I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.Originally Posted by thelawnet
|
|
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Cheermeister
Achievements:
I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.
Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
~Ben Franklin
Useful links: ~ Accredited Casinos ~ I-Gaming Representatives ~ Evil Section ~ My Wish List ~ Donate Now!
Knave of Hearts
It doesn't appear he's too serious about getting this €200k back.
Given this state of affairs, at what point do they stop trying to sue a fake identity and pay the jackpot back?
Typus Infinitus
Achievements:
Awards:
If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.
This is just my 2c, not gospel!
Forcefulness is a reflection of the feelings I get that the industry just isn't listening to players. I get the feeling that the industry are being "nastier" to players as time goes on, which is backward progress. If players are not "forceful", then the industry will feel they can carry on as they are, something they can do since most are only lightly regulated, and it has often been the case that the regulation is not really there to protect players, but something that is convenient for casinos so that they can market themselves as a business which is subject to government regulation.
I believe there is player fraud out there, and always has been, but it seems the industry are trying to convince us that there has been an explosion of this in recent times. I do not believe this at all. I believe that, overall, a certain percentage of the player base has been out to commit fraud based on what they feel is "easy money", but that this percentage has remained pretty constant. With a falling player base, I would have expected fewer cases of player fraud overall. It seems the opposite is taking place, a sharp increase in player fraud. I expect the majority of persons come into contact with online casinos through receiving the deluge of casino related spam - a small number of exceptions exist, such as the UK where online casinos get high exposure through TV programming sponsorship and poster advertising, not to mention advertising at sporting events.
My belief is that the reason for this sharp increase in player fraud is that online casinos are moving the goalposts, and in essence redefining "fraud".
Online casinos are also very secretive, except perhaps those who are listed companies, and in a vacuum of information there can only be speculation. In some cases, casinos seem to overreact to an issue, thus making a big deal out of something minor.
My speculation in this case is based on the actions of Casino Club, as I understand them from this thread. Firstly, a player wins a huge progressive, but before they are able to receive it, the casino discovers that the player has been acting fraudulently. Since the casino avoided handing over the huge sum, they surely have already won this case - the player has lost, and has to fight for the money if they want it. They did this by posting complaints in a forum, but was not prepared to back up their claim. I would have thought this would follow the usual course of the player never really fighting much beyond this, thus showing that he does not think he has that strong a case to put before a formal dispute resolution process.
I get the impression that Casino Club then launched it's own case against the player, thus ensuring this case would receive considerable publicity. Casino Club should have known, or should have been advised by it's legal team, of the potential negative effects such a case could cause. Despite this, Casino Club decided it was worth the go ahead anyway, placing them in the tricky position of having their hands tied in respect of certain matters till the case is resolved, exacerbated by the fact that any public statements they make, either intentionally or unintentionally, could prejudice the outcome of the case, which might take some considerable time to resolve.
Usually, when a casino confiscates a payout because they have found something wrong with an account, and it later emerges that the player had indeed done something wrong, the casino is content with being vindicated & having not paid out, and the player usually stops complaining (assuming they do not receive a forum ban for what they did).
Since I started playing, this is the first time I have heard of a casino taking a player to court, which leads me to belive this player has managed to take a very large sum of money without getting noticed, which again further surprises me since casinos seem so uptight about even the slightest bit of "advantage play".
It looks to me, and some others, that it was only when this progressive was won that Casino Club decided the player was comitting fraud. This should surely have emerged at the time of their first cash-in, and there must surely have been other warning signs, such as the player seeming to win excessive amounts over a prolonged number of hands/spins, or them taking advantage of promotions too often or too well. Other complainants have complained that they were identified as "frauds", either rightly or wrongly, at the time of first cashout.
If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.
As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.
I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
Meister Member
Achievements:
Well, I think it's a good thing that a high-profile case such as this will be argued in a court of law. If it turns out that Casino Club's fraud charge against the player involves nothing more than "bonus abuse," then I'll be very interested to know how the courts handle that argument.
Ueber Meister
Probably is a strong word to use in this context when you have nothing to back it up with. Probably is a word you can use when presenting some evidence, which you've not done.
