FortuneJack scam company? or are they berries on the cake?

[NotATether]

~

Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:

The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.

Thanks for your attention.


-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike

I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.

But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).

Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:

- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.

Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")

I conclude this case to be resolved.

@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.

[1715300948]

1715300948

[1715300948]

1715300948

[daniilT]

Our Fraud and Prevention Department has been attentively researching the case mentioned above. The decision of asking for the KYC as well as confiscating the funds available onto the account was made for the following reason. After the user’s activity was being associated with suspicious betting pattern, our team has decided to schedule the KYC. During the interview, the OP could not verify the ownership of the corresponding account, as many of the questions were not answered correctly. After making the decision, we’ve decided to refund the last two deposits of the user back, which was a goodwill from our stand point of view, as according to the official Terms and Conditions, we do have the right of confiscating all the funds onto the account.


@NotATether, kindly asking to reconsider your feedback regarding the case as we do have the entire interview as a proof. If there’s a request from the community as well as from you, we can publicly release the video so all of the people having the concerns about the case are aware of the truth.

Thanks for (finally) replying.

I know that you're doing this action out of goodwill, and that you are coming from case of an account being blocked (which itself can have multiple interpretations).

Among other things, account blocks under these terms can be interpreted as:

- a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account (what you wrote),
- failing the KYC check as a general procedure

With the KYC procedure presumably a standard one (request for identity documents, followed by a proof of funds, and possibly a selfie as well)

I am also aware, that in the first interpretation, it would make sense, from a business point of view, to seize the funds because the ownership of the deposited funds is questionable. It might as well not belong to daniilT's bitcointalk account.

In the second interpretation (where the KYC check has simply been failed - not implying a doubt of ownership), it would be grossly inappropriate to hold the funds - like what some other casinos whose names I won't mention are doing  [but you probably already know most of them by now] - because it has still been verified that the player is the owner of the funds. In that case, it would be compulsory for the entire balance to be returned back to one of the player's deposit addresses.

As your Terms of Service implies that the first interpretation of account block is what's used (a user not being able to prove their ownership of the account), this means, by seizing daniilT's balance, you have proved that his funds are of dubious origin and do not necessarily belong to him. My hypothesis would be that this happened somewhere during the proof of funds check.

Then again, how can we as users be sure that this is the case?

It makes me glad to see that you are indeed trying to address this situation without malicious intent, so my red tag goes - but the neutral tag stays until you can explain to us exactly how you differentiate between a user not being able to prove their funds source or just failed KYC in general (e.g. connection hanging or chopped images of documents). I would also prefer that you post it somewhere before or after the legal terms of service page on your site, for transparency purposes - as you know, many gamblers do not visit bitcointalk at all so won't see these posts.

Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:

The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.

Thanks for your attention.


-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike

Did you block your account just because it took me a while to remember your account information? This is ridiculous! I have to know by heart what I put and instantly answer? As I said before, I was worried, and I also remembered what I bet, if you are about the history of bets, it’s just a laugh! You asked me to name the last 2 bets, I gave them to you. Do you have a regulation somewhere that I have to answer the question within 3 seconds after the question? Yes, I had no idea what you would ask. I ask you to notice, I had to look at the camera? why didn't you say that during the video conference? if you said to look into the camera, I would look. Yes, you are talking nonsense and trying to disguise your fraudulent actions. When you communicate on Facetime, do you also look at the camera? right! you are looking at the phone screen! Are you talking nonsense, I'm a news anchor to watch the camera? Why didn't you say that right during the call?

[daniilT]

~

Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:

The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.

Thanks for your attention.


-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike

I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.

But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).

Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:

- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.

Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")

I conclude this case to be resolved.

@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.

I agree with your decision dear, because you yourself understand that this is nonsense, that I did not look into the camera, but looked at the laptop screen. You yourself understand that this is nonsense. When, as during the video conference, these comments were not there, when they made a decision after the video. I still think they buried themselves, while they give deposits to an unconfirmed user, and after the confiscation of the balance. At the expense of a long answer to questions. Of course, I'm sorry, I'm not rich, and from a poor family, and for me ~ $ 5000 that was on the balance sheet is a lot of money. I also wrote to them that I had suicidal thoughts and I wanted to commit suicide after this incident. I trusted and trusted the company. for me this is really a lot of money, and when I won it I was very happy, I wanted to buy a present for my mother, but the FJ that I trusted turned into scammers. If so, the bottom line is why these scammers ask for a cousin when the player wins something? why not request a cousin right after registration? so that the player can register, pass all the checks and be sure of the payment of his winnings? Of course, it is not profitable for them, because when a player has $ 5-10k there is a chance of confiscation. Popular bookmakers have been doing this for a long time, when they request documents immediately after registration.
And I would also ask you to add FJ to the list of scammers. because I completely say that the truth is on my side.
Thanks

[shasan]

I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently).

When any scam accusation create by a newbie account against an old account we should first investigate about that and also wait for the reply of the accused. All the mentioned details may not be correct and/or few information might not be listed which is the reason to freeze account or fund.
I noticed already fortunejack already replied and you have edited your feedback accordingly.

[NotATether]

...Of course, I'm sorry, I'm not rich, and from a poor family, and for me ~ $ 5000 that was on the balance sheet is a lot of money...

Always remember the classic adage, "don't gamble what you can't afford to lose".

[suchmoon]

the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

That's quite absurd. I've been on about a million Zoom meetings and I still sometimes forget to look at the camera, I look at the person I'm talking to. If I was being asked questions that I didn't specifically prepare for, I'd probably sweat and stutter and look at my toes and take a few seconds to answer. I'd even say that someone who answers immediately and looks directly at the camera like an experienced news anchor is more likely to be a well-prepared scammer/fraudster/whomever you're trying to catch in this context.

This "KYC" process sounds like a load of BS you made up to separate your customers from their hard earned bitcoins.

[FortuneJack]

~

Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:

The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.

Thanks for your attention.


-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike

I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.

But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).

Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:

- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.

Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")

I conclude this case to be resolved.

@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.

All feedback is noted, thanks for taking time to share your honest point of view.

I'll past it on to the Fraud and Prevention Department, so they can act accordingly for the next time.


-
Tornike
Cheers,

[daniilT]

the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

That's quite absurd. I've been on about a million Zoom meetings and I still sometimes forget to look at the camera, I look at the person I'm talking to. If I was being asked questions that I didn't specifically prepare for, I'd probably sweat and stutter and look at my toes and take a few seconds to answer. I'd even say that someone who answers immediately and looks directly at the camera like an experienced news anchor is more likely to be a well-prepared scammer/fraudster/whomever you're trying to catch in this context.

This "KYC" process sounds like a load of BS you made up to separate your customers from their hard earned bitcoins.

I completely agree with you, however, judging by their messages, they are completely sure that I am a scammer, but this is very upsetting to me. even if they don’t return my money, I hope all participants and visitors of the forum will notice this topic and understand who FJ really are.

[LEVSKI7]

~

Tiny update for the @NotATether's question:

The user failed the KYC, no suspicions activities have been found within the deposit methods or wallets, whatsoever. Basically, while the OP was asked standard yet mandatory question of the interview (what the last deposit amount was, what games he played in general, etc), the participant did take way too long to answer the questions as well as his eyes were not directly in touch with the camera. On the opposite, eyes were directly looking at the screen as both of these concerns are the purse signs of us dealing with another person who was providing all the information via text at the moment of us asking the Qs.

All the of arguments mentioned by me above can be supported by the video of the interview itself, which we do have stored and can be publicly released as per community request. Let me know if there's anything I can add on.

Thanks for your attention.


