Q&A for Casino Club and "Real Player" concerning the confiscations of winnings

[betpartners]

Two things stand out for me:

Firstly, bottom line for players is that any casino with a Maltese licence can simply refuse to pay out because of the Gambling Debt loophole and there's nothing that can be done. That in itself makes a Maltese licence worthless.

Secondly, Malta is included in the UK Gambling Commission's "White List" to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't this apparent contradictory legislation be looked into by them?

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

[Rusty]

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

If a casino uses Microgaming, Rival, RTG, Playtech etc software it will not be licensed by the UKGC so that is a correct observation.

Regarding whitelisting and regulation for UK facing offshore markets such as Malta there was a very interesting consultation paper, Regulatory Future of Remote Gambling in Great Britain, issued by the Department of Sport and Culture which is the government department that oversees the UKGC and whitelisting earlier this year.

Now if you are in the US or elsewhere this concerns you as well because many of the concerns listed and reasons given for the need for change are the same concerns that you have and many of the jurisdictions will have remote casinos you play at.

The full document can be found here and I will give a few brief extracts here and expand upon these in the regulation thread here.

The White List
2.8 Under section 331(4) of the Act, the Secretary of State has the power to designate certain countries or places permitted to advertise remote gambling services in the UK. That list is more commonly referred to as the white list and jurisdictions that wish to be included must demonstrate that their regulatory system for gambling is robust and meets the Government’s published criteria.

2.9 The Government does not demand that a jurisdiction’s licensing and regulatory regime must mirror that of the UK: the key question is whether a jurisdiction has embedded within its regulatory regime the same core values which underpin ours. That is to say, that they too regulate gambling in order to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited; to keep crime out; and to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly, and that they have the facilities and resources in place to ensure compliance and enforcement with those values and the regulatory regime in operation




The Need for Change
concerns were raised by Parliamentarians and others as to whether the current protections for British consumers are sufficient, given that an increasing number of gambling operators are now regulated offshore, outside the scope of the Act and the Commission’s regulation.
This includes Malta Rusty

3.10 Many European and international countries such as France, Italy, Denmark and South Africa are moving from a prohibition stance to a national licensing and regulation system based upon a set of requirements for operators wanting to access their particular market and target their consumers. This is in contrast to some existing offshore remote jurisdictions where the regulation is not provided for the protection of their citizens but for operators using their jurisdiction as an outward facing hub from which to access other markets. In particular, we are aware that some offshore jurisdictions which license remote gambling do not permit their own citizens to access that gambling.

Standards and Software testing
3.15 Overseas licensed operators have different levels of testing and security requirements and the Commission is not able to assess their robustness. This may ultimately mean that consumers are gambling on websites that have not been independently tested or audited to the standards expected of Commission licensees.

Fairness
4.4 [I][I]We consider that consistency in regulatory standards is closely linked to the issue of fairness – all operators active in the British gambling market should be required to adhere to the same standards.


Options in respect of EEA member states and Gibraltar
4.8 Taking into account the criteria set out above, we have considered a range of options in respect of EEA member states and Gibraltar.

They then go on to list some very interesting options and revealing recommendations which I will expand upon on in the regulation thread.

[jetset]

Coincidentally with this scandal, an article on internet gambling regulation appeared in the Malta Independent recently, in which the following par gives an indication of how successful regulation has been for this Mediterranean island:


QUOTE

Malta has licensed operators who hail from all corners of the world, providing first class regulation and fair play efficiently monitored by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority. This silent revolution has generated a good proportion of our recent 3.9 per cent GDP increase from a negative last year.

This is commendable. It provides well-paid jobs to over 2,500 people together with the economic multiplier effect of fees generated – to lawyers, accountants and IT engineers – and acts as the backbone support for the burgeoning ICT sector through extensive use of bandwidth.UNQUOTE


http://www.independent.com.mt/news.a...sitemid=112660

[jetset]

Latest financial numbers for GVC Holdings:

http://www.gamingvc-ir.com/archive/r...terim_2010.pdf

I note that the company's ongoing litigation against Boss Media is due in court again on October 14.

[Rusty]

Latest financial numbers for GVC Holdings:

http://www.gamingvc-ir.com/archive/r...terim_2010.pdf

I note that the company's ongoing litigation against Boss Media is due in court again on October 14.

GVC’s legal actions against Boss now scheduled for court hearings in Malta and
Sweden.

The irony of this makes it even more news worthy.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the story to break in the newspapers though, remember this?

[gamblingmace]

today I received an email from Casino Club saying that on the first of October 2010 they will put 200000 euros into the jackpot of "Jackpot Poker"-Videopoker. and one can claim a bonus of 20% up to 100€ until the 31st of October which is a special bonus only for "Jackpot Poker".

[vinylweatherman]

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

It's not so clear cut now. The EU court recently ruled that states CAN prohibit other EU states from entering the remote gambling market, provided the motive is protection of consumers, rather than protection of internal markets.

The cases were brought against Germany, where some EU based companies were arguing for the right to operate remote gambling within Germany. Some German states decided to prohibit remote gambling except where offered by GERMAN companies. The fight ended with a partial victory for Germany, who managed to argue that they COULD prohibit remote gambling in order to protect it's own citizens.

In a similar vein, the UK could argue that striking off some firms/jurisdictions is permitted where it can be shown that this is necessary for consumer protection.

In the case of Malta deciding that casinos regulated there CAN simply rely on the "gambling debts are unenforceable" nature of Maltese law to justify non payment of winnings, there IS a case for banning firms based in a jurisdiction that allows this law to trump standards of fairness towards players in order to protect consumers from an unfair environment.

Surely this same law ALSO means that the legal action against RealPlayer for recovery of winnings later regarded as gained "fraudulently" will fail on the same grounds. It ALSO means that any player OWING money to Casino Club as a result of placing LOSING wagers can use this law to dodge any legal consequences of making a "chargeback" for no reason other than to renege on these losing bets.

Casino Club have made it clear to such fraudsters that there is NO legal means to recover gambling debts in Malta, so Casino Club are "on their own" when it comes to fighting the frauds that deliberately play with the intention of charging back losses but hoping to keep winnings, just as much as players are "on their own" when Casino Club (and other casinos based in Malta) decide to use this legal loophole to avoid paying winnings.

The UK had this law, and it was OPERATORS, not players, that wanted it changed. Operators feared that they would be unable to recover debts run up by gamblers on credit accounts of the sort often used for horseracing (TOTE for example), yet would be expected to make timely payments to winning punters without all the "hoops" beloved of the offshore operators.

The change protects players from rogue operators too, since a gambling debt can be recovered in court in the same way that any other debt can.

Incidentally, I read an article about "Rome 1" in a newspaper some while back. IF implemented, "Rome 1" gives the consumer the legal right to have an internet dispute settled under THEIR consumer laws, rather than the laws in the country where the vendor is based.

This could be an important avenue, since here in the UK gambling debts ARE enforceable, and "Rome 1" would appear to offer consumers the right to take a Maltese company to court in the UK, rather than Malta, with UK law governing the contract. This should work throughout the EU, provided both states signed up to this agreement. The question is whether "Rome 1" made it, or whether it died before birth - I can see why many COMPANIES would be happy to see this die, since it would prevent them from selecting EU countries with the least consumer protection regulations as a base to target consumers with trading practices that would be illegal in the target market's country.

Malta seemed VERY popular with online casinos, and it seems it IS very much the case that of all EU based jurisdictions, they have the least robust system for protecting PLAYERS.


Rusty has also revealed that the UK Gambling Commission have FINALLY NOTICED the evident hypocracy of those offshore jurisdictions that "regulate" remote gambling, but do NOT think their "regulation" robust enough to allow the regulated firms access to their OWN internal markets.

This should make it even HARDER than before to get on this "whitelist". What concerns me though is that the UK Gambling Commission seems to have no channel for players to complain about operations based in jurisdictions not on the white list. Although the commission has no power to intervene, it WOULD be getting valuable data on how these jurisdictions and operators were behaving, which they could then take into consideration if said jurisdiction applied for whitelist status, or the operators concerned applied for a UK license.

[betpartners]

Vinylweatherman, some very good points.

You may well be right about what happened in Germany having some effect on Malta operating legally in the UK, however some things spring to mind.

The German case, was that a gambling company and not a wholesale jurisdiction, it is one thing banning a company from another EU state, it is another thing to ban another EU state organisation, any state doing that would open up a can of worms.

And even if the UK did do that it would take years in the European courts to resolve as it would involve two states and not a singular state against a company.

Also my point about the white list is that it would be rendered useless in the sense that if a non white listed company wants to advertise in a UK newspaper or magazine or website or on TV they can if they are based in the EU, to say no would be determined as discrimination and unfair practise and covered by the EU open trade policies.

Now that is just conjecture because it has not been tested as all jurisdictions in the EU are on the white list i believe.

Finally i cannot see the UK government allowing one of its quangos to make a song and dance about the unenforceable debt law just yet, it was the UK that invented it and passed it on to the world and it would be a bit cheeky of them just 5 years after they repealed it to then start acting holier than thou about its former colonies not yet getting round to repealing the law.

That said, there is still contract law and that is enforceable, this has nothing to do with gambling laws, this is pure contract law, when a player joins a casino there is a contract that is agreed upon, that is enforceable and so while it is worrying that most jurisdictions have this get out clause, it can and is negated by the contracts that both parties enter in to.

The player in question simply has to open up a case in Malta, there is previous history on this and if the player has done nothing wrong then he will win.

The Maltese courts have not allowed this ancient law to take precedent over contract law, so in a way this law is meaningless but worrying at the same time.

The important factor here is what did the contract say when the player joined up, what terms and conditions did the casino and the player enter in to

[Casinomeister]

I'm seeing this as Malta's "Ultimatebet". The Ultimatebet/Absolute Poker scandal is what woke Kahnawake up and propelled them into a player focused licensing jurisdiction. I hope that this will happen here.

As I mentioned before, I was not handed evidence of this player being a fraudster - or of him breaking numerous terms and conditions. But I have been assured by the casino representative that this player has numerous accounts, and that he has used bot software to play out bonus wagering requirements.

Now, the player's PAB was set aside a year ago since the casino was already submitting his account info to Malta, and that there were legal proceedings against the player. That's the reason why we sat this one out. The system was already at work. The problem is, the LGA has screwed this up in a very bad way. So bad that most operators who are licensed in Malta should be shaking their heads and asking themselves why they are paying the LGA licensing fees - it's a flaccid worthless license! If I was an operator, I would be screaming to high heaven for the LGA to pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, and issue a damn statement explaining that this player has been found 110% guilty of fraud - and state exactly in explicit detail why.

Players are owed several explanations from this licensing jurisdiction:
why is having more than one account fraudulent and detrimental to the casino. What is the damage caused by bot play and why casinos prohibit its use? Explicitly - why did this player have his funds confiscated, and why should we trust anything that is published by an LGA spokesperson?

As far as I am concerned, we as a gaming community are owed this.

LGA? the ball is in your court. Let's see some public relations kick into action. Anything less is committing corporate suicide.

By the way, Casino Club has been removed from the Rogue section since they have demonstrated to me that they are being communicative and are doing whatever possible to resolve this.

[betpartners]

Have the Casino actually confirmed the debt being unenforceable was the reason given? from what i recall this was said by the player or someone saying this is what the player received.

Would certainly clear it up a little if that was confirmed by the casino.

Also surely the same applies to Gibraltar as well, i agree that Malta should get its head out of its ass, but they are not the only ones it seems.

Not sure just Malta should be targeted here, should be ALL the jurisdictions that have this loophole.