I don't need to correct your English - you're obviously very well-spoken. But you are also clever in your choice of words - maybe I ought to hire you as my Adwords copywriter
In any case, the writing style you use often blurs the line between theory/opinion and fact - so I am trying to convince you that you need to choose your words a bit more carefully - and since then I've had no complaints.
Good question. It doesn't look like they're ever going to find the guy, let alone be able to sue him - and I don't think the player is going to file suit to claim the jackpot either.
There should be some sort of standard set for cases like this - 90 or 180 days, for example - but I do think it's a bit strange to keep these funds out of the jackpot pool for so long.
Knave of Hearts
It won't be.
I'm actually surprised the casino are doing this.
My experience is that when it comes to legal actions, the usual behaviour of casinos is 'Come sue us in Costa Rica/Malta/Antigua if you want to'. In other words it's made impossibly complicated, expensive and risky for the average player to get proper legal redress.
Meister Member
Achievements:
Spot on.
No average casino player is going to sue an outfit like this simply because it is so complicated to ascertain exactly what address to file legal papers on. You can probably guarantee that the address they use for correspondence is not their financial headquarters, and if you were to take legal action on an address which is invalid, it's going to be an expensive mistake, and quite simply not worth the risk. And as thelawnet stated, most of these casinos run from one of a few countries - although who knows whether this is just their servers - and personally, I have absolutely no knowledge of the legal system in places such as Costa Rica, meaning that unless by some stroke of good fortune, you happened to live there, the problem would come down to finding a local lawyer who was confident of handling this case, or flying out to there and trying to track someone down who can help.
And you can almost know for certain that no reps/lawyers of the casino in question would bother to turn up should you be successful in getting this to court. One man against a giant organisation rarely wins.
I would presume Casino Club would have taken this matter to the small claims court, if they have such a thing over there, obviously in an attempt to recoup 'illegitimate' wins by the player. This should prove interesting. The CC rep said, quite rightly, that if they return the money to the pool, someone wins that jackpot, and then the court decides the player should be paid, CC would have to pay it out of their own pocket, which isn't fair.
BIG flaw in that statement though. That tells me the player is counter-suing Casino Club for the jackpot win which was denied. Going upon the presumption that CC want previous withdrawals repaid, this is what the player is being sued for. But if the casino loses, that doesn't mean they are then legally required to pay this jackpot. They should of course, but most of the rogue casinos were given that status for non-payment to players, and nothing has been done about that. Hopefully, if this does proceed, in my opinion, irrespective of the decision, CC should pay this jackpot win if the player did nothing illegal to win it. Looking at both what the player provided, and what the casino has said, it doesn't appear that it was won due to anything dodgy, it was won fairly but further checks discovered something they don't like. If they refuse to pay because it's unfair on players who have not tried to cheat the casino - totally agree- but if they are withholding because the player cheated in the past (and of course now they want this back) - not right
I wonder if the growing concern now is that CC are going to consider not returning these funds due to the seemingly improbable chance of contacting the player. The jackpot is not Casino Clubs', it is a culmination of wagers from thousands of players who played the game. They won't be losing their own money if they do pay.
Perhaps to attempt to regain respect, Casino Club should look at donating this money to charity. I think a prominant story about them donating over 150,000 Euro to such a cause would cause a positive stir, as they really need something to boost their image now after ongoing sagas such as this.
But, as I said a while ago, their main problem is still communication. How long does it take to post on here, to at least acknowledge this debate, if they are not prepared to address it.
Still waiting for those five rams
Knave of Hearts
Perhaps to attempt to regain respect, Casino Club should look at donating this money to charity. I think a prominant story about them donating over 150,000 Euro to such a cause would cause a positive stir, as they really need something to boost their image now after ongoing sagas such as this.
Eh?
It's not their money to donate. It belongs to the players, Casino Club shouldn't get what amounts to a giant tax write-off by making such a donation
Meister Member
Achievements:
True, but if the player who won it did nothing wrong, what reason other than their history do they have for refusing to pay it to him? I think it's quite clear that the player isn't going to get it.
Still waiting for those five rams
Knave of Hearts
Two interesting posts by 'realplayer' on the German forum:
Casino Club will be holding onto this jackpot money indefinitely. This is a never ending story. There is no legal action against me and not against CC. That is a lie of CC.