-
Appreciate your feedback,
Tornike

I don't think the video will be necessary at this point if this is the only criteria used to measure if someone is the real owner of the funds.

But I believe that, to avoid this kind of mixup with future players, that you should mention these warnings explicitly when asking for KYC. Because most people don't know that they're not supposed to be taking too long to answer questions or that they must look directly at the camera (I admit, I wouldn't have known these things if I was the one taking your KYC instead).

Here is my recommendation: That in the email where you demand for KYC, you include the following warnings:

- eyes must be directly in touch with the camera and not looking at the screen
- that it is not allowed to take too long answering the questions
- that account will be blocked if it is suspected that player is receiving answers to the questions via text message.

Since we can't be certain if this advice is followed, I'm keeping the neutral tag but will revise it to state this info (instead of "scam warning")

I conclude this case to be resolved.

@daniilT I don't think it's possible to get the money back, mainly because this is mentioned in Terms of Service (and there's no way to make FJ pay up), but also because [as weird as it sounds] you weren't looking directly at the camera etc., and these itty-gritty things are stuff that FortuneJack considers grounds of "Failed KYC check with funds ownership in doubt". But I do maintain that FJ has the responsibility to make these requirements clear for future players. Because currently they are implied, so many users won't be aware of this. Even if it sounds like common sense to some of us.

All feedback is noted, thanks for taking time to share your honest point of view.

I'll past it on to the Fraud and Prevention Department, so they can act accordingly for the next time.


-
Tornike
Cheers,

This is absolutely illegal. If they were in Europe on a regulated market, the consumer would condemn them and the regulator would revoke the license. Reviews from various sources confirm the fact that fortunejack crooks. Criminal structure

[IndependentGambler]

I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.

[daniilT]

I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.

Judging by the fact that they are silent and do not want to answer anything, we see their essence. how @NotATether wrote them a mini loyalty, they exhaled that money can not be paid?)) @NotATether tell me your opinion please

[daniilT]

...Of course, I'm sorry, I'm not rich, and from a poor family, and for me ~ $ 5000 that was on the balance sheet is a lot of money...

Always remember the classic adage, "don't gamble what you can't afford to lose".

Hello. Dear. Give all the same your final opinion. fzh did not respond specifically to my withdrawal of money from my account. And all the same, I would like to resolve this issue finally. @NotATether

[NotATether]

I have read the entire thread to this point and think there needs to be further information provided before anyone can make judgement.

Judging by the fact that they are silent and do not want to answer anything, we see their essence. how @NotATether wrote them a mini loyalty, they exhaled that money can not be paid?)) @NotATether tell me your opinion please

I was just judging the case fairly from both sides of view (that is what DT members are supposed to do). Because I also have no financial or business relationship with fortunejack, I am not able to force them to send the money back to you.

[naim027]

Sorry to hear that. I didn't play on FJ for a few years now. I had a bad experience with them. I have deposited 50 Doge and turned it into 45k. After that, I was worried about the withdrawal so I made another 5K doge deposit. Then I played more and turned it into 60K doge. After that, They forced me to wager my full balance multiple times. Luckily I was able to withdraw my fund. Recently, I visited FJ again and found they disabled my account. I didn't bother them to unlock it. Since I don't want to play there anymore. So, I would like to suggest you choose a platform wisely. Check their reputations. That's it.

[daniilT]

Sorry to hear that. I didn't play on FJ for a few years now. I had a bad experience with them. I have deposited 50 Doge and turned it into 45k. After that, I was worried about the withdrawal so I made another 5K doge deposit. Then I played more and turned it into 60K doge. After that, They forced me to wager my full balance multiple times. Luckily I was able to withdraw my fund. Recently, I visited FJ again and found they disabled my account. I didn't bother them to unlock it. Since I don't want to play there anymore. So, I would like to suggest you choose a platform wisely. Check their reputations. That's it.

I will raise this topic so that people can see that it is better not to play in the casino on fortunejack. FJ SCAM