Fortunejack changing license and country to avoid paying winners: flag created

[PaperWallet]

I am still having trouble understanding how FortuneJack will be forced to pay the amount that was awarded to you. As FortuneJack are no longer based in Curacao, how can a judgement from the Curacao courts be enforced? They now have a licence from The State of Anjouan therefore how will a Curacao judgement be enforced?

The part that confuses me is that it would have been better for them to have settled with you before the judgement and stayed with Curacao because after they moved their licence to Anjouan they are not allowed to offer their services in many big countries. Why did FortuneJack take that decision rather than pay the amount you were seeking?

I’ll try. They basically took lots of sports bets, of which 4 won. For these 4 that won, they were placed on the same match. They’ve waited about 3 to 4 hours for the bet results, then almost immediately after result say “these bets are identical, so according to our terms and conditions we are only paying bet 1 and stealing your winnings from bets 2, 3 and 4”. Bets 3 and 4 are clearly different at least in wording and meaning than bets 1 and 2. Court was pretty harsh, rejected almost all of my lawyers arguments, but still ruled bet 3 was different than bet 1 and that they wrongfully “voided” it. Bet 3 is almost 85% of the stolen winnings. Their terms and conditions say court of Curacao has the final word in all disputes, except that during legal procedure they changed country.

In summary, they took up bets, waited for results, then refused to pay out winnings.

For more details you can read the judgement.

I do not know how they will be forced, but it’s not a small joke doing stuff like this, it’s like someone leaving a country to evade paying back a loan, sometimes you don’t get away with it forever.
They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

[Rating Place]

The licensor will get stuck paying the judgement. FJ also has a data processing license in Costa Rica. That's what is used in Costa Rica.

For clarity, does that mean the Curacao licence authority will pay the OP the amount of the court judgement?

They now have a licence from The State of Anjouan

How does this not scare players? This is literally the first time I even hear about that country!

Anjouan offer licences for online casinos but there are conditions (including citizens of some countries that cannot use the casino: Australia, Austria, Comoros Islands, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA and all FATF blacklisted countries).

The Curacao licence has a much smaller group of excluded countries/states therefore I cannot understand why FortuneJack decided to switch licences to Anjouan and accepted to lose access to massive markets with tens of millions of potential customers rather than just pay the $120,000 before the court judgement was made and keep the Curacao licence.

Whether it scares players or not they should understand the reason the casino moved to a different jurisdiction. Having an Anjouan licence in itself is not a problem but switching from Curacao to Anjouan could be if the circumstances are suspect. For example, BC.Game cited a 1931 law that makes it easy for the courts to be exploited by malicious actors therefore they moved licences from Curacao to Anjouan.

What is notable is that we have heard nothing from FortuneJack rgarding the matter.

Licensor Antillephone was a defendent in the court case. I know that other licensors were forced to pay judgements but I forget the case right now. I think it against licensor CIL.

[JollyGood]

I am not aware of the situation when it comes to the Curacao and Anjouan licencing authorities therefore can you explain if there is any truth in the comment that a member made in this thread about the licence issuer having to pay you? My understanding is that FortuneJack have a judgement against them and they are the ones liable to pay.

I do not know how they will be forced, but it’s not a small joke doing stuff like this, it’s like someone leaving a country to evade paying back a loan, sometimes you don’t get away with it forever.
They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

[Rating Place]

I am not aware of the situation when it comes to the Curacao and Anjouan licencing authorities therefore can you explain if there is any truth in the comment that a member made in this thread about the licence issuer having to pay you? My understanding is that FortuneJack have a judgement against them and they are the ones liable to pay.

I do not know how they will be forced, but it’s not a small joke doing stuff like this, it’s like someone leaving a country to evade paying back a loan, sometimes you don’t get away with it forever.
They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

he Court will, in its final judgment, order Antillephone jointly and severally
to pay what Nexus will be ordered to pay

[PaperWallet]

I am not aware of the situation when it comes to the Curacao and Anjouan licencing authorities therefore can you explain if there is any truth in the comment that a member made in this thread about the licence issuer having to pay you? My understanding is that FortuneJack have a judgement against them and they are the ones liable to pay.

