Analysis of Affactive Group's Rogue Ways

Let’s play a game of association! What group of casinos first comes to mind when you hear about: slow and delayed payments combined with 90 days "security check" rule, unclear terms that allow too much leverage for the casino…sounds all too familiar? It has to be as this group had the same old customer complaints for almost six years now!

Netad Management owns and operates nine online casinos which are all well known for their notoriety: Jackpot Grand Casino, Grand Macao, Slots of Fortune, Winpalace Casino (better known as NOwinpalace casino), Casino Titan, Golden Cherry, Slots Jungle, Begado Casino and the newest addition-WinPalacePlay Casino, which is powered by TopGame rather than Rival Gaming, the software provider of its sister casinos. There used to be one more- May Flower Casino, which was revoked of its gaming license by Top Game in 2012.

A casino representative joined our forum in 2009 offering to help with queries concerning these casinos. Right of the bat our members had complaints regarding slow and unresponsive customer service, it was literally impossible to get them to respond to a simple ‘Hello’. Complaints were also rolling in for May Flower, which was closed later on. The casino rep Daniel was prompt to respond to every concern and question in a friendly and professional manner and everything seemed to be running smoothly.

From the start US paying customers had the biggest struggles trying to cash out their winnings. The Group proved to be slow but reliable for their American customers which soon seized to be the case.

The withdrawal problems started to multiply in 2011 and you could easily see the similarities between different cases. Frustrated players were worried about their winnings; they kept getting paid out in installments of $500 even though the casinos clearly claimed in their T&Cs that you can cash out up to $3,000 a week. Slowly but steadily Daniel started to withdraw from the forum as complaints about false cashout limit became more frequent. He wasn’t as fast with his replies as before, which was clearly a sign of an underlying issue. The question why withdrawals end up being processed for LESS than what players submit them for never got answered. Paying players in installments couldn’t be found anywhere in the casino terms but they kept doing it. Thanks to the persistence of one of our members attention was drawn to this issue, especially our admin’s attention, whom was assured by the casino that the $500 limit is rather an exception than a rule.

In the end of 2011 a pattern started to appear in the ‘Direct Casino Support’ forum thread and the general atmosphere was that of frustration, it seemed that everybody had difficulties withdrawing their winnings.

Upon closer inspection of the casinos’ terms and conditions, which are almost the same for every Netad casino, we noticed that the cashout limit rule differs. During this period Slots Jungle produced the most problems with players’ withdrawals, complaints by worried members kept appearing.

Slots Jungle’s T&C, rule 18: ''All withdrawals are paid in installments of up to $3,000. This is determined according to player class. Withdrawals will be processed after 4 business days. You will be notified by email when we send out your winnings. Installments do not renew automatically and need to be requested from the player’s end. Following an installment payment, monies requested above the installment amount will be returned to the player’s casino account. Withdrawals and changes to payment instructions are subject to clearance by our Security Department.'' 

Compare it to the same rule for the group’s other casinos and you’ll clearly see they had to add things to justify their actions:

T&C for other eight casinos, rule 18: "All withdrawals are paid in installments of up to $3,000. This is determined according to player class. This can take between 5-10 business days. You will be notified by email when we send out your winnings. Withdrawals and changes to payment instructions are subject to clearance by our Security Department. (Name of the casino) reserves the right to pay out higher winnings over a period of several weeks."

The usual case would be - a player, with a larger win (several thousands of dollars), would request a cashout expecting to get $3,000. They would then be paid only $500 and the rest of the amount would be returned to their casino account. Allegedly the limit was determined according to ‘player class’ but in truth the VIP members had the same issue.

“Withdrawals and changes to payment instructions are subject to clearance by our Security Department.” proved to be another vague rule producing even more difficulties. A player trying to withdraw would ‘randomly’ get chosen for a security check which could last up to 90 days leaving his/hers account frozen and the player unable to get to the money. Even though the complaints kept pouring in Daniel was still responsive and it seemed like he was the only person able to get to the Finance Department and sort things out. It appeared that those were the only resolved payment issues, with the group changing their ‘ways’ only when the case becomes public and gets a lot of attention. The simplest things were made complicated and the Finance Department appeared as a Holy Grail you had to get to to be able to withdraw what was rightfully yours.

The maltreatment of loyal customers continued throughout 2012, with similar complaints coming in for each of the group’s casinos. Another shocker appeared at the end of 2012 when players started complaining about not being able to redeem their comp points, to make things even worse, apparently they were being awarded randomly and not for the actual playing they did and yes, we are talking about loyal depositing customers with VIP statuses.

In the April of 2013 things really started to go downhill. The payments took too long to process, Daniel was slowly losing control and our team took notice and stepped in. For full detail on this part of the Direct Casino Support thread

Soon after this, at the beginning of May, the group got its warning sign on LCB with the following description:

"Please exercise caution when playing at this casino. Reports from members include complaints for inexcusable long withdrawal delays and a customer support team that is not resourceful in solving issues. Withdrawal limits are unreasonable with a $500 max limit for most cases even though the terms stipulate “up to $3,000”. These terms are unclear and allow too much leverage to reduce the limits at any time. We advise members to use discretion when considering this casino until further notice. "

Zuga, LCB’s admin, commented on the situation:

“…the lack of transparency from Daniel and his management, combined with ridiculous withdrawal limits is what has earned them this warning.”

He assured members that the team will continue to monitor the Group while staying in touch with Daniel hoping that issues will get fixed, terms changed and payments up to date. The important part of this effort was to continue to mediate in order to ensure members will get paid. There was still a chance for the Group to lose the warning sign but what happened next proved otherwise.

In November 2013, after five years working for Netad Management, Daniel left the company and Clara Hans took his place as the group’s new representative on forum. Needless to say, we were still hoping for a change and Clara brought in some much needed optimism.

She was quick to provide an explanation for the disputed payment issues:

Clara Hans: "All withdrawals are paid in installments of up to $3,000. This is determined according to player class".

The truth was that more than one player had a $500 limit placed on withdrawals. Imagine the frustration of winning thousands of dollars and having to face such strict limits for cashout. "Player class" was a vague rule because many of the members have been loyal players depositing a lot of money over a period of time yet they did not qualify for this "class".

The ‘up to 90 days security check’ rule appeared to be a constant problem at the end of 2014; Clara was trying to fight a wildfire of angry customer complaints justifying the rule:

Clara Hans: “Regarding this 90 days rule, it’s actually not all the time that the investigations require.”

She continues: “Our fraud department does some checking accounts and depending on the payment method used, can take up to 90 days. These investigations are done in order to discard fraud or payment issues and chargebacks.”

This proved to be a poor excuse for the disputed rule.

The newest blow to the customers came as a conformation of our worst fears and we lost all hope that this casino group will get their act together. The ‘security check’ rule was rogue in such an obvious way that our admin Zuga had to step in again:

“Now it is obvious that this group has got worse with the ridiculous 90 days security checks. And we will be taking appropriate actions (our warnings are getting updated as we speak).” January,2015.

Clara soon became unresponsive as well and she too left the company in April 2015. Her position of the casino representative was taken by Anita.

We strongly advise that players avoid these casinos at all costs as they bring nothing but frustration and disappointment. They will stall your payout with vague weekly cashout limits and if that doesn’t work you will be picked for a ‘random’ security check that can last up to three months, leaving you unable to withdraw any winnings. This rule was obviously enforced to encourage players to reverse their withdrawals putting them at risk of loosing money back to the casino.