SportsInteraction cooperates with SBR in confiscation investigations

Share with:

SportsInteraction (SBR rating C-) addresses a sportsbook dispute from June 2007 .  In that dispute, SIA closed a player's account for excessive winnings, then accidentally reopened the account. The player went on to win an additional $15,000. SIA canceled the player's winnings which prompted a rating downgrade to D+.


SportsBookReview and SportsInteraction have discussed this dispute over the past two years via hundreds of emails, multiple teleconferences, both with SIA management and with the player. SIA established that the account was being controlled by a third party; a third party whose account was also closed for excessive winnings. The person owning the account in this dispute resided in England, and made deposits and withdrawals from that location. All bets were placed from Canda, despite the account owner spending a majority of time in England while the bets were placed. SIA has proven the account was accessed from an IP address shared by the third party. SIA was able to demonstrate irrefutable connections between the two players. SIA has requested that SBR not disclose its investigative methods to prevent compromising future fraud cases. Once SIA proved that the account was fraudulent, SBR agreed with the decision to confiscate winnings.

SBR's Justin worked the case.

Justin: "SportsInteraction has made great strides in its management, customer service and fraud prevention over the last three years including the implementation of several changes to its rules and procedures recommended by SBR to avoid disputes. This long-outstanding dispute represented the single worst issue I have ever tried to tackle with this sportsbook. Its resolution is a high-point in the massive amount of manpower spent. While the confiscation of winnings on fair bets is never, it was understandable in this situation.”

Case #2.

SIA reverses $1700 winnings confiscation. On October 21st, a player wrote SBR stating that his account was closed and winnings confiscated. SIA demonstrated that in one instance, two accounts made the same wager from the same IP address. The second account was opened at the friend's house, and had no other IP addresses associated with it. SIA noted that while the players were in violation of SIA's terms and conditions by operating two accounts from the same IP, they decided to give the player's the benefit of the doubt in the action not being maliciously taken to circumvent house rules.

Case #3

SIA confiscates €639 citing identity fraud. On August 10th, a player wrote SBR indicating account closure and funds confiscation. SIA proved that the passport submitted was forged. The player did not dispute the finding. SBR agreed with SportsInteraction's decision to confiscate winnings.

Case #4

SIA confiscates $9000 from player, citing multiple accounts and chargebacks. On November 5th, a player wrote SBR stating that his account was closed and winnings confiscated. Both player and sportsbook agreed on the facts: the account was opened on March 3rd 2009, deposited $750 via ACH; and the account's balance was lost in bets. The player's deposits bounced, resulting in a negative sportsbook balance. In November of 2009, the player proceeded to open an additional account with SIA using his middle name as a last name, and using a different street address. The player won several parlays and increased his balance to roughly $10,000. SBR agreed with SIA's decision to confiscate winnings. SIA's terms and conditions disallow a person from opening multiple accounts. In this instance, the player circumvented the negative figure on his account from his first chargeback, and was a high risk to chargeback a second time should his parlays have lost.

Case #5

SIA reverses $5784 winnings confiscation. On October 27th, a player wrote SBR indicating his account was closed with his funds confiscated. SIA originally stated that the player's documents were forged and suspected that the account was being controlled by a previously restricted player.  The player produced a barrage of identification documents and cleared his account.

Case #6

SIA confiscates $1167 citing identity fraud. On June 25th, a player wrote SBR stating his account was closed and winnings removed. SIA documented that the person making the deposit was a former player that had outstanding chargebacks with another account. The bank card used to make the deposit was not authorized for use by the account holder. The player submitted a forged bank card image to circumvent this. SBR agreed with SIA's decision to confiscate winnings.

report written by Justin of SportsBookReview team.

Poster's Poll
675 Pts
665 Pts
380 Pts
310 Pts
165 Pts

Contact Us