Online Casino News

Fortune Lounge: you can't prove your innocence, so we won't pay you, but if you prove your guilt...well, we won't pay you

The Fortune Lounge casino group is trying one of the most brazen sleights of hand I believe I have ever seen to ensure a player cannot be paid - the perfect catch 22 situation: in both cases, the player cannot be paid.

An English player cashed out £12,104 from 7 Sultans Casino, part of the extended Fortune Lounge family. The casino refused to pay, accusing him of fraudulent activity with other players. They had the following to say to Gambling Grumbles, when they contacted them on behalf of the player:

Waiting for 42 more players

On our casino this player is linked to another player who uses the same computer and software. When we enquired with our processor, who processes transactions for several other casino operators, they informed us that, not only does he share these identifiers with a player who plays with us, but also with several other players playing with the other operators.

Our reality is that someone in this link is creating other identities to open accounts and across the group of players they were asked to return "know your customer" documentation so we can ascertain the legality of these players.

(The player) may have returned his documents to us but none of the other players have. So we have no way, at this stage, to ascertain whether (the player) is the person creating these accounts or not. As soon as we receive the KYC documents from this other player and our processors have received confirmation that the other operators have received KYC documents from the other linked players, (the player's) cash-in will be released.

The author of the Gambling Grumbles article I've quoted from above, Steve Russo, illustrates the absurdity of the casino request:

The one player that the casino said played at 7Sultans is not owed any money, so he has little reason to fill out the forms. Are the others waiting to be paid?

"I cannot comment on the other players who are on the processor's list as they will not supply me with that information," the casino rep told us.

It's quite possible that none of the "other players" have any reason to respond to the documentation request, as they are not owed money; this is one obvious reason why they have not done so.

The matter has also been posted at Casinomeister.


There are two possibilities: guilty or innocent.

He's innocent: the other players are unconnected, and since at least one is owed nothing and has absolutely no reason to supply documents on behalf of a player they've never heard of, at least this one, and possibly many more, will never supply the required documentation; therefore, he can never be paid.

He's guilty: the "other players" who are owed nothing will only supply verification documents at the behest of the the player in question, to facilitate his cashout - they are his "clients" and are happy to cooperate; they will then be verified as accounts infringing the casino "no multi accounts rule" after the casino does its fraud checks; therefore, he can never be paid.

What an absurd, irrational catch 22 situation: the only information the casino will accept to exonerate the player is information that completely incrimintates him.


I put up a Fortune Lounge warning on the main site some time ago; these recent developments are not encouraging me to reconsider it.

Post a Comment

UK Gambling Commission: refusal to implement its own inadequate player dispute procedure against one of its licensees

A few months ago I had cause to review the player dispute procedure offered by the UK Gambling Commission. I was underwhelmed in the extreme and did a write up - see the UK Gambling Commission: what does it offer the player? article.


I have now had occasion to observe the UK Gambling Commission in action against an operator. Or rather, in hopeless, ineffectual inaction. Since the Commission's dispute procedure is so extraordinarily weak, requiring no more than a "third party" investigation on the part of someone appointed by the operator against whom the dispute is held, it seems logical that they would at least be able to implement that procedure - it requires almost no effort beyond the sending of a couple of emails. I had certainly assumed this was the case.

Alas, the UK Gambling Commission is a part of the gambling industry. And since the gambling industry almost invariably succeeds in falling at the first hurdle when offered the chance to behave with a shred of integrity, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the UK Gambling Commission also falls way short in this department.

Here, with names removed for privacy reasons, is the story.


The player in question cashed out a four-figure sum from one of the UK Gambling Commission licensees. The casino denied the payment, citing what appeared to me to be essentially "bonus abuse" - the actual wording was rather vague, but seemed to suggest that they considered him an undesirable customer. Since this is no valid reason to confiscate funds, the player contacted the Gambling Commission and filed a complaint as per my advice.


At this point, the Commission's "third party mediator" procedure kicks in: the casino is reqired to appoint a third party, chosen by them, to review the case:

If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask the licence holder to refer the dispute to their appointed independent third party for investigation.

The independent third party should then contact you in the course of their investigation.

In this instance, the casino appeared to respect the requirement, and appointed IBAS, the betting arbitration service which the Gambling Commission in fact lists as one of its accepted third party mediators.

So, we're all good up to this point.


Unfortunately, there was one small problem, which IBAS explained to the player thus:

I can confirm that (the casino) is neither registered with this Service nor the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) which determines that we would not be able to offer you adjudication in this dispute.

You would therefore have to contact the regulatory body which covers the Operator, details of which should be found on the site or by contacting their Customer Service department. I trust the above will be of some assistance.

A couple of days later, they gave a slightly more detailed explanation of the above:

On reading your correspondence I would consider this more a trading matter between both parties and not within the remit of this Service, which adjudicates on settlement disputes over the pricing or settlement of transactions.

The situation outlined in your submission is more a Customer Service issue and can only suggest you continue to write to the Customer Service Manager at the company's head office.

So again, there is no great problem here on the face of it. The casino appoints a third party, but the third party in question does not wish to act as mediator, for entirely valid reasons. As such, we need to go back to the drawing board and find a third party which is prepared to intercede, as per the Gambling Commission's procedure.


This was the Commission's quite breathtakingly incorrect and blatantly operator-biased response to the player's request to have the casino in question appoint an acceptable third party mediator (as an aside, note also the poor wording and grammar of this supposedly professional communication):

We cannot see any reference as you mention in your email that IBAS stated they had nothing to do with (the casino) or that casino's were not in their remit.

From the information provided the operator has provided a complaints procedure as required by their licence conditions and codes of practice, issued by the Gambling Commission.

Yours sincerely,
XXX XXX, Licensing Officer.

IBAS clearly and unequivocally stated that they could not intercede as a third party, and gave very clear reasons for their refusal. Does the Commission suffer from selective word blindness? Look again at what IBAS said:

We would not be able to offer you adjudication in this dispute.

And:

I would consider this...not within the remit of this Service.

The casino has, at this point, failed to appoint an acceptable third party, and must do so in order to respect their own regulator's dispute procedure. Yet having clearly failed to so do, having clearly failed to implement the Commission's requirements, the Commission says:

The operator has provided a complaints procedure as required by their licence conditions and codes of practice, issued by the Gambling Commission.

This is simply a lie. They have not.


Or does the Gambling Commission consider the simple naming of a third party, however unacceptable that party might be, or however much that third party may refuse to intercede, a reasonable implementation of their procedure on the part of the operator?


Can I, as an operator, appoint the Sugar Plum Fairy to act as a third party mediator of a gambling dispute?


What about the Pope?


What about Bill Gates?


Or Mother Theresa? She's dead, but would that be any less ridiculous an appointment than a third party which refuses to intercede?


The Commission signed off on the matter thus:

This is now a matter for you to resolve with the operator.

Nice. You're on your own, Jack. Welcome to the UK.


For the player, the matter ended well - I heard from him today that the casino had paid him in full. I don't suppose the fact that a Gambling Commission licensee saw fit to deny a substantial payout for no good reason in the first place will cause the Commission any lack of sleep.


The bottom line here: to patronise an operation that falls under the jurisdiction of the UK Gambling Commission is actually a good thing, but not because of anything to do with that industry puppet body. An operator located under the Commission is, by definition, also located in the UK. And the UK has a very simple legal procedure for reclaiming legitimately-owed amounts up to £5000 via the "small claims track" of the legal system - see my Small Claims Court article.


But do not waste your time with the UK Gambling Commission - they are clearly no better than the Malta LGA or the Alderney Gambling Control Commission. And do not buy into the currently much-vaunted industry myth that the United Kingdom is somehow a "good" gambling jurisdiction. Well, it is in a way: if you're a casino, sportsbook, poker room or a business partner of any of those, you're in good shape, because the gambling industry in the UK will clearly turn the most brazen of blind eyes to corruption and injustices against its customers. In that sense, the UK is a "good" gambling jurisdiction. It's good for the operators.


That is not, of course, anything for anyone in the industry to be remotely proud of.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed