FortuneJack Casino Review

The player from Spain had experienced difficulties with Fortunejack Casino. After he made a 3rd deposit, he was unable to place bets on sports. The casino had required the wager of the last deposit to allow withdrawal. Despite having met the wager requirements, the casino requested turnover for all deposits in the player's history, which hindered him from withdrawing his funds. The player's account had been fully verified and he had provided a detailed transaction history. Eventually, the issue was resolved after the player posted a complaint on the Bitcointalk forum where a company representative intervened and processed his withdrawal. Consequently, the player withdrew his complaint against the casino.

The player from Norway had an issue with the KYC process on fortunejack.com. While he was willing to comply, attempts to arrange a suitable Skype interview had not been successful due to poor communication from the casino and inconvenient scheduling. Following this, the player's withdrawal request had been denied and the account was blocked. The player claimed to have had 5.08 Ethereum and about 450 USDC in his account with no active bonus at the time of the incident. Despite our attempts to mediate the situation, the casino remained unresponsive. We had advised the player to contact the casino's licensing authorities for further assistance. Due to the player's lack of response, the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player from Finland had deposited 1250 USDT and had increased his balance to 3312.5 USDT. When he tried to withdraw, the casino required a KYC process. Afterwards, the casino claimed that the player's account was linked with other accounts and limited him to withdraw only his initial deposit. The player was aggrieved over the confiscation of his winnings, which amounted to 2062.5 USDT. The player had stated that he used a VPN and only participated in sports betting. The casino had refused to pay the winnings and had blocked the player's account. We, as the Complaints Team, had rejected the complaint due to a lack of insight into sports betting related issues and an inability to properly evaluate the casino's investigation results.

The player from Mexico had been denied withdrawal, accused of having multiple accounts. After being asked to verify his identity and doing so, the casino stopped responding, blocked the account, and confiscated the winnings. The player had claimed to be the only user of his account and had no knowledge of the other accounts. The casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the player's device. The player had failed to provide a clear explanation for this. The casino had offered to refund the player's deposit as a goodwill gesture, which the player had reluctantly accepted. However, the player insisted on his innocence and later argued that he deserved all his winnings. The Complaints Team concluded the complaint with the casino refunding the player's deposit and recommended the player to consult the gambling authority that the casino was regulated by if unsatisfied with the resolution.

The player from Ukraine's account had been blocked by FortuneJack Casino due to allegations of being linked to multiple other accounts, which was against their rules. Despite successful verification and personal denials of these allegations, the casino only returned the deposit, nullifying the winnings. The player was seeking a fair review and the return of the winnings. After reviewing the case and the evidence provided by the casino, we concluded that there were too many matches and similarities between the player's account and others, indicating multiple accounts or collusion. This was a serious breach of the casino's terms and conditions. In addition, as the allegations related to sports betting, we had suggested the player approach a platform that dealt with sports betting-related complaints. We had concluded the complaint as 'rejected' due to these findings.

The player from Hong Kong had attempted to withdraw 4,217 USDT from FortuneJack Casino, but his request had been denied due to security retrieval grounds, and his account was subsequently closed. However, an hour after he lodged a complaint, the casino had permitted him to withdraw his balance. As a result, the player had wished to cancel his complaint. We had accordingly marked this issue as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland had discovered that games at FortuneJack, a crypto casino, which were advertised as 'provably fair', were not able to have their results calculated, therefore challenging their fairness. The player had requested the casino to provide a means to calculate outcomes. After the complaint had been raised, the casino had provided the necessary script to confirm the fairness of their games. They also assured that scripts for all their provably fair games would be updated on their site in the following days. Therefore, we considered this complaint as resolved.

The player from Colombia and his uncle had their accounts blocked. Winnings from bets were not allowed to be withdrawn. The Complaints Team had concluded that the casino's actions were justified due to the opening of multiple accounts on the same device, which was generally prohibited. Despite an extension that was granted for the player to provide further information, the player did not respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Oregon had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, her winnings hadn't been received at that time. After the Complaints Team had advised her to wait for 14 days since requesting the withdrawal, she confirmed that she had received her winnings. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Peru experienced account closure at FortuneJack Casino. This happened despite completed verification and an account balance of 1,500USD. The casino alleges his account was linked to another, but player denies this and is open to further verification. The casino has provided us with evidence of multiple accounts, therefore, we have rejected the complaint.

A player from Argentina had won money from a Bonus but was blocked from withdrawing the winnings. The casino had cited 'multiple accounts' as the reason for the withdrawal cancellation and subsequent account closure. We had attempted to gather additional information from the player to better understand the situation, but they failed to respond.

The player from Bangladesh has been accused of using someone else's ID to verify her account. The casino was unable to share evidence of the use of another person's ID, but it came to light that the player had created more than one account and claimed multiple bonuses on each. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Finland has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino provided evidence that was sufficient in showing that the player's account was linked to many other accounts, and these accounts had been used to claim multiple bonuses. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Croatia has been blocked. The casino confiscated his winnings and refunded the deposit. It seems that the casino believes the player created multiple accounts. It came to light that the player accumulated their winnings by placing bets on sports. As we do not currently have enough insight into sports betting to be able to make an informed assessment of the case, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany managed to registered as an underaged player. He is now requesting a deposit refund. The player didn't fill his profile in, and didn't provide any documents to verify his identity. Since the casino wasn't aware of his age, we were forced to reject the complaint.

The customer wanted to withdraw their winnings, but the casino didn't process the transaction for some time until the customer's account was suspended. The casino responded with allegations of hacking threats and blackmail from the side of the customer and that the complaint was an attempt at defamation. There was no conclusive proof of the casino's statements and thus was temporarily ruled in favor of the customer until further development.