Bitcoin Forum

What happened: Cloudbet has failed to follow its TOS (https://www.cloudbet.com/en/help/terms) during the process of terminating an account without returning deposited funds. Cloudbet's TOS explicitly grants them the ability to close an account if it believes the account has access their site from a prohibited jurisdiction (7.1.2, 7.1.3). Cloudbet's TOS only explicitly grants them the ability to confiscate funds if an account from a prohibited jurisdiction has placed bets (11.4). Cloudbet lists a general remedy for any TOS violation which includes a refund of balance (11.3).

An account was opened and a deposit was made to that account. No bets were placed on that account. Cloudbet believes the account was opened from a prohibited jurisdiction. Cloudbet contacted me to conduct their KYC process. I refused their request for KYC documents and directed them to close the account and refund the balance as prescribed by their own TOS. They have refused to do this.

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=154563
Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333552.msg58436991#msg58436991
Amount Scammed: 0.00500000 BTC
Payment Method: Bitcoin
Proof of Payment: dfec1243f8b470e2d5a7cec57d3a97685817f81a885a118c6be7350f756213bc
PM/Chat Logs: https://imgur.com/a/ON6r8Ax

A flag referencing this issue can be supported here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2876;support

---

Resolution: Cloudbet refunded the deposit minus fees with transaction 96da2489f9cc4d8a5d1c5c76031c58489af11422e541368bfcbe337545c7a377 on 20 January 2022. Note that they subtracted 0.000077 BTC for transaction fees and paid 0.00000286 BTC, keeping 0.00007414 BTC.

Are you sure you didn't place any bets there? If yes, it's should not be a problem for Cloudbet since you did not gain anything from them.


As I can see, They didn't mention that they will confiscate your deposit just for being there. They also mentioned that they will refund players and terminate their accounts.


On 11.4 they mention
Since You are claiming that you didn't place a single bet. They do not have the right to confiscate your balance. And I think this is a scam attempt from their side. Some of the casinos do this practice with users in case they can scam them a decent amount. Believe me, most of the people don't know what to do after getting fuc*ked up by these casinos. Everyone doesn't know about Bitcointalk and they cannot even leave a complaint to people. And This kind Of TOS gives them extra power to do "LEGIT SCAM"

let's wait for their representative and others' opinion about that.

They should have refund the deposit of yours. Otherwise that would be theft.

Cloudbet isn't the police they have no right to seize your money. Fuck this shit I am so tired of it.

You can create a flag and leave a neg feedback on them but let's hear them first.

But what do they want the documentation for if you no longer want to do business with them. This is plainly stupid from the cloud bet team.
What is so hard with blocking all other options in the account except the withdrawal option so that the complainant to withdraw their money in peace?

Create a flag. I will support.

Cloudbet sucks so much. They have been having complaints here. They even no longer respond to complaints that are raised in this forum.

Name: Cloudbet
Posts: 2482
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1104
Position: Legendary
Date Registered: October 27, 2013, 04:08:42 PM
Last Active: June 21, 2021, 07:36:55 AM

It's very strange that the @Cloudbet user hasn't logged into the forum for a long time, he was active on the forum in the past and with this inactivity the customer problems on his site will be slower to be resolved

I have tagged their profile, but I doubt if they will come back to this forum to respond to complaints. The type of flag you open OP will require at least 3 DT for it to become active. The type 1 flag would have been more appropriate for this case.

What they are requesting from you is unfair. The customer support is behaving like some sort of bot making the responses.

Now the flag is shown up.

There're many issues on Cloudbet and no response from the representative in this forum, even some users said the issues has been resolved. Even they're old casinos, but it still not recommended due to their reputations. They've some accusations before, but with this current accusation I don't have reason to trust them.

@OP keep updating this thread.

They were pretty much active on Bitcointalk Forum. And Their position is Legendary Which is a higher rank here. Inactive for the last 5 months is not good at all. They cared about their Bitcointalk Reputations. IDK what is their plan? I doubt if their ownership changed or not.


