Hej Branislav og jenwing116, ligner en saftig en denne her. Lad mig gennemgå, hvad jeg kan se her.
Når vi ser tilbage til den 12. september, blev der anmodet om en udbetalingsanmodning på $646,21. Dette blev efterfølgende afvist, da der manglede verifikationsdokumenter, som var nødvendige for at kunne fortsætte med udbetalingsanmodningen. Alt fint ingen problemer her.
Dokumenter så ud til at blive modtaget både den 13. og den 14., men der var et spørgsmål, hvorfor efternavnet på din konto hos Spinfinity blev ændret flere gange. Dette rejser røde flag med ethvert casino, du besøger.
Efter noget kommunikation med spilleren, eller med spillerens egne ord, fik hun mundfuld med os, hvilket i det væsentlige var spillernes undergang i dette tilfælde. Spilleren indrømmede, at hun havde opkrævet tusindvis af dollars tilbage på et andet casino online, der ikke er i vores gruppe, og pralede af tilbageførslen og brugte det som sin trussel løftestang. Spillerens konto var næsten verificeret, det så ud til, at vi bare havde brug for et dokument, og udbetalingen var klar til hende. Desværre på grund af følgende pral måtte vores kasseafdeling reflektere over truslen og reagerede passende...
Spilleren udtalte...
"Jeg endte med at skulle tilbageføre tusindvis af dollars til Luckyland Casino. De var ikke glade, men min bank elsker at tilbageføre kasinoer, der ikke betaler for gevinster...Så det er i din bedste interesse at håndtere dette, ellers opkræver jeg simpelthen tilbage alle de penge, jeg til dato har brugt på dit kasino for at vinde de $600."
Som vi nu ser, har denne spiller tidligere tilbageførsler og er helt klart en højrisikokunde for ethvert online casino. Som et direkte resultat af dette blev beslutningen truffet om at tilbagebetale spillernes indskud og håndhæve forbuddet. Dette blev ikke gjort for at undgå at udbetale en lille gevinst, men for kasinoets sikkerhed. Efter denne meget klare trussel, blev det opfattet, at hvis gevinsten på $646 blev udbetalt, på grund af spillernes holdning og adfærd, var det klart for caisno, at hensigten var der, hvilket ville betyde, at indbetalingerne ville blive debiteret tilbage uanset kl. en senere dato.
De forskellige detaljer for den samme spiller mellem de to konti var årsagen til, at spilleren blev spurgt om kortene og adresserne til verifikation mellem kasinoer. Det er forståeligt, at folk flytter hjem eller har udløbne kreditkort, men som et spørgsmål om KYC skal vi sikre, at alt er i orden som et ansvar over for vores kunder.
Uanset hvad, ville dette være en taber-situation for kasinoet, hvis vi havde udbetalt gevinsten, ville vi blive underrettet om tilbageførsler langs linjen, så spilleren ville gå væk med deres indskud over tid ($2.065) OG gevinsten beløb ($646). Så den berettigede beslutning blev taget om kun at refundere indbetalingerne og lukke spillerens konto på grund af risikoen fra denne spiller, og for hendes kærlighed til at tilbagekræve sine indskud på online casinoer.
Tager alt ovenstående i betragtning, vil kasinoets beslutning ikke ændre sig, og der vil ikke blive foretaget yderligere på denne klage. Spilleren angiver, at de har kopier af meddelelserne, ligesom vi har. Det hele er optaget for både vores og spillernes sikkerhed, hvis det skulle blive påkaldt, som i denne situation for eksempel. Forbuddet er i kraft på ubestemt tid på tværs af alle vores søsterkasinoer, nej og i fremtiden.
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.
Automatisk oversættelse: