FORTUNEJACK REQUIRES ID PROOF - BE AWARE BEFORE YOU WIN BIG!

[savetheFORUM]

Please note Fortunejack asks for ID proofs and find ways to eat your winnings so please use other casinos or at least dont win big on fortunejack ..

[1715589513]

1715589513

[1715589513]

1715589513

[1715589513]

1715589513

[1715589513]

1715589513

[1715589513]

1715589513

[Haunebu]

Hmm. I have heard of many FortuneJack related issues in recent times which is why them asking for ID proof in such a manner does not surprise me. However, I would like to know how much were you trying to withdraw?

Also, it is a known fact that almost all casino sites reserve the right to ask for KYC under suspicious conditions which is a rule hidden in their T&C which is why I am not completely convinced that they are at fault here. You need to prove your legitimacy op.

[actmyname]

Also, it is a known fact that almost all casino sites reserve the right to ask for KYC under suspicious conditions which is a rule hidden in their T&C which is why I am not completely convinced that they are at fault here. You need to prove your legitimacy op.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is moral.

I think it's quite devious to hide under the whole "it's in our ToS" argument, especially when you have things like maximum bet amounts for bonuses (when fucking people over wasn't good enough) and these arbitrary KYC clauses.

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

[savetheFORUM]

Also, it is a known fact that almost all casino sites reserve the right to ask for KYC under suspicious conditions which is a rule hidden in their T&C which is why I am not completely convinced that they are at fault here. You need to prove your legitimacy op.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is moral.

I think it's quite devious to hide under the whole "it's in our ToS" argument, especially when you have things like maximum bet amounts for bonuses (when fucking people over wasn't good enough) and these arbitrary KYC clauses.

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

This is what I wanted to say since long time but thankfully you phrased it better, so I believe this is good enough to get them a negative feedback at least until they pay the gambler and take a strict stance whether they NEED PROOF or NOT? Because taking id when gambler wins seems very fishy to me.

Hmm. I have heard of many FortuneJack related issues in recent times which is why them asking for ID proof in such a manner does not surprise me. However, I would like to know how much were you trying to withdraw?

Also, it is a known fact that almost all casino sites reserve the right to ask for KYC under suspicious conditions which is a rule hidden in their T&C which is why I am not completely convinced that they are at fault here. You need to prove your legitimacy op.

Wasn't me but I could not see someone being scammed for 5 bitcoins and hence stood up, but don't you dare to do so they have hired LAUDA to red paint anyone who speaks up so please be careful if you say anything against them.

here is the thread- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227531

[TheAndy500]

Also, it is a known fact that almost all casino sites reserve the right to ask for KYC under suspicious conditions which is a rule hidden in their T&C which is why I am not completely convinced that they are at fault here. You need to prove your legitimacy op.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is moral.

I think it's quite devious to hide under the whole "it's in our ToS" argument, especially when you have things like maximum bet amounts for bonuses (when fucking people over wasn't good enough) and these arbitrary KYC clauses.

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

This is exactly the way it is. I guess no one doubts that pretending to be anonymous is just to attract players. It's best to pretend we don't require verification. When a player loses, everything is great. When he wins and wants to withdraw - please verify due to hidden conditions. Who will benefit from the player not wanting to send documents? Only gambling service! Easy money..

[justdimin]

I have always found asking for ID when needed as a good requirement for the casinos themselves. I can understand why the gamblers wouldn't want to share but at the same time these places are dealing with scammers, hackers, maybe even terrorists deposit there to make their money go away and then gamble once or twice and then ask for it back in withdrawal as well to make it look like there was a mixer in the middle.

I am not saying you are like that, there must be a lot of people who have no problem at all that gets asked in between as well but if it means they catch the bad guys while giving good guys some annoyance, I feel like that worths the trouble it brings as well.

[DoublerHunter]

These problems eventually happen because the gambler did not read first the FAQ, TOS, and even privacy-policy on the platform.
FortuneJack stated on their https://fortunejack.com/faq/privacy-policy.

"By accepting this Privacy Policy you agree that you understand and accept the use of your personal information as set out in this policy. If you do not agree with the terms of this Privacy Policy please do not use the Website or otherwise provide us with your personal information."

^ I understand why there are gambling platforms like this because they avoid those possible crimes on the internet like money laundering and probably will lead to hacking which is gambling si prone on that common crime. Nevertheless, if you do not agree with TOS then, do not use the site.

[KTChampions]

OP provided too little information, I think we need more specific details and preferably with evidence.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is moral.

I think it's quite devious to hide under the whole "it's in our ToS" argument, especially when you have things like maximum bet amounts for bonuses (when fucking people over wasn't good enough) and these arbitrary KYC clauses.

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

I am always angry with this algorithm: accept money without problems and questions, but return it with a huge number of conditions and rules. And this applies not only to gambling firms, but also to currency brokers, exchanges, banks, etc.

[Harkorede]

I understand why there are gambling platforms like this because they avoid those possible crimes on the internet like money laundering and probably will lead to hacking which is gambling si prone on that common crime. Nevertheless, if you do not agree with TOS then, do not use the site.

If that's the logic behind the their actions, then that's absolute bullshit. It doesn't make them any less susceptible to hacking or money laundering.

Are you saying those with verified IDs can't or don't engage in money laundering how you do you even determine a cryptocurrency is being laundered ? other than the amount in play ? and moreover, how come it's only when users win big on these sites they're considered to be suspected money launderers ?

The term "X reserves the rights to do Y" are often misused by gambling platfroms, If you wanted your gamblers verified, then do so at all cost before they are allowed to make any deposit/or place bets on your platform, not after they've won big you then enforce certain terms under the guise of ToS.

If they do not care about the identities of those making deposits on their platform, why then are they so worried about who they are about to pay ? That's pretty shady.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Here's something interesting: if FortuneJack wanted to prevent money laundering (the "intention" of KYC terms) then why wouldn't they ask for KYC prior to a deposit as opposed to afterwards? You have two outcomes:

I'm not jumping in here to defend FJ or their ToS but asking everybody for KYC is a bad idea due to several reasons:

- A high increase of costs (hiring compliance officers, KYC officers, personel to handle GDPR requests etc.)
- They would need to (highly) improve their backend and storage capacities
- They are responsible for all personal information they store. Being a large source of KYC information could attract attackers. There are numerous examples where KYC data was stolen.
- Most of their 'customers' likely play with low volumes, making KYC/AML non-mandatory.

I do agree that they need to be more transparant about deposit limits etc., for example mention that they'll ask for KYC when the total deposited amount reaches a certain limit.

[PrimeNumber7]

Are you referring to this thread as the basis for what you are saying? If so, I believe you are misrepresenting what happened.

My understanding is that FJ asked someone to stop gambling at their website and the gambler used an alternative account to continue gambling.

If you are going to transact with a reputable company in large amounts, you are going to have to complete KYC, or else governments will eventually shut down the company when it becomes associated with money laundering. There really isn’t any way around this. I don’t like it, but it is reality.

[Harkorede]

- A high increase of costs (hiring compliance officers, KYC officers, personel to handle GDPR requests etc.)

They could easily add that to their cost of operations, but as you stated that "Most of their 'customers' likely play with low volumes" which could lead to losses on an average for them, they could well increase their least deposit to at least assume the possibilities of a user making only one deposit before they stop using their platform.

- They would need to (highly) improve their backend and storage capacities
- They are responsible for all personal information they store. Being a large source of KYC information could attract attackers. There are numerous examples where KYC data was stolen.

These situations are inevitable for as long as they are in operation, it's only matter of time before it's needed of the. It should be a part of their obligations.

- Most of their 'customers' likely play with low volumes, making KYC/AML non-mandatory.

Fair for one, should be fair for all, or vice versa, I'd say.

Are you referring to this thread as the basis for what you are saying? If so, I believe you are misrepresenting what happened.

For me, it is more about the amount of threads you see flying are around with only one thing in common, KYC after winning big, Of course some of them are players fault, mostly as it is and some also get resolved (paid out full or refunded) eventually. However, getting a better solution to these issues wouldn't be a terrible idea.

If you are going to transact with a reputable company in large amounts, you are going to have to complete KYC, or else governments will eventually shut down the company when it becomes associated with money laundering. There really isn’t any way around this. I don’t like it, but it is reality.

As a gambling platform you can easily prove that you're not involved in money laundering for paying out winnings, even if it's big amount. However, you can't say the same for allowing a huge deposit without knowing the source of it being legitimate.

[dunfida]

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

Actually this doesnt only applied on FJ alone but in other casinos as well when it comes to their terms.When player losses they dont care but in times of big wins then thats the time alibis and reasoning would come out
just to delay or wont really pay at all.

Knowing FJ do have some numbers of similar issues in the past and this one is no different or not a surprising thing but knowing its reputation,it would be handled and resolved soon as long there were no
shady activities attached.

[bitbunnny]

For me it's kind of natural that you need provide your ID prior to withdraw big amount. All legitimate gambling platforms are obliged to different laws and regulation and they need to protect themselves and their customers from different types of crime and scam, that is their legal obligation. It's nothing odd, in fact it's for the benefit of users although I can understand the need of players to protect their anonimity.

[actmyname]

All legitimate gambling platforms are obliged to different laws and regulation and they need to protect themselves and their customers from different types of crime and scam, that is their legal obligation.

