|
On top of each Gambling Grumbles report there is a symbol which sums up the results of our mediation. A smiling face tells you that we are happy with how the casino handled it. A blank circle says that we don't have enough information to make a decision. A sad face indicates that we don't think the casino handled it correctly. A "skull and crossbones" warns you that we consider this casino to be poison and that you should stay away from it.
This report is unique: it carries the sad face emblem but we could easily have put on any of the others, with the exception of the blank circle.
Both Jennifer (Lock's CEO) and Brendan (its Chief Technical Officer) replied quickly and fully to all of our inquiries about the complaint sent in by Victor T of Ontario, Canada. Indeed, they provided attachments which went far to prove their case. While the information they gave us was not 100% ironclad, it was sufficient to show that they had very reasonable grounds to refuse to give him his winnings (or to pay out to another winner, who I will only call "Miss X" because she did not send a complaint to us).
Indeed, two days ago I was certain that I was going to be putting a happy face symbol on top of this report. The only thing bothering me at that point was that they had given Victor the wrong reason for refusing his payout and banning him. But I am getting ahead of myself; let me start from the beginning:
Victor wrote to us saying that "I have played at Lock Casino on 2009-12-26. I have a withdrawal of $6000 but after making a withdrawal they have not yet processed my withdrawal and they asked documents from me including ID and utility bill. I have sent them all the required documents."
He forwarded two e-mails he received from the casino, the first telling him "Security have looked over your docs and verified your account. As mentioned your request was sent to Operations for game approval then to Accounting for processing" but the second said, "Your play on the December 26, 2009 was flagged, underwent extensive review and is deemed in violation of the casino terms.
"Lock Casino reserves the right to cancel your membership at any time without notice. Any balance in your account will be immediately credited back to your credit card or sent to you by check. In addition, Lock Casino reserves the right, in its total discretion, to void any winnings and withhold any balance in Lock Casino account under any of the following circumstances:
"h. If you are found cheating or if it is determined by Lock Casino that you have used a system or machine, be it an additional computer, additional software or otherwise used to circumvent the natural randomness of our systems.
"As you have violated the Casino Terms your account has been permanently locked, all winnings have been rendered null and void."
Victor denied using any such program, and we wrote to the casino asking them about it. As it turned out, that was not the reason for Lock Casino's action at all. I asked straight out how the program which Lock said Victor used managed to "circumvent the natural randomness" of its system and Brendan conceded that "This of course, did not happen in this instance."
Okay, so Lock sent Victor the wrong information. Mistakes happen and it readily said this was not the case here. I was willing to put that aside, especially in view of the information that it sent. This included the fax back forms signed by both Victor and Miss X, as well as Miss X's passport. Both fax back forms were signed in a very distinctive manner and the two signatures were very similar. More than that, Miss X's signature on the fax back form looked nothing like that on her passport.
That was the most damaging evidence that Lock sent us to uphold their contention that Victor was using a second identity to get two bonuses, in direct contradiction to the casino's rules (and that of most other casinos).
Brendan told us that "Back in December we launched a very generous Blackjack bonus and quickly got hit with a series of player's abuse the bonus, creating multiple accounts - including Victor."
He added that "On December 26th, 2009 2 accounts were created within hours of each other, both exhibiting suspect behavior.
"The accounts had addresses in the same vicinity, one in North York, Ontario - the other in Markham, Ontario. Reverse lookups of the phone numbers on both accounts return with Markham, Ontario addresses.
"The first account (Victor's) deposited $1,000 via Moneybookers using the Blackjack bonus. The player then placed over 552 hands placing $153,625.00 in bets in 28 minutes and 11 seconds. A withdrawal request was submitted immediately following play.
"Shortly after a second account was created (Miss X) depositing $750 also via Moneybookers and also using the Blackjack bonus. There is no log of the IP address associated with this account ever visiting the Lock Casino website, just the immediate creation of a new account via the client. The player played 1,646 hands and placed $117,080.00 in bets. A withdrawal request was submitted."
In addition, he said, Miss X "was unable to provide a utility bill with an address matching the address on file.
"Both forms show many artifacts showing they were in fact scanned on the same device."
Some of this, of course, Gambling Grumbles had no way of verifying, but the signatures were very damaging to Victor and, as I said earlier, I was ready to write a report clearing Lock Casino of any wrongdoing in this case.
What stopped is the fact that they went beyond voiding "any winnings".
The norm in the on line casino industry, when the casino believes that a player has been cheating, is to void his winnings and any bonus and to return his deposit to him. Even this is problematic because it creates a "you can lose but you can't win" situation for a player about whom the casino has questions. After all, if a player loses the casino does not write to him saying that it suspects he was cheating and is thus returning his deposit.
Still, that is the very minimum which a casino can be expected to do. After all, the player has not had his day in court, and the casino itself has acted as the prosecutor and judge. It should not be able on its own to keep the player's deposit (which, between Victor and Miss X added up to the tidy sum of $1750).
Victor certainly doesn't admit to having cheated:
"But I didn't cheat at the casino. I played with $250 bets throughout my game play and all my plays are legitimate and nothing that I can do to cheat the casino.
"I hope you can help me with this problem because they have accused me of something that I didn't do".
With the evidence going against Victor, but not, as I mentioned, proving it beyond all doubt, Lock Casino should have kept to industry norms, refused to pay his winnings, but refunded his deposit. We told this to Jennifer and she replied:
"These types of people work in large groups. If you do not as a business have any consequence for bonus abuse, fraudulent activity and identity theft you will get targeted in the hundreds."
Jennifer added, "We are not choosing to follow the industry norm on any front but are trying to innovate and take it to the next level. If you take a look at any or our review or player feedback you will see that we are in a class of our own. Bonuses, same day payouts, superior product, 24 hour support and a group of people that truly care. The norm in the industry has probably been a big part of creating these types of players.
"These people were blatantly trying to deceive us and there has to be a consequence. We are not going to change our position in this particular case".
In the past, when a casino has refused to return a deposit, we gave it a "skull and crossbones". I didn't want to do it here because of the evidence that Lock Casino presented -- it really shouldn't be considered as poison. In view of the fact that it is keeping the deposits, I can't place a happy face on it. It certainly gave me all the information it could, and did so convincingly enough that a blank circle would not be right.
This left only the sad face. Tomorrow, somebody might play at Lock Casino, do something which looks like he violated the rules (perhaps signed up for a bonus while his neighbor, who uses the same IP address does the same) and find not only that his winnings have been voided but that Lock has taken his deposit as well. For what appears to be an excellent casino, with management that truly cares, to be put off limits because we are afraid to play there definitely deserves a sad face.
Please click here to post your comments at BestGamblingForums.com
|