Right, This is not the first case of Cloudbet. There were a lot of accusations before. They doing bad practice for a long time now. Only if customers are aware of Bitcointalk, they come here to complain. Imagine about others who are not aware of Bitcointalk. Cloudbet resolved their previous accusations to maintain their reputations here. But, Now this case becomes tough. Because Cloudbet is inactive here for the last 5 months. This case has less chance to get resolved. Either their ownership changed (Casino ownership or Bitcointalk forum account) or they don't care about their reputation anymore.

I supported the flag and I heard other people complains who used Cloudbet, so they are going to lose more customers if they continue like this.
Maybe you are lucky that you didn't send more Bitcoin there, but they sure need to provide some evidence to you or here in forum, and they should return your deposit.

There is no need even for extra evidence. OP never placed any bet on their site and decided that he wanted his account closed and the deposit refunded.

And now they are still asking for KYC so that OP gets back his deposit. OP no longer wants to do business with them after realizing that his country is banned, Why do they still care about his documents?

They should just send back the money to the guy, case resolved.

The account has no recent activity since june, the assumptions of changing of ownership is currently not possible.

As for the OP, while you're right for the one you have mentioned terms (11.4), but they are also right for the terms 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 as they mentioned if you really came from those countries. I probably guess they will still hold on to that and still keep your funds locked until you provided what they want.

It may sounds stupid that they still want some information from you even though you don't want to do business with them anymore but unfortunately it's part of their terms you wish to agree upon registration. I guess most services will do the same even not in gambling industry with those terms.

I appreciate the flag support and will provide updates when able.


I do not disagree that Cloudbet can ask for KYC documents. I assert that the language of the TOS in section 11 provides a remedy for a violation of any section in the agreement that includes a refund of deposits, with the sole exception being if a bet was placed from a prohibited jurisdiction. Cloudbet can attempt to enforce the provision in question, but I believe that they have exhausted all reasonable ways to do that. They should close the account and provide a refund as they are bound by the agreement to do so.

Lol, before I stopped my online gambling activity (due the FortuneJack 120,000 dollars scam, check it on scam accusation), I used to withdraw up to 4BTC on CloudBet when BTC was 60k$, paid in 4 to 5 hours. Now all of these Legends want to discredit Cloudbet because they're not paying 0.005 BTC, and the same people say it is ok for FortuneJack not to pay 120,000 dollars worth win. No wonder CloudBet does not care about making a reputation in this forum. Now OP here just do KYC and stop complaining.

But if you want to look at a place that is worthy of making comments on gambling websites, you should take a look at this FortuneJack report: https://www.gamblinggrumbles.com/Reports/Fortunejack-Casino_paid-only-half

FortuneJack FORCED me as well to do KYC before withdrawing. If I did not want to pass KYC and came here complaining about this would the same geniuses here say this was ok?

How does your fortunejack scam accusation fit in here?

This is a thread about cloudbet refusing to pay someone their money.
Cloudbet was OK in the past, but over time everything about them seems to be worsening. If you are doubting, go check out the last pages of comments in their thread.

While you place a bet with fortunejack (that's if the story is even true). OP never place any bet with cloudbet. He just wants his money back

Yeah seriously these are the comments made by the legends. I am considering posting my FortuneJack evidence on other forums, I am starting to get embarrassed redirecting people to the evidence I post here.

And by the way, did you know that on 100% of gambling websites you should do at least a 1x play through, if not 2x play through on your beloved FortuneJack? What if I deposited on FortuneJack, wanted my money back, refused to do KYC, and came here complaining? That would be ok because FortuneJack bought you with 10 dollars xD

I bet you know all of that, you're just of bad faith. Again, no wonder that a respected website like CloudBet doesn't care about their reputation here.

---

I saw that, and I'll give you credit for this. Pretty ugly. That is why I was right to stop all financial transactions with casinos from Curaçao. But still my experience with them was not that bad.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

just curious, does the DT needs to be at a DT1 in order for support on a type 3 flag to count? I checked the flag and there are currently two DT2 and one DT1 supporting the flag.

anyway, I suggest posting the flag link to this thread "Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153445.0)" to ask for support from the other DT members

Not sure what you mean by FortuneJack buying me with 10 dollars. Do you have evidence to show that I was bought off?

