[CLOSED] Betdirect/MG robbing me of 1,200+$

[dunhill]

[quote=Simmo!;205434]That's not right - certainly not in the UK anyway. Any resident is liable to pay tax on any "income" (above a threshold) except in one or two areas, gambling winnings being one, irrespective of how it is collected or from what area of the world it comes from. I'm not sure how repayment of a debt works mind.

When I or anyone else receives money to the credit card or to bank account from a sender called moneybookers, for example, if the sum is not large, nobody gives a damn. The banks should report transations over ~$23k to financial control agencies. Thats how things are in my countries. Anyway, I very much doubt that casino/poker players in other countries, if they do not have a very large net win, include all this in their tax declarations. I am sure most don`t. So the presumption that this was money-laundering is quite ridiculous.


///QUOTENow that doesn't sound right. Surely they should refund it to the original depositor?

If the last sentence is a question (I think you meant a period to be there?), then yes, they should either pay out the funds in my account to me or reverse the things to the state at which they were before the game play took place, i.e. send those winnings to my friend and leave my deposits in my account. AND UNFREEZE THESE FUNDS.

[dunhill]

Originally Posted by Vortran007

Just so we are clear on colluding:

Win or lose - you were colluding once you put that plan into action.

I am curious - as a lawyer, how do you define "collusion"? That is an unloaded question.

Also, why did you not contact the manager to see if there was a possibility to do this legitimately?

I have PMd the Prima rep here, but he has not logged onto the forum for a while. Feel free to Pitch a Bitch, and we will see if we can get some answers for you.

There was no deceitful illegal, etc purpose. Colluding is usually done to achive some financial gain. If our play had taken place on a 6-10 player table with us knowing each others card - I`d totally agree with you. The table was two-seat.
I`ve now found the Prima`s definition of it in the help section (not in betdirect`s T&C where it really should be!). It is:
"When Players form partnerships with the intent of defrauding other players. For example, Players may signal their hand to their Partners, so that the best hand is played"

I think that explaining the fact that what had taken place is not what is defined by the poker room as collusion would be placing reader`s intelligence under doubt. Judge by yourself.

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

Ummm, what you did was laundering money. That's mega fraud.

Money laundering involves the proceeds of crime, in fact, in the UK any transaction involving any kind of proceeds of crime, not just money, without the permission of the police is defined to be money laundering. Even the possession of a stolen object by the thief is money laundering. You can still do almost anything with your own legally obtained property and it is not money laundering. If you deposit your own money from legal sources in a poker room and deliberately lose it to a friend, that's perfectly legal (assuming you can play poker legally). It will be flagged as suspicious and it will be against the T&C of the poker room, but not against the law.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by GrandMaster

Money laundering involves the proceeds of crime, in fact, in the UK any transaction involving any kind of proceeds of crime, not just money, without the permission of the police is defined to be money laundering. Even the possession of a stolen object by the thief is money laundering. You can still do almost anything with your own legally obtained property and it is not money laundering. If you deposit your own money from legal sources in a poker room and deliberately lose it to a friend, that's perfectly legal (assuming you can play poker legally). It will be flagged as suspicious and it will be against the T&C of the poker room, but not against the law.

Okay, let me reword this to "it looks like money laundering"

But who's to say what the outcome of the funds are. Let's say these are two drug dealers trying to move money. Sign up at a poker room and then "lose" the money to one another. This is one of the reasons poker rooms are adamant about this sort of thing. Even though it looks innocent - two friends paying each other back - if there is any criminal element involved, the poker room becomes an instrument of that crime.

What if the OP and his friend get popped by the local police? (this is only a theoretical scenario) They confiscate their computers and see that he received his funds from his "friend" via the poker room. Guess what will happen to poker room? That's why this behaviour is discouraged.

This "lawyer" should have figured this out already

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by dunhill

There was no deceitful illegal, etc purpose. Colluding is usually done to achive some financial gain...

I understand this, but I believe Vortran was giving you several definitions of colluding that are applicable. As soon as you "conspire", it's colluding regardless of the outcome. You acted in concert with your friend.

But saying this, I hope the poker room takes a relook at this to determine what should be done.

[dunhill]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

Okay, let me reword this to "it looks like money laundering"

But who's to say what the outcome of the funds are. Let's say these are two drug dealers trying to move money. Sign up at a poker room and then "lose" the money to one another. This is one of the reasons poker rooms are adamant about this sort of thing. Even though it looks innocent - two friends paying each other back - if there is any criminal element involved, the poker room becomes an instrument of that crime.

What if the OP and his friend get popped by the local police? (this is only a theoretical scenario) They confiscate their computers and see that he received his funds from his "friend" via the poker room. Guess what will happen to poker room? That's why this behaviour is discouraged.

This "lawyer" should have figured this out already

Even not being lawyer you should know that there is a presumption of innocence, and it would be reasonable to refrain from making such assumptions unless you can prove this. It was a repay of a debt, not money laudering or fraud of any kind.

[dunhill]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

I understand this, but I believe Vortran was giving you several definitions of colluding that are applicable. As soon as you "conspire", it's colluding regardless of the outcome. You acted in concert with your friend.

But saying this, I hope the poker room takes a relook at this to determine what should be done.

I quoted the definition of that the poker room defines as "collusion". I believe this should be the criteria used in this case, and it is obvious that the actions that had taken place are not what the poker room defines as collusion.

I too hope that they take a relook at this and come out with a reasonable resolution. If they are concerned with this "money-laundering" nonsense, they may refund the money that I won back to my girlfriend and my deposits to me.

I would like to thank you if you contacted them, too, to help this case being reviewed unbiased and in a fair way.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by dunhill

Even not being lawyer you should know that there is a presumption of innocence, and it would be reasonable to refrain from making such assumptions unless you can prove this. It was a repay of a debt, not money laudering or fraud of any kind.

Now you're sounding like a lawyer. Right on!

Originally Posted by dunhill

I would like to thank you if you contacted them, too, to help this case being reviewed unbiased and in a fair way.

Awaiting their response...

[Casinomeister]

Well, they've responded and something is not quite right. Explain to me why you decided not to make a peer to peer transfer to this other person via moneybookers.

They've also provided me with the hands - undoubtedly chip dumping which is strictly forbidden.

Why have the funds been confiscated? The reason for this is to protect the poker room from any chargebacks the chip dumper might initiate.

You two are in the same city, why not pay each other in person? The poker room is not a bank, you know.

[Casinomeister]

I've also been informed by BetDirect that they are awaiting word back from Moneybookers before they decide on what the next move is. When they hear from them, the casino contact will be contacting you.

The thing is, it would be easier for the poker room to access this situation if you guys were long term players, but you aren't. Your girlfriend opened her poker account 4 days ahead of the "dump" - playing only on that "dumping" day. You opened your account merely to receive these "winnings". It's not like you were poker players there. You were only using them as a bank.

Pretty strange indeed