Casinomeister withdraws ADR application with UKGC

The problem I see with not disclosing the detection process is that they wont be able to defend themselves against false accusations of fraud.

I think we can all agree that there is such a thing as a false fraud accusation.


In some cases I think the evidence could be so strong that you can safely assume that they are frauds without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves.

Overall, I think you're doing the right thing CM.
 
Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning Bryan, this is why 19 years of experience in dealing with casino complaints (legit and non-legit) is so important. It's great to see the UKGC 'apppearing' to be very pro-active at this time, but as we all know, there is almost always two sides to a story.

Giving a fraudster any opportunity to learn from their failed attempt is definitely not good for the long prospects of the industry.
 
Once you break confidentiality, the trust has gone and it is all downhill from there. I definitely think you made the right choice and no doubt you're reputation will proceed you.
 
In case it's not obvious this was a _very_ difficult decision for us. We've spent a lot of time kicking this back and forth over the last few months.

The problem I see with not disclosing the detection process is that they wont be able to defend themselves against false accusations of fraud.

Good point, but it ends up being a judgement call. Do you educate 19 fraudsters in order to avoid 1 false accusation? Because that's roughly what the numbers work out to. I think it's fair to say "no" and proceed.

Remember, falsely accused persons are always free to take their case elsewhere or to the forums. That's happened in the past and -- in the long run -- bad decisions were reversed. It's generally not difficult to identify cases where you're at risk of a bad judgement call and you watch out for those.
 
Sound call, Bryan - I'm sure the UKGC will some day arrive belatedly at the same conclusion as bitter experience sets in and their operators explain.
 
I agree with the others and feel that you made the right call Bryan. I have to admit I am shocked at the UKCG's naivete in the situation with regards to fraudsters. Giving those pieces of dirt more info on how not to get caught in the future is not a good practice for anybody and indeed I think this may come back to bite the UKCG in the butt in time to come. Protecting honest players is a good but the UKCG need to understand that there is a percentage of dis-honest players in this business. A compromise in this situation is to hand over all the info regarding the fraudsters to the UKCG and not the fraudster so a good standard can be met. I wonder how long it will take them to figure that one out!
 
CM have made the right decision in light of how the ADR situation has panned out.

As a player, I appreciate the time and effort of all those who were behind the application to try and help the community :thumbsup:
 
I was just thinking - thePOGG on here is an official UKGC ADR right? A line needs drawing between cases involving fraud and other issues and CM knows the ADR process will assist fraudsters.

So how about working together, and any cases which run the risk of sensitive reciprocal information being returned to potential fraudsters can be dealt with by CM without the process of reciprocity the UKGC uses, and more of the non-fraud cases are passed on to thePOGG?

Is this possible, worth considering or has already been considered? Or am I talking out of my rear sphincter? :what:
 
I was just thinking - thePOGG on here is an official UKGC ADR right? A line needs drawing between cases involving fraud and other issues and CM knows the ADR process will assist fraudsters.

So how about working together, and any cases which run the risk of sensitive reciprocal information being returned to potential fraudsters can be dealt with by CM without the process of reciprocity the UKGC uses, and more of the non-fraud cases are passed on to thePOGG?

Is this possible, worth considering or has already been considered? Or am I talking out of my rear sphincter? :what:

Interesting thought, but if I look for help here I don't want to get passed on to someone else, and probably not the opposite either.
Players need to know who is dealing with their complaint, and so does the casino.
 
So how about working together, and any cases which run the risk of sensitive reciprocal information being returned to potential fraudsters can be dealt with by CM without the process of reciprocity the UKGC uses, and more of the non-fraud cases are passed on to thePOGG?


I was wondering how long it was going to take for this to come up....

Unfortunately that's not an option. The whole purpose of the ADR system is to ensure that players have a service they can take complaints to that is approved by the Gambling Commission. It wouldn't meet those requirements for complaints to be passed to a non-accredited service.

Approved ADRs can pass complaints between themselves in specific circumstances but this wouldn't in fact change the fundamental problem when dealing with fraud related cases.

As the more astute reader will have surmised I've spent a great deal of time chatting with Max and Bryan before this decision was made and they are both aware of my position on this front. I respect the position they have taken in regard to their application. The question of how to manage fraud related cases has taken a long time and a lot of back and forth to get clear answers on. As such I'll be making a statement regarding ThePOGG's position on this type of case in the very near future (likely Monday - M&B have already seen this statement).

TP
 
I was wondering how long it was going to take for this to come up....

Unfortunately that's not an option. The whole purpose of the ADR system is to ensure that players have a service they can take complaints to that is approved by the Gambling Commission. It wouldn't meet those requirements for complaints to be passed to a non-accredited service.

Approved ADRs can pass complaints between themselves in specific circumstances but this wouldn't in fact change the fundamental problem when dealing with fraud related cases.

As the more astute reader will have surmised I've spent a great deal of time chatting with Max and Bryan before this decision was made and they are both aware of my position on this front. I respect the position they have taken in regard to their application. The question of how to manage fraud related cases has taken a long time and a lot of back and forth to get clear answers on. As such I'll be making a statement regarding ThePOGG's position on this type of case in the very near future (likely Monday - M&B have already seen this statement).

TP

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Rear sphincter wins the day...:oops:
 
"The online casino industry is horse of a different color."
(This might be a bit cryptic sorry.)
I've been thinking about this a little more. It's certainly not the entire casino industry and it's not like it's unintentional either. It's also completely avoidable.
It's pretty clear that these specific online casinos doing it have calculated their chances and decided that even with frauds it's in their best interests.
What it equates to is; people don't get to defend themselves because the casino wants to maximise profits.
I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.
 
"The online casino industry is horse of a different color."
(This might be a bit cryptic sorry.)

That simply means the casino industry is different, that the same rules don't always apply and that an astute person knows to look at things differently.

I've been thinking about this a little more. It's certainly not the entire casino industry and it's not like it's unintentional either. It's also completely avoidable.

Sorry, I for one am not clear on what you mean here. Can you explain?

... people don't get to defend themselves because the casino wants to maximise profits.

Are you suggesting that we are working in the casino's interests? That their agenda determines our procedures? If you are you are quite wrong, but I'm sure you knew that's what I'd say.

The simple truth is that fraud detection costs casinos a lot of time and effort. They are not inclined to give away their secrets on how they go about their business. That's just a fact and IMO perfectly understandable.

So what happens when we, for instance, take them a case and ask to see the proof backing their decision? If they know or suspect that we are going to hand the proof over to the player they simply won't give it to us. Full stop.

If however we give our word that the evidence remains confidential -- as we have for many years and continue to do so -- then maybe, MAYBE, the casino will trust us and shown us what they've got. I don't imagine that we get to see it all but the point is that they share enough that we can see the grounds on which they are making their decision. If the evidence is good and solid then we support their decision. If the evidence is not satisfactory we ask for more. If they comply then we can proceed with the investigation. If they do not then we tell them so and, in the worst case, we have to flag the casino as non-cooperative on player complaints.

So, the bottom line is yes, you can look at the non-sharing of case evidence as serving the casino's interests. That implies that we are in on that, effectively working to support and protect the casinos, and I'm sorry that you feel that way because it simply isn't true. Casinomeister has almost two decades of evidence to show that isn't true and I've been doing the PABs for almost half of that time. Believe me, if we were in the casinos pockets on this the whistle would have been blown on us a long time ago.

What it comes down to is that we ask the casino and the players to trust us to do a fair and unbiased job on the PABs. The evidence is there to prove our trustworthiness but in the end some do, and some don't. C'est la vie. You can't please everyone but we do try to offer a service that is reasonable and fair to both sides. "Fair play for all" as Bryan says and I believe that's the highest standard we can hope to offer.
 
I understand why you have came to that decision Bryan and fully agree on your stance as its what suits you and your principals best.

But i understand why UKGC have decided that all information should be shared with the player who has complained even if its because he cheated. They might not agree its best idea themselves but legally they probably find they have no other choice.

As its in UK then the law will say that you can not just tell a player he has been found to have committed fraud you will have to explain to them exactly what they've done and how they got caught.

If a player in UK decided to take a casino to court then every single detail from the casino and player will be made public before a decision is reached. The casino could not simply say they have proof the player committed fraud but are not willing to disclose it to the player as it may help others avoid getting caught.

They would have to disclose everything whether it helps others or not and would have to openly explain what the player did and how they caught him before a judge could give a decision whether the casino was right to accuse the player of fraud or not.
 
I understand why you have came to that decision Bryan and fully agree on your stance as its what suits you and your principals best.

But i understand why UKGC have decided that all information should be shared with the player who has complained even if its because he cheated. They might not agree its best idea themselves but legally they probably find they have no other choice.

As its in UK then the law will say that you can not just tell a player he has been found to have committed fraud you will have to explain to them exactly what they've done and how they got caught.

If a player in UK decided to take a casino to court then every single detail from the casino and player will be made public before a decision is reached. The casino could not simply say they have proof the player committed fraud but are not willing to disclose it to the player as it may help others avoid getting caught.

They would have to disclose everything whether it helps others or not and would have to openly explain what the player did and how they caught him before a judge could give a decision whether the casino was right to accuse the player of fraud or not.

Yet an ADR doesn't have the authority to convict anyone of a crime - a fundamental difference between an ADR and a court - and a court even civil in nature has weight behind it if it refers one party to the Crown Prosecution Service or Police for further investigation that an ADR simply doesn't. Further to this even where an ADR makes a ruling this has no bearing on the claimant's statutory rights to pursue the operator through the courts.

Pretending that ADRs replace courts is not a sound position to start with and ADRs referring cases where the claimant has been demonstrated to be likely engaged in fraud to the courts to seek redress prevents the ADR system from being abused. Given that all Self-Exclusion cases are currently deferred to the courts by default it seems far from unreasonable to invest greater attention in how we should be supporting the most vulnerable players than enforcing rules that are going to foster further criminal activity.

TP
 
ok, I understand why CM doesn't want to continue with the application, but if I was accused of fraud by a casino I would want to see all the evidence so I could defend myself. How can I prove the casino wrong if I don't get to see any evidence? I get that a fraudster could use the info to do better next time, but a casino could also deny winnings and just say 'talk to the hand' if they didn't have to supply evidence surely?
 
Yet an ADR doesn't have the authority to convict anyone of a crime - a fundamental difference between an ADR and a court - and a court even civil in nature has weight behind it if it refers one party to the Crown Prosecution Service or Police for further investigation that an ADR simply doesn't. Further to this even where an ADR makes a ruling this has no bearing on the claimant's statutory rights to pursue the operator through the courts.

Pretending that ADRs replace courts is not a sound position to start with and ADRs referring cases where the claimant has been demonstrated to be likely engaged in fraud to the courts to seek redress prevents the ADR system from being abused. Given that all Self-Exclusion cases are currently deferred to the courts by default it seems far from unreasonable to invest greater attention in how we should be supporting the most vulnerable players than enforcing rules that are going to foster further criminal activity.

TP


Theoretically, ADR process supposed to prevent both parties taking their case to court, imo.
It's true, he can'nt make any demands towards both parties nor to obliged them.

That usually aint gonna happens anyway due to the Court , which is a very costly process.

Paying 600 mark to take his complaint to court, and this in order to justify 50 mark withdraw from a casino ??
I doubt it !! :)


Interesting post btw , thanks .
 
The ADR process is intended to offer a far more accessible alternative to legal action. Absolutely. But it in no way replaces the need for courts all together and to pretend that all issues should be resolvable at ADR level is to mis-represent what ADRs are meant to do. In every sector there are issues that ultimately cannot be resolved by ADRs and end up going to court.

And to answer the points above regarding the operator simply claiming that the player is engaged in fraud, I cannot comment on how the CM process works, but I can say that before we would support any case based on fraud I have to see significant evidence that meets the same standards that a civil court requires, that being that based on the 'balance of probabilities' it can be determined that the player has been engaged in activities that violate terms and conditions and likely are a criminal offence (we couldn't assert that they are until a criminal conviction had been obtained).

Fundamentally we're asking for those who are, based on an ADR's assessment, likely engaged in criminality to be given greater rights than Self-Excluded players, that to date can only seek redress through the courts.

ADRs are meant to serve as an alternative to a CIVIL court. Where there's significant evidence that activities should be reviewed by a CRIMINAL court then to my mind logically an ADR is not the correct body to make a ruling full stop.

TP
 
Last edited:
Well , When it comes down to criminal court, I'm afraid that sensitive information will not be provided to anyone neither casino or resolver are in a position to assess what kind of action should be applied.

Unfortunately in our society the taxpayer has the right to manipulate the law ( and the costs associated with it ) in his own benefit .. And a casino is no exception of that .
Which was my point .
 
And to answer the points above regarding the operator simply claiming that the player is engaged in fraud, I cannot comment on how the CM process works, but I can say that before we would support any case based on fraud I have to see significant evidence that meets the same standards that a civil court requires, that being that based on the 'balance of probabilities' it can be determined that the player has been engaged in activities that violate terms and conditions and likely are a criminal offence (we couldn't assert that they are until a criminal conviction had been obtained).

Thanks for explaining that, I was thinking if a casino cried fraud, then that was that. :thumbsup:
There are loads of database errors on your site this morning if you're not aware. (For example
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
gives Error establishing a database connection)
 
ok, I understand why CM doesn't want to continue with the application, but if I was accused of fraud by a casino I would want to see all the evidence so I could defend myself. How can I prove the casino wrong if I don't get to see any evidence? I get that a fraudster could use the info to do better next time, but a casino could also deny winnings and just say 'talk to the hand' if they didn't have to supply evidence surely?

The fraud that we have dealt with at Casinomeister is pretty obvious. And like ThePogg said, with fraud cases we need 100% solid proof; we will always give the player the benefit of any doubt. In our experience, it's rare that fraud cases are borderline. Either it is, or it isn't. And this is something I don't think we miscalled in the past.

It's extremely rare that fraudsters challenge our claims. They usually just disappear - possibly to review their strategy.
 
There are loads of database errors on your site this morning if you're not aware. (For example
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
gives Error establishing a database connection)


Thanks for the heads-up. I'm aware of the issue with POGGWebmasters. Tbh, the site is low traffic and we're not pumping further resources into fixing it right now (it's not a significant money maker atm) as we're looking to fold both that and POGGStrategies into ThePOGG before the end of the year as this will cut down on maintenance work.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top