Casino Club closed account of 167'500 JACKPOT winner

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by thelawnet
I'm not sure what you mean by 'connected to a group of players'. Players do not come in groups.

Actually they do. Especially when it is a handful of players opening hundreds of accounts at once. This has happened at FL and Bellerock a number of times. I'm not saying this is the case here, but that is a typical m.o. of fraudsters. You're talking about normal activity. This is not normal.

Well yes, but that's not a group of players, it's one player with multiple accounts. Anyway, it would help if the casino would clarify what has happened.

I'm not entirely sure where the player is in all of this. Is he banned from this forum?

He appears to have had a large balance in his account before winning the jackpot. If he had a lot of accounts, I'm not sure why he would do this?

Also, regarding payment of this jackpot the casino is alleging 'non-allowed behaviour' allowed the player to run up his balance prior to winning the jackpot. What behaviour was this?

It's certainly arguable that if you win money 'illegitimately' that would be grounds to confiscate subsequent winnings from that money. There are rather a lot of things confusing this issue, but it seems to me that it should be concentrated on how the player ran up his 30k+ balance before winning this jackpot. What did he do that was not allowed?

Who knows? The player won't give them an address to send the legal docs to, and he won't contact the lawyers via email.

So in essence a standstill.

Very strange. Pity I don't speak German... It's an intriguing saga.

The player at least seems to be active on the German site now. It's certainly strange for him not to have done anything for four months.

 

[kmay87]

Just to chip in with a bit here.

Casino Club has long fascinated me, and since they tried to bust me for using a bot when in fact, I was using a strategy card, I've been amazed by the amount of claims and PABs against them.

I think the problem initiated around 18 months ago. Casino Club used to offer blackjack with a very small player edge. Combine that with the sometimes lucrative sign ups and reloads they offered, and you had hoards of people hitting them hard with bots. I personally know people who took 10s of s out of them within a matter of weeks.

Apparently, it took them a while to cotton on to this. Now, as other members have picked up on, they class bot use as fraud. In my opinion, that's a rather strong, and somewhat inappropriate, word to use. But aside of that, bot use is clearly against the terms and conditions of the casino, which all players had to accept when they signed up, so in essence it basically gives the casino the right to do whatever they want with the monies of a 'suspected' bot user. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. It sure discourages potential bot users from visiting the casino, helping to protect both it and its players. But on the contrary, it makes them seem like a rogue outfit.

Standard practice to date seems to be that casinos are returning players' deposits, voiding any winnings, and banning them from ever playing there again. I don't think anyone could call that unfair. But Casino Club have taken this to another level, being overly harsh on fair players, and the oh-so-familiar cry of 'fraud' or 'bot' usually follows almost agony in just trying to get someone to talk to you. You can see where they are coming from, but it could be interpreted that this is an attempt to recoup some of what was lost during the 'bot age'.

All this talk of suing and legal action has got rather confusing. Understandably, while legal proceedings are active, it would be rather silly, to say the least, for either the casino, or the player, to talk about this matter. However, as long drawn out as it might turn out to be, I'd say the vast majority of people would like to know the outcome, and what this will mean.

From what I've seen and read, communication is Casino Club's biggest problem. I don't think for one second that they are rogue, or anywhere near to becoming rogue - it's all well and good doing something, but if you don't explain why you did it, you could have a problem.

 

[Casino Club]

The return of the jackpot is clearly not contingent on repayment of earlier monies BY the player TO the casino (which is what casino club's case is about), but rather on whether there is any chance of this jackpot actually being paid to the player. That could only be determined by the casino agreeing to pay the player the jackpot, or by the player sueing the casino himself.

In other words, you don't sue somebody because you owe them money!

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

 

[kmay87]

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

I think you, as in Casino Club, only have yourselves to blame for this issue. Your unwillingness to explain to members of this, or any forum, has just led to further questions about the integrity of your casino.

I'm not suggesting you should rethink your business practice, perhaps just the customer service skills element. It seems most of the casino reps visit this site frequently, therefore perhaps merely by keeping us all informed, rather than in the dark, could seriously improve how you are currently viewed.

I can understand that it must be frustrating that many, many players are abusing your casino, some of which are then posting on here and other sites with bogus complaints. But that's where your CS can come in. We all know that Casino Club is being targeted with these claims, but I for one would sooner read a comment from the casino stating the player did x (it doesn't need to be descriptive if there are concerns with the release of personal/financial data) as that way we could at least put it to rest.

In this case, it does seem that whatever you do, someone is going to frown upon it. Has it been handled right from the beginning? Or does the lack of communication have something to do with it? Just going through the 50 odd replies in this thread brings up so many different instances of what actually 'happened'. I see comments of fraud, long-term abuse, the player is suing you, you are suing him (so are you counter-suing him or what?), allegations of bot use, he is part of a group of fraudsters, and so forth. It clearly can't be all of those, so I don't see actually what the player did. Unless that was posted on the German forum, which I don't speak/read.

If this is going through the courts, then no, this jackpot should not be given to the player, nor should it be returned to the jackpot pool. Provided that, upon the outcome of this case, one of those two instances occurs, then that is fair enough. But your latest post suggests you are suing the player because he won the jackpot. It's interesting how you intend to play this. My legal suspicions tell me that you audited the players' account upon the jackpot win, and found something in there which gives reason to believe he was a fraudulent player - whatever that may mean. However, my cynical side makes me think you knew this player was a fraud, but action was only taken when left with the situation where he had won a jackpot.

If this player was an 'established fraudulent player' as has been suggested in the forum, logic would assume you had audited/processed previous withdrawals, and therefore this would have come up before.

This case seems to be getting more confusing by the day.

 

[zenderady]

CC can you please tell us exactly on which grounds you are suing this player?

 

[elscrabinda]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there hasn't been any mention on this thread of the player taking CC to court, only the other way round. We don't know what CC are taking him to court for, and we don't know what they hope to receive from it. They certainly won't (if it is how I understand it) end up having to pay his win as a result of THEIR legal action. Is the player suing CC as well?

I hope CC takes on board the criticism of their poor communication here and keeps us informed about the progress of this. I'm glad that they gave an assurance that either the money will go to the player or will go back into the pot, I can assure them that I'll be keeping an eye on whether that happens!

 

[jetset]

CC can you please tell us exactly on which grounds you are suing this player?

This is a good point - if CC has reached the stage of serving papers, one presumes that the claim is now clearly defined and itemised; possibly already on public record in some court of law, civil or criminal?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Seriously - the slot in question should be withdrawn from the casino until this case is settled. Something worse could happen - another player could win the much reduced pool, and THEN the legal action might finish with the result that the jackpot win was null and void, meaning that this NEXT winner will then have a legal claim to both the reduced pool, AND the original voided jackpot that should have been immediately returned to the pool had legal proceeding not been started. This could lead to quite a mess, and the best way to prevent any further complications would be to withdraw this slot until a ruling is reached as to what should be done with the disputed jackpot. Since CC do not offer the system wide progressives, but their own, this process will only be as complex as changing the configuration of the CC casino to offer one fewer game.

This legal case has the potential to drag CC into quite a mess, as legal cases such as this can drag on, especially if one party decides to be vindictive, and uses tactical ploys to keep the case from reaching a prompt resolution. If the player in question has a weak claim to the jackpot, and knows the case will eventually be found for CC, he is likely to make certain of "revenge" for being denied this crowning glory of his manipulation of the casino's rules that he seems to have managed to get away with for some while. Again it seems that a host of accounts here have been found to be fraudulent, so it does really look like that CC was uniquely vulnerable to something that caused them to be a target, whereas other Boss Media casinos have been spared the attentions of most of these attacks. Other Boss media casinos should take note, as this zero tolerance "purge" by CC could lead to the fraud and manipulative play shifting to them.

 

[EasyRhino]

You know, looking at it, I can imagine that the player in question was possibly using a bot, and possibly even playing on multiple accounts.

And you know what? if I was that player, even if I was doing all of that, I would probably want to sue the casino. The size of the jackpot makes it worth fighting for.

 

[tofu23]

You know, looking at it, I can imagine that the player in question was possibly using a bot, and possibly even playing on multiple accounts.

