Eh up.
Less than surprised to see another "bot" issue on the forum and there will be more to come.
Agree with your posts VWM, as I usually do, but I think you are missing an angle CC may well take in court to prove the winnings are illegitimate.
If they can prove to the courts satisfaction that a bot was used initially to win and increase the players balance they could then argue that the jackpot was won with these funds and thus since the money used to make the wager was illegitimately won so was the money wagered to win the jackpot.
Of course this would mean that the player had not made a successful cashout since bot play and the jackpot was not won from a fresh deposit.
I dare say that is the angle they are pursuing already.
Anyway it is my belief that bot play can not be proved in a court of law by merely presenting playlogs.
At best from such evidence one could only consider there was the possibility of a bot being used.
There can be no
conclusive evidence of bot play. There will always remain reasonable doubt.
The only exception to this would be if the game was not entirely random and results could be predicted or in other words the game was rigged and the offending algorithm had been hacked.
IF The player is genuine and
IF Casino Clubs case rests entirely on proving previous bot play was used and
IF I were a Solicitor I would take the case tomorrow on a no win no pay basis and earn myself a nice fee.
I know for a fact that a bot exist for Casino Club, and up to 70+ others if you pay for the "premium" version. It is a flat betting basic strategy bot, used to extract the best outcome from +EV blackjack friendly boni. The same internet site also sells a Video Poker bot. Casinos usually use play history as "proof" of bot use, they cannot get real "smoking gun" proof.
The legalities could be complex if indeed the player DID use a bot. However, what has he actually done. he has "breached the terms of a consumer contract", he has NOT "committed fraud". Here in the UK, it is ILLEGAL for a company to apply a PENALTY for such a breach, this is covered by consumer contract laws, companies can ONLY charge for the costs they incur in pursuing and remedying the breach, plus any beneft that may have been gained by the breach.
Interpreting this for this case, the casino claims that 30K was a benefit obtained by the player through breaching the rules. Provided the player successfully withdrew this 30K, was not banned, and was allowed to deposit and play again (thus further risking their own funds), the casino has a worryingly leaky case for anything other than the return of the original 30K.
Worse for the casino, they didn't deny the withdrawal, they took it back out of his Moneybookers account without permission of the account holder. This is ONLY allowed under specific circumstances, and companies are NOT allowed to simply dip in to take back what is merely a disputed payment. In legal terms, a disputed payment stays where it is, until a legal action is concluded. By pre-empting the legal process by acting as though it has already won (taking back the money), CC has left itself open to being before a "hostile" court, the judge perhaps viewing this action as a circumvention of the courts juristiction. The court would be more sympathetic to the player as a result, and since these cases are resolved by balance of probability, the casino might come over as a high handed and bullying corporation pitted against a simple "man in the street".
CC may believe the player KNOWS he has no chance, and will NEVER go to court, but are hanging onto the jackpot just in case. The player should call their bluff, and serve papers. This would in all probability pave the way for an out of court settlement, where CC would not have to admit they acted wrongly, and the player at least gets a portion of the winnings, perhaps with the 30K + "costs" deducted. CC can then close the matter and repair the integrity of it's progressive jackpots.
To force the issue, another body could take action based on the question "who has the jackpot money, and are they entitled to keep it?"
Normally, where entrants have contributed to a prize pool and, for whatever reason, the prize is not awarded, the accumulated entry fees must be returned to the entrants.
A progressive is just a sequential lottery. Each spin or hand adds a stake to the pool, and grants the player a chance at winning it all. In this case, returning the jackpot to the pool is the only viable way CC can comply with this principle, and this seems to be what all the other players are arguing about, even if they accept the casino's view that the original winner cheated.
If this was over a more modest amount, this issue would be nowhere, but it is over a pretty big progressive win, and CC have to realise that simply by waiting this out, it will NOT go away until the missing funds are accounted for one way or the other. Other players could also worry that THEY may win a progressive, and have it confiscated without a proper right of appeal, and for whatever reason the casino sees fit. This would be quite a deterrent from playing the progressives there, and maybe even the whole casino.
While this bot is out there, and CC are only able to INFER that it was PROBABLY used, then INNOCENT players could still end up labeled as "bot cheats" with no way to fight back in order for CC to get rid of the guilty ones.
This is all completely unnecessary, as the bot gives no advantage to the player, and Microgaming casinos have one installed on nearly all their blackjack and VP games for players to freely use (even if the odd casino bans it's use when a bonus has been claimed).
- but if they are withholding because the player cheated in the past (and of course now they want this back) - not right 
But sadly, there's virtually no chance my firm would want this case. As a rule we don't deal in anything gambling related, we are mainly concerned with contract law especially those in the family and employment division. And my position in the company is far too low down the pecking order to be able to mount any challenge to this 