I do not know how they will be forced, but it’s not a small joke doing stuff like this, it’s like someone leaving a country to evade paying back a loan, sometimes you don’t get away with it forever.
They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

That is correct, but my understanding is that the regulator went out of business as of recently, which is not the case of FortuneJack, they just fled the country.

[BlackyJacky]

That is correct, but my understanding is that the regulator went out of business as of recently, which is not the case of FortuneJack, they just fled the country.

Antillephone was a partner in crime and not a regulator!

Stake also operated under the Antillephone license with no supervision or regulation!

[JollyGood]

This is becoming extremely confusing. Correct me if I am wrong, Curacao is the regulator therefore if they went out of business recently why are online casinos still showing them as licence providers? How can a regulator go out of business especially when they were due to make a payment to you?

That is correct, but my understanding is that the regulator went out of business as of recently, which is not the case of FortuneJack, they just fled the country.

[PaperWallet]

This is becoming extremely confusing. Correct me if I am wrong, Curacao is the regulator therefore if they went out of business recently why are online casinos still showing them as licence providers? How can a regulator go out of business especially when they were due to make a payment to you?

That is correct, but my understanding is that the regulator went out of business as of recently, which is not the case of FortuneJack, they just fled the country.

Only AntillePhone in Curaçao went out of business. Was the regulator for Stake for example, now Stake has another regulator in Curaçao.

[notblox1]

They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Maybe because they get away before in cases like yours, and they think they can get away again.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

I think you rushed it with creating this topic and you didnt present clear evidence against fj from the beginning.
That support you have from new accounts and other with negative feedback is worth nothing.

[PaperWallet]

They refused to settle, why, I don’t know.

Maybe because they get away before in cases like yours, and they think they can get away again.

Exposing them would also put pressure, for example I created a flag here that had some support (and no opposition) but is still insufficient. Anyone here who has read the evidence should be supporting the flag, until they fully pay, there can’t be stronger evidence than this.

I think you rushed it with creating this topic and you didnt present clear evidence against fj from the beginning.
That support you have from new accounts and other with negative feedback is worth nothing.

Lots of reputable accounts read the evidence and still not supported the flag (and that is, only talking about those who commented here). Maybe they’re waiting for the final order to pay by the court and see if they’ll pay or not. Nonetheless, these are still unpaid winnings from 3 years ago and deserve a flag…
And what about you? Are you supposed not to react to the flag for some reason?
On my side my conscience is clear, most importantly is to please God, and stealing from other people or favoring the theft will have the most terrible consequences.

[JollyGood]

Personally, I have no problem supporting the flag because sufficient evidence has been presented. FortuneJack are continuing to post in other boards but have not made a direct comment (in this thread or any other threads) regarding the specific allegations. I was waiting for clarity on whether they intended to appeal the decision or not. However, I will send them a PM and ask them to respond here and then will decide on the issue of supporting the flag.

I think you rushed it with creating this topic and you didnt present clear evidence against fj from the beginning.
That support you have from new accounts and other with negative feedback is worth nothing.

Lots of reputable accounts read the evidence and still not supported the flag (and that is, only talking about those who commented here). Maybe they’re waiting for the final order to pay by the court and see if they’ll pay or not. Nonetheless, these are still unpaid winnings from 3 years ago and deserve a flag…
And what about you? Are you supposed not to react to the flag for some reason?
On my side my conscience is clear, most importantly is to please God, and stealing from other people or favoring the theft will have the most terrible consequences.

[PaperWallet]

Personally, I have no problem supporting the flag because sufficient evidence has been presented. FortuneJack are continuing to post in other boards but have not made a direct comment (in this thread or any other threads) regarding the specific allegations. I was waiting for clarity on whether they intended to appeal the decision or not. However, I will send them a PM and ask them to respond here and then will decide on the issue of supporting the flag.

I think you rushed it with creating this topic and you didnt present clear evidence against fj from the beginning.
That support you have from new accounts and other with negative feedback is worth nothing.

Lots of reputable accounts read the evidence and still not supported the flag (and that is, only talking about those who commented here). Maybe they’re waiting for the final order to pay by the court and see if they’ll pay or not. Nonetheless, these are still unpaid winnings from 3 years ago and deserve a flag…
And what about you? Are you supposed not to react to the flag for some reason?
On my side my conscience is clear, most importantly is to please God, and stealing from other people or favoring the theft will have the most terrible consequences.

This is the JollyGood I know from a long time ago:) Just plain honest, no dirty tricks and no fear of repercussions, and even no financial interest!!

Someone else told them, I think it was @holydarkness, they refuse to comment. Of course supporting my flag would be welcome. They’ll have to have it appear on their profile until they fully pay my winnings!

[nutildah]

Lots of reputable accounts read the evidence and still not supported the flag (and that is, only talking about those who commented here). Maybe they’re waiting for the final order to pay by the court and see if they’ll pay or not. Nonetheless, these are still unpaid winnings from 3 years ago and deserve a flag…

OK, I'm inclined to agree with you at this point. One of your bets was incorrectly voided and you should have been paid for it. Plus them leaving Curacao for some country nobody has ever heard of is a big red flag. Once the final court order has been made, post it here (please don't alter the text except for blacking out your personal information) and I will support your flag. You will need a net 3 DT members to support the flag for it to be visible on their threads.

[PaperWallet]

Lots of reputable accounts read the evidence and still not supported the flag (and that is, only talking about those who commented here). Maybe they’re waiting for the final order to pay by the court and see if they’ll pay or not. Nonetheless, these are still unpaid winnings from 3 years ago and deserve a flag…

OK, I'm inclined to agree with you at this point. One of your bets was incorrectly voided and you should have been paid for it. Plus them leaving Curacao for some country nobody has ever heard of is a big red flag. Once the final court order has been made, post it here (please don't alter the text except for blacking out your personal information) and I will support your flag. You will need a net 3 DT members to support the flag for it to be visible on their threads.

I will send you a private message when out, so you don’t have to follow this thread. Another member @JollyGood, has also expressed interest in supporting the flag so I will send him a private message as well.

And everyone else here who commented I’ll pin when the order to pay is uploaded in my OP.

[JollyGood]

I have to give you credit for what you have achieved. Taking a huge online casino to court and winning was something that required a lot of patience and mental strength to get through the hard days. The fact you won your case is a stunning achievement.

Having said that, I think it is important to allow FortuneJack the time and space to be able to post their version of events because they should be able to present their side. These are not grounds for me to not support the flag, as I stated earlier enough evidence has been provided for the flag to be supported. I would prefer them to post about the situation because I do not want to support the flag and then possibly retract it later based on something they might state which the court was either not aware of (or maybe unfairly rejected).

You created this thread on 5th March therefore expecting FortuneJack to post within 21 days should suffice. That means if they do not post here by 26th March I will support the flag. Considering the judgement was made in your favour on 24th February 2025, it has given them substantial time to prepare a response.

I understand regardless of what they might post, it cannot negate any court judgement against them unless there is an appeal. I would like to see them post about the matter in great detail because of what is at stake and I believe they will. If we reach 26th March or at any stage it becomes clear they will not appeal the judgement or are unable to because they cancelled their Curacao licence or the appeal time limit has expired, I will support the flag and then address it if/when FortuneJack post regarding the case.

Personally, I have no problem supporting the flag because sufficient evidence has been presented. FortuneJack are continuing to post in other boards but have not made a direct comment (in this thread or any other threads) regarding the specific allegations. I was waiting for clarity on whether they intended to appeal the decision or not. However, I will send them a PM and ask them to respond here and then will decide on the issue of supporting the flag.

This is the JollyGood I know from a long time ago:) Just plain honest, no dirty tricks and no fear of repercussions, and even no financial interest!!

Someone else told them, I think it was @holydarkness, they refuse to comment. Of course supporting my flag would be welcome. They’ll have to have it appear on their profile until they fully pay my winnings!

[PaperWallet]

I have to give you credit for what you have achieved. Taking a huge online casino to court and winning was something that required a lot of patience and mental strength to get through the hard days. The fact you won your case is a stunning achievement.

Thank you

You created this thread on 5th March therefore expecting FortuneJack to post within 21 days should suffice. That means if they do not post here by 26th March I will support the flag. Considering the judgement was made in your favour on 24th February 2025, it has given them substantial time to prepare a response.

And they’ve had 2 years to tell the court everything they wanted, and delayed the legal process as much as legally possible, even sometimes their lawyers crying to get some extra time which was not supposed to be given to them.

I understand regardless of what they might post, it cannot negate any court judgement against them unless there is an appeal. I would like to see them post about the matter in great detail because of what is at stake and I believe they will. If we reach 26th March or at any stage it becomes clear they will not appeal the judgement or are unable to because they cancelled their Curacao licence or the appeal time limit has expired, I will support the flag and then address it if/when FortuneJack post regarding the case.

It’s pretty clear yes, and some decency now for them is to present some excuses at least. I will remind you on the 27th if necessary:)

[Rating Place]

This is becoming extremely confusing. Correct me if I am wrong, Curacao is the regulator therefore if they went out of business recently why are online casinos still showing them as licence providers? How can a regulator go out of business especially when they were due to make a payment to you?

That is correct, but my understanding is that the regulator went out of business as of recently, which is not the case of FortuneJack, they just fled the country.

Curacao - Country
LOK - National Ordinance on Games of Chance that was recently set up and has changed regulation.
Antillephone - One of the 4 original master license holders in Curacao. Because of the changes in Curacao, they weren't extended a license.
Fortunejack - they were a license holder under Antillephone.

[holydarkness]

Hi, uhh... sorry, I keep skipping through your thread for the past few days. I promise you that it was not intentional. I think I read somewhere that ADante will try to address the matter, though he'll need time to study the case and get into it as it was way before his time. I was waiting for him to jump in.

Please allow me to nudge him and see where he is in his attempt to catch up with this situation and hopefully I can bring him to comment here?

[JollyGood]

It’s pretty clear yes, and some decency now for them is to present some excuses at least. I will remind you on the 27th if necessary:)

It is vital for members here to understand what their side of the story is. Such is the size of their business and their brand, it seems pointless they would go through various issues just for the sake of not settling the case before the judgement was made against them. I hope they will post here by then but on the chance they do not, feel free to remind me.

Curacao - Country
LOK - National Ordinance on Games of Chance that was recently set up and has changed regulation.
Antillephone - One of the 4 original master license holders in Curacao. Because of the changes in Curacao, they weren't extended a license.
Fortunejack - they were a license holder under Antillephone.

Excellent. The explanation is definitely going to help people that are not familiar with many aspects of the licence issuers.

[holydarkness]

It’s pretty clear yes, and some decency now for them is to present some excuses at least. I will remind you on the 27th if necessary:)

It is vital for members here to understand what their side of the story is. Such is the size of their business and their brand, it seems pointless they would go through various issues just for the sake of not settling the case before the judgement was made against them. I hope they will post here by then but on the chance they do not, feel free to remind me.

[...]

Jolly, do you mind to perhaps wait a couple more days, at least until I hear something from FJ's rep? I've sent ADante a PM about this. Hopefully he'll pop in to at least tell us that he's catching up with the matter or something worth mentioning, but just in case my PM was not read, I'll give it a day before I reach him through the personal contact he once gave me.

I don't think all of this will fit the current deadline.