Problem gambling based demand to reinstate lost winnings of 75k

[universal4]

I have now witnessed an email dated April 19, and in my opinion it is authentic and has not been forged with the header included.

The content of this email is a discussion about the account being locked (after the fact) and that the player wished the account to remained locked until cashouts were completed.

This email appears to help documment the player's claim that he is correct (or at least close) with his time frame of events.

I know there is other evidence provided by the casino and I have not seen it, so I will reserve my opinion and am awaiting authorisation to forward this information to those directly working on this.

Rick
Universal4

[Roulette Zeitung]

It's really funny.
No, it's not.
I have had so many trouble with the Club Gold Casino here in this forum.
Only because of a great misfortune in my family i have not published the proof until today.
I am very sad because of this misfortune and have to receive back my power.
The proof is saved on my computer, that Club Gold Casino have used an unauthorized license seal on their website for years.
This is really ugly!
Or is it crime?
After it was made public by the Italien lady on some internet places, Club Gold Casino have removed the illegal seal.
This is an admission of guilt.
I have the full proof.
My correspondence with the UK Gambling Commission, with Curaçao eGaming and with with Antillephone N.V.
Screenshots of the illegal seal (One proof is since weeks in this forum, now in this moment!).

I have the name of the backers, the name of the master license, everything!

This casino is really a shame!

Edit note: Very interesting ===> https://www.gpwa.org/member/dinog
No posts but online. You know, what this means.

Leopold

[universal4]

I request that we keep the content of THIS THREAD restricted to the player issue originally posted.

Leopold, you are welcome to start another thread concerning the licensing and seal issue, and I promise it will get the attention it deserves.

Rick
Universal4

[universal4]

At this time, I am retracting a portion of my statement above about the email header.

It is starting to appear that the timeline can NOT be verified by the evidence presented by the player, and that portion of it is still under investigation.

Rick
Universal4

[-Shay-]

At this time, I am retracting a portion of my statement above about the email header.

It is starting to appear that the timeline can NOT be verified by the evidence presented by the player, and that portion of it is still under investigation.

Rick
Universal4

Can you elaborate upon this statement Rick?

[MichaelCorfman]

We forwarded the email message to Gold Club Casino that was provided by marko6 as evidence that the timeline was as he had stated.

Gold Club Casino reviewed the email and identified some aspects of the email that they believed indicated it was a forgery. Obviously, if forged evidence was provided, then that would be a very serious matter, so the issue was elevated to me for a more formal review. I engaged an email expert to conduct that review, which was completed earlier this morning.

The expert review showed the anomalies identified by Gold Club Casino indicated there was some likelihood the email was forged, they did not provide irrefutable proof that was the case. However, the expert identified additional aspects of the email he was engaged to review that proved, based on firm irrefutable evidence, that the email was in fact forged.

While we do not want to publish the exact nature of the analysis that was performed (because we do not want to make it easier for other fraudsters to do a better job of producing forgeries that are harder to detect), we did forward the findings of our expert to universal4, who has been advocating for marko6 in this thread.

On the basis of this analysis, and our review of it, Anthony, universal4, and I are in full agreement that marko6 is clearly engaged in the creation of falsified evidence.

While the GPWA is not a player forum, we have generally felt it is reasonable for some player issues to be considered here since clearly it is important that affiliate programs behave fairly with both affiliates and players. However, when a player comes here and attacks an operator based on forged evidence, that is an entirely different matter.

It gives us no choice but to rule against the player that is engaged in a purposeful campaign of deception.

Michael

[-Shay-]

I'll just shake my head for a bit before I respond to this.

[-Shay-]

We forwarded the email message to Gold Club Casino that was provided by marko6 as evidence that the timeline was as he had stated.

Gold Club Casino reviewed the email and identified some aspects of the email that they believed indicated it was a forgery. Obviously, if forged evidence was provided, then that would be a very serious matter, so the issue was elevated to me for a more formal review. I engaged an email expert to conduct that review, which was completed earlier this morning.

The expert review showed the anomalies identified by Gold Club Casino indicated there was some likelihood the email was forged, they did not provide irrefutable proof that was the case. However, the expert identified additional aspects of the email he was engaged to review that proved, based on firm irrefutable evidence, that the email was in fact forged.

While we do not want to publish the exact nature of the analysis that was performed (because we do not want to make it easier for other fraudsters to do a better job of producing forgeries that are harder to detect), we did forward the findings of our expert to universal4, who has been advocating for marko6 in this thread.

On the basis of this analysis, and our review of it, Anthony, universal4, and I are in full agreement that marko6 is clearly engaged in the creation of falsified evidence.

While the GPWA is not a player forum, we have generally felt it is reasonable for some player issues to be considered here since clearly it is important that affiliate programs behave fairly with both affiliates and players. However, when a player comes here and attacks an operator based on forged evidence, that is an entirely different matter.

