Confiscation as Revenue

[MJackson]

Just out of curiosity is there anyone here who supports casinos/poker rooms "confiscating" non bonus related money from players?

I contend that confiscation or seizure of property is strictly a judicial matter and is never the right of a private company. I believe that this is proveable, at least in the United States by the argument that there is apparently no exception to the rule. Can anyone think of one instance in which a business is authorized to confiscate money from a customer without involving the police or without themselves facing serious criminal charges?

I could go on for 20 pages about all the reasons that this practice, especially by poker rooms, should be denounced and stopped. But I don't think any argument beyond the above is necessary.

Restated, no casino or poker room should engage in confiscation of money or other property because confiscation of money and property is a police/judicial action without exception.

There would be no problem at all if a casino thought there was a crime committed, turning over evidence to the authorities and having the money confiscated by them. But it never works that way.

I bring this up becuase it goes right to the core of two of the industry's most fundamental problems, trust and legitimacy.

Many poker rooms and casinos don't even do this sort of thing. But the ones that do more than make up for the abstainers by threatening the reputation of the entire industry, making it seem little better than an alley dice game to the people who matter most, new sign ups.

And of course there is the moral hazard of getting to keep any confiscated money, a non-negligible incentive.

Confiscation is a practice that should be eliminated. Casinos and poker rooms stealing players' cash on the whim of a manager, cash which they get to keep and from which the "decision is final" and no recourse exists, makes the entire business of online gambling look too much like the ugly caricature that fanatical prohibitionists sketch. And it doesn't have to be that way.

Casinos and poker rooms should be allowed to close accounts, they should be allowed to call the authorities and report crimes, they should be allowed to work with credit card companies and ewallets to right wrongs and replace or return any funds that may have been of fraudulent origin. But they should be denounced for keeping for themselves what clearly belong to others.

If you really know that money is from a fraudulent source and you keep it, at least in the US, you are guilty of exactly the same crime in exactly the same degree as the person who deposited the stolen/illegal/fraudulent money. This is not a serious argument for keeping someone else's money, whether it actually is stolen or not.

And as it so happens neither is any other. Non-bonus related confiscation should be universally denounced and stopped in the name of making this industry as legitimate as it's land based competitors.

[RobWin]

Good post and very interesting view points there that you have brought up MJackson..

[spearmaster]

I would like to see some examples, as I am not quite sure what MJackson is getting at.

[lots0]

Usually most poker rooms do not seize the initial deposit. That is out right theft.

If the poker rooms are going to keep anything it is usually only the money they believe was fraudulently acquired from them.

In almost all of the cases I have seen with honest poker rooms the player is refunded his/her initial deposit and their account is closed.

[Jasminebed]

With poker rooms, any "winnings" confiscated are really player monies.

I'm skeptical of poker rooms online, but if say JackB was denied winnings and simply returned his deposit, does that mean that I and every other player in every hand he ever played has their funds lost in these games returned to them? I think if that was the case, and many players started receiving refunds for hands, or having "readjustments" to games they played in, you would have to wonder how many times where people were not caught?

I think that many players involved in any kind of collusion or cheating usually operate for a while before being caught.

If this player fraud is as prevalent as casinos seem to believe, wouldn't almost all of the honest players have been subject to losses to one or another of them?

It would be a logistical nightmare to refund all bets, void all winnings every time a fraudster struck, and leave players so unhappy and confused the poker rooms would go out of business.

Proof of identity PRIOR to being allowed to play tables would help reduce some of this fraud, and IMO give honest players more confidence in the integrity of online play.

[MJackson]

I would like to see some examples, as I am not quite sure what MJackson is getting at.

I could give specific examples that have happened to me and others at Absolute, Carbonpoker, Ultimatebet etc. but I am trying to make a general point. Confiscation of money or property is exclusively the domain of the courts and the police and cannot legitimately be assumed by private companies as it too often is online.

I am not diminishing the right and indeed duty of poker rooms to stop fraud, cheating and collusion. I am stating that when we grant poker rooms the extraordinary right to confiscate money at the management's discretion, with the obvious moral hazard of profiting from such seizures, even if it is in the name of stopping and in fact effective against cheating, fraud and collusion, we also guarantee extreme abuses of that right that strike at the achilles heel of online gaming, trust and legitimacy.

To me it's pretty black and white. Private companies should not be granted police powers and should not illegitimately assume them.

[spearmaster]

I could give specific examples that have happened to me and others at Absolute, Carbonpoker, Ultimatebet etc. but I am trying to make a general point. Confiscation of money or property is exclusively the domain of the courts and the police and cannot legitimately be assumed by private companies as it too often is online.

I am not diminishing the right and indeed duty of poker rooms to stop fraud, cheating and collusion. I am stating that when we grant poker rooms the extraordinary right to confiscate money at the management's discretion, with the obvious moral hazard of profiting from such seizures, even if it is in the name of stopping and in fact effective against cheating, fraud and collusion, we also guarantee extreme abuses of that right that strike at the achilles heel of online gaming, trust and legitimacy.

To me it's pretty black and white. Private companies should not be granted police powers and should not illegitimately assume them.

Just as I thought - nothing to do with casinos at all. And as I am not aware of any "confiscations" - the only possible reason I could fathom for your post was that somehow, some way, you were the "victim" of a "confiscation".

If you cannot, or will not, point out some examples, then I'm going to assume you're stirring the pot and I will close the thread accordingly.

[swampwitch]

So the OP is saying that a player who wins through collusion or other forms of cheating should receive the winnings, and that those funds should not be confiscated by the poker rooms because it enriches the poker room.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. To payout to obvious fraudsters enriches the fraudster...even if the cheater is somehow prosecuted down the line.

IMHO, the "winnings" should be confiscated by the poker room, and it is then that the room's management must do everything within their power to reinstate said funds to the players who fell victim to the cheater...nightmare or not. At the very least, make the effort.

[Jasminebed]

Regardless of the OP's motivation for posting, I think it is an interesting subject.

"Confiscation" might not be the correct term. Perhaps "withholding" or "voiding" winnings may not be identical terms, but certainly fraud players have accounts closed and winnings denied. It is right that fraudulent players should not prosper.

I'd appreciate some feedback as well as to what happens when a fraudster is caught out to the legitimate players of those games with him/her as a participant?

It's been a very busy time at the forum with two huge issues regarding progressive wins active.

I hope you keep this thread open Spearmaster, I think it is a worthwhile subject.

[pokeraddict]

I'm going to guess this comes from a player making a fraud deposit or bouncing an echeck and winning before it is discovered. No poker, casino or book is going to pay you your winnings when you freerolled them. While giving it back to the players might seem logical the players were not defrauded, the poker room was. How many times do people lose their fraud deposit? I would imagine the wins here don't even come close to covering that therefor I don't see why it is wrong for the poker rooms to keep that.