Go look at fortunejack's feedback left by DT. I remember at one point they also had red tags, they resolved cases and the negative feedback was removed or changed to neutral.

I have mostly been following cloudbet cases. It's not out of malice. In fact, at one point, I trusted this casino.

---

Any DT can work. It's now active so never mind.

I might be wrong but I still see it on the inactive flags or is it just a bug?. aren't active flags supposed to show on the account's trust profile once it becomes active?

sorry if I am asking a lot of questions.

@OP I suggest putting the link of the flag on your first post so people who might want to support it can easily access it.

If you look at the top of the trust page of the profile, it's showing as active

https://i.imgur.com/hXPTv7q.png

The inactive flags you might be referring to are from the past. Some are of resolved cases, so DT members removed support or opposed the flag to make it inactive

The Cloudbet profile was online today. Not sure if they are planning to resolve the issue, but they should for the sake of their reputation.

yeah, I checked and it doesn't show anything. I did it multiple times thinking that there's might a delay or something but it is still not showing.

here is what I am currently seeing when I go to their trust page
https://i.imgur.com/Dkoywqb.jpg

nope, I can still see the flag cwil created on the inactive flags on cloudbet's trust page. is it a bug?

https://i.imgur.com/7BcEYyT.jpg

Maybe it has something to do with your custom trust settings.

3 of the members supporting the flag, including me, are actually DT members
1. Jawhead999 - DT2
2. logfiles - DT2
3. dkbit98 - DT1

Am actually so surprised that NeuroticFish isn't on DT. How is this possible?  :o

I was just made aware of this issue by the user Mahdirakib in my thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5333602.msg58976164#msg58976164) where I keep track of withdrawal fees and withdrawal amounts for different casinos. One of my rules is that I don't list casinos that have scammed people in my OP.

I have a question for cwil.
In the reference link you posted, you said:
What do you mean with "one" of your accounts? Does that mean that you have multiple betting accounts on Cloudbet? And are you accessing all or some of those accounts with a VPN?

Someone correct me if I am wrong. Even if the account that was suspended didn't make any bets, maybe some other accounts that you have (since you said "one account" got suspended) did. If that is the case, you (the person, not the one suspended account) would be in breach of their TOS because you were betting from a restricted location.

I am not accusing you, I am just trying to interpret your words properly. 

Maybe it was a typing mistake from OP. Based on the details of this thread this accusation is valid. OP said Cloudbet asked him to verify his identity as the system suspected that he is from restricted country. If they confiscated his funds for having multiple accounts then they should have mentioned about it without asking for KYC. Anyway, Cloudbet reserves the right to freeze user fund if he/she create more than one account (terms 7.1.10.2)

---

BTW, I have checked the ‘PM/Chat Logs’ from the post and found that Cloudbet team mentioned about the terms 7.1.4 and 7.1.6


So, OP isn't giving priority to those terms and haven't done the KYC verification. I'm wondering why he (OP) is accepting a small part of the terms by ignoring the first few parts of it. A type 3 flag has been created and supported by the DT members based on the statements of this thread!

This accusation would be more valid if OP hasn't received the refund by completing the verification. I can see that only ’bL4nkcode’ has mentioned about those terms here. I think this accusation is currently at ‘neutral’ position. However, the silence of the Cloudbet admin isn't acceptable.

His claim is only valid if he has no other Cloudbet accounts and if he isn't from a restricted location. Since he accessed the service using a VPN from a country that is banned by Cloudbet, they are trying to find out who he is and where he comes from.  

They might be just investigating if he is. If they believe he is using multiple accounts, maybe those have or will receive the same KYC requests. They are asking questions, OP isn't providing the answers. I understand that people don't want to undergo KYC (I wouldn't either), but something has aroused their suspicions apparently.  