And you know what? if I was that player, even if I was doing all of that, I would probably want to sue the casino. The size of the jackpot makes it worth fighting for.

A Bot doesn't assist anyone at BJ play, let alone playing a progressive slot machine (as you and every other living and breathing soul is aware).

And this case isn't about multiple or fake identities. Casino Club can not sue a ghost (gnome). Having decided to sue the player they are implicitly conceding the bonafides of the individual involved.

If they did not believe the individual was correctly identified then the appropriate court documents would be properly labeled "aka ........ and/or aka........). By attempting to serve documents on the affected player casino Club have tied their flag to the mast. This is not about multiple identities.

..

 

[EasyRhino]

A Bot doesn't assist anyone at BJ play, let alone playing a progressive slot machine

Sure, but it would assist in playing a billion hands if the blackjack game offered a player advantage, and it would assist in autoplaying perfect video poker strategy if the VP game offered a positive EV chance at a big progressive jackpot. Of course this would only establish a motive to use a bot, not any evidence of actual use.

But again, regardless of how many of the casino's rules I had broken, I would still sue for the money. I'd go for a common law concept of "If you accept my wager, you had damn well pay me if I win," trumping everything else. I don't know if that's actually in the law books anywhere, but I'd give it a shot.

 

[soflat]

I do agree that the game should be removed. They need to sort out what will happen to the money if someone else hits the jackpot between now and the conclusion of the legal posturing.

The jackpot should be placed in escrow somewhere (like with CasinoMeister). The funds should not be in the hands of the casino while it is under dispute.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sure, but it would assist in playing a billion hands if the blackjack game offered a player advantage, and it would assist in autoplaying perfect video poker strategy if the VP game offered a positive EV chance at a big progressive jackpot. Of course this would only establish a motive to use a bot, not any evidence of actual use.

But again, regardless of how many of the casino's rules I had broken, I would still sue for the money. I'd go for a common law concept of "If you accept my wager, you had damn well pay me if I win," trumping everything else. I don't know if that's actually in the law books anywhere, but I'd give it a shot.

Their case seems to be that the player won the progressive using money won "unfairly" through other types of play. Since there WAS a BJ game that offered a player advantage, a scenario exists where a player could use a bot to generate a virtually inexhastable supply of credits with which to punt for the progressive. This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc. It seems that this player has won "thousands" by an "illegitimate playing method", and already has the money. This somehow only came to light when a deeper audit took place after the jackpot was won. This must involve a significant amount of money, since the casino has managed to hold on to the progressive, and I would expect that they would simply keep to their position and wait for the player to act, yet they have decided to sue the player for the retrospective return of funds. This makes it seem that they believe this player has illegitimately won a VERY large amount, perhaps more even than the disputed jackpot, and they are prepared to go to the risk and expense of a legal case. The player seems not to be all that interested in contesting the confiscation of the jackpot at present, although this may be a legal tactic since CC have initiated proceedings, and if CC lose the case, CC will end up liable for costs, as well as the disputed jackpot. If the player initiated proceedings, it would be THEY that risked losing not just the claim to the jackpot, but costs, as well as opening themselves up to a suit from CC if the case was decided on the basis that the player used an illicit means to win prior to getting the jackpot.

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

CC now have their hands tied, they must be careful what they reveal about this case since it may prejudice their claim, yet this could lead to their reputation being tarnished BECAUSE they have "clammed up" over the issues.
IF CC post any comment, the player's lawyers may use such comment in the case, and it may strengthen the players case. Similarly, the player may well not be commenting on the advice of THEIR legal team, lest they admit something that strengthens the CASINO's case.

This could take some time to resolve, and this may still be a hot topic NEXT Christmas.

 

[EasyRhino]

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

In the US, this is a state-by-state thing, so it could get very complicated between Malta and Germany.

 

[spearmaster]

Their case seems to be that the player won the progressive using money won "unfairly" through other types of play. Since there WAS a BJ game that offered a player advantage, a scenario exists where a player could use a bot to generate a virtually inexhastable supply of credits with which to punt for the progressive. This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc. It seems that this player has won "thousands" by an "illegitimate playing method", and already has the money. This somehow only came to light when a deeper audit took place after the jackpot was won. This must involve a significant amount of money, since the casino has managed to hold on to the progressive, and I would expect that they would simply keep to their position and wait for the player to act, yet they have decided to sue the player for the retrospective return of funds. This makes it seem that they believe this player has illegitimately won a VERY large amount, perhaps more even than the disputed jackpot, and they are prepared to go to the risk and expense of a legal case. The player seems not to be all that interested in contesting the confiscation of the jackpot at present, although this may be a legal tactic since CC have initiated proceedings, and if CC lose the case, CC will end up liable for costs, as well as the disputed jackpot. If the player initiated proceedings, it would be THEY that risked losing not just the claim to the jackpot, but costs, as well as opening themselves up to a suit from CC if the case was decided on the basis that the player used an illicit means to win prior to getting the jackpot.

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

CC now have their hands tied, they must be careful what they reveal about this case since it may prejudice their claim, yet this could lead to their reputation being tarnished BECAUSE they have "clammed up" over the issues.
IF CC post any comment, the player's lawyers may use such comment in the case, and it may strengthen the players case. Similarly, the player may well not be commenting on the advice of THEIR legal team, lest they admit something that strengthens the CASINO's case.

This could take some time to resolve, and this may still be a hot topic NEXT Christmas.

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

 

[Avatar73]

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

This is probably the mainstay of their case,

This could be a possible reason for..



Basically the same thing! both imply speculation, leading to postulating a theory.

Vinyl was just putting forward a possible theory, im sure based on nothing [other than the previous in this thread]. and why not! free speech and all that

 

[tofu23]

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

Come on Spear - you're ghosting this guy. And it is getting rather trite and tiresome.

I would appreciate more of your views on the Bot play perspective though.

..

 

[spearmaster]

This is probably the mainstay of their case,

This could be a possible reason for..

Basically the same thing! both imply speculation, leading to postulating a theory.

Vinyl was just putting forward a possible theory, im sure based on nothing [other than the previous in this thread]. and why not! free speech and all that

Not the same at all.

Could be a possible reason makes no assumptions.

"probably the mainstay" makes a very BIG assumption.

Sorry if I appear to be hard on vwm - but his selection of words needs to be a little less forceful. However, the same rules apply to everyone else - don't make any statements of fact, or assumptions thereof, unless you have reasonable evidence to support. It's just that I see this a lot more in his writing than anyone else's.

Tofu- no one forces you to read my posts. Tiresome as it may be, his only alternative is a vacation.

I have nothing to add about the bot issue, my opinions have been made clear on a number of occasions in the past.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sorry if I appear to be hard on vwm - but his selection of words needs to be a little less forceful. However, the same rules apply to everyone else - don't make any statements of fact, or assumptions thereof, unless you have reasonable evidence to support. It's just that I see this a lot more in his writing than anyone else's.

I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.

This is just my 2c, not gospel!

 

[thelawnet]

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

Could you please inform us

(a) whether you have filed suit against this player in a court of law?
(b) if you have, given that this is a matter of public record, what is the nature of this charges?
(c) what the status of this legal action is, i.e. has it been allocated, has the player failed to respond and you have obtained judgement, etc.?

Thanks

 

[Casinomeister]

Could you please inform us

(a) whether you have filed suit against this player in a court of law?
(b) if you have, given that this is a matter of public record, what is the nature of this charges?
(c) what the status of this legal action is, i.e. has it been allocated, has the player failed to respond and you have obtained judgement, etc.?

Thanks

I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.

 

[thelawnet]

I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.

It doesn't appear he's too serious about getting this 200k back.

Given this state of affairs, at what point do they stop trying to sue a fake identity and pay the jackpot back?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.

This is just my 2c, not gospel!

If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.

Forcefulness is a reflection of the feelings I get that the industry just isn't listening to players. I get the feeling that the industry are being "nastier" to players as time goes on, which is backward progress. If players are not "forceful", then the industry will feel they can carry on as they are, something they can do since most are only lightly regulated, and it has often been the case that the regulation is not really there to protect players, but something that is convenient for casinos so that they can market themselves as a business which is subject to government regulation.

I believe there is player fraud out there, and always has been, but it seems the industry are trying to convince us that there has been an explosion of this in recent times. I do not believe this at all. I believe that, overall, a certain percentage of the player base has been out to commit fraud based on what they feel is "easy money", but that this percentage has remained pretty constant. With a falling player base, I would have expected fewer cases of player fraud overall. It seems the opposite is taking place, a sharp increase in player fraud. I expect the majority of persons come into contact with online casinos through receiving the deluge of casino related spam - a small number of exceptions exist, such as the UK where online casinos get high exposure through TV programming sponsorship and poster advertising, not to mention advertising at sporting events.

My belief is that the reason for this sharp increase in player fraud is that online casinos are moving the goalposts, and in essence redefining "fraud".

Online casinos are also very secretive, except perhaps those who are listed companies, and in a vacuum of information there can only be speculation. In some cases, casinos seem to overreact to an issue, thus making a big deal out of something minor.

My speculation in this case is based on the actions of Casino Club, as I understand them from this thread. Firstly, a player wins a huge progressive, but before they are able to receive it, the casino discovers that the player has been acting fraudulently. Since the casino avoided handing over the huge sum, they surely have already won this case - the player has lost, and has to fight for the money if they want it. They did this by posting complaints in a forum, but was not prepared to back up their claim. I would have thought this would follow the usual course of the player never really fighting much beyond this, thus showing that he does not think he has that strong a case to put before a formal dispute resolution process.
I get the impression that Casino Club then launched it's own case against the player, thus ensuring this case would receive considerable publicity. Casino Club should have known, or should have been advised by it's legal team, of the potential negative effects such a case could cause. Despite this, Casino Club decided it was worth the go ahead anyway, placing them in the tricky position of having their hands tied in respect of certain matters till the case is resolved, exacerbated by the fact that any public statements they make, either intentionally or unintentionally, could prejudice the outcome of the case, which might take some considerable time to resolve.

Usually, when a casino confiscates a payout because they have found something wrong with an account, and it later emerges that the player had indeed done something wrong, the casino is content with being vindicated & having not paid out, and the player usually stops complaining (assuming they do not receive a forum ban for what they did).

Since I started playing, this is the first time I have heard of a casino taking a player to court, which leads me to belive this player has managed to take a very large sum of money without getting noticed, which again further surprises me since casinos seem so uptight about even the slightest bit of "advantage play".

It looks to me, and some others, that it was only when this progressive was won that Casino Club decided the player was comitting fraud. This should surely have emerged at the time of their first cash-in, and there must surely have been other warning signs, such as the player seeming to win excessive amounts over a prolonged number of hands/spins, or them taking advantage of promotions too often or too well. Other complainants have complained that they were identified as "frauds", either rightly or wrongly, at the time of first cashout.

If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.

As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.

I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.

 

[sdaddy]

If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.

As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.

I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.

Well, I think it's a good thing that a high-profile case such as this will be argued in a court of law. If it turns out that Casino Club's fraud charge against the player involves nothing more than "bonus abuse," then I'll be very interested to know how the courts handle that argument.

 

[spearmaster]

If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.

This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc.

Probably is a strong word to use in this context when you have nothing to back it up with. Probably is a word you can use when presenting some evidence, which you've not done.

I don't need to correct your English - you're obviously very well-spoken. But you are also clever in your choice of words - maybe I ought to hire you as my Adwords copywriter

In any case, the writing style you use often blurs the line between theory/opinion and fact - so I am trying to convince you that you need to choose your words a bit more carefully - and since then I've had no complaints.

It doesn't appear he's too serious about getting this 200k back.

Given this state of affairs, at what point do they stop trying to sue a fake identity and pay the jackpot back?

Good question. It doesn't look like they're ever going to find the guy, let alone be able to sue him - and I don't think the player is going to file suit to claim the jackpot either.

There should be some sort of standard set for cases like this - 90 or 180 days, for example - but I do think it's a bit strange to keep these funds out of the jackpot pool for so long.