Cool, so why don't they do it before users deposit?

It's nothing odd, in fact it's for the benefit of users although I can understand the need of players to protect their anonimity.

How can this clause benefit users when the only time it impacts them is when they don't lose their entire balance?If you lot are shitposting, then great. Get your post quota and get the fuck out of here.

If you're actually here to engage with the dishonest practice and try to say that it's justified, then I'd love to understand the point of even allowing people to sign up without KYC.

[Flagship11]

there used to be a bad Auro about a bitcoin casino and asking for kyc.
now it seems more standard for them to do so, as fortune jack has chosen to do.

[Genemind]

I have always found asking for ID when needed as a good requirement for the casinos themselves. I can understand why the gamblers wouldn't want to share but at the same time these places are dealing with scammers, hackers, maybe even terrorists deposit there to make their money go away and then gamble once or twice and then ask for it back in withdrawal as well to make it look like there was a mixer in the middle.

I am not saying you are like that, there must be a lot of people who have no problem at all that gets asked in between as well but if it means they catch the bad guys while giving good guys some annoyance, I feel like that worths the trouble it brings as well.

I certainly agree with you, mate. They are just requiring the KYC for the user's own good as well. It's important for security purposes and we can't blame them for them because they only want safer transactions with no lapses. They are just trying to get rid of hackers which are always existing in the gambling world. Yes, we want to keep our anonymity but we have to sacrifice it if necessary.

[PrimeNumber7]

If you are going to transact with a reputable company in large amounts, you are going to have to complete KYC, or else governments will eventually shut down the company when it becomes associated with money laundering. There really isn’t any way around this. I don’t like it, but it is reality.

As a gambling platform you can easily prove that you're not involved in money laundering for paying out winnings, even if it's big amount. However, you can't say the same for allowing a huge deposit without knowing the source of it being legitimate.

Many western jurisdictions will require KYC and AML procedures when there are transactions exceeding certain thresholds.

Someone wanting to launder elicit proceeds could potentially create 100 accounts on a gambling platform, make equal deposits, and on each account go 'all in' on a 99-1 bet that should payout exactly once over the 100 accounts they made. Each deposit was small, however the amount being withdrawn would be ~100x (99x) the initial deposit.

If you're actually here to engage with the dishonest practice and try to say that it's justified, then I'd love to understand the point of even allowing people to sign up without KYC.

In general, companies can deal in fairly small amounts (a few hundred dollars, to a few thousand dollars per transaction) without completing KYC. The majority of gamblers will either withdraw less than their deposit, or a small percentage above their initial deposit due to the casino's house edge. Someone who deposits $500 worth of coin is almost certainly not going to have to complete KYC based on the above. Forcing everyone to complete KYC will increase costs, and will force the casino to increase their HE to compensate for these increased costs. If someone who deposited $500 happens to win 200x their initial deposit, they will probably have exceeded thresholds that require them to collect KYC/AML information.

Also, if someone wins many times their initial deposit, there is a chance the gambler is exploiting a weakness in the site's security. If a casino might have been exploited by a hacker, but the casino is unable to prove it, they may decide to collect KYC, payout the winnings, and go to law enforcement later once they have more evidence.

[actmyname]

Also, if someone wins many times their initial deposit, there is a chance the gambler is exploiting a weakness in the site's security. If a casino might have been exploited by a hacker, but the casino is unable to prove it, they may decide to collect KYC, payout the winnings, and go to law enforcement later once they have more evidence.

On the topic of exploitation, smart hackers (or what have you) would use the fact that they can sign up with multiple accounts and withdraw winnings. I made a similar comment when someone complained about rollover requirements that were imposed on them, under the guise of being AML terms.

And both FJ and NS also have this whole rollover requirement, which is of course equivalent to a 1% fee for actual money launderers and is merely an obnoxious hassle to regular players.Bear in mind that I have in fact withdrawn figures around 1 BTC from FortuneJack without the need for KYC - I'm not specifically targeting the casino. Rather, these terms that masquerade as "preventing abuse" are just sneaky ways of extracting additional value from your users, regular or not.

[Haunebu]

You have two outcomes:

Outcome 1: The gambler loses all their funds. At this point, FJ doesn't give a shit if it's laundered or not.
Outcome 2: The gambler doesn't lose all their funds. Perhaps they win some. FJ suddenly cares if it's laundered or not.

It's dishonest behavior.

True, but majority of the world does not care about morality which is a fact. I am not a fan of FJ personally due to the issues surrounding them, but their T&C rules do defend them in this case however dishonest they may be.

Crypto casinos usually do not ask for KYC in order to differentiate themselves from FIAT casinos. However, I do agree with your stance regarding these casino sites using these crappy rules to screw legit users from their winnings.