casinoplex demanded notary paper ,from a non bonus win , beware

[rainmaker]

Eh!

I was "set straight" about this, and so was Bryan. We were told that this was NOT Playtech, but a different company. The address the OP was told to send documents to comes back as "Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited", rather than "Playtech".


Playtech also state that they "don't have access to players' data". How could this be so if one of their offices in Manila does all the verification of players' documents.

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

[vinylweatherman]

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

Playtech never contributed directly to the forum discussions, but some industry members here were pretty close to Playtech, and the record was "put straight" through them.

I remember Bryan saying he had visited "Playtech's offices in the Philipines", which promoted a "putting straight" of the form "Playtech doesn't have offices in the Philipines, this was the offices of an operator". What had promoted this debate was the fact that all Playtech casinos seemed to know how players approached bonuses across ALL Playtech powered casinos, yet Playtech said no such "bonus abuser" list existed. It was even insinuated that continuing to repeat this theory as though it were fact might result in "legal action" being taken (by whom was not stated). Someone clearly wanted this rumour buried, yet there was no other explanation for operator A knowing how a player played at operator B UNLESS there existed a shared list that ALL Playtech casinos had access to, a list not of fraudsters, but of winners and bonus abusers. It seemed to operate in a similar way to how all Rival casinos knew about players at their supposed competitors. It was eventually discovered that Rival themselves operated a "player rating system" that pooled playing and bonus data from all the different Rival casinos, and computed "gradings" for each player, which could then be used to automatically bonus ban a player across ALL Rival casinos simultaneously - and this is exactly what players were experiencing.

This was illustrated recently in a complaint about Grand Duke, a brand new operator that only recently signed up with Playtech, yet when the complainant registered they were immediately told they were a "bonus abuser" before they had made a single deposit. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Grand Duke to have known this from their own "first party" data, and the ONLY way "bonus abuse" could have been claimed is if Grand Duke had access to a Playtech wide "player rating database" that held details showing the complainant habitually milked the bonuses at other Playtech casinos. However, since Playtech state this database does not exist, and processors ONLY share information related to fraud and chargebacks, there is no LEGAL way Grand Duke could have obtained this data.

The ONLY explanation that would make knowing this information legal is that ALL Playtech casinos are operated by ONE top level operator, and are licensed out as "white labels" to the others, the same way that Rival works.

The fact that almost all Playtech casinos have chosen this one company in Manila out of many thousands of similar companies throughout the world suggests that individual operators did NOT apopoint this company, the top tier white label supplier did, with the operators bound by contract to use them to verify players.

If this company does turn out to be wholly owned by Playtech, then Playtech ARE in possession of players data, all of it.

The 2008 company report for Playtech shows that they have many cross-shareholdings and vested interests in a number of companies at those offices. UK company and stock exchange laws require that these be declared in the reports. The current position will be more accurately reflected in the 2010 end of year report.

Since the deal with William Hill, Playtech officially became an operator, not just a software supplier. William Hill Online is an operator created by a partnership between the two, and each stands to profit (or lose out) on the success or otherwise of the venture. It appears the pair had a "domestic" a while back, so not exactly a stable marriage

[rainmaker]

.

Thanks for updating me about the discussion you guys had then. I want to add some info.


I looked at Playtechs "admission documents" (admission to AIM on London Stock Exchange 2006).

"Paragon International Customer Care Limited" are listed as an affiliate of Playtech in that document. An affiliate in this context are in the same section defined as "related parties of the Playtech Group by virtue of common beneficial shareholding and/or management.



This is stated on page 81 in that document :

A call option agreement dated 21 March 2006 between (1) the Company and (2) Nomicom
Limited (“Nomicom”) pursuant to the terms of which Nomicom granted the Company with
an option (the “Paragon Option”) to purchase the entire issued share capital of Paragon
International Customer Care Limited (“Paragon”) held by Nomicom (the “Paragon Option
Shares”) for the Paragon Option Price (as defined below).

The Paragon Option Price shall be calculated on the basis of a multiple of the average monthly
net profit received by Paragon from Licensees. The Paragon Option becomes exercisable in
the event that the standard of service provided by Paragon falls below that acceptable to the
Company and, in such circumstances, can be exercised at any time prior to 20 March 2011 (the
“Paragon Expiry Date”). In addition, if, prior to the Paragon Expiry Date, Nomicom receives a
bona fide third party offer to purchase Paragon for a price greater than the Paragon Option
Price, Nomicom shall inform the Company and the Company shall have 30 days to exercise
the Paragon Option, after which Nomicom may sell Paragon Limited to such third party. The
Paragon Option is only exercisable in respect of all of the Paragon Option Shares.

Nomicom gives certain representations, warranties and undertakings to the Company
including in respect of title to the Paragon Option Shares and an undertaking to procure that
Paragon is debt free at the time that the Paragon Option is exercised (save only in respect of
expenses which have accrued in the ordinary course of business which are not due to be paid
prior to such exercise).


So NOMICOM at this point owned Paragon. But the section above gives Playtech an option to buy Paragon before 20 mars 2011 (the “Paragon Expiry Date”).


And what or who is Nomicom ?

Well...Nomicom are on this document (Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2005) listed as Director of Playtech . Remember that this was before they got accepted on the AIM list.


NOMICOM.JPG



As you can see on this document, Nomicom were replaced (of course they had to replace them) with other directors (or maybe the same people but with real names ) before Playtech were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Nomicom2.jpg

[rainmaker]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,


grplay.jpg



It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

[vinylweatherman]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,


grplay.jpg



It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

So, if Playtech consider Paragon as just a division of Playtech, why on earth was I warned off by continuing to insist that Playtech were operating this office in Manila, and when Bryan thought he had visited "Playtech's office" and said so, we were both put straight by the statement :-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines. Some Playtech casinos do. Some do not.

Well, if Playtech have always considered Paragon was simply a division of theirs, this statement was wrong. It came from a highly respected member here, who lived and worked around the Philipines, and would have been told this by his employers (Playtech). Playtech seemed happy for this to stand as an "official" clarification of the position at the time, which was the middle of 2010.

It was all triggered by a complaint that Mansion casino insisted on a player sending their documents to Manila based Paragon, rather than to them in Gibraltar.

It seemed odd that EVERY Playtech casino happened to choose Paragon as their verification and fraud detection company.

However, the picture is becoming clearer. Given that Paragon was expected to be profitable, it is a very strong motive for the contract between Playtech and operators to insist that Paragon is used for player verification. This has allowed Paragon to build a database of players throughout ALL Playtech powered casinos, and hence in the perfect position to create the infamous "Playtech-wide player blacklist (of bonus abusers)", and use this to inform "new" operators when they net a player with a "history of bonus abuse" at other Playtech casinos.

I can figure out how this might work.

1) Player registers at new casino.

2) Details of that player are sent back to Paragon electronically for checking against the database.

3) A "rating" is returned to the operator before the player even gets the chance to claim the welcome bonus.

4) If the rating is negative, such as "history of bonus abuse", the player doesn't get the bonus after their deposit.

5) When player contacts CS, they are told they are an "abusive player at other casinos", and are not getting the bonus.

This generates a complaint thread with the player genuinely puzzled at how on earth a completely new operator with little history and no sister casinos can possibly know that he played like this at "other casinos".

The "send notarised documents" is probaby down to another flag coming from Paragon, triggered by the first withdrawal request. The operator would not necessarily know WHY, but would get the message that he then has to ask his player to send the requested documents to Paragon.

In some cases, casino management looks at things, and may decide that Paragon went over the top, and will thus overrule the automated flag and let the player send additional supporting documents instead via the normal electronic means.

If operators did NOT use Paragon, then Paragon would make less money, and this would not suit those Playtech board members who have an interest in Paragon meeting targets.

This murky construction has allowed Playtech to pull the wool over our eyes by making it seem that Paragon is nothing to do with them, and the offices of Paragon are classed as simply one of those generalised as "belonging to a casino operator".

The Plex casino rep was clearly not briefed (by Playtech), and so let the cat out of the bag in saying:-

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila.

yet officially:-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines.

Is it any wonder then, that I won't let this drop and swallow the above "official position" as gospel truth.

If it wasn't for UK stockmarket and company reporting rules, this would have remained pretty well hidden.

Playtech had to "come clean" in the listing documents and annual reports, but presumed players would never read these, nor understand them even if they did.

I was also "put straight" when I said that all Playtech casinos had much higher WR for UK players because of "advice from Playtech" given to operators, yet the "official line" was that this never happened, and it was simply the fact that one operator did it, and the others "ran scared" and followed suit of their own volition.

Maybe "Playtech" didn't offer such advice, but what's the betting that it was advice coming from Paragon that prompted operators to all step into line and have this doubling of WR for UK players.

Now, what happened in March 2011?

Did Playtech buy Paragon, or options expire, allowing Paragon at last to REALLY be an independent company. The 2011 report should reveal this, but we might have to wait a little longer for it to be published.