Bitcoin Forum

Here I opened a new account and made money. I gave a withdrawal request for 7 hours pending. How can I solve this problem?

https://i.ibb.co/TwsP0sJ/1111.png


I never received a bonus.
I played live blackjack.

They said they would do it on monday. I think this site is fraudulent. They don't pay $ 330.

I don't think the website is fraudulent.

Last time I played there, they had this "deposit playthrough" of 2x.
You had to bet at least twice your deposit scattered across all games.

They explained they do so to prevent coin laundering by users who simple deposit and withdraw without playing.

I don't know how true it is, however this approach looks legit to me.
IMO they should advertise this more and not keep it hidden in T&C.

Don't you think it's to early to draw the line? From the screenshot I see it's been only 6 hours. What stops you to wait for them to give you the next response with their updates?

FJ has good reputation in the community and they are doing very well. I do not think without any reason they will want to mess with a client and put their reputation in the stake. If I was you then I would wait for their next update.

I read the screenshot twice but I do not see there are any mention of "deposit playthrough" or such things. They are talking about some security checks if I get it right.

No.

I converted the main money 5 times!

https://i.ibb.co/sFrbdFH/4444444.png

https://i.ibb.co/LPhM05J/2222.png


they will decide on monday.

this is really disgraceful.

if they had problems with the account, they shouldn't have let me deposit money.

I already need money. it doesn't make sense to wait until monday.

In addition to Royse777 statement you need to be patience and wait till it Monday as they mentioned because it already stated that they are doing some standard security check of your withdraw and the reason it will be Monday before hear from them might be because of the holiday season.

Have you PM their representative (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298) on here about the situation?

Operators are not obliged to reveal the true reasons behind security checks.

Article 8.1.1 in the FortuneJack's T&C (https://fortunejack.com/faq/terms_and_conditions) :

"8.1.1. On Slots, Casino Games and Live Games Your deposit amount must be wagered, be turned over 2 (two) times;"

They can investigate the deposit & player activity, this would fall under a "security check" I guess ?

---

I am merely stating this to put in evidence that many reasons may drive operators to behave in the way they did in this case.
It could be anything but OP if you didn't do anything wrong this situation should be resolved rather soon.
Be patient until monday and let's see how it unfolds.  8)

OP, there is no need to worry. As advised, wait until Monday before you start saying that they are fraudulent. Sometimes FortuneJack takes some time to process withdrawals in the range of 24-48 hours especially on weekends but be rest assured your issue will be resolved.

It's too big a gambling site to lose its reputation over just $330.

I think its just normal for any gambling site to check the newly created account won huge rewards in very short time to validate there is no abuse happened at the bet before approving your withdrawal request.It could happen with anyone, so today it is you but doesn't think it's a fraudulent activity I hope your transaction will be processed ASAP once the responsible staff get into his job.

I've seen previous cases on this with FortuneJack and when they do fraud assessment I see that the user itself are at fault. One user who was playing in the US (which isn't allowed in their site) ask a friend he has in the Philippines to withdraw his earnings for her and his friend also proxied for the KYC requirement. Even though the user has tried to fool FortuneJack they still manage to give his withdrawal so I wouldn't say FJ is fraudalent even if its a delay in withdrawal.

Being as we are in the crypto world and all these users are so high on privacy, sites need to find a way around KYC. Users have found that they can visit these sites using a VPN to play.If the IP isn't showing a restricted country, wouldn't that keep sites from getting into trouble for illegal gambling?

User still gets to stay anonymous, sites get more players, no fines or penalties imposed on sites, sounds like a win win for all. Not sure the OPs issue but if it falls into this, then security check shouldn't be an issue.

Still unresolved. I do not recommend this site to anyone.

That is quite a lot, actually, and I bet it's more about fleecing as much from their users...


Some of the biggest cryptocurrency gambling sites such as bustabit or bustadice don't do this. You can withdraw as much in a single withdrawal without extra verification anytime you want to and without delays. The hot wallet is well above 100 BTC AFAIK so big enough for everyone except for the biggest of whales.

