Casinomeister withdraws ADR application with UKGC

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
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.
 

conker

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Location
UK
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.
 

greylady

Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Location
Scotland
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.
 

geordiecolin

Meister Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm4
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Location
Near Newcastle
I totally understand and respect the integrity of the statement and your decision and I suspect that all operators and the UKGC do too :thumbsup:
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
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.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
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.
 

osulle

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
CAG
mm1
mm4
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Location
In my head
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!
 

Nicola

Closed Account
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Location
Malta
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:
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
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:
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
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.
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
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
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
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:
 

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
"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.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
"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.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
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.
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
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
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
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?
 

syrus2

Banned User - repetitive trollish behavior
Joined
Jun 29, 2016
Location
Netherlands
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 .
 

ThePOGG

Meister Member
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
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:
Top