[vinylweatherman]

Since Alderney showed that "bonus abuse" took place with the initial sign-up bonus, PKR should never have lured the player back in with an even larger offer. They should have locked the account straight after the initial bonus was "abused". PKR offered the reload when it was already the case that the player had "abused" the bonus, and would probably do the same again with the second one. This is simply a case of bait and switch.

Now we know where Alderney stand with regard to "bonus abuse", players are not allowed to play best strategy to win as much as possible, but must go beyond the terms and conditions by an unspecified amount.

The Moneybookers incident seems rather too much of a co-incidence, and topoor did say that a member of their staff let slip that PKR was the complainant. Since Alderney have not found that fraud was involved, PKR have breached the data protection act by issuing a "fraud report" to Moneybookers for what is simply "advantage play". A complaint should be made direct to the information commissioner now that you have a statement from Alderney as to exactly what took place. The Data Protection act only allows the passing of data in the case of fraud or suspected money laundering. If it was only PKR that was transacted with using the Moneybookers account, there can only be one merchant that complained.

I cannot see how Moneybookers can justify closing accounts simply because their customer is an "advantage player".

There would be no point in sueing PKR over the second bonus, the main problem is the information passed to Moneybookers.

There are other Ewallets available, but don't forget that Playtech have a central database of "bonus abusers", which means topoor should not play at any other Playtech casinos, otherwise either the bonus will not be credited, or another attempt will be made to confiscate winnings.

The small claims court would at least limit the amount payable to take action, even if it failed.