English in United States
Found for the Player - This is yet another example of the Conan group using what is a highly questionable term (in our opinion) with no clear definition of the sanctions for violation.
It should be noted that the operator were non-responsive to this complaint.
Read our Osiris Casino Review.
----All deposits and transactions performed via Neteller-----
6/10/15 - I registered in the casino and I requested a verification of my ID in anticipate prior to make any deposit in the casino. They processed it successfully, very quick (mail proof available). I requested them not to give me any kind of bonus, fact that they accomplished.
From 6/10/15 until 9/10/15, I deposited and completely lost an overall amount of €2103 playing live blackjack and live roulette.
From 9/10/15 until 12/10/15 I deposited an additional amount of €700.
From 9/10/15 until day 17/10/15 I reached, mainly playing live blackjack and live roulette, an overall cash balance of €5025
17/10/15 - I submitted them a €5000 cash withdrawal request to my Neteller account (mail proof & screenshots available)
19/10/15 - They denied my withdrawal (mail proofs & screenshots available) and reinstated €600 in my account.
22/10/15 - They cancelled my account in the casino at my own request.
01/11/15 - They transferred €600 to my Neteller account
Not enetering yet in the root cause of confiscation, As per them is based on their T&C. In my opinion, doesn't apply to my case.
I will provide as many explanations & proofs as solicited by the Pogg.
17/11/15 - 1 month elapsed, €4400 of winnings confiscated.
Thanks for your email. By the sounds of things you've already got a lot of different agencies looking into this issue for you and as such it's unlikely that we'll be able to do much more than the bodies you've already contacted.
Nevertheless, I'll contact the MGA regarding this issue as they're already managing a very similar complaint against this casino at our request.
I'll let you know when I have more information.
All the best,
I've spoken with the MGA regarding your complaint and it seems that you're complaining about the same group, but for totally different reasons to the MGA.
Here's the complaint as far as they're concerned:
I have been reviewing the following regulation, which governs licesees monitorized by this authority: REMOTE GAMING S.L.438.04 1, SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 438.04, REMOTE GAMING REGULATIONS, 20th April, 2004; 20th July, 2004; 20th April, 2005, LEGAL NOTICE 176 of 2004, as amended by Legal Notices 110 of 2006, 270 and 426 of 2007, and 90 of 2011
Yesterday I raised one claim but the topic is exactly the same. You can take in consideration both claims together as relates to the same.
,Attached inside a Winzip file, you will find a long mail loop named: "IMPORTANT Conan Gaming LTD bad practices declaration and first set of proofs for the MGA" with some bullet point detailed evidences of multiple Law breaks, failures, uncompliances & bad practices commited by licensee Conan Gaming LTD. I guess not only in my case but also recurrently to other individuals, covering, but not limited:
- Non-compliance of the player exclusion request timeframes defined by the Law (Art 43)
- Non-compliance of the reality checks defined by the Law (Art 44)
- Non-compliance of limits of advertising defined by the Law (Art 60)
- Non-compliance of multiple technical requirements for gaming systems defined by the Law (Reg 25.b and 25.6)
I'm raising this case also to your parent public authority here in Spain (Direccion General de Ordenacion de Juego - DGOJ), as appart from the multiple violations of the Maltese Law I'm reporting here, this licensee is violating the Spanish Law as they do not have a valid license to operate in the Spanish territory, as defined in "Ley 13/2011, de 27 de mayo, de regulación del juego" - http://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2011-9280
Please, I beg you to deeply investigate this case, keep me updated with the progress, and feel free to contact me in case you need any further proof or explanation.
What I expect is a fair resolution of the case and the corresponding corrective actions by this Authority.
I'm going to be frank about this, you're going to need to decide on a specific complaint and focus on it if you're going to make any progress.
From what I can see you're trying to complain about:
1) Self-exclusion issues
2) The legality of the casino accepting players from your country
3) Issues related to the casinos advertising
4) The software the casino uses
5) The terms on which the casino based the confiscation of funds.
As far as I can see here the only issue that's actually important to you is the removal of winnings. Given the detail you've gone to in your complaint to the MGA I seriously doubt that you weren't aware of the legal status of this operator in Spain prior to this issue arising. That would lead me to conclude that you're just looking to attack the operator on as many fronts as possible.
This is a highly flawed strategy.
Rather than having the relevant agencies addressing the problem that you've actually experienced, that being the fairness of the term that's been given as justification for the fund confiscation, you've got them chasing a load of other issue that aren't actually related to what you want to achieve. You're unlikely to actually get what you want doing this and most people are going to view this as an unproductive approach.
I'd suggest contacting the MGA and clarifying what you wish to complain about.
I've looked over the email you just sent through. My opinion is somewhere in between you and the verdict reached by CasinoMeister.
Firstly, I do agree with Max that as far as the deposit goes, it's the last deposit that counts with regards to the enforcement of this term. To be honest I think you were clutching at straws when you tried to lump the the deposits together and that this is symptomatic of your approach to this issue (trying too many arguments to try and get one through rather than focusing on the stronger points you have).
However, I absolutely agree with you that this term is fundamentally unfair. In the first instance, any player that chooses to play without a bonus naturally expects to be able to play without restrictions beyond the defined table limits. Moreover, this term fails to define how sanctions will be enforced and having looked at other cases, this group have previously used this term to confiscate entire balances, not just funds that have been involved in bets that violate the term. To put that in perspective, imagine walking into a offline casino, buying in at the Blackjack table for €100, placing a bet of €50, which is well within the table limits, then being told as soon as you did that the casino were going to confiscate, the bet and winnings and also the other chips you bought in for. It's utter nonsense.
I'm currently discussing this term with the MGA to see what can be done about it. This is understandable a slow process as it involves various legal bodies. I'll get back to you when I have more information.
I'm currently discussing this term specifically
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Osiris - €4400 fair & legitimate earnings confiscation
Posted by Evergoa
November 18, 2015
Evergoa consented for ThePOGG to act on their behalf and share the personal information that they provide to ThePOGG with the following agencies for the purposes of resolving their complaint:
November 18, 2015
Hi Evergoa - welcome to ThePOGG.com!
Before I can do anything to help you I'm going to need you to tell me what justification the casino gave you for removing your winnings?
I also need you to provide me with your username and email address at Osiris casino.