OK, so I guess I'm not going to be very popular on this thread, seeing your posts, but I will explain to the best of my abilities, the Casino's side of things.
We as a Casino get AT LEAST 20 fraudsters a day, 90% of those are serial chargebackers that change cards and banks often, change ID's, fake new ones etc. We have to be on guard all the time. That is the purpose of companies like this one. They report fraud activities made by players at other gaming institutes. We have to trust their report otherwise there is no use in using them. We cannot take the risk of accepting players with fraud history because if we did then we'd be defrauded 18 times a day.
So when the risk department gets a report like this one, they cut all connections with the player, return any deposits and yes void winnings. Voiding winnings is the problem here, I understand, but also understand that if any fraudster uses this method they can just play to win and if they win they take it home and if they lose they chargeback. Here Joyce is saying the opposite, that if she won we would make up her fraud history and if she lost we wouldn't say anything.
Now I know you've seen some complaints about us but honestly, 99% of those are withdrawal delay complaints, because frankly we did have some strong delays lately due to processor complications, as happens with the US banking market at times.
You have not really seen reports of this kind all over the place because this is something that rarely needs to be done, the report is usually much quicker. If the casino did that with every player that won there wouldn't be a casino left. So obviously this isn't a common practice, but we also will not send the message that its ok to defraud and that we will cooperate with any player that does so. Joyce may maintain her position that no such thing occured, but this company specilizes in this and they are very reliable. Obviously this wasn't a popular decision and of course Joyce told us she will post everywhere, and she has. It still did not change our policy. and I can only repeat our position, as unpopular as it may have been, and hope I have explained why this occured.
Greetings Rome Casino at Location :
IP Address 18.104.22.168
Location GB, United Kingdom
City -, - -
Organization Slicehost IP Space
AS Number AS15395 Rackspace
Latitude 54°00'00" North
Longitude 2°00'00" West
Firstly I appreciate the Casinos Concerns about fraudsters but I find the matter trivial to say the least from a legal point of view you have a customer which in good faith contracted with romecasino in two seperate
contracts which under British law appears to be binding in respect of offer and acceptance ..and furthermore the acceptance of consideration to the degree of more than 1/3 of the material contracts..this being accepted upon two occassions ..and even authorised by your casino..and your support officer was acting in good faith for the casino and is not personally liable vicariously.
It would appear to me that you are legally obligated under binding contracts to honor that which has been contracted for under British law
all the parts for a binding contract have been forefilled :
(a) Offer and Acceptance (By Both Parties)
(b) Certainty of Terms (The Match Bonus Contract Details)
(c) Consideration (The Money Paid by the Customer)
The Fact that a Gumshoe Agency reported on a "Possible" case of fraud is so far fetched its ridiculous legally it has no weight what so ever and wouldnt stand up in court I would put more faith in a fairy whispering in my ear about never never land.
Your sounding of this policy is the echo of your company and Im not going to sugar coat it ... but it does not seem legal...in my legal opinion your company owes that player for outstanding winnings in the amount that was requested less the bonus amount.
Also anybody can make up rules but at the end of the day it is the Courts which rule which is legal and which is not legal.
And if they had tried this with me I would be seeking Civil Remedies about 3 of them.