In the dispute involving MyFootballGame, Wagerweb claimed that some of the 9 accounts were ficticious. ID was requested for all 9 accounts (even ones with no balance) since money was repeatedly transferred between the 9 accounts.
On June 30, I requested proof of ID from all players. There were some discussions between me and the players, but no IDs
have been provided. The players initially agreed to provide them, but did not. One of the players (who controlled one of the conclusively linked fraudulent accounts) subsequently refused to produce ID.
As the players are refusing to cooperate with my investigation, I am assuming that Wagerweb's assertion that one person controlled multiple accounts is true. Wagerweb provided proof that the players committed fraud. The players did not successfully refute this (with either an explanation of what happened or proof of identity).
Wagerweb and the players entered into an agreement. In the agreement, Wagerweb agreed not to forfeit money the players won via bonus fraud. In exchange, the players received part of their winnings, and agreed to a substantial rollover on the balance before being allowed to withdraw any more money. I cannot say this agreement was unfair - each side received a benefit.
The players entered a subsequent agreement with WagerWeb. They would forfeit their balances (and rollover requirement on that balance) in exchange for another lump-sum payment. This agreement was valid as well. The players received that money, and their balances were set to $0 per the agreement.
I have spent over 100 hours investigating many angles on this dispute. I have heard a lot more details in confidence that I am not disclosing. I would note that there are a myriad of other factors that make WagerWeb's version more credible, and the players' less credible (which I cannot disclose unless all parties waive confidentiality).
My conclusion on this dispute: Wagerweb handled a very complicated case of bonus fraud properly.
On June 30, I requested proof of ID from all players. There were some discussions between me and the players, but no IDs
have been provided. The players initially agreed to provide them, but did not. One of the players (who controlled one of the conclusively linked fraudulent accounts) subsequently refused to produce ID.
As the players are refusing to cooperate with my investigation, I am assuming that Wagerweb's assertion that one person controlled multiple accounts is true. Wagerweb provided proof that the players committed fraud. The players did not successfully refute this (with either an explanation of what happened or proof of identity).
Wagerweb and the players entered into an agreement. In the agreement, Wagerweb agreed not to forfeit money the players won via bonus fraud. In exchange, the players received part of their winnings, and agreed to a substantial rollover on the balance before being allowed to withdraw any more money. I cannot say this agreement was unfair - each side received a benefit.
The players entered a subsequent agreement with WagerWeb. They would forfeit their balances (and rollover requirement on that balance) in exchange for another lump-sum payment. This agreement was valid as well. The players received that money, and their balances were set to $0 per the agreement.
I have spent over 100 hours investigating many angles on this dispute. I have heard a lot more details in confidence that I am not disclosing. I would note that there are a myriad of other factors that make WagerWeb's version more credible, and the players' less credible (which I cannot disclose unless all parties waive confidentiality).
My conclusion on this dispute: Wagerweb handled a very complicated case of bonus fraud properly.
,,