You're absolutely right when you make statement about the use of  VPN and is like you knew from the take off that the OP was from Fortunejack restricted territories. I did a little background on his post and i believe he's from Turkey which was among the of countries which the site prohibited.

Wow, I like this mod. Sensible comments. Can you be repatriated to meta?

Initial poster, do not give up. Your case seems to be a legitimate concern. Keep the board posted on your progress/plight. It's not a huge amount really so they should do it.

You win they pay.. simple.

The rollover requirement is part of standard procedures that must be used by casinos with the Antillephone N.V. Curacao license. It has to do with fulfilling their particular AML policies. Bustabit and Bustadice don't hold this license, hence they don't have the requirement.

what gives you the idea that their license entails these rollover requirements?

rollover requirements are standard for withdrawing promotional bonuses, but deposits? i understand they can't just let people deposit/withdraw funds without wagering anything, but it should be a discretionary policy. this does seem arbitrarily high and it comes off, as malevolent said, like they are just fleecing their depositors.

One time I spoke with the support at a casino with the same license about the issue and that was their reasoning. It's to fulfill the Anti-Money Laundering portion of the licensing requirement, which actually makes a large amount of sense if you stop to think about it. If they didn't have that in place, then those looking to launder their bitcoin would do it solely through casinos and there would be no need for mixing services.

It's pretty standard: FJ, mBit Casino, Betchain, and several others with the same license all do it.

The title of the ticket 'waiting on fraud' cracked me up.


Interesting. Is this just a bitcoin-thing? I've never heard of this on fiat-based sportsbooks but they often they make you play with your free bets or deposit bonus x amount of times. I guess it kind of makes sense, though I'd be annoyed if I deposited some money then realised I couldn't withdraw it straight away. I guess they could argue why would you deposit money if you weren't going to play with it but you could always change your mind or the odds on something you were going to play on drop. I always hated those bet x amount of bet requirements. I can't remember what company it was - might have been FJ - but I won football competition giveaway on here and they deposited the winnings in my account but I couldn't withdraw them until I'd bet the money 1 time. Luckily I won but it would have been pretty annoying had I not.


It's not a huge amount, but gambling sites can't really win. If the users account got hacked and their money sent elsewhere people complain about how the company did nothing to stop it. FortuneJack requires email confirmation when you add a new address which is a good feature. A few people on here were crying about when another company held onto a users money whilst they investigated something but they were doing so because there was some clear shenanigans going on and had they not investigated it thoroughly they likely would have sent the money to the wrong person as there were two parties trying to get at the money (which was a significant amount if I recall correctly.


Did they respond at all? FJ are pretty trusted and I don't think they would attempt to steal such a relatively small amount so I think they must suspect something wrong with your account.

There representative account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298) here was last online on December 26, 2019.

Can't say when they will be back but it should be happened quick.

Bustabit and bustadice both had the Curacao license last time I checked but can't find anything on their sites now. Apis N.V. is the entity behind the two sites and it is registered in Curacao though.


Casinos are legal businesses which will comply with court/prosecutor's orders so using them as mixers to launder bitcoins isn't the smartest of ideas.

Thats correct but the license used by the mentioned site was somehow upgrade than the license used by FJ because Antillephone license is a sublicense which are issue by master license owners and companies or sites that use such license are expected to always take the right precaution which i believe was what Nutildah is trying to explain.


Note : FJ belong to Antillephone NV 8048/JAZ while  Bustabit and Bustadice to Apis N.V. #365/JAZ which might the reason why there rules are somehow different.

Op is this your only account with FJ?

Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable explanation, as unfortunate as it is. I hope it doesn't one day lead to bustabit/bustadice too having to introduce similar rules (last year they had to amend their ToS to exclude players from certain countries, for example). I still think requiring a betting turnover of double the deposited amount is excessive, though.

You never know what what happens in the future because rules and regulations amendment can happen anything but the judgment made by the two companies Master License holder will determine what will happen just like we did on this forum in terms of rules amendment.