If OP did the KYC and Cloudbet still confiscated his funds without explaining the reasons and showing/having proof to support those claims, it would be a 100% scam.

---

Edit: I have PMed Cloudbet and asked them to reply in this thread.
Let's see if they are going to do that... 

This thread is open for 2 months, the flag also active for quite a while (flag contains this thread) but they haven't cared until now.

Cloudbet hasn't mentioned anything about the usage of VPN in their terms, but it is better to avoid the usage of VPN in a licensed casino where some country restrictions are placed.


Yeah, the KYC rules is above all other terms of a casino. Because every casino says “We reserves the right to ask for KYC at any time..” I think OP should go through the KYC process to confirm whether Cloudbet return his deposit amount or not. Until then we can't say it is 100% scam.

I just sent a PM to those DT members (NeuroticFish, logfiles, dkbit98, Jawhead999) who supported the flag. I would like to hear back from them as they supported the type 3 flag according to this accusation.

I don't find normal to hide behind the KYC requirements for something as small as 0.005BTC, especially since OP didn't play with the money and he was asking for the account get closed and refunded exactly because of KYC.
So something is super fishy there. And with Cloudbet not bothering to say a word... imho the case is clear.


PS. Mass PM-ing like this is not nice (spam), no matter how good the intention would be.

I deleted support for this flag against Cloudbet after reviewing the case, and I don't have will and time to dig deeper,
but it is strange to see that one Opposition for this flag was Cloudbet, and they never cared to comment anything about this in forum.
In the same time member Mahdirakib showed up suddenly and started to do his own investigation, and he is holding the side of Cloudbet, without opposing the flag.
Why Cloudbet remained silent all this time, even if they are well aware of this case, and they are still visiting and reading what's happening in forum?

https://i.imgur.com/DqWSSif.jpg
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154563

Sorry, I had no intention to bother you or the other 3 members with the mess PM, and I never thought that it will be considered as spam from any of you.

BTW, the amount doesn't matter. The KYC requirements is mentioned in the casino terms. And a licensed casino have to follow the rules of their terms, no matter how small the withdrawal amount is. I'm a regular bettor and I'm in gambling since last 4 years. I have seen many cases like this in different places. As example: A user was asked for KYC verification on a withdrawal of $105 only at Primedice and I have described the story here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg57836990#msg57836990). Moreover, I was asked to do KYC verification on a withdrawal of 0.00113 BTC at PlayBetr, you can see the details here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100533.msg57751620#msg57751620). ^{However, My issue was resolved without the verification process.}

There are two reasons for the presence of me in this accusation. The first one is mentioned by Pmalek above, and I have said about the second reason in the PM (I'm collecting the data of KYC requirements from each casino). I didn't support the flag as OP isn't accepting the whole terms of Cloudbet, I didn't Oppose the flag as Cloudbet admin staying silent. My position is clear here, and it is neutral.

The problem arises when you use a VPN with an IP address from a restricted country. If that happens, the casino can ask why you are doing that and if you have something to hide. You might just be interested in protecting your own privacy (a legit reason), or you could be using multiple accounts or be located in a country banned from the casino. So you are using the VPN to get around that ban.

I don't like it either under normal circumstances. In this particular case, OP used a VPN from a restricted location. That can always be a reason for a second look by Cloudbet. He also said that "one" of his accounts got suspended. He didn't play with the money deposited in that suspended account, but what if he has multiple accounts and played with some of the other accounts?

This case has many whats and ifs. Both parties are like two opposing armies who have each other at gunpoint. But no one is shooting or negotiating the terms to lay down the weapons.

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired by the number of fishy things done by various services in the name of KYC.
I don't say that OP situation is crystal clear. It isn't. But the casino behavior is also questionable.


If VPN is not disallowed explicitly, it can be considered allowed. Of course, if it's used for abuse, it's a completely different story.
Now, I've seen that "one of my accounts" wording and it can be seen as "one of my Cloudbet accounts" (which is abuse) or "one my gambling accounts" (may be one at Cloudbet and one at Bitsler).
Since Cloudbet didn't bother to come and show a minimum evidence that OP is cheating... why should I assume that?


