Collections to an interdicted person

July 20, 18:12

Versus has made cashes to an banned banned person in his bookmaker. I had to make the claim as soon as I saw the reflected charge, it was less than 24 hours. A cohabiting relative opened an account and used my means of payment without authorization. They block your accounts, and they tell me that it is perfectly legal to have multiple accounts, pay with third-party payment methods, connect from the same IP and device, etc... THE LAW REQUIRES FOR DEPOSITS OF MORE THAN 150 DOLLARS AND / OR WITHDRAWALS: A VERIFICATION PROCESS through a photo of the ID in force on both sides, as well as proof of residence at the registered address (with an invoice, for example) and verification of the ownership of the means of payment (for example a capture of the bank card statements where the full name of the holder of the same appears, extracts of the bizum transfers, certificate of ownership of bank account) through which the deposit was made (to verify ownership).

Amount: 1200 $

Administrator's comment

The case is being studied by the DOGJ.

Comment

They answer me that it is totally legal to open several accounts from the same IP, device, address even having a self-excluded in that home. They respond just the opposite to people who want to make withdrawals and have their accounts blocked. Multi-accounts are legal. Regarding the means of payment of third parties they do not pronounce, nor regarding the verification of the ownership of the player's account. And as I have denounced them to the DGOJ they say that they only respond by that means anymore.
*** And Versus says that there are no charges in the name of the self-excluded even sending them a capture of the bank movements reflected by the self-excluded holder***

Good afternoon. In case you have reported to the DGOJ we cannot help you.

Good afternoon. What do they tell you from Versus? Since it is not allowed to use third-party payment methods.

45 users

#24 in the classification of users

Sponsor

The "Sponsored" icon indicates that the ranking positions are determined by commercial agreements with bookmakers.

Innovate Change rankings are conducted as honestly as possible, so we indicate “Not sponsored" in those cases where the positions are determined as objectively as possible.