It gives us no choice but to rule against the player that is engaged in a purposeful campaign of deception.

Michael

I've taken the time to calm down and reflect on this issue.

For starters, IF the email was forged - I do not condone such things.

Now that this is out of the way, there's all this talk about doing analysis and review. Answer me this --- emails and logs aside from both parties - who at Playtech did you speak to to verify this information?

If your ruling is based on this email, then it would also be reasonable to rule against Club Gold Casino for Carmel's fraudulent claim that Club Gold is licenced in Curacao - would it not?

If a Playtech rep has not been or is not brought into this matter as a determining factor on your "ruling" then you've not investigated the matter deep enough and thus let the player and the entire community down.

[universal4]

You are correct, this case has nothing to do with the licensing issue, and there is a discussion surrounding that in the thread you mentioned as well as this one:
https://www.gpwa.org/forum/proof-clu...ng-213546.html

Rick
Universal4

[-Shay-]

You are correct, this case has nothing to do with the licensing issue, and there is a discussion surrounding that in the thread you mentioned as well as this one:
https://www.gpwa.org/forum/proof-clu...ng-213546.html

Rick
Universal4

My point was that Playtech needs to chime in with their (official logs and timelines) here in order to have a just ruling. Worth noting is that the question on licencing was asked in the context of this player issue so that the player could contact the licencing agency to seek help in this matter. To me, that makes this the same issue and that there's more than one party that has made a fraudulent claim in this matter.

[MichaelCorfman]

For starters, IF the email was forged - I do not condone such things.

Now that this is out of the way, there's all this talk about doing analysis and review. Answer me this --- emails and logs aside from both parties - who at Playtech did you speak to to verify this information?

It was not necessary to speak to anyone at Playtech to determine that the email was forged. The email provided by the player to "prove" the timeline that the player claimed was very clearly a forged email. The contents of the email and the associated headers contained inconsistencies that can only be present in a forged email message.

If your ruling is based on this email, then it would also be reasonable to rule against Club Gold Casino for Carmel's fraudulent claim that Club Gold is licenced in Curacao - would it not?

I agree that the licensing question is a completely separate and independent question, and the fact that the player starting this thread presented forged evidence to discredit Gold Club Casino only serves to discredit that player and has no bearing whatsoever on the licensing question.

The licensing question is presented as a separate stand-alone topic in another thread, and so it is proper for it to be responded to in the thread devoted to that topic rather than intertwined as a second unrelated topic in this thread.

Michael

[-Shay-]

The question was asked in the context of this thread (I edited my post a few times, so you might have missed my rewordings), which makes that licencing issue TOTALLY relevant to this issue - (question asked so that player could contact the licence issuer in my advice post).

I think that it is necessary to contact Playtech to verify the player's claims (should have been done when the dispute was brought up initially in my opinion). Why would we not go to the highest source in this matter? Surely, Playtech would be able to confirm or refute the timelines, discussions, and events beyond any doubt. Why wouldn't an independent, reasonable and objective individual trying to sort through this issue go that route to ensure he sees the entire, unblemished picture?

[MichaelCorfman]

Surely, Playtech would be able to confirm or refute the timelines, discussions, and events beyond any doubt. Why wouldn't an independent, reasonable and objective individual trying to sort through this issue go that route to ensure he sees the entire, unblemished picture?

No, I actually don't believe that Playtech would be able to confirm or deny the timeline that matters here. I cannot imagine that Playtech would be able to provide information about specific email messages received by the operator, which is the principal information required before other information that they might have would become relevant.

The claim by the player is that an email was sent notifying the casino that he had a gambling problem on a specific date. And then he submitted an email to us stating that it was an original copy of the actual email he sent to the casino and that it proved he sent the email on the claimed date. But we can prove the email is a forgery. So we very clearly have a player that is lying to us in a case where we have no actual evidence to support the players claim that inappropriate actions were taken after a gambling problem was reported.

When we have a player making a claim we know is backed lies and deceptions in correspondence with us in the form of forged documents I believe we are fully justified in abandoning further support for the player. In my opinion, anyone that will forge documents and lie to us to substantiate a claim does not deserve our support.

Michael

[DaftDog]

Anybody that can blow that type of money at an online casino is either very wealthy or has a serious gambling problem. Addicts of any kind are known to create elaborate stories in an endeavour to avoid the responsibilities of their actions and to get access to money to further satisfy their addiction.

Well done to the GPWA in sorting this matter out. I had my doubts about the op right from the start.

[-Shay-]

No, I actually don't believe that Playtech would be able to confirm or deny the timeline that matters here. I cannot imagine that Playtech would be able to provide information about specific email messages received by the operator, which is the principal information required before other information that they might have would become relevant.

The claim by the player is that an email was sent notifying the casino that he had a gambling problem on a specific date. And then he submitted an email to us stating that it was an original copy of the actual email he sent to the casino and that it proved he sent the email on the claimed date. But we can prove the email is a forgery. So we very clearly have a player that is lying to us in a case where we have no actual evidence to support the players claim that inappropriate actions were taken after a gambling problem was reported.

When we have a player making a claim we know is backed lies and deceptions in correspondence with us in the form of forged documents I believe we are fully justified in abandoning further support for the player. In my opinion, anyone that will forge documents and lie to us to substantiate a claim does not deserve our support.

Michael

Michael - there were also chat logs that were referenced in this thread on more than one occasion.

Before I get too deep into a conspiracy theory - let's focus on the fact that there were chat logs, account settings, and emails that were referenced. How many of these were examined before reaching your verdict?

To be perfectly fair, in this situation - BOTH parties have referenced chat exchanges. The OP claimed that in email and in chat he cried gambling problem. He also asks questions about when his account was limited/locked, citing chat conversations. The chat logs, as well as information regarding the changes in his limits should have been requested from Playtech in my opinion, as there's little to no chance that they'll send "selective" logs based on timeframes that suit their needs and protect their reputation.

Additionally, Casinomeister conversations were referenced - were they contacted to see if any dialogue could be retrieved from someone who did not have a financial interest in this outcome?

[Roulette Zeitung]

Club Gold Casino: We are the most trustfully casino ever

...and we will create an own seal for this.

Club Gold Casino: Come to us, player, come! We turn your gold into hot air.

There are so nice people working for this casino.

Why the seal issue is so important for player issues?

we say here in Germany to this kind of people: "A liar will not be believed even when he speaks the truth."

Every player issue with this casino in the past, from today or in the future have to been viewed in a different light.

"A liar will not be believed even when he speaks the truth."

If anybody is cheating with one thing there is no doubt that the same person is cheating with other things too.
This belongs for all people on Rura Penthe and on Earth.
This has been around for decades, for centuries!

Evidences against winners...
Confidential...
Many times...
Confidential? - I am laughing now after the results of the investigations.

"A liar will not be believed even when he speaks the truth."

If you can't make it, fake it.

Leopold

[-Shay-]

Additionally, I still maintain that the licence issue IS relevant to this player's thread, as I originally asked the question - asking specifically "Does Club Gold hold an actual remote gambling licence anywhere that the player "could" reach out to on this matter?" in this thread in an effort to assist the player. In a separate thread, Club Gold Casino representative Carmel straight up lied and falsely claimed Club Gold Casino is licenced with Curacao.

Carmel Said's claim was proven false when Leopold stepped in providing proof that Club Gold Casino has purposely mislead the world into believing they are a legitimate, licenced online casino when in fact they are not.
As of this moment, one man's lie is given more weight than another man's lie.

In the interest of fairness and the integrity of GPWA, this issue MUST be addressed separately AND ALSO treated as a highly relevant singular issue in this matter because Carmel purposely misled the player, he misled me, and he misled this community into believing that they were licenced and that the player (or anyone else) could seek the assistance of Curacao's online gaming regulators when in fact there is and was not any sort of relationship between Club Gold Casino and Curacao.

[universal4]

Playtech can and does have access to game logs.

Whether they have access to chat logs (likely) or email (unlikely) is one of the questions I wouldn't mind knowing the answer to.

I might be mistaken but the reason I think they do have access to chat logs is that I believe the chat runs on the Club Gold servers, and I am making an assumption that Playtech runs the server for CG.

I do not know however if Playtech runs the email server for Club Gold.

Rick
Universal4

[marko6]

You probably don't expect me to come back to this thread, but I do. I wish to inform you that I feel ashamed about what I have done. And I now realize what a condemnable behaviour gambling can trigger. I assume that it was my own fault to have deleted all proofs that I had had. But there is one thing that I know for sure: There was a monthly wagering limit of 1 Euro on my account, when it was unlocked on May 19th. And that limit was removed by the casino on the very same day. Noone has yet commented on that.

I understand, if GPWA now decides to close this thread. However, I would like to know whether removing monthly limits without applying an appropriate cooling-off period is permitted or not. All other casinos that I know require me to wait at least 7 days, before the limit is removed.

I am sorry, and I made everything wrong.
marko6

[-Shay-]

You probably don't expect me to come back to this thread, but I do. I wish to inform you that I feel ashamed about what I have done. And I now realize what a condemnable behaviour gambling can trigger. I assume that it was my own fault to have deleted all proofs that I had had. But there is one thing that I know for sure: There was a monthly wagering limit of 1 Euro on my account, when it was unlocked on May 19th. And that limit was removed by the casino on the very same day. Noone has yet commented on that.

I understand, if GPWA now decides to close this thread. However, I would like to know whether removing monthly limits without applying an appropriate cooling-off period is permitted or not. All other casinos that I know require me to wait at least 7 days, before the limit is removed.

I am sorry, and I made everything wrong.
marko6

Contact Playtech and follow through with them, as that avenue was not yet explored and should have been.