of them by now] - because it has still been verified that the player is the owner of the funds. In that case, it would be compulsory for the entire balance to be returned back to one of the player's deposit addresses.
As your Terms of Service implies that the first interpretation of account block is what's used (a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account), this means, by seizing daniilT's balance, you have proved that his funds are of dubious origin and do not necessarily belong to him. My hypothesis would be that this happened somewhere during the proof of funds check.
Then again, how can we as users be sure that this is the case?
It makes me glad to see that you are indeed trying to address this situation without malicious intent, so my red tag goes - but the neutral tag stays until you can explain to us exactly how you differentiate between a user not being able to prove their funds source or just failed KYC in general (e.g. connection hanging or chopped images of documents). I would also prefer that you post it somewhere before or after the legal terms of service page on your site, for transparency purposes - as you know, many gamblers do not visit bitcointalk at all so won't see these posts.
Hello dear @daniilT,
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.
@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.
We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.
Kind Regards,
Tornike
Hello dear @daniilT,
Team has been working on gathering some proofs for the case mentioned above, about to make an official reply to the thread.
-
Tornike
Cheers,
Team has been working on gathering some proofs for the case mentioned above, about to make an official reply to the thread.
-
Tornike
Cheers,
I hope I edited it correctly, I'm sorry. Yes, I hope they will be punished, but with a Curacao license it is difficult to do this, there is no regulatory body for gambling establishments. however, it is possible to cause a resonance on the fraud of these projects.
Yes, you edited your post correctly.
If you really have not done anything against their terms and conditions, it is truly unfortunate that your winnings are being denied due to a failed KYC check. I believe this is not the first time we have seen a case like this at FortuneJack casino, so it would be good to hear their side of the story as well.
I hope I edited it correctly, I'm sorry. Yes, I hope they will be punished, but with a Curacao license it is difficult to do this, there is no regulatory body for gambling establishments. however, it is possible to cause a resonance on the fraud of these projects.
Yes, you edited your post correctly.
If you really have not done anything against their terms and conditions, it is truly unfortunate that your winnings are being denied due to a failed KYC check. I believe this is not the first time we have seen a case like this at FortuneJack casino, so it would be good to hear their side of the story as well.
Scammers Profile Link: Fortunejack.com
The link of the profile should be https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/fortunejack-303298 Instead of the link of the website as profile link means the link of the profile of the website.I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently).
Multiple case against the gambling site but still no case proved as scam. We should check either that is right or not. And one other thing is all the case arises from newbie account.I think they will respond accordingly if they are not a scammer.
Scammers Profile Link: Fortunejack.com
The link of the profile should be https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/fortunejack-303298 Instead of the link of the website as profile link means the link of the profile of the website.I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently).
Multiple case against the gambling site but still no case proved as scam. We should check either that is right or not. And one other thing is all the case arises from newbie account.I think they will respond accordingly if they are not a scammer.
I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently). Hopefully, they can clarify why they are doing this activity.
You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
I passed the verification of the KYC within 2 days. what 14 days are you talking about?
He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.
I passed the KYC quickly, in 2-3 days. I know that before 14 days you need to have time to pass verification They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.
Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.
I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently). Hopefully, they can clarify why they are doing this activity.
You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
I passed the verification of the KYC within 2 days. what 14 days are you talking about?
He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.
They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.
Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.
They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.
Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.
Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..
I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.
The other guy above telling to follow this scam report format https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-report-format-use-it-to-make-scam-reports-properly-260073Well, I didn't know that they have customer support with phone calls, @FortuneJack might/can confirm that the call was actually came from them.
Is there any email they sent you regarding the blocking of account due to abusing bonuses? On how did you abuse the free bet? E.g multiple accounts or any kind they have in list? Kindly include it on your first post.
Well, I know they're confiscating their user's funds on their platform eventually once the user did against their terms, they have recent issues related to it.
They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.
I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.
The other guy above telling to follow this scam report format https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-report-format-use-it-to-make-scam-reports-properly-260073Well, I didn't know that they have customer support with phone calls, @FortuneJack might/can confirm that the call was actually came from them.
Is there any email they sent you regarding the blocking of account due to abusing bonuses? On how did you abuse the free bet? E.g multiple accounts or any kind they have in list? Kindly include it on your first post.
Well, I know they're confiscating their user's funds on their platform eventually once the user did against their terms, they have recent issues related to it.
Just one suggestion,
Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text
Goodluck
Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text
Goodluck
I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.