Well said.

It's odd that the casino did come to say a word. If they would have clear evidence of anything bad, they could clear their name easily. Also paying that small amount is an option.
The fact they don't do any move rise a question imho about how much they care about their customers.

Well I've checked Cloudbet's TOS, it seems this accusations aren't really valid and Cloudbet TOS aren't really clear... they can do anything with the account whether they ask KYC or they need to suspend the account. Since it's not valid, so I deleted my support on this flag.

However both of them (@OP and @Cloudbet) were active, but none of them response to the recent post. We need to hear more about the @OP using multiple accounts, VPNs, etc and @Cloudbet's review against his account.

OP might not be aware of the recent posts here unless he has subscribed to a bot that notifies him about mentions and quotes, or if he isn't tracking new posts in his own threads regularly. The Cloudbet admin knows about this for sure. I PMed them asking if they can comment here. But Cloudbet might not be interested in revealing what they have or what they suspect OP is doing until they have gathered all the required evidence. The way things stand now, OP is the one who needs to react if he wants a chance to get his deposit back.   

The reason i supported the flag and even left feedback was the fact that the user even requested Cloudbet to close his account and just send him back the deposit he had made, of which the cloudbet support is just being rigid.

What is the purpose of asking for someone's documents if they have already stated that they want to close the account and get their deposit they never used for any betting on the site back?

cloudbet in the last few months prefers to ignore certain problems and destroy their reputation, I wonder what their goal is, if they want to close the casino then why don't they close soon than not responding to every accusation and worse not solving the accusation cases and they are destroying their reputation and honestly why the hell do people keep using this casino?

You are only judging it from the statement of OP. This accusation has so many obscure things. Pmalek has given a well example of it


Someone created an account in a casino from unknown place by using a VPN service. Then he made a deposit to play, but suddenly the user changed his plan and asked the casino team to send his deposit back. So the question arises here:
Cloudbet will apply the funds confiscate rules (terms 11.4) if a user create an account and place bets from restricted countries. If OP is from a restricted country then why he made the deposit at Cloudbet by knowing the fact?

Some facts:

• The usage of VPN
• AML policy. (Making a deposit on the casino then requesting for withdrawal without placing bets).
• The casino have gambling license

Let's assume you are the government of a country. You have the law (casino license) where it is mentioned that you won't allow people from ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ countries. A person entered in your country by using an illegal method (use of VPN) from an unknown place (it could be one of those restricted countries which is mentioned in the TOS). Now he wants to go back in his country without doing anything, but he knows that there is no way to leave your country silently (the withdrawal needs approval of Cloudbet team). So, the person asked you to let him go back in his place.

Will your government accept his request and send him back without any inquiry (by ignoring the law, by ignoring the illegal method he used)? Or you will ask him to verify his identity?

How do you know that OP has never played on Cloudbet before from other betting accounts?
How do you know where OP is from?
How do you know which country OP was in when he accessed the account or accounts in question?

You don't. I don't either. Check the bolded part I posted above in the quote from OP. Cloudbet probably doesn't either, hence the questions and requests they have. Cloudbet's silence in this whole matter is a negative thing. That's true. But the issue will surely not get resolved without OP doing what Cloudbet has asked for, no matter how unfortunate and unpleasant it is.

The only question I have is whether they have the right to request KYC verification on people who never have, and never will consume their services? I assume there must be some law prohibiting that. It is something else if the OP is suspected of having multiple accounts, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere.

BTW, Despite Cloudbet being active again today, there has been no response to this case.

Hi all,

Thank you for your messages.

After reviewing this case, we can see that as mentioned: an account was opened, a deposit was made, and no bets were placed.

Based on our review, KYC was requested due to suspected multi-accounting which was flagged by our internal systems.

As stated in our Cloudbet terms and conditions (https://www.cloudbet.com/en/help/terms)


Our team have reached out to the player privately, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.

