Time to Rogue CDS as fake watchdog

[spiderlegz]

The only credible option is for the original owners to sell everything for a token €1, take nothing for themselves, but stipulate that the buyer must take responsibilty for all outstanding player balances in return for the non-cash assets, and any residual cash that is still available.

They should not have had the funds for non-US players anywhere near a US jurisdiction, and should not have been using the funds of non-US players to credit the accounts of US players. There was no mention of a theft of $42 by a processor before, the whole thing was blamed on the DoJ seizure. Given the previous seizures and losses of player funds at places like EWX, they should have been well aware of what the DoJ were prepared to do, and at the very least should have completely ring fenced the US side so that no matter what the DoJ did, or dodgy processors stole, the non-US side would remain unaffected. Had they done this, they would still be operating the non-US side, and at least be able to put a payment plan to US players for closing out their accounts.

Many US players may well not be owed the money shown in their accounts given that some was credited without it being debited from their payment methods. Sorting out these figures may reduce the eventual liability, and may even influence investors into reconsidering the risks.

If this does not work out, Alderney will lose considerable respect among the player community, not least for getting THEIR money back in full whilst players ended up with nothing.

Whilst the UK government are quite interested in getting more tax from operators, they will also want to avoid it looking like they have been ineffective at protecting players despite the creation of the UK gambling commission and the granting of a legal status to "remote gambling" rather than leaving it a "grey area" as many other governments have done.

The operators will also worry that the high profile failure of a UK "household name" poker brand has left players completely unprotected despite their seemingly being licensed by one of the best jurisdictions available (Alderney) will have players running scared from the industry as a whole, and returning to "safer" brands that are wholly within the UK, possibly deserting the internet altogether.

They should also remember "peer pressure", as friends and families of online gamblers are likely to put pressure on players to "wake up & smell the coffee" and either quit altogether, or go back to "old fashioned" betting in land based venues.

I already get "peer pressure" to "give it up", even without any major scandals of players losing money emerging in the general public domain.

They are pretty much giving away the company as long as the new owners can inject cash equal to the player balances plus additional cash to operate it.

The 42 million is the amount Daniel Tzvetkoff shorted them off, it has been quite widely reported before. They also say in their yesterdays statement that last 2 years a total of 115 million in US banks were seized. And the total deposit shortfall is said to be 128 millions.

http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/08/ftps-830-statement/

Alderney doesnt require its licensees to segregate and/or protect the player balances in contrary to IOM who requires that Pokerstars have the player funds segregated and protected. Segregated in itself doesnt protect your (the player) funds if the company goes insolvent whereas protected does.
Alderney has already lost all the respect they had.


And about the UK Gambling Commission look what they offer to the player:http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...ansaction.aspx
So nothing would basically change.


And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate even if its basically impossible to cash out.

And almost forgot, CDS is a joke altough not a funny one.

[maxd]

And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately ...

Two years and several hundred cases processed internally is basically 1/6th of the life of online gaming, not very "lately" IMO. I seriously doubt that the "new" Kahnawake is a snow-job and since they are producing real results what's the point in behaving like it is (a snow-job)? Improvement should be welcome, no?

... but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate ....

The UB/AP situation is pretty unusual and you know it -- it was pretty much that watershed that saw Kahnawake turn the corner and retool, IMHO -- but if you've got a legit complaint, file it! UB/AP or something else, no matter. Run it through us or go directly to them, take your pick. I'd love to have a nice solid case with a Kahnawake licensee that I could put through the hoops, it's been a while. I get a kick out of seeing snotty casino operators suddenly making nice after the Kahnawake folks start showing their pointy teeth. Bring it on!

[vinylweatherman]

They are pretty much giving away the company as long as the new owners can inject cash equal to the player balances plus additional cash to operate it.

The 42 million is the amount Daniel Tzvetkoff shorted them off, it has been quite widely reported before. They also say in their yesterdays statement that last 2 years a total of 115 million in US banks were seized. And the total deposit shortfall is said to be 128 millions.

http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/08/ftps-830-statement/

Alderney doesnt require its licensees to segregate and/or protect the player balances in contrary to IOM who requires that Pokerstars have the player funds segregated and protected. Segregated in itself doesnt protect your (the player) funds if the company goes insolvent whereas protected does.
Alderney has already lost all the respect they had.


And about the UK Gambling Commission look what they offer to the player:http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...ansaction.aspx
So nothing would basically change.


And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate even if its basically impossible to cash out.

And almost forgot, CDS is a joke altough not a funny one.

Not alot, but they DO make this point:-

However, gambling contracts made since 1 September 2007 are legally enforceable under the Gambling Act 2005. If you think you have an actionable case against a licence holder you should seek independent legal advice. We do not give legal advice on this or any other area.

They are saying that they don't actually decide on a dispute, rather they ensure that proper procedures are in place. This includes the change in the law that opens the way for a dispute to be decided in a civil court. This means that players can threaten to go to court, and operators know that the courts will do more than order the voiding of bets and refund of stake, but will decide on the basis of consumer contract law as to whether the player won fairly, and should be paid.

This, unfortunately, relies on the operator being subject to a UK court, and although a court may rule in favour of a player, recovering the money from an offshore company would not be easy, and operators know it.

I would hope the UK commission would strengthen the rules such that any operator with access to the UK media for advertising would have to be subject to rulings made by the civil courts, and have a UK based office where recovery proceedings can be served, and bailiffs attend if necessary.

[4 of a kind]

I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding what you're saying here but if you're saying there are no regulators enforcing their rules then you should take a closer look at Kahnawake over the last couple years. As it happens I can only speak about them because they're the only regulator that I work closely with but the bottom line is that since Jan 2010 they have very much been enforcing their regulations on their licensees. We've seen licenses suspended for regulation violations, licensees booted, etc.

Care to guess how many Kahnawake licensee cases we've had to handle in the last two years? Two, and one of those was simply a bump to them. FYI, both cases were resolved in favour of the player. And they have many, Many, MANY licensees so those two cases are an astoundingly small percentage of the whole. This is the first year that we've been gathering licencing stats on our PAB cases so at year's end we could give a rough picture of the rate of PABs per licensor weighted against their entire licensee list. I'd bet money that Kahnawake would be at the very lowest level, many times less than some of the other big names.

I know this doesn't sit well with your "no one is doing anything" thesis but Kahnawake, at least, deserves credit where credit is due. FWIW your "show me" criteria is basically unrealistic: no regulator is going to give you those details. We don't even give that kind of information. But you can read the Kahnawake Dispute Stats if you are so inclined. That's a level of insight that no other regulator is offering, AFAIK.

No doubt Max that the Kahnawake Gaming Commissions recent behavior is a breath of fresh air. Just by showing signs of concern should be welcomed with open arms. But let’s not forget that they have been around already for twelve years, and that they also still license casinos listed in the rogue pit.

It appears they didn’t wake up until the U/B and A/P scandal took place. Just like the UK now showing more interest in more serious regulations only has a result of the Full Tilt fiasco. These multimillion dollar scandals may be the match that lit the fuse for improvement.

Maybe after they get all this stuff aligned, they could then get to work on gaming software regulations along with regulator monitoring and regulator enforcement.

And yes they deserve credit where credit is due, and maybe now after all this time, things could start heading in the right direction.

[ksech]

As the old adage goes... Better late than never...
Maybe now some of these roguish operations will start disappearing with stricter regulations/guidelines.

[maxd]

Maybe now some of these roguish operations will start disappearing with stricter regulations/guidelines.

It's been a while since I looked at it in detail but I remember being surprised a few months back at the number of casino Kahnawake had de-listed for non-compliance (over and above those that voluntarily left).