ComeOn Sportsbook's evidence in bonus complaint

[SBR Lou]

ComeOn Sportsbook's evidence in bonus complaint

Comeon Sportsbook (unrated) was featured in an SBR report on June 11th. The ComeOn Sportsbook bonus complaints were submitted by users who claimed their winnings were taken and deposits refunded. Sportsbook Review followed up on the disputes with ComeOn, and has received evidence which has cleared ComeOn of wrongdoing in one of the complaints.

A ComeOn player contacted SBR stating that he deposited $150, increased his funds to more than $1,000 and requested a payout. At the time, the player explained that ComeOn voided his balance on the grounds of a rules violation.

ComeOn player: I ran into a deception on the part of the site (ComeOn Sportsbook). I saw a promotional site Moneybookers, opened an account, made a deposit of $ 150 and started playing. After you complete the bonus conditions I have ordered the payment - more than a thousand dollars. One day I received a message that my account is blocked, and then completely closed. My question about when I pay money support service said that the money they will not be returned. Supposedly I violated their rules and therefore they do not want to pay the winnings.

ComeOn has produced satisfactory evidence linking the above player to ten other account holders. Each of the account holders shared the same IP range plus a number of other similarities, including location and signup details. In addition to the above, Moneybookers reportedly notified ComeOn of transfers between the related accounts.

ComeOn tells SBR that the eleven related accounts deposited €3,000, withdrawing collectively €10,000, for a net profit of €7,000. ComeOn has reasonably shown that the accounts pertaining to this dispute are guilty of collusion to commit bonus abuse. The player who filed a sportsbook complaint had his original deposit of €102.57 returned to him today.

While SBR is awaiting managements comment and evidence on other ComeOn complaints, ComeOn has thus far cleared itself of wrongdoing. The Malta-based sportsbook is currently under SBR review and is expected to be assessed with an initial rating soon.

[Halifax]

ComeOn Sportsbook's evidence in bonus complaint

Comeon Sportsbook (unrated) was featured in an SBR report on June 11th. The ComeOn Sportsbook bonus complaints were submitted by users who claimed their winnings were taken and deposits refunded. Sportsbook Review followed up on the disputes with ComeOn, and has received evidence which has cleared ComeOn of wrongdoing in one of the complaints.

A ComeOn player contacted SBR stating that he deposited $150, increased his funds to more than $1,000 and requested a payout. At the time, the player explained that ComeOn voided his balance on the grounds of a rules violation.
ComeOn has produced satisfactory evidence linking the above player to ten other account holders. Each of the account holders shared the same IP range plus a number of other similarities, including location and signup details. In addition to the above, Moneybookers reportedly notified ComeOn of transfers between the related accounts.
ComeOn tells SBR that the eleven related accounts deposited €3,000, withdrawing collectively €10,000, for a net profit of €7,000. ComeOn has reasonably shown that the accounts pertaining to this dispute are guilty of collusion to commit bonus abuse. The player who filed a sportsbook complaint had his original deposit of €102.57 returned to him today.

While SBR is awaiting managements comment and evidence on other ComeOn complaints, ComeOn has thus far cleared itself of wrongdoing. The Malta-based sportsbook is currently under SBR review and is expected to be assessed with an initial rating soon.

This is disturbing.

Moneybookers is supposed to pride themselves on their privacy policy, yet they're giving out customer information to some D-list book in Malta. What the hell is up with that ?

I realize that it's a non-issue for Americans (since they don't use Moneybookers), but that's a pretty disturbing revelation for non-Americans.

[SBR Lou]

This is disturbing.

Moneybookers is supposed to pride themselves on their privacy policy, yet they're giving out customer information to some D-list book in Malta. What the hell is up with that ?

I realize that it's a non-issue for Americans (since they don't use Moneybookers), but that's a pretty disturbing revelation for non-Americans.

I'd actually think it's a positive that Moneybookers' merchants would receive alerts that may assist with fraud prevention, don't you?

[Halifax]

I'd actually think it's a positive that merchants would receive alerts that may assist with fraud prevention, don't you?

First, Moneybookers traditionally has never given a rat's ass about whether their MERCHANTS were scammers or not. Moneybookers regularly puts scam/stiff/unknown sportsbooks on their promo page, solely because these books pay them ... and Moneybookers has never made any attempt at due diligence to determine the strength/legitimacy of these books. So I don't want to hear about their good intentions at trying to dissuade fraud.

-------------------------------------------------------

Second, Moneybookers have many customers (including myself) who have transferred funds to other Moneybookers customers. As a recent personal example, I had excess funds "offshore" (in my Moneybookers account) ... a fellow SBR poster / bettor had funds in Canada and was concerned about how to get funds to a sportsbook ... so we made a deal where he deposited funds into my Canadian bank account, and I sent funds to his Moneybookers account so that he could fund the book.

Now, what happens if the guy that I sent money to "goes bad" at a sportsbook, particularly if it's a lower-rated sportsbook. If Moneybookers freely provides customer transfer info, I may be caught up in a situation where, if I also have funds at that lower-rated book, that book may confiscate my funds solely because I transferred funds to this player that "went bad".

That is just one example. There are countless examples each week, I'm sure, of Moneybookers customers transferring funds amongst themselves, and the vast majority do not involve bonus scams. But if Moneybookers is allowed to freely dish out customer info to any merchant (read: shit book), many innocent players could get undeservedly screwed.

Do you see my point now ??

[Peep]

I don't find it disturbing either Lou.

WTF, bonus abuse doesn't help anyone but the abusers.

[Halifax]

I don't find it disturbing either Lou.

WTF, bonus abuse doesn't help anyone but the abusers.

Read my post above, you may start to change your tune.

[Peep]

I did read your post above Halifax.

And it doesn't really change my tune.

I too have does transfers with other moneybooker players. The fees are very low, and make it worthwhile to do so.

But this case is not about "But if Moneybookers is allowed to freely dish out customer info to any merchant (read: shit book), many innocent players could get undeservedly screwed." This is a particular case, and one where same IP's playing at the same book (probably on opposite sides) are abusing the system.

This bonus abuse helps no one but the abusers. It has nothing to do with players doing player to player transfers in a normal manner.

[SBR Lou]

Now, what happens if the guy that I sent money to "goes bad" at a sportsbook, particularly if it's a lower-rated sportsbook. If Moneybookers freely provides customer transfer info, I may be caught up in a situation where, if I also have funds at that lower-rated book, that book may confiscate my funds solely because I transferred funds to this player that "went bad".

That is just one example. There are countless examples each week, I'm sure, of Moneybookers customers transferring funds amongst themselves, and the vast majority do not involve bonus scams. But if Moneybookers is allowed to freely dish out customer info to any merchant (read: shit book), many innocent players could get undeservedly screwed.

Do you see my point now ??

We know that the player in this dispute shared the same IP range as all related accounts, in addition to other details. The MB transfers were simply additional evidence the sportsbook was in possession of, they didn't need it to make their case.

I understand your reservations, but it shouldn't seem so preposterous that a payment provider would offer protection to their merchants -- though I'd obviously hope similar protection could reasonably be offered to players. ComeOn isn't a sportsbook that we have reports of scamming anybody, so to color them with the same brush as you would the (expletive) books you reference in your examples would be jumping the gun at this point.

[Justin7]

I've seen 3 different fraud rings cracked by Moneybookers, where they identified it and advised the sportsbooks. Does it raise privacy concerns? Yes. Does it reduce fraud? Yes. It cuts both ways.

[Halifax]

I've seen 3 different fraud rings cracked by Moneybookers, where they identified it and advised the sportsbooks. Does it raise privacy concerns? Yes. Does it reduce fraud? Yes. It cuts both ways.

So if I understand this correctly, you are saying (with some degree of certainty) that Moneybookers initiated the contact with the sportsbooks (rather than the other way around) in those 3 situations ?

If so, I would feel more comfortable than if it happened the other way around (where any old sportsbook can contact Moneybookers and say "What can you tell me about your customer, John Smith, and who he has done transfers with ?").

[Justin7]

So if I understand this correctly, you are saying (with some degree of certainty) that Moneybookers initiated the contact with the sportsbooks (rather than the other way around) in those 3 situations ?

If so, I would feel more comfortable than if it happened the other way around (where any old sportsbook can contact Moneybookers and say "What can you tell me about your customer, John Smith, and who he has done transfers with ?").

Yes. Moneybookers contacted the sportsbook, unsolicited in at least one. I believe it happened that way in the other two, but I'm not privy to those communications; just the summary of the results.

[jairocon]

It's nice to hear for a change that a book cooperated fully with SBR review process and that abusers are sent packing. They only ruin good books and promotions for the rest of the pool.

The moneybookers issue does bother me just a bit, but since I don't engage in anything described - I can sleep soundly. However, I do understand that it raises alarm for people who do transfer money on behalf of others - and to those I'd like to say, be careful. Unless you know the other people well - you might be getting yourself into money laundering and find yourself on a wrong side of a stick. Sometimes it's easy to transfer money - it's just a click of a button... but one needs to think about all possible consequences.

[Justin7]

To be fair, at least one of the Comeon players accused of multi-accounting appears to be innocent, and was paid in full today.

[tomcowley]

So are you going to tell us (or have you even seen) any actual evidence that shows that this was a case of multiaccounting and not a case of friends working together?

[durito]

This is ******* horrible.

[mtneer1212]

Outstanding. I don't even understand why these scammers get their original deposit back.

[horsiehung]

so confusing whether a ss is still good???????

[andywend]

mountaineer1212, I agree with you and it should become an industry standard that if you are involved in opening up multiple accounts to try and take advantage of bonuses offered, then it should be perfectly OK for the books to keep all funds involved including all the deposits made.

However, the standard of proof would have to be very high (the evidence in the ComeOn sportsbook case above would be enough to seize all deposits).

If this did become the industry standard, then bonus abuse would come to a screeching halt. As it stands now, these leeches have nothing to lose when they abuse bonuses so they will keep doing it.

[durito]

mountaineer1212, I agree with you and it should become an industry standard that if you are involved in opening up multiple accounts to try and take advantage of bonuses offered, then it should be perfectly OK for the books to keep all funds involved including all the deposits made.

However, the standard of proof would have to be very high (the evidence in the ComeOn sportsbook case above would be enough to seize all deposits).

If this did become the industry standard, then bonus abuse would come to a screeching halt. As it stands now, these leeches have nothing to lose when they abuse bonuses so they will keep doing it.

Why are you completely clueless about everything?

[vitalyo]

It's nice to hear for a change that a book cooperated fully with SBR review process and that abusers are sent packing. They only ruin good books and promotions for the rest of the pool.

.

Very well said !
Good job SBR . I am gonna give them a try .

GL.

[SBR Lou]

This is ******* horrible.

To players that want to transfer back and forth to their gnome accounts without fear of the curtain being pulled up, yeah I guess it would be. This isn't a privacy issue --- and if it were, an honest Abe wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Personally, I think what's worse than the supposed privacy infringement is the selfishness and greed of some players. The underlying attitude amongst some bonus whores that sportsbooks are crooks and thieves, so one-upping them by any means possible is the goal....even if it means doing things they should know are inherently wrong, i.e. using bots to play more hands, registering multiple accounts to get more than one signup bonus, disputing charges when bets lose.

To be fair, at least one of the Comeon players accused of multi-accounting appears to be innocent, and was paid in full today.

An innocent player got caught in the crossfire because of the greed of another. Fortunately, the sportsbook recognized this and paid the player in full.

Players with ComeOn feedback are asked to write to help@sportsbookreview.com.

[durito]

You sound like the people behind the Patriot act.

Say two people work together and occasionally need to transfer funds via MB. Say one of these persons is limited by a sportsbook, later the other also signs up at that book. MB shares that info with the book and the books steals the players money. No fraud has been committed but MB is assisting thieving sportsbooks (and as halifax mentioned, they do this all the time when they put up adds from F rated books encouraging their players to play there and get stolen from) in justifying their thefts and sbr is gonna rubber stamp it.

[Justin7]

So are you going to tell us (or have you even seen) any actual evidence that shows that this was a case of multiaccounting and not a case of friends working together?

I have received 46 emails related to this barrage of disputes from players, the sportsbook, and forwarded email from MB. From what I have seen, it seems likely that this is a case of one person multi-accounting, and not friends working together.

I have some additional investigation I want to do before reaching a decision on the (many) cases I am handling in this dispute. Once I have finished, I'll share my findings. As always, you are free to critique it.

[sharpcat]

I don't see this being too big of an issue unless you are guilty of playing at books either in teams or multi-accounting yourself, both of which are warned against in the T&C's of just about every book around.

I would rather see books filter these scumbags out than worry about the longshot of being the victim of a random mistake.

[Justin7]

You sound like the people behind the Patriot act.

Say two people work together and occasionally need to transfer funds via MB. Say one of these persons is limited by a sportsbook, later the other also signs up at that book. MB shares that info with the book and the books steals the players money. No fraud has been committed but MB is assisting thieving sportsbooks (and as halifax mentioned, they do this all the time when they put up adds from F rated books encouraging their players to play there and get stolen from) in justifying their thefts and sbr is gonna rubber stamp it.

In the cases where MB was involved, it was never 2 players... Usually 5+. There were about 10 accounts opened up in the first barrage in this Comeon dispute.

I agree that one player sending money to another player via MB is not enough to show fraud, even if both players have IP addresses that are close. If a book is going to confiscate a bonus or confiscate winnings, the burden of proof is on the book.

I'm working on another case where the book might be able to show multi-accounting... but one of the players with a 0 balance re-upped with no bonus, and won in the casino. In bonus cases, the damages are pretty easy to evaluate. But the harm (if any) is much harder to show in a case like that.

[Dr.Gonzo]

It's a pathetic act from Moneybookers to violate their customers like this.

What's next? Full disclosure of transaction so the book knows if your a winner.

[pokernut9999]

Unreal how many posters have no clue.

[zebras99]

This is definitely disturbing. I took the bonus from ComeON and I recommended this bookie to 2 of my friends that are betting as well. All the time we have moneybookers funds flowing among us. So, should I be afraid that MB might report me as a bonus abuser?

[AimingHigh]

This is definitely disturbing. I took the bonus from ComeON and I recommended this bookie to 2 of my friends that are betting as well. All the time we have moneybookers funds flowing among us. So, should I be afraid that MB might report me as a bonus abuser?

Why would you and your friends have money flowing 'all the time' between each other?

I understand the need for occasional transfers and make them with my friends, but my friends (who exist and aren't gnome friends) also send me ££ straight to my bank account or give me cash, or I forget about any small debts so there's never money changing hands between us 'all the time.'

[tomcowley]

So are you going to tell us (or have you even seen) any actual evidence that shows that this was a case of multiaccounting and not a case of friends working together?

Anybody? McFly? The evidence ITT is not enough to establish guilt. So do you have actual evidence you forgot to put in with all the irrelevant crap or did you fcuk up another dispute and condone more people getting robbed?

[austin]

So are you going to tell us (or have you even seen) any actual evidence that shows that this was a case of multiaccounting and not a case of friends working together?

friends working together? ~ it is a syndicate betting ~ and is also frowned upon by many books and is asking for trouble

[Ruifgalmeida]

making gambling related transfers is just asking for trouble , it is so easy to put money on a book(except for americans) if a friend of mine whats to gamble I tell in to fund is own account, it only take in a few minutes

[zebras99]

Why would you and your friends have money flowing 'all the time' between each other?

I understand the need for occasional transfers and make them with my friends, but my friends (who exist and aren't gnome friends) also send me ££ straight to my bank account or give me cash, or I forget about any small debts so there's never money changing hands between us 'all the time.'

Here's a small example. I'm out of funds in moneybookers and I wanna make a bet at some asian bookie where I have no funds. So it's easier to ask a friend for a few hundred euros to my MB account and make the deposit to where I want instead of asking for a withdrawal at some other bookie of even worse, funding my account from a bank which would take 3 days.

Guys, some of you are totally paranoid and only see fraud, syndicate betting and other sh*t.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Why would you and your friends have money flowing 'all the time' between each other?

Betting with each other

[durito]

making gambling related transfers is just asking for trouble , it is so easy to put money on a book(except for americans) if a friend of mine whats to gamble I tell in to fund is own account, it only take in a few minutes

The United States is not the only country where it is difficult to fund sportsbooks from.