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

[daniilT]

What happened:: account blocking with confiscation

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298

Amount Scammed: 0.048 btc won from free bet and 8.95 ltc
Payment Method: only ltc
PM/Chat Logs: https://i.imgur.com/VOYEMLs.png

Hello everyone. I would like to tell you, maybe you already know that fortunejack is a scam project that confiscates funds and does not pay them. I saw a post how they cheated for $ 120,000, but it looks sad and I would like all new users who are looking for a good crypto casino not to register here, because this is a scam project that aims to join the trust of users with low rates, and those who have who they are big, squeeze money and buy a new Lamborghini for the master of fortunejack. my username is daniilT. I registered on the site and used litecoins. bet on football and American football.


 I saw that I have a roulette wheel in bonuses, I played Fortune for 2.5 weeks, in the first week I lost a free bet, in the second I won it with a rate of 12.88 Mbtc with odds 4.6. As soon as I was asked to verify the KYC, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T ASK TO PASS IT BEFORE. I passed the verification by uploading my driver's license, but later they didn't like something and they asked for a Skype call. Apparently this was already a formality, because they did not even ask for any documents on the call. A guy with broken Russian phoned me. He asked me for detailed information on the account, where I answered everything, what is the balance, deposits, withdrawals. My phone number, as well as mail, and the last two rates where I answered everything.


 I had 13.45 Litecoins and 0.048 Bitcoin on my balance, which is equivalent to $ 5500. As a result, they say that we are blocking your account and giving you 2 of your last deposits in honor of goodwill. AHHAHAHA, goodwill 4.5 lts, ​​HHAHAHAH. good goodwill? They said that I did not pass the KYC verification, and did not indicate any facts. My account and they blocked it in order to steal money. The support hinted that I was abusing bonuses. Damn, abusing bonuses? Freebet came once, once! Why then do these freebets if you block accounts after them.

Again, I did not abuse bonuses, I do not have multi-accounts, the FJ support service did not indicate this. it never happened

 I ask new players not to play at this casino !. Thanks. I will attach screenshots https://imgur.com/XcysYR5
https://i.imgur.com/GAjKGVc.png
https://i.imgur.com/a2AETVt
https://i.imgur.com/aMys3qF
https://i.imgur.com/gaWnI0k

[rohang]

Just one suggestion,

Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text

Goodluck

[daniilT]

Just one suggestion,

Please format your post a little bit so it is easier on the eyes to read. More people will pay attention if its not just one big paragraph of continous text

Goodluck

I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.

[bL4nkcode]

I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.

The other guy above telling to follow this scam report format https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0

Well, I didn't know that they have customer support with phone calls, @FortuneJack might/can confirm that the call was actually came from them.

Is there any email they sent you regarding the blocking of account due to abusing bonuses? On how did you abuse the free bet? E.g multiple accounts or any kind they have in list? Kindly include it on your first post.

Well, I know they're confiscating their user's funds on their platform eventually once the user did against their terms, they have recent issues related to it.

[daniilT]

I'm sorry, I'm newbee here.

The other guy above telling to follow this scam report format https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0

Well, I didn't know that they have customer support with phone calls, @FortuneJack might/can confirm that the call was actually came from them.

Is there any email they sent you regarding the blocking of account due to abusing bonuses? On how did you abuse the free bet? E.g multiple accounts or any kind they have in list? Kindly include it on your first post.

Well, I know they're confiscating their user's funds on their platform eventually once the user did against their terms, they have recent issues related to it.

They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.

[bL4nkcode]

They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.

Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.

You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..

[daniilT]

They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.

Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.

You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..

I passed the verification of the KYC within 2 days. what 14 days are you talking about?

[NotATether]

I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently). Hopefully, they can clarify why they are doing this activity.

They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.

Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.

You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..

I passed the verification of the KYC within 2 days. what 14 days are you talking about?

He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.

[daniilT]

I tagged them with a reference link to this thread as it's not the first time they did this (recently). Hopefully, they can clarify why they are doing this activity.

They did not comment on the blocking of my account. They referred to the fact that I had not passed the KYC verification. And they didn't give any reasons. I still have a video of a Skype call.

Unfortunately, you will end up to this user related to kyc of FJ, after 14 days that you didn't get approved on your kyc yet, your funds will be taken by them. Once you complain, they will tell you that they have the right to confiscate you funds upon agreeing their deceiving terms and conditions.

You can see how many word "confiscate" can be find on their terms if you CTRL+F on that page..

I passed the verification of the KYC within 2 days. what 14 days are you talking about?

He means if you don't get KYC verified within 14 days of being asked to, they will confisticate all your balance money.

I passed the KYC quickly, in 2-3 days. I know that before 14 days you need to have time to pass verification

[shasan]

Scammers Profile Link: Fortunejack.com

The link of the profile should be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298 Instead of the link of the website as profile link means the link of the profile of the website.

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

Multiple case against the gambling site but still no case proved as scam. We should check either that is right or not. And one other thing is all the case arises from newbie account.
I think they will respond accordingly if they are not a scammer.

[daniilT]

Scammers Profile Link: Fortunejack.com

The link of the profile should be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298 Instead of the link of the website as profile link means the link of the profile of the website.

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

Multiple case against the gambling site but still no case proved as scam. We should check either that is right or not. And one other thing is all the case arises from newbie account.
I think they will respond accordingly if they are not a scammer.

I hope I edited it correctly, I'm sorry. Yes, I hope they will be punished, but with a Curacao license it is difficult to do this, there is no regulatory body for gambling establishments. however, it is possible to cause a resonance on the fraud of these projects.

[Stalker22]

I hope I edited it correctly, I'm sorry. Yes, I hope they will be punished, but with a Curacao license it is difficult to do this, there is no regulatory body for gambling establishments. however, it is possible to cause a resonance on the fraud of these projects.

Yes, you edited your post correctly.

If you really have not done anything against their terms and conditions, it is truly unfortunate that your winnings are being denied due to a failed KYC check. I believe this is not the first time we have seen a case like this at FortuneJack casino, so it would be good to hear their side of the story as well.

[daniilT]

I hope I edited it correctly, I'm sorry. Yes, I hope they will be punished, but with a Curacao license it is difficult to do this, there is no regulatory body for gambling establishments. however, it is possible to cause a resonance on the fraud of these projects.

Yes, you edited your post correctly.

If you really have not done anything against their terms and conditions, it is truly unfortunate that your winnings are being denied due to a failed KYC check. I believe this is not the first time we have seen a case like this at FortuneJack casino, so it would be good to hear their side of the story as well.

10 days have already passed, and there is no answer from them, apparently they have nothing to say)

[FortuneJack]

Hello dear @daniilT,

Team has been working on gathering some proofs for the case mentioned above, about to make an official reply to the thread.



-
Tornike
Cheers,

[FortuneJack]

Hello dear @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.


We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.




Kind Regards,
Tornike

[NotATether]

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.

[daniilT]

Hello dear @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.


We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.




Kind Regards,
Tornike

Good afternoon, scammers. Yes, upload a video. I am ready to disassemble the video in more detail and give an answer to each question. And also make it apart. Yes, there are not ideal answers in the form "How much was the last deposit", where I indicated the total number of the last two deposits, where I decided to make not 2 Ltc, but 4.5. Where the difference between deposits was 3-4 minutes. Because of this wrong answer, did you decide to cash in on $ 5500? You can write all the timecodes of incorrect answers and I will give my point of view for each. And also the forum participants will understand who is right here and will give their assessment of the work of FJ

[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.

Dear, the fact is that they do not give any facts. I am ready for a detailed analysis of the video in this forum thread with all the timecodes, since they are at least trying to solve this here, when, like in the mail, they sent me far and for a long time. I agree that there are minor mistakes of mine in the video conference, but I can argue for each one, because I was very worried. There was still ~ 5000 $ on the balance, however, I know that one cannot keep such huge amounts at unknown casinos, but I read about fzh on other sites where everyone recommended this site and I did not even suspect that they would take the money. so I was not worried about my funds. however, fj went against me and confiscated the balance sheet. I am ready for a full analysis of the video, as well as provide all the arguments that this is my account.

[martingalecalculator.com]

Hello dear @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.


We’re more than welcome to ask any question related to the complaint.




Kind Regards,
Tornike

first you talk about suspecious betting patterns  secondly you say you blocked his account because he cannot prove his ownership .  third you refunded 2 of his deposits
man if you want to scam just make your facts straight
how can you send back ltc deposits to someone didnt prove the ownership of the account i mean to wich address you sent the funds ?
then wich one is correct you blocked the account based on suspecious betting patterns or because he cant prove ownership


honestly i think you are scam

OP there better betting sites i will support a flag if you decided to make it i suggest post your post in trustpilot too

[FortuneJack]

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