Betfred have taken everything because I used my friend's card

[simon3311]

I've already done a thread but Need help.

I'm fully aware now that 3rd party deposit aren't aloud but at the time I wasn't.

My card was having issues with connecting to visa as tried 3 times to deposit so used my friend's card with concent and I transferred funds from my account to there prior to every deposit.

I deposit around 5k so around 5 deposits and had withdrawal excepted and paid out of 8000. Nothing was flagged up about anything and at the time didn't even consider I was in the wrong.

The next day I thought if carry on from where I was didn't go to plan and deposited around 22000 and ended up requesting 28000 .

Not at any point during around 10 deposits was anything flagged.

There is nothing fraudulent with any of this .

Betfred didn't even ask about fraud or didn't even want to Contact the card holder or want any information regarding this.

If I would of lost I'd fully understand no refund but I was 6000 in profit and why aren't my deposit being refunded as it states

In terms that Amy deposits will be void and winnings Invalid.

There is no fraud Involved it was my money and they had stole all of it and I can't even contact them to discuss.

I don't need advice on 3rd party deposit trust me I've read everything just want to know where I stand and what to do next as I can't just let them take 22000 off me

 

[gonzo fonso]

is it any wonder they have closed your account making deposits of multiple k,its certainly not the usual

 

[toms596]

Have they given you an explanation as to why they aren't returning them? What terms have you broken

 

[bamberfishcake]

I am afraid that the answer you don't want to hear is the only answer I think you will get from this.

Better off forgetting about it now. I don't think you stand a chance of getting the winnings based on what you have said.

 

[shadow123]

Winnings are gone for sure but they cant have all the cake,deposits should be returned to the card owner,
they took an awful lot of deposits without question and as usual only found a problem at cashout time.
In my view there is far too much money involved not to take it further.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Winnings are gone for sure but they cant have all the cake,deposits should be returned to the card owner,
they took an awful lot of deposits without question and as usual only found a problem at cashout time.
In my view there is far too much money involved not to take it further.

True, I often forget about the deposits. Should be claimed back. Being ignored is never appropriate.

 

[jasonuk]

Some big question marks here! This really should have been flagged up on the first attempted deposit - that a substantial withdrawal was also processed is rather alarming...

I agree with shadow - zero chances you'll get the winnings as it's a serious breach of the T&Cs, and while you are not entitled to the balance, your friend should be refunded their deposits.

I fear this may get rather complicated as Betfred have got themselves into a pickle here (potentially breaching AML, RG and KYC regulations in one go - not dissimilar to scenarios we've heard in recently announced million+ fines) - your friend may need to jump through a considerable number of hoops to get that money back, and it may take some time if it gets looked into by other parties (AML, UKGC etc).

At this point, I would say it's important to make the transactions distinct - it makes sense that Betfred wouldn't enter into further correspondence with you because you're not the depositor, your friend is. While it's "your" money in your eyes, it's "their" money in terms of the player to casino transactions, so any further steps would likely be with them.

Hopefully Betfred will be forthcoming with your friend in terms of a resolution - if not, you (or more likely your friend) can make a formal complaint, and then

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

as an option down the road, although be aware for the amount in question it may be non-binding on the operator.

 

[dunover]

Don't forget, winnings should be voided too, so the overall balance sheet is prudent here. Does the amout paid out exceed the deposits on this card overall? If so, it could be argued the deposits are refunded and the OP should sort that out with his friend. As said, they are in a pickle having already paid 8k to the cardholder who wasn't actually named in the casino account.

I think the appropriate course of action would be to refund the deposits, taking into account the net position of the account, i.e. 3+6k = 9k to the good according to the OP. So there is no net gain or loss on it.

Again, as said above, this means further exacerbating their failure to act in the first place and paying out 8k to that card which means AML and KYC hasn't been followed to the rules. So refunding now compounds that issue. It's a tricky one for both parties, neither of whom have covered themselves in glory.

 

[jasonuk]

I think the appropriate course of action would be to refund the deposits, taking into account the net position of the account, i.e. 3+6k = 9k to the good according to the OP. So there is no net gain or loss on it.

I deposit around 5k so around 5 deposits and had withdrawal excepted and paid out of 8000. Nothing was flagged up about anything and at the time didn't even consider I was in the wrong.

The next day I thought if carry on from where I was didn't go to plan and deposited around 22000 and ended up requesting 28000 .

It sounds like the second £6k profit was blocked - so would be talking about the £27k deposited and the £8k withdrawn, leaving a net loss of £19k.

Depending on the account activity, they could include other transactions in their investigation, which may adjust the figure up or down further. Anyone's guess how that will play out given companies rarely discuss it in public.

 

[OliverCooper]

Using even a friend's data can still be equated with using someone else's data (and it`s not known whether he agreed or not)

 

[Avernite]

Money should be returned to the friends card/bank account. Casino's should never be able to profit over these situations, nor should the player.

 

[bamberfishcake]

What was the problem with the original card?

28K is a lot to deposit through somebody else's card. But I guess if you're paying for it, then it's not such a big deal, it just seems like an unusual situation.

The idea of being in control of your payment methods is to prevent money laundering and fraud, hence why casinos don't like deposits from cards you don't own. I imagine this would raise a flag during an AML audit.

p.s. Have any other requests been made from BetFred that you have been unable to comply with? i.e. SOW.

If this is just a straight block without refunding deposits, with no chance of a conversation over the situation, then it's not fair. You would think that 28K is nothing to BetFred in the grand scheme of things and would just refund the deposits and close the account to avoid any problems.

 

[deleted20230517]

You can't use another persons card, account or whatever to deposit. Impossible. In breach with TOS with almost every casino out there.

Best you can get or hope for is those deposits to have returned to the original card.

 

[Webzcas]

Using someone else's card is a major no no when it comes to any form of online betting or gambling, sportsbook, casino or otherwise. Anyone who has placed even one bet in the past would know of this term, even if they are not au fait with any others.

It is also pretty straightforward as to why this term and condition is in place.

Sorry, but you are out of luck IMO and as mentioned by Jeroensgambling above, the most you can hope for are the deposits returned back to the original card.

 

[Lemon]

If you were guaranteed to get your deposits back in these situations then you'd get loads of people breaking the rules in the hope they get into early profit and have a successful withdrawal, knowing full well that if they don't they can just trigger the rule breach and get their money back.

It's a bit of a mess to be honest, but that's why you should read the rules first. Sounds really unfair to have your deposits withheld as well but if they don't do that then it's effectively a free gamble - win and you might be able to get some of the profit out along with your deposit, lose and you just get your money back.

It's pretty obvious that the account-holder should only deposit using their own card. It's not like this rule was introduced recently and you've been on holiday or something so missed the change. Thousands of pounds deposited from someone else's card is classic money-laundering behaviour. Must have set off more red flags than a communist rally.

Good luck either way ?

 

[jasonuk]

If you were guaranteed to get your deposits back in these situations then you'd get loads of people breaking the rules in the hope they get into early profit and have a successful withdrawal, knowing full well that if they don't they can just trigger the rule breach and get their money back.

It's a bit of a mess to be honest, but that's why you should read the rules first. Sounds really unfair to have your deposits withheld as well but if they don't do that then it's effectively a free gamble - win and you might be able to get some of the profit out along with your deposit, lose and you just get your money back.

It's pretty obvious that the account-holder should only deposit using their own card. It's not like this rule was introduced recently and you've been on holiday or something so missed the change. Thousands of pounds deposited from someone else's card is classic money-laundering behaviour. Must have set off more red flags than a communist rally.

Good luck either way ?

Agreed, I can imagine there are people out there trying this as a variation of the "responsible gambling" fraud (as an explanation to those unaware: people who sign up to sites maliciously with "slightly different details" to evade the self-exclusion checks, then demanding their money back as a freeroll - often shouting loudly on forums such as CM, there's a long list of such banned people sadly - when they lost because they had self-excluded).

It would only be a free gamble if the operator failed in their due diligence and allowed a withdrawal - which they did in this case. A rogue player would try and use such a mechanism for a free gamble (as they did by exploiting the responsible gambling rules, which the UKGC had to subsequently tighten up to the detriment of genuine problem gamblers), but similarly the operator being allowed to keep the deposits when they have no expectation to pay out would similarly be a free gamble. The most logical position is to undo everything, but who knows at this stage.

If it had been £200 it would have been a tricky situation, that there's a couple of extra zeros (putting it above most AML and KYC thresholds) makes it really problematic - remember some of the UKGC examples against WH's £19.2m fine were smaller amounts than this... and didn't have the complication of using payment methods of a third party.

 

[simon3311]

Agreed, I can imagine there are people out there trying this as a variation of the "responsible gambling" fraud (as an explanation to those unaware: people who sign up to sites maliciously with "slightly different details" to evade the self-exclusion checks, then demanding their money back as a freeroll - often shouting loudly on forums such as CM, there's a long list of such banned people sadly - when they lost because they had self-excluded).

It would only be a free gamble if the operator failed in their due diligence and allowed a withdrawal - which they did in this case. A rogue player would try and use such a mechanism for a free gamble (as they did by exploiting the responsible gambling rules, which the UKGC had to subsequently tighten up to the detriment of genuine problem gamblers), but similarly the operator being allowed to keep the deposits when they have no expectation to pay out would similarly be a free gamble. The most logical position is to undo everything, but who knows at this stage.

If it had been £200 it would have been a tricky situation, that there's a couple of extra zeros (putting it above most AML and KYC thresholds) makes it really problematic - remember some of the UKGC examples against WH's £19.2m fine were smaller amounts than this... and didn't have the complication of using payment methods of a third party.

I have a positive up date. Well the correct direction anyway.

 

[simon3311]

This may give people In similar situations hope
The gambling commission clearly states and highlighted in AOL legislation that 3rd party deposits should be actioned at the earliest point possible and never on a large win or a withdrawal request.
The fact is that over 2 days there where around 15 large deposits which all.where an opportunity to intervene. I received a security message and AOL check and a safer gambling ill 5 mins after my request. There was also around 3hour gap between my last deposit and my final withdrawal if an internal AOL trigger was met like they said it should of been actioned on the deposit
IBAS have exsepted my case and is ongoing

 

[jasonuk]

The gambling commission clearly states and highlighted in AOL legislation that 3rd party deposits should be actioned at the earliest point possible and never on a large win or a withdrawal request.

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.

The fact is that over 2 days there where around 15 large deposits which all.where an opportunity to intervene. I received a security message and AOL check and a safer gambling ill 5 mins after my request. There was also around 3hour gap between my last deposit and my final withdrawal if an internal AOL trigger was met like they said it should of been actioned on the deposit

Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.

I have a positive up date. Well the correct direction anyway.

IBAS have exsepted my case and is ongoing

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.


Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.




I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

Jason I admire your knowledge! Lots of valid points here and while I don’t want to get into the points of the original complaint I just wanted to say!

 

[simon3311]

The highlighted part is wrong - because in some circumstances the withdrawal request is the CDD/AML trigger.

It's frequently misquoted because people see that withdrawals shouldn't be unreasonably delayed, and don't realise that regulatory requirements (ID check, CDD/AML triggered by a withdrawal) are genuine reasons for a delay.

On the flip side, operators that defer those checks until withdrawal are in the wrong, but the UKGC isn't punishing them for doing it so they keep doing it as a way to stealth reverse withdrawals.


Pretty much as we summarised 17 months ago - Betfred missed a lot of opportunities to lock your account down and investigate.




I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but given your statement in the previous post I think it's important to add some perspective:

• IBAS accepting the case is the very first step (of many) in the ADR process.
• 17 months is a long time to wait to file with ADR - your additional rights start to erode after 6 months, and ADR can often reject claims more than 12 months old (unless there are extraneous circumstances, which there could be here).
• Given the problems relate with third party payments and possibly responsible gambling, there is a risk that ADR are not able to adjudicate on some or all of the complaint.
• As the amount in question likely exceeds £10,000 then ADR would not be binding on Betfred anyway. Although any successful claim may help with subsequent legal action if required (which is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to seek legal advice)

It's one step forward... but you've still got a long road ahead. I hope you can get it sorted.

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

 

[simon3311]

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance.

 

[simon3311]

I've been in contact with betfred throughout this period generally waiting weeks in-between emails . I was only issued my Dl a few weeks ago
It took months just to get that sent

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance

 

[simon3311]

Just quickly please
If AML checks are triggered at withdrawal why wasn't it triggered when I withdraw 8k the previous day. If checks where done then we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd still have hair

Tbh a little step forward is better than I've had
Allot has happened. I've been in contact weekly and tbh it was mainly waiting for documentation from compliance

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Just quickly please
If AML checks are triggered at withdrawal why wasn't it triggered when I withdraw 8k the previous day. If checks where done then we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd still have hair

Hey Simon,

I don’t want to get into specifics and I’m obviously not linked to the company you played with but as a general rule operators are expected to look at players in more detail at certain levels.

Some are total deposits, some are total withdrawals and the some are aggregated sum of deposits and withdrawals. Loss amounts or win amounts are also considered for these thresholds which is in line with guidance.

These are business set thresholds before they complete the required additional due diligence on a player. Operators have different thresholds of what that looks like for different reasons but for example if an operator sets a limit of £5k transactions (deposits and withdrawals, a theoretical amount) then if you deposit £5 and withdraw £4995 then you’ve hit that threshold.

Most complaints on here are from players who say “they only asked me for my documents when I withdrew” but the reality is those are the only ones we hear of as because when players are asked when they deposit it’s less of an issue as they just don’t deposit.

Hope that helps!
Mark