Many thanks,
Cloudbet Team

The phrase "one of my accounts" should be interpreted as an account opened at Cloudbet. I can not say if I have opened an account at Cloudbet before the day in question prior to 2018. I began keeping better records and can say that I have not opened an account since March of 2018.

I do not concede that I have ever placed bets from a restricted location as defined by Cloudbet's TOS.


I accept terms 7.1.4 and 7.1.6. These terms state that a user will not be physically located in the listed countries and that Cloudbet may use any means necessary to collect my information in order to enforce 7.1.4. These terms do not compel me to provide information. Even if you do think they compel me to provide information, the remedy for a violation of their TOS is found in section 11, specifically 11.1 and 11.3. The only part of the agreement in which fund confiscation or the freezing of funds appears is in reference to opening multiple accounts, discussed above, or by placing a bet from a prohibited jurisdiction, which didn't happen and Cloudbet does not seem to be arguing otherwise. Absent that criteria, per the TOS, account closures include a refund of deposited funds.


I used a VPN located in Canada, this is not a restricted country per the Cloudbet TOS.


I do not frequent this part of the forum and was unaware of activity in this thread until today. My goal was and still remains to warn others about what I feel to be Cloudbet's poor customer service and inability to abide by their TOS, not the return of the deposit, as I indicated in the reference thread in the first post of this thread.


Yeah, you have a good handle on the situation as I see it. Cloudbet wants information that I don't want to provide. I will quote the reference thread:


I've been pretty up front in that my goal is to report my experience.


I believe that they have the right to request KYC from anyone they like, and anyone has the right to refuse that request.


Cloudbet did reach out to me in a PM, which is what brought me here. That message is as follows:


I've not yet received this email but I am agreeable to the terms stated in the PM.

It's a bit late, it's almost 2 months since the report, still, a good step forward.
It looks like this will get to a happy end, after all. Please keep us posted.

An account opened at Cloudbet does not eliminate the possibility that there was another account in the past that you forgot about. Like you said, you only started keeping proper records in 2018. Based on Cloudbet's reply, they did suspect that it was a matter of multi-accounting. And those things can happen if you are using VPNs.

In the end, it looks like this will end on a positive note. Nothing has been proven and the bookie has decided to settle the matter.

I do not dispute the possibility of another account, but I sincerely do not know if I ever made one prior to the account in question. I can't go in to much detail about my tooling much like I suspect Cloudbet won't want to go in to much detail about how their risk detection system works, but I can say that with high confidence, regardless of how much telemetry Cloudbet collects, the machine and individual Cloudbet saw that day were brand new. It's very likely that the only thing that triggered the KYC request was the use of the VPN. We're getting a bit off topic here, but if that's wrong and Cloudbet did not see that visit as unique, I would happily take that data in lieu of the 0.005 BTC refund mentioned upthread. To be clear, that's not a challenge or taunt, I truly am interested and would love the opportunity to improve my methods. Cloudbet, please PM me if you want to pass that info along instead of the refund.


Cloudbet has processed a refund as discussed upthread. I've withdrawn my flag and revised feedback as agreed.

I've also withdrawn my support for the flag, so that one no longer has sufficient support.
At least logfiles may need to check his/her DT1 feedback, since it's related to this topic.

OP, please make more visible the update about the payment  ;)
You can use [ hr ] for spacing/separation too.

I've modified the first post in this thread to make the update more prominent.

Maybe you should change the title by adding the word ‘resolved’. Finally I'm happy to see that your issue has been resolved. But it was very bad that Cloudbet team took a long time to give their response. They took the action here after the messages of forum members. Cloudbet deserve a neutral feedback for their late response. I hope logfiles will leave a neutral feedback by removing the negative one (by including the reason ‘late response’).

I am going to remove my support for the flag and also remove the negative feedback since they resolved the issue based on what OP said here


I have no intention of damaging the reputation of cloud bet especially after years of hard work even though their support seems slow in resolving issues these days.

I'm also glad to see that the matter has been settled to both parties' satisfaction. @cwil, as already mentioned, I think it would be fair to add "resolved" to this topic's title to give this issue a proper resolution.