Spørgsmål om overtrædelse af selvudelukkelsesreglerne på tværs af Santeda International BV's brands (Velobet, Goldenbet, Cosmobet)

Hej alle sammen,

Jeg har brug for rådgivning vedrørende overtrædelse af selvudelukkelses- og chargeback-muligheder. Her er min situation:

Selvudelukkelse: Den 19. juni 2026 anmodede jeg officielt om permanent selvudelukkelse på grund af alvorlig ludomani på Velobet ved hjælp af min verificerede identitet (KYC-dokumenter). Min anmodning blev accepteret og bekræftet.

Overtrædelser fra søstersider: Både Goldenbet og Cosmobet tillod mig at registrere mig med mine rigtige oplysninger og indbetale penge, selvom de drives af præcis det samme moderselskab — Santeda International BV

Betalingsmaskering: Ved kontrol af bankudtog hos ČSOB blev alle kortindbetalinger opkrævet under fuldstændig uafhængige tredjepartsnavne (f.eks. nexgam3, creski3, arnggc, elegro.eu). Compliance Officer hos Goldenbet bekræftede skriftligt over for mig, at de bruger tredjepartsprocessorer med ukendte beskrivelser.

Nuværende status: Goldenbet Compliance afviste min anmodning om refusion med den begrundelse, at hver hjemmeside fungerer uafhængigt.

Hører Velobet, Goldenbet og Cosmobet juridisk set under én operatør (Santeda International BV) med en fælles pligt til at udvise omsorg for selvudelukkede spillere?

Er jeg i en stærk position til at løse dette gennem Casino Guru / Curaçao GCB, eller skal jeg gå direkte til bankens tilbagebetalingsrute via ČSOB (Visa/Mastercard) baseret på operatørfejl og maskering af betalinger?

tak på forhånd

Hi, I have to say the answer here is quite complicated, much like the issue of gambling addiction itself. I’m sorry to hear what you’re going through.

One thing to bear in mind is that chargebacks generally go against online casinos’ terms and conditions. Going down that route could mean having your accounts closed, potentially even at other reputable casinos. And that’s where the paradox comes in. Ideally, you wouldn’t gamble at all, of course, but unfortunately, it isn’t that simple for many people struggling with addiction.

Having accounts closed because of a chargeback might therefore sound like a benefit. My concern, though, is that if you end up gambling again, you could find yourself turning to riskier casinos, where gambling addiction and player protection may be taken less seriously. I wouldn’t assume that information about a chargeback will automatically be shared with other casinos, but it’s a potential consequence worth considering.

Another important point is that self-exclusion at one casino doesn’t necessarily mean exclusion across the whole group. The scope may depend on the applicable rules, the casinos’ self-exclusion policies, or what was specifically agreed with you. That’s why it helps to have the exact wording of your request and their confirmation saved, ideally as emails or screenshots.

We can go through the details together here on the forum if you’d like.

Hej. Jeg har gemt en e-mail, hvor jeg anmodede om selvudelukkelse på grund af afhængighed. Da disse casinoer tilhører én udbyder, burde de forbyde mig at ansøge om registrering på alle deres casinoer. Bare tjek det ud, og som jeg allerede har skrevet. Velobet, Goldenbet og Cosmobet. Deres operatør er (Santeda International BV). Dette firma skal se alle registrerede personer, og hvis den person anmoder om selvudelukkelse og skriver, at de er afhængige, skal de have angivet på alle deres casinoer, at denne person er afhængig og ikke længere kan spille spilleautomater. På denne måde kan de oprette nye casinoer hvert øjeblik, og vi, der er afhængige, vil i sidste ende betale for det med vores liv. I vores Tjekkiet er jeg på registeret over udelukkede personer, og jeg kan ikke registrere mig nogen steder. Desværre tjener disse virksomheder her kun på afhængige mennesker. Derfor ønsker jeg, at Santeda International BV returnerer alle de tabte penge. Fra den dato, jeg skrev e-mailen til Velobet, vil jeg give dig en kopi.

Her er anmodningen om udelukkelse. Og svaret.

Hello, welcome back. I’d like to clarify something you mentioned. You seem to have expected your self-exclusion to apply to the other casinos because they’re operated by the same company. I understand why you would think that, but I wouldn’t assume it applies automatically across all sister casinos without checking the scope of the exclusion.

I can see that you requested permanent self-exclusion at VeloBet Casino and received confirmation that your account was closed. Did that confirmation mention whether the exclusion also covered any related casinos?

From your previous post, I understand you expected those casinos to prevent you from opening accounts as well. I think that’s the part we need to clarify: whether your exclusion covered VeloBet alone or the wider group.

I also understand that you’re registered in the Czech national self-exclusion scheme. However, these casinos don’t hold a Czech licence, so you shouldn’t assume that they participate in that scheme or are automatically notified of your exclusion.

I’m sorry, because I understand why you expected that protection to apply. Unfortunately, a single self-exclusion request doesn’t automatically cover every casino everywhere. National schemes and exclusions across an operator’s brands have a defined scope, so its beneficial to establish which casinos your requests actually covered.

To me, it seems that your main focus is on recovering your funds. I can’t promise that a complaint will lead to that outcome, but as you probably know by now, you’re welcome to submit one. Our complaint team will then review the specific circumstances I mentioned earlier.

That’s an option you can take, and it’s entirely up to you. I also sincerely hope you’re able to stay away from gambling.