Just one suggestion,
Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text
Goodluck
Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text
Goodluck
What happened:: account blocking with confiscation
Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/fortunejack-303298
Amount Scammed: 0.048 btc won from free bet and 8.95 ltc
Payment Method: only ltc
PM/Chat Logs: https://i.imgur.com/VOYEMLs.png
Hello everyone. I would like to tell you, maybe you already know that fortunejack is a scam project that confiscates funds and does not pay them. I saw a post how they cheated for $ 120,000, but it looks sad and I would like all new users who are looking for a good crypto casino not to register here, because this is a scam project that aims to join the trust of users with low rates, and those who have who they are big, squeeze money and buy a new Lamborghini for the master of fortunejack. my username is daniilT. I registered on the site and used litecoins. bet on football and American football.
I saw that I have a roulette wheel in bonuses, I played Fortune for 2.5 weeks, in the first week I lost a free bet, in the second I won it with a rate of 12.88 Mbtc with odds 4.6. As soon as I was asked to verify the KYC, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T ASK TO PASS IT BEFORE. I passed the verification by uploading my driver's license, but later they didn't like something and they asked for a Skype call. Apparently this was already a formality, because they did not even ask for any documents on the call. A guy with broken Russian phoned me. He asked me for detailed information on the account, where I answered everything, what is the balance, deposits, withdrawals. My phone number, as well as mail, and the last two rates where I answered everything.
I had 13.45 Litecoins and 0.048 Bitcoin on my balance, which is equivalent to $ 5500. As a result, they say that we are blocking your account and giving you 2 of your last deposits in honor of goodwill. AHHAHAHA, goodwill 4.5 lts, HHAHAHAH. good goodwill? They said that I did not pass the KYC verification, and did not indicate any facts. My account and they blocked it in order to steal money. The support hinted that I was abusing bonuses. Damn, abusing bonuses? Freebet came once, once! Why then do these freebets if you block accounts after them.
Again, I did not abuse bonuses, I do not have multi-accounts, the FJ support service did not indicate this. it never happened
I ask new players not to play at this casino !. Thanks. I will attach screenshots https://imgur.com/XcysYR5
https://i.imgur.com/GAjKGVc.png
https://i.imgur.com/a2AETVt
https://i.imgur.com/aMys3qF
https://i.imgur.com/gaWnI0k
Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/fortunejack-303298
Amount Scammed: 0.048 btc won from free bet and 8.95 ltc
Payment Method: only ltc
PM/Chat Logs: https://i.imgur.com/VOYEMLs.png
Hello everyone. I would like to tell you, maybe you already know that fortunejack is a scam project that confiscates funds and does not pay them. I saw a post how they cheated for $ 120,000, but it looks sad and I would like all new users who are looking for a good crypto casino not to register here, because this is a scam project that aims to join the trust of users with low rates, and those who have who they are big, squeeze money and buy a new Lamborghini for the master of fortunejack. my username is daniilT. I registered on the site and used litecoins. bet on football and American football.
I saw that I have a roulette wheel in bonuses, I played Fortune for 2.5 weeks, in the first week I lost a free bet, in the second I won it with a rate of 12.88 Mbtc with odds 4.6. As soon as I was asked to verify the KYC, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T ASK TO PASS IT BEFORE. I passed the verification by uploading my driver's license, but later they didn't like something and they asked for a Skype call. Apparently this was already a formality, because they did not even ask for any documents on the call. A guy with broken Russian phoned me. He asked me for detailed information on the account, where I answered everything, what is the balance, deposits, withdrawals. My phone number, as well as mail, and the last two rates where I answered everything.
I had 13.45 Litecoins and 0.048 Bitcoin on my balance, which is equivalent to $ 5500. As a result, they say that we are blocking your account and giving you 2 of your last deposits in honor of goodwill. AHHAHAHA, goodwill 4.5 lts, HHAHAHAH. good goodwill? They said that I did not pass the KYC verification, and did not indicate any facts. My account and they blocked it in order to steal money. The support hinted that I was abusing bonuses. Damn, abusing bonuses? Freebet came once, once! Why then do these freebets if you block accounts after them.
Again, I did not abuse bonuses, I do not have multi-accounts, the FJ support service did not indicate this. it never happened
I ask new players not to play at this casino !. Thanks. I will attach screenshots https://imgur.com/XcysYR5
https://i.imgur.com/GAjKGVc.png
https://i.imgur.com/a2AETVt
https://i.imgur.com/aMys3qF
https://i.imgur.com/gaWnI0k
Jump to: