- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Location
- United kingdom
Jeez! One more account and people will start accusing him of multi-accounting.
Your hysterically funny ,and he is a she
Jeez! One more account and people will start accusing him of multi-accounting.
Your hysterically funny ,and he is a she
I know, I know. I always assume when I don't know that the poster is a male as most are in the gambling world. Apologies, but I was referring to the 'son' bit which is usually a male in my experience, should've made that clearer.
It sounds a right mess but what does concern me is when people are on a limited income (benefits) and they have money to waste gambling. It sounds like it's an issue in your household which will take some serious unravelling, and it's already clear you have broken numerous terms by what you have said. You may get deposits back if you've by-passed their checks for multi-accounts but from what I've read I'm not optimistic winnings should be paid. Remember rules are rules and sad though it is, disability or bereavement has no bearing on this, it's irrelevant. It's a remote gambling casino and rules are usually black-and-white.
Sorry should of stated I am on disability benefits ,not my son . I have not personally broken any rules ,saying that your right I just wish these had been picked up proir to so many accounts being opened .Looking at the larger picture it comes to something when any potential gambling addict could have such easy access to be able to set up so many accounts without being stopped .In this case casinos need to help protect vulnerable people from this .I am no expert,dont have a clue in fact ,but what is plain to see is that so many accounts could be opened before an investigation was done . I am not for one minute disputing that opening accounts like this was wrong , and broke casino rules , but surely checks should be carried out by the casino . I will await to see in what time frame these accounts were all opened ,if deposited into etc .Thank you for your reply and advise
Unwise corner cutting from casinos. What about when they allow 50 accounts to be set up, and it's actually a case of ID fraud and theft. The actual owner of the cards and money lost by the scammer over 50 accounts then finds out, complains to the bank that a fraud has been carried out, and the bank retrieves the money from the casino via "chargeback" as it is legally obliged to refund stolen money to the rightful owner.
The casino is lucky in this case because the mother does not want to report her son for this fraud and would rather take the financial loss rather than inform the bank of the son's fraud and get him into serious trouble.
If this was a lodger or housemate in a shared house that did this and then moved out, I expect the rightful owner of the ID and money used wouldn't care how much trouble this caused for the thief, they would want their money back.
The other problem for casinos here is a regulatory one, this could have been a "problem gambler" who managed to create 50 accounts using a "clean" ID variation, and if the UKGC felt they should have been caught through basic checks, the casino would have failed in it's regulatory obligation to prevent "problem gamblers" from easily being able to evade the security systems in order to carry on playing.