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

[jetset]

Just for s@*&s and giggles I think a poll on the credibility of Gavin's win would be an interesting exercise. I know that personally I find this sudden development and the circumstances surrounding it suspicious.

I continue to believe that the most effective way to get the LGA to respond with a satisfactory explanation of its conduct and findings in this matter is to engage them officially through a lawyer - preferably one on the ground in Malta.

At present both LGA and CC appear content to sit tight in the hope that this storm will blow over with no serious repercussions.

Others before them have had this same mistaken belief....

 

[Casinomeister]

Just a quick FYI: I've been in contact with the player who won the jackpot - and it's a player I am familiar with - so the win is real. Amazing as it may sound, it truly has been won.

 

[betpartners]

LOL so the win was real and we are back to player v casino with no real proof from either side and nobody is any the wiser.

There really is a very very simple way to resolve this and that is through the courts, its been done before and if the player has a legitimate case and the casino is in the wrong then the courts will find for him.

I just do not understand with this kind of money on the table why the player will not go down this route.

I cannot recall the figure but the player deposited a sizeable amount which leads one to think he can probably afford a lawyer in Malta.

The LGA has been left wanting in this and so has the casino but only from a PR point of view, simply because we still have no idea how the decision was come about, for all we know they were following protocol.

But all that is beside the point, for £200k or whatever it was why wont the player simply let the courts resolve this?

Can you imagine the damage done to the LGA and the casino if the courts did find in the players favour, this sort of case would be perfect to highlight the incompetent LGA, but needs the player to do go after his winnings.

It is very easy to condemn the LGA and the casino but at the same time one can only draw conclusions based on everyones actions or lack of and that includes the players as well.

 

[jetset]

Just a quick FYI: I've been in contact with the player who won the jackpot - and it's a player I am familiar with - so the win is real. Amazing as it may sound, it truly has been won.

A case of truth being stranger than fiction ... has the LGA responded to your enquiry yet Bryan?

 

[ergopro]

3.different data about the jackpot win

- screenshot in the CC newsletter, an amount of 46,848.00

- in German CC ticker an amount of 234.241
see here

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's 46848 times the 5 euro/dollar coin nomination.
46848 x 5 = 234240

 

[Casinomeister]

A case of truth being stranger than fiction ... has the LGA responded to your enquiry yet Bryan?

He's a lucky player with a couple of seriously big wins in the past couple of years.

As for your question...care to guess?

 

[sticaz]

It's 46848 times the 5 euro/dollar coin nomination.
46848 x 5 = 234240

46848 euro = 65587 us dollars

 

[Pinababy69]

46848 euro = 65587 us dollars

What Ergopro was saying is that the win is showing as 46,848 five Euro coins...as opposed to 46,848 Euros. If you multiply the number of coins by the denomination, the figure is correct and matches with the jackpot amount.

Thx for that Bryan....good to know that at least this win is legit.

Still no excuse for Casino Club, nor the LGA. And I feel horrid for Realplayer.

 

[realplayer]

It's 46848 times the 5 euro/dollar coin nomination.
46848 x 5 = 234240

€ or $ that is the question.

Here is the cover of the German CC magazine from 2002.
The (translatet) headline is :
"Farewell from the US dollar. Since 1 December 2002, CC is a euro-casino."

screenshot see here: Old / Expired Link

Why used Gavin u.s.dollar coins?

 

[betpartners]

Realplayer give it up about the jackpot win by Gavin mate, CM has confirmed it was genuine.

RealPlayer can i ask you, are you taking legal action in Malta, it really is a lot of money at stake

 

[realplayer]

are you taking legal action in Malta

yes I do, but it goes very slowly forward.

I see you are from Gozo. Do you have experiences with lawyers or the court in Malta? My impression, it runs very slowly.

 

[betpartners]

Legal process tends to be slow almost anywhere you are based, i dont find Malta/Gozo any slower than the UK or any other country, but then that is more assumption than anything else based on what i have read etc.

In better words, no idea

 

[jetset]

He's a lucky player with a couple of seriously big wins in the past couple of years.

As for your question...care to guess?

Errrr....I'm guessing no response?

This must be deliberate - I've had not a peep from the LGA despite my original enquiry and two chasers.

Perhaps Realplayer's Malta lawyer will have more success in a head-on challenge.

 

[Casinomeister]

Errrr....I'm guessing no response?

...

Bingo! You're today's winner!

Today's winner will receive a bag of empty promises and a NEW CAR*

(*the new car prize is not applicable for residents of planet Earth - sorry)

 

[realplayer]

Errrr....I'm guessing no response?

This must be deliberate - I've had not a peep from the LGA despite my original enquiry and two chasers.

Perhaps Realplayer's Malta lawyer will have more success in a head-on challenge.

Here's the link to the LGA website/News (from 6/October/2010): Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

So much for theory, but the authority does not act.

quote:
Maltese Law on Gaming Debts
This Public Notice is being issued in order to clarify a legal issue which has been circulating various blogs and news headlines in relation to Player Winnings and Gaming Debts, thereby creating unnecessary concerns and mere speculation.

Kindly note that the provisions being invoked in relation to Gaming Debts, are extracts from the Civil Code, refer to Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta (refer to articles 1713-1717A) which are not applicable to Games which are authorised/licensed under the Gaming Act, Chapter 400 of the Laws of Malta (refer to article 34) and to Games authorised/licensed under the Lotteries and Other Games Act, Chapter 438 of the Laws of Malta (refer to articles 48 and 49) and the Regulations issued there under, which include the Remote Gaming Regulations.

The Lotteries and Gaming Authority's interpretation is that the Civil Code articles above captioned are applicable to gaming debts arising out of unauthorised/unlicensed games, which in any case are considered as illegal and tantamount to a criminal offence.

 

[Eagle]

Very interesting!

So that should close the loophole that they wanted to use, right?

 

[jetset]

Here's the link to the LGA website/News (from 6/October/2010): Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

So much for theory, but the authority does not act.

quote:
Maltese Law on Gaming Debts
This Public Notice is being issued in order to clarify a legal issue which has been circulating various blogs and news headlines in relation to Player Winnings and Gaming Debts, thereby creating unnecessary concerns and mere speculation.

Kindly note that the provisions being invoked in relation to Gaming Debts, are extracts from the Civil Code, refer to Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta (refer to articles 1713-1717A) which are not applicable to Games which are authorised/licensed under the Gaming Act, Chapter 400 of the Laws of Malta (refer to article 34) and to Games authorised/licensed under the Lotteries and Other Games Act, Chapter 438 of the Laws of Malta (refer to articles 48 and 49) and the Regulations issued there under, which include the Remote Gaming Regulations.

The Lotteries and Gaming Authority's interpretation is that the Civil Code articles above captioned are applicable to gaming debts arising out of unauthorised/unlicensed games, which in any case are considered as illegal and tantamount to a criminal offence.

These guys really are a piece of work, aren't they - not even the professional business courtesy of responding to enquiries, instead whacking up a notice on their website, and one that sidesteps the real issues to boot.

It merely confirms what the new Malta lawyer told Realplayer regarding the inapplicability of the gambling debt enforcement loophole...but it does not address the real elements in the enquiries sent to the LGA.

These were on what grounds the LGA based its ruling in favour of Casino Club, whether they considered the evidence provided by the casino, and what that evidence was...and on what basis did they find Realplayer at fault.

Man, these people are irritating

 

[Casinomeister]

These guys really are a piece of work, aren't they - not even the professional business courtesy of responding to enquiries, instead whacking up a notice on their website, and one that sidesteps the real issues to boot....

These were on what grounds the LGA based its ruling in favour of Casino Club, whether they considered the evidence provided by the casino, and what that evidence was...and on what basis did they find Realplayer at fault.

Man, these people are irritating

I'd like to know who trained their public relations personnel. I am less than inspired with this garbled lawyer-speak, it took me three read-throughs to attempt to figure out what they are trying to say - and I still don't get it.

How about addressing the gaming community with language that speaks to us? This impresses me not and has driven home the opinion that the LGA is totally alienated from player needs.

 

[Simmo!]

This impresses me not and has driven home the opinion that the LGA is totally alienated from player needs.

Maybe the LGA just saw a great opportunity to raise revenue but want to re-invest as little as possible of the money raised on the resources needed to tackle the responsibilities that come with it? Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

 

[jetset]

I'd like to know who trained their public relations personnel. I am less than inspired with this garbled lawyer-speak, it took me three read-throughs to attempt to figure out what they are trying to say - and I still don't get it.

How about addressing the gaming community with language that speaks to us? This impresses me not and has driven home the opinion that the LGA is totally alienated from player needs.

What public relations personnel ?

Such reluctance to communicate can only increase suspicion.

 

[jetset]

For fairness - have just received a rather belated response to one of my chasers.

However, there is little that is new in the response from the Acting Director of Legal Affairs for the LGA, which merely points to the website comment already posted here, and does not address the questions surrounding the finding against Realplayer.

My reply points this out to the legal director and urges a more communicative apporoach if the regulator really wants to put this issue to bed.

 

[CasinoClub]

Statement from CasinoClub

We were recently informed of an allegation by a poster that Gaming VC lawyers had attempted to rely on a legal loophole to avoid payment of a jackpot. Specifically, the words were:

“The answer of Gaming VC respectively their lawyers is the following one: „Due to a legal loophole they are not obliged to pay out winnings, the matter is resolved, therefore. “ ”

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement, and we agree with the LGA’s recently published view on this issue.

Our attention was also drawn to a recent article published on the website www.Online-Casinos.com, where the article (the reporters details are unknown) stated that:

“a Casino Club spokesperson said they were justified in taking the action and that the LGA had been supplied with all the details, finding in favour of the casino with regards to this issue”.

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement. We understand that the LGA is still looking into the relevant complaint.

 

[LHofsdal]

We were recently informed of an allegation by a poster that Gaming VC lawyers had attempted to rely on a legal loophole to avoid payment of a jackpot. Specifically, the words were:

“The answer of Gaming VC respectively their lawyers is the following one: „Due to a legal loophole they are not obliged to pay out winnings, the matter is resolved, therefore. “ ”

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement, and we agree with the LGA’s recently published view on this issue.

Our attention was also drawn to a recent article published on the website www.Online-Casinos.com, where the article (the reporters details are unknown) stated that:

“a Casino Club spokesperson said they were justified in taking the action and that the LGA had been supplied with all the details, finding in favour of the casino with regards to this issue”.

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement. We understand that the LGA is still looking into the relevant complaint.

That post was made on 9/11 and a month later your coming here to say no one in "your organization" made that statement?

I have been reading up on this situation, you claim that RealPlayer is in a group that are bonus abusers, bot users and whatever else. But the fact of the matter is that you still TOOK his money while you "WATCHING" him. What if he lost? Would you just let it go? Wait for his next deposit and see what happened? Please, tell me what you would have done if he lost?

I see this situation is on alot of other forums, and to be quite blunt here, CasinoClub does not look good in any of the other forums either. But hey lets try to improve the image of the casino by letting someone else hit the jackpot only hours after it was reset. But lets not tell the "ADVANTAGE" players that the jackpot was reset. What the hell is up with that?

Look, CasinoClub, you can come in here and post what you want, skirt around the issues that are put infront of you claiming "We can not comment because of the investigation". In my eyes, (and I am pretty sure I am not the only one) you made a big mistake with RealPlayer. Even if your claims are true that he is in this so called "group" of bonus abusers and bot users, you took his money. No questions asked. Even gave the player a bonus on the deposit. He was lucky enough to win and the casino pulls this crap. What kind of "organization" are you trying to run? What you did to this player is WORSE in my eyes than what he is being accused of doing. What makes you think you did the right thing in taking his deposit, with a bonus even and then come on here and tell the CM community he is a "bonus abuser and uses bots".

At the point he made his large deposit, did you tell this player, sorry we can not accept your deposit because we (the casino) feel you are part of group that are considered "bonus abusers and bot users." NO YOU DID NOT!! So tell me does that make you (the casino) engaging in any type of "FRAUDULANT" behavior? I believe it does.

You can come on here and try pumping sunshine up your own butts, to look brighter than the sun, but trust me your only making this casino look more of joke than the LGA.

LH

 

[jetset]

"That post was made on 9/11 and a month later your coming here to say no one in "your organization" made that statement?"

Busted!

Well done LHofsdal.

That post (apparently made by someone from the casino) was made right here at CM, too.

This is the sort of statement that does little to assuage the suspicions that are mounting on this issue imo..

Does anyone else think there may be a belated damage control action kicking in here?

And we still have no clear statement on exactly what the LGA had to say about the charges made against Realplayer by CC. Why is it so difficult to get clarification on this?

 

[LHofsdal]

Damage Control

Yes, Jet, I agree, they are doing some damage control. Hell, they will be needing to alot more and I mean alot more of it. It "gets my panties in a bunch" so to speak when this casino calls some a fraud, and they go and commit fraud themselves.

In my eyes, taking this players money and jerking him around like this is fraud to me. Because if it were some Joe Blow from down the street doing this to me he would meet me and and my blackbelt in karate when I went to get my money.

LH