I am registered with CC under my correct address and my correct identity. They sent the security code (needed for payout) to this address and again and again the CC-magazine. Additionally they have my document of identification copy and the copy of a phone bill. They confirmed the receipt of the copies in August 2008. After the blockage of my account CC stopped all communication.
A further lie of CC is the following:
CC statement is “ the money is frozen”. That is not true.
I have information of WebDollar: my CC account balance is 6 Euro and 94 Cent. That means, CC robbed 198750 euros of my account and not the money is frozen.
And in German, another post by the same player:
My translation:bei Casinomeister wurde das Thema im Januar noch diskutiert und es kam die berechtigte Frage auf "warum ist das Geld nicht wieder im Jackpot obwohl der Gewinn schon Monate her ist". CC behauptet, sie wollen erst das Ergebnis eines Gerichtsverfahrens abwarten. Nur gibt es kein Gerichtsverfahren und auch keine Klage.
The subject of discussion at Casinomeister in January was why the money has not been returned to the jackpot after so many months. Casino Club claim that they are waiting for the results of a court case, but there is no court and no case.
It is also not true that Casino Club cannot reach me. I wrote to their lawyer at the start of January - he could therefore contact me, but has not done so. It is more difficult to reach Casino Club [than me] - Casino Club refuse to give me a correspondence address. It is a lie from CC to claim that they have sued me, as I have in fact sued them.Auch stimmt es nicht, daß CC mich nicht erreichen kann. Den Anwalt von CC habe ich Anfang Januar angeschrieben, er hätte sich also bei mir melden können aber das war nicht der Fall. Schwieriger ist es den CC zu erreichen. Nach Auskunft des CC Kundendienst geben sie keine Postanschrift heraus.
Es ist eine Lüge von CC zu behaupten, sie hätten mich verklagt genauso wenig wie ich CC verklagt habe.
[Note: there are addresses here for the owners http://www.gamingvc.com/html/Contact/contactUs.asp]
The lawyer's letter describing why they will not pay is in the style of Casino Club's department, as discussed before [on forums]In dem anwaltlichen Schreiben geht es um die Begründung warum sie mir das Geld nicht zahlen, ist im typischen Stil der CC Sicherheitsabteilung geschrieben von dem ja schon einiges veröffentlicht wurde.
[I think the following is Casino Club's claim, not the player's, but I'm not sure]Etwa 2 Monate vor meiner Kontosperrung soll ich an mehreren Tagen BlackJack gespielt haben, was durchaus sein kein. Ich soll aber nicht selbst gespielt haben, sondern einen bot (automatische Spielprogramm) verwendet haben. Dieser bot soll in der Lage sein die Spielergebnisse durch Berechnungen vorher zu sagen.
Also einen super-bot mit hellseherischen Fähigkeiten. Wie das funktionieren soll konnte man mir nicht sagen aber man würde das an den getätigten Einsätzen sehen.
Mit anderen Worten, CC unterstellt mir bzw. der bot-Software magische Fähigkeiten und ich sei damit in der Lage echte Zufallszahlen vorher zu sagen und damit einen finanziellen Vorteil zu erlangen.
For about two months before I was banned I played blackjack on several days. Actually a bot was used. This bot can make calculations before play to predict the results of the hand. A clairvoyant bot in other words. The bot software has magical powers to read random numbers in advance and provide a financial advantage.
Hier noch ein original Zitat:
"Da die Gewinne aus den vorgenannten Aktionen für weitere verschiedenartige Spiele genutzt wurden, wurden die gesamten Daten Ihres Spieler-Kontos, Ihr Nickname und Ihr Passwort gelöscht. Ein Anspruch auf den ursprünglich ausgewiesenen Betrag auf Ihrem Spieler-Konto besteht nicht"
Zitat Ende
The original quote:
"As a result of these actions, your winnings on other games are void. Your account has been closed. You will not be paid your winnings."
This shows Casino Club never intended to pay back the jackpot and it has not been frozen.Damit wird auch klar, der CasinoClub hatte nie die Absicht das Geld in den Jackpot zurück zu zahlen und hat es auch nicht eingefroren.
spiderlegz (25th February 2009)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks