It looks like a case of them NOT UNDERSTANDING GAMBLING. UNLIKE a regular pre-loadable account, or card, where money moves only in ONE direction, from customer, to account, to merchant - GAMBLING is different, money can move BOTH ways, and there can indeed be LARGE amounts involved, and from unlikely directions, such as $200 into xxx casino, followed by $10K coming out in REVERSE.
I even had this BULLSHIT from Neteller, who ONLY process for GAMBLING sites and "peer to peer" transactions. They demanded to know the "nature of the transactions".
I felt like saying "they are YOUR F*****G MERCHANTS, don't you KNOW what BUSINESS they are in!!!".
My transactions were indeed VERY simple. INTO casinos, OUT of casinos, IN from MY OWN cards, and OUT to my VERIFIED bank account from my FOUR YEAR OLD PLUS VIP NETELLER ACCOUNT.
Maybe STUPIDITY is the root cause of cases like this, these "small money issuers" know they are OUTSIDE regulation, and they are SUPPOSED to limit balances to a mere €150 (or, I believe, something like €1000 for a VERIFIED client). However, this would NEVER work for GAMBLERS, especially high rollers and poker players. They can more or less get away with theft, they can simply "play dead" and take an indefinite time to resolve an issue, and it is NOT simply a case of them having to fear the FSA, because only the first €150 is covered, and they are EVEN exempt from the Investor's compensation scheme, so that IF they went bust, there is NO "investor protection" for the first £50,000 (UK) - you lose almost EVERYTHING, just as if it were a CASINO licenced in some backwater going bust.
There is ALWAYS this risk when using the convenience of an eWallet, and what is REALLY worrying is that they can he completely happy with you for ages, and SUDDENLY turn nasty and more or less "steal" your money, even such large amounts.
They know full well that it is a case of the customer taking them to court, where they WOULD have to justify their actions in front of the judge, and would even have to pay costs and compensation ON TOP if found to be wrong.
As has been shown in the UK Bank charge case, when a "faceless corporation" thinks the aggrieved customer is DEADLY SERIOUS to the extent that a court date is set following a solicitor's letter, they will nearly always investigate PROPERLY, and at a HIGHER LEVEL of competence in the organisation.
It would be very BAD for a company like Entropay to be exposed in court has having WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE confiscating a large sum, and then compounding the issue with LIBEL (wrongly telling a merchant a customer is a fraud).
The first case though, might not be so bad.
They said
Any such refunds will be to the credit/debit cards from where the funds were originally transferred.
Not ideal, but as soon as the money hits those cards, it falls WITHIN the FULL regulatory framework of the FSA and banking ombudsman.
A debit card refund is more or less the same as a direct bank transfer, despite the mechanism being different, the refund will appear as a credit (merchant refund) on the underlying bank account against which the debit card is issued.
A VISA credit card can accept a refund, and what may be on their minds is not just RECENT deposits, but going way back in time and refunding EVERY deposit that ever came from the card(s), with any surplus going back via the debit card.
Play along, but firmly, and when the money has been returned, slap them with a DEFAMATION lawsuit (or convincing threat of one on the way), they have legally "defamed" your character by taking the action they have, in effect, treating you as though you are guilty of a criminal offence - they will have to demonstrate this in court, and "mere suspicion" based on "indicators" is not good enough if YOU can convince the judge that you cooperated fully, used your genuine details, and did nothing illegal (such as buying firearms or drugs with the money through their service, or using "dirty" money to fund the account).
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
Bookmarks