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

[dunhill]

We might prefer to discuss all the details via PM

[dunhill]

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

My account at betdirect was opened about hald a year ago, as far a I remember. I played casino.
Other things are answered in my previous post.

[Casinomeister]

Did you check the URL for the poker room?

It's Betdirectpoker.com not Betdirectbanking.com .

I'm not concerned about the casino account. You opened this poker account only for the transfer of these funds by pretending to play poker, and so did she; this has nothing to do with the casino.

It's collusion, it's chip dumping, and it's wrong. Simple as that.

You should be hearing from them when they have a response from Moneybookers.

[dunhill]

via pm

[Keyser]

Im sorry, but I can't have much sympathy for this situation. How difficult is it to mail a check? You have to use a pokerroom to transfer funds? Personal check, money order, bank check, all of these methods can be used. If you are a lawyer, you can't be ignorant of these normal methods of transferring money. Heck, what about Paypal?

You should be happy that this issue is being looked into at all. If it were me, I would tell you to take a hike.

[vinylweatherman]

One thing is clear the poker room has no legal right to KEEP THE MONEY. Whatever it's source, be it crime, tax dodging, etc, it belongs to someone, and that someone is not the poker room.
If the worry is about chargebacks, then the funds should be returned to Moneybookers in the name of the girlfriend, or the risk of a chageback still exist from that girlfriend who still owes the money, but no longer has it. If it was down to crime, it is up to the local police to investigate, and local laws will dictate what happens to this money.
Here in the UK, proceeds of crime can be seized by court order, and become the property of the state. They can then be used for more enforcement measures. It is up to the court to decide whether seizure is appropriate in individual cases, and if this story is true, I don't think this would happen.

It seems quite a few players still believe that chip dumping is a viable way to pay money to someone, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no way the poker room can verify that this is just repayment of a personal debt, or passing on the proceeds of crime, so it has to take the more serious view and lock both accounts. Both these players now have to prove themselves, as well as come up with a good reason as to why they could not transfer the funds by any other means.
Even a personal debt could be criminal, such as a user owing money to their drug dealer, so even had the poker room been asked beforehand, they would have said no, and would probably locked the accounts in the belief that this was why they were opened.

[dunhill]

Keyser, I`m not seeking your sympathy, I`m just saying that they have overreacted.
I have decided that PM would be a better place for detailed discussion and have deleted several of my posts. The discussion here is just spinning around the same points (especially "WHY") without people listening to each other and me repeating the answers and the main points why BD/Prima are wrong. Your questions have been answered (perhaps in the deleted posts).


As it appears now, I`m not the only one who has a feeling that they have overreacted.

[jleonov]

Well, I am on MG side in this dispute. Chip dumping is not accepted in any poker room, even if its a "friendly" one. And poker rooms are not banks

[fatshaft]

Keyser, I`m not seeking your sympathy, I`m just saying that they have overreacted.
I have decided that PM would be a better place for detailed discussion and have deleted several of my posts. The discussion here is just spinning around the same points (especially "WHY") without people listening to each other and me repeating the answers and the main points why BD/Prima are wrong. Your questions have been answered (perhaps in the deleted posts).


As it appears now, I`m not the only one who has a feeling that they have overreacted.

Sorry Dunhill, but you can't come on and bad mouth a site, then when their response (via CM) loooks bad on you, and backs there response, you want to carry on via PM.

I have to ask, why your "friend" changed to being your girlfriend, and why a girlfriend can't just pay you, rather than going to the bother of opening two poker room accounts to chip dump?

[dunhill]

Well, I am on MG side in this dispute. Chip dumping is not accepted in any poker room, even if its a "friendly" one. And poker rooms are not banks

They didn`t say a word about chip dumping. And confiscating funds taking into account their T&C and absense of any harm or threat from our actions is wrong. I know that they are not banks, thanks.