Casinomeister withdraws ADR application with UKGC

[The Dude]

It was a tough decision, but I feel it was the right choice. We've pulled our application from the UKGC as one of their official ADRs. Some of the main reasons are explained here: Casinomeister withdraws application as an official ADR for the UKGC

 

[petro]

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]

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]

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]

I totally understand and respect the integrity of the statement and your decision and I suspect that all operators and the UKGC do too

 

[maxd]

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]

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.

 

[Dinahnana]

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]

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

 

[dunover]

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?

 

[Tirilej]

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?

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]

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]

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...

 

[petro]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[syrus2]

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 .

 

[colinsunderland]

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.
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)

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

...
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)

That shit always seems to happen on a Sunday.

 

[ThePOGG]

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.

 

[Naok777]

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.

Wouldn't the solution be rather simple?

Player makes complaint to ADR after getting nowhere with Casinos own support.
Require UKGC licensed Casinos to work with all UKGC licensed ADRs as part of their own licensing conditions.
Casino provides their side of the story along with supporting evidence.
ADR is not allowed to disclose evidence to player in cases of player fraud.
Player has opportunity to make complaint about ADR and have the evidence reviewed by a second set of eyes at the UKGC.

Or maybe I'm just too far removed from the overcomplicated thinking of political busybodies

 

[ThePOGG]

ADR is not allowed to disclose evidence to player in cases of player fraud.
Player has opportunity to make complaint about ADR and have the evidence reviewed by a second set of eyes at the UKGC.

This is where your suggested solution breaks down - the UKGC have been very clear that they are not an ombudsman and will not review individual complaints. This is stated clearly in several places across the UKGC site. In fact in the recent review of ADRs that they published in March one of the areas that has been highlighted for improvement is that the UKGC feel that ADRs need their own internal complaints policy to manage complaints against themselves as the UKGC do not want to review complaints against their ADRs.

Fundamentally I don't think what you're suggesting is at all unreasonable. The only caveat I would have about it is if players are ultimately allowed to submit complaints about the ADR to a second party for review (UKGC or another body) essentially what could end up happening is that we increase the complaints workload by 50% as every player who doesn't receive the ruling they want refers the case on to a second hearing. There's no down side to the player in taking a second roll of the dice. And if we open the system up so that it's fair - i.e. operators are allowed to complain about the ADR as well - we ultimately end up with the complaints workload being doubled. Across all ADRs 7k complaints were managed within the UKGC remit in the first year of operation. We're potentially talking about inflating that to 14k and that does not take into consideration the need to find more appropriate measures to manage SE issues which I'd estimate would be at least as many complaints again.

TP

 

[Naok777]

This is where your suggested solution breaks down - the UKGC have been very clear that they are not an ombudsman and will not review individual complaints. This is stated clearly in several places across the UKGC site. In fact in the recent review of ADRs that they published in March one of the areas that has been highlighted for improvement is that the UKGC feel that ADRs need their own internal complaints policy to manage complaints against themselves as the UKGC do not want to review complaints against their ADRs.

UKGC (or someone else appointed by them) wouldn't necessarily have to engage with players about individual complaints, but maybe verify the quality of the evidence if requested, give the ADR a yes / no answer and give the ADR some concrete guidance on acceptable levels of evidence if deemed necessary.
I think even that would be sufficient to squash the doubts some people may have about ADRs, not sure what the utilization of it would be like though, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would trust people like maxd or yourself to handle things properly.

 

[ThePOGG]

UKGC (or someone else appointed by them) wouldn't necessarily have to engage with players about individual complaints, but maybe verify the quality of the evidence if requested, give the ADR a yes / no answer and give the ADR some concrete guidance on acceptable levels of evidence if deemed necessary.
I think even that would be sufficient to squash the doubts some people may have about ADRs, not sure what the utilization of it would be like though, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would trust people like maxd or yourself to handle things properly.

I certainly appreciate the level of trust you show in our services with a sentiment like that. Unfortunately for a player to have that level of trust requires them to interact in a community like this one and see day to day the way we behave. The reality is that the vast majority of the gambling market (and I do mean VAST) is of more of a quick dip in and out behaviour pattern these days. Any affiliate who pays attention to their traffic stats and has watched them over the last few years will be able to testify to the shift towards the immediate gratification and away from sustained engagement.

And I do agree, but the UKGC - from what I've seen of their policies - is determined to have a 100% hands off approach to any part of the complaint management. They will appoint ADRs and review the overall numbers to see how general policies can be improved once a year, but beyond that they're pursuing a system where they don't have any further involvement.

TP

 

[maxd]

This is well worth repeating, just so everyone is clear:

[the UKGC] is determined to have a 100% hands off approach to any part of the complaint management. They will appoint ADRs and review the overall numbers to see how general policies can be improved once a year, but beyond that they're pursuing a system where they don't have any further involvement.

This is the crux of many issues and criticisms related to the UKGC, IMO. I believe they have the right intentions insofar as protecting players, creating a level playing field for both sides of the industry, etc. But their unwavering commitment to their hands-off approach means that many of the processes and procedures they propose -- or suggestions for improvement from the player and operator communities -- either die on the page or end up becoming unworkably convoluted. For instance in the recent Review mentioned by ThePogg above they suggest that the way to "improve performance" of the ADRs is to have the ADRs report in much greater detail on what they do and the decisions they make and to set up a complaints service within the ADR to handle complaints about the ADR themselves. So more paperwork and bureaucracy = improved performance. Sure it does.

Hands on = a chance of good results; hands off = it's a miracle if the results are anything like you had hoped. I don't question for a moment the UKGC's good intentions; I do fundamentally question the wisdom of being a chateau General in a struggle you've neither seen first hand nor ever plan on actually participating in.

 

[The Dude]

I just wish that the UKGC would take the bull by the horns and use Kahnawake Gaming Commission, or the Malta Gaming Authority as a template on how to do it right. Both of these entities have proven successful in processing and resolving complaints effectively and fairly in-house.

 

[maxd]

I realize that this is quite tangential to the topic at hand but I recall a meeting from back in my WinnerOnline days (one of the original player portals, 1998-2008ish) where we discussed the possibility of handling player complaints ourselves or letting others -- Casinomeister for instance -- do it. This was October of 2005 or thereabouts. The decision taken was to not do it, that it was too costly and bothersome, and that we didn't want to get our hands dirty messing with such things. WinnerOnline was already in trouble by that time and in retrospect I can see that the day we took that decision was the day we pulled the coffin lid over ourselves and invited our competitors to start hammering nails.

Obviously the UKGC is not WinnerOnline, etc etc, but I think there's a point to be taken here: if you're in the online casino business and you purport to stand for player's interests to any meaningful degree then you are either in the complaints resolution business or you are dying by inches.

Obviously the applicability of that lesson to the UKGC is debatable but I strongly suspect that over time their mandate will have to morph to accommodate some version of that reality, even if that means farming the job out wholesale to a trusted and responsible body to do the dirty work for them. Strange perhaps for me to be advocating the Ombudsman model but I strongly suspect that that's what it's going to come down to. I can't see that anything less is going to be workable, and fit for purpose, in practice.

 

[petro]

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

I thought that might have been the case. I'll need to clarify what subject I am talking about.
Are we mainly talking about fraud as in; people with 50 different IDs opening as many accounts as they want and who are virtually undetectable to casinos, or even law enforcement?
If that's not the fraud you are mainly talking about you can ignore what I'm saying.

 

[maxd]

Yes, multi-accounting fraud is certainly part of it. But I still don't understand what you mean. How is multi-accounting fraud, for instance, "completely avoidable"?

And "it's not like it's unintentional either"? Sorry, no clue what you're referring to.

 

[petro]

Yes, multi-accounting fraud is certainly part of it. But I still don't understand what you mean. How is multi-accounting fraud, for instance, "completely avoidable"?

And ? Sorry, no clue what you're referring to.

How is it avoidable? The reason the people (I'm thinking of) are doing it is profit driven. If casinos were more careful about their promotions they could take away the motive for fraud. e.g. SUBs

"it's not like it's unintentional either" The casinos know full well that offering profitable promotions is going to attract frauds but they choose to offer them anyway.

It looks like to me a self-inflicted wound.

 

[maxd]

Thank you. Now I understand. I don't agree -- pragmatically it's always a balance between offers and risks -- but I do understand where you're coming from and you make some good points.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Whatever CM does here isn't going to change the fact that Fraudsters will now have a reason to go through the ADR procedure, even run deliberate experiments to get caught and then use the ADR system to find out how. Casinos are not the only operation to be hit by ID fraud, it's a problem the government has faced with benefits and even pensions, yet it seems showing TV documentaries on how the frauds were successfully caught is commonplace. These do not cover casinos, but they do show how multiple ID fraud in general might be detected, and how fraudsters might be able to get better at it.

Maybe one answer is to make it a clear policy that fraud, when detected and confirmed by an ADR, will mean a referral to the criminal courts, rather than the fraudster not getting paid but being able to walk away with some useful information.

Perhaps the industry has brought this upon themselves through past behaviour of crying "fraud" when all that has really happened is that marketing have screwed up a promo and the casino doesn't want to pay out. Rogues have also used "fraud" as a bog standard excuse for choosing not to pay someone and then being able to justify denying them the chance of a fair resolution by being able to give innocent explanation for the mismatches thrown up by their algorithms.

If fraudsters take the matter to court, they will be able to get all the evidence used to catch them, and even though it might be costly to bring and lose a court case, it may still be worth it if they can recoup that money through a better designed fraud.

 

[maxd]

Whatever CM does here isn't going to change the fact that Fraudsters will now have a reason to go through the ADR procedure, even run deliberate experiments to get caught and then use the ADR system to find out how. ...

Most of you will know that ThePogg -- an approved ADR -- has been fighting this fight with the UKGC as best he can for some time now. My understanding is that the UKGC was warned that their policy on this would aid and abet the fraudsters but the bottom line is that they have no plans to reconsider. Apparently their position is that if there is no conviction there is no crime so the player must be considered innocent and treated accordingly.

To anyone in the biz or a long-time observer thereof I think it should be clear that this is a short-fall in procedure where the pragmatics of dealing with widespread but relatively low-level fraud well exceeds any legal structures in place to dissuade and/or penalize such activity. This leaves it to the casinos to fight that fight as best they can. My prediction is that the casinos WILL NOT cooperate with ADRs when they know their evidence is going to be handed over to the public. This could become a serious blow to the entire ADR process and that will be a problem the UKGC will have to eventually face and deal with.

 

[syrus2]

Whatever CM does here isn't going to change the fact that Fraudsters will now have a reason to go through the ADR procedure, even run deliberate experiments to get caught and then use the ADR system to find out how. Casinos are not the only operation to be hit by ID fraud, it's a problem the government has faced with benefits and even pensions, yet it seems showing TV documentaries on how the frauds were successfully caught is commonplace. These do not cover casinos, but they do show how multiple ID fraud in general might be detected, and how fraudsters might be able to get better at it.

Maybe one answer is to make it a clear policy that fraud, when detected and confirmed by an ADR, will mean a referral to the criminal courts, rather than the fraudster not getting paid but being able to walk away with some useful information.

Perhaps the industry has brought this upon themselves through past behaviour of crying "fraud" when all that has really happened is that marketing have screwed up a promo and the casino doesn't want to pay out. Rogues have also used "fraud" as a bog standard excuse for choosing not to pay someone and then being able to justify denying them the chance of a fair resolution by being able to give innocent explanation for the mismatches thrown up by their algorithms.

If fraudsters take the matter to court, they will be able to get all the evidence used to catch them, and even though it might be costly to bring and lose a court case, it may still be worth it if they can recoup that money through a better designed fraud.

an small off the topic point related to the costs , my friend.

The judge is authorized to pronouncing a judgment.. If the verdict in favor of plaintiff is declared. The plaintiff is entitled to a fee.
provided his authorized to have the advocates note submitted for the process began.
Those costs are split up into a number of different categories and can vary, depending on with whom you get in contact to assist you
and few other factors.
In other words. He (in this case referring to the player) could reimbursed part of the costs which he has already coverd due to the process.

 

[vinylweatherman]

an small off the topic point related to the costs , my friend.

The judge is authorized to pronouncing a judgment.. If the verdict in favor of plaintiff is declared. The plaintiff is entitled to a fee.
provided his authorized to have the advocates note submitted for the process began.
Those costs are split up into a number of different categories and can vary, depending on with whom you get in contact to assist you
and few other factors.
In other words. He (in this case referring to the player) could reimbursed part of the costs which he has already coverd due to the process.

Only if the finding goes in the players' favour. Fraudsters using the court process in order to find out how they got caught expect to lose the case, but they will weigh up the benefits of knowing how they got caught against the costs of bringing the case.

Both sides have to exchange the evidence they will be presenting to the court beforehand. It is at this point the fraudster will find out how they got caught. They can then drop their claim at that point to minimise the costs, after all, they have got what they came for.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Most of you will know that ThePogg -- an approved ADR -- has been fighting this fight with the UKGC as best he can for some time now. My understanding is that the UKGC was warned that their policy on this would aid and abet the fraudsters but the bottom line is that they have no plans to reconsider. Apparently their position is that if there is no conviction there is no crime so the player must be considered innocent and treated accordingly.

To anyone in the biz or a long-time observer thereof I think it should be clear that this is a short-fall in procedure where the pragmatics of dealing with widespread but relatively low-level fraud well exceeds any legal structures in place to dissuade and/or penalize such activity. This leaves it to the casinos to fight that fight as best they can. My prediction is that the casinos WILL NOT cooperate with ADRs when they know their evidence is going to be handed over to the public. This could become a serious blow to the entire ADR process and that will be a problem the UKGC will have to eventually face and deal with.

This is how the law sees it, and not just in the UK. Fraud is a criminal matter, whereas breach of terms is a civil matter. At the time a case is with an ADR, it's a civil matter, a dispute over the interpretation of terms and conditions. Naturally, both sides should get to see the argument of the other. The problem with fraud is that it's a criminal matter being looked at in a civil context, whereas it should really be put before a judge in criminal court.

I would expect casinos will react to this by taking a more robust criminal attitude towards players who commit fraud rather than be forcibly dragged through the ADR system (which they will, they have no choice under the UK regulations).

An alternative reaction might be to change the way they attract and retain players in order to remove the incentive for fraud. Regular players will notice this as promotions will become very poor, especially for new players. The registration procedure may also become more cumbersome.


Sadly, the past excesses of the industry has done them no favours. Some operators blatantly screwed over players in the years before regulation, and players had little or no redress. Rogue operators also misused the claim of "player fraud" to cover themselves when they simply didn't want to pay. The UKGC wants to get rid of this and be seen to be in it for player protection, but they don't entirely understand the industry they regulate, and some of the current technical limitations.

The ADR process would still mean casinos having to turn over how they caught a fraudster to the ADR, and if the ADR has been properly vetted both sides should still get a fair hearing. Players can still go to court if they are not happy with the outcome.

 

[syrus2]

Only if the finding goes in the players' favour. Fraudsters using the court process in order to find out how they got caught expect to lose the case, but they will weigh up the benefits of knowing how they got caught against the costs of bringing the case.

Both sides have to exchange the evidence they will be presenting to the court beforehand. It is at this point the fraudster will find out how they got caught. They can then drop their claim at that point to minimise the costs, after all, they have got what they came for.

I already mentioned that in my previous post. (( If the verdict in favor of plaintiff is declared ))

BTW , A smart criminal (fraudster) tries to prevent the case from being decided in court.
The main reason is: The last thing these lads are looking for is: extra attention.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I already mentioned that in my previous post. (( If the verdict in favor of plaintiff is declared ))

BTW , A smart criminal (fraudster) tries to prevent the case from being decided in court.
The main reason is: The last thing these lads are looking for is: extra attention.

You got me

Casinos (not just in the UK) need to stop crying "fraud" when they REALLY mean "smart player, dumb marketing department". Fraud is NOT finding a way to win within the terms that are intended to let the casino win. Fraud is presenting false documents for ID verification, stealing the money used for the deposit, pretending to your bank that you didn't authorise the deposit just because you lost, etc.

Casinos also need to accept that THEY don't define what fraud is, that's the preserve of governments and lawmakers. It is NOT fraud for someone to borrow money off a mate and use it to gamble any more than it's fraud to borrow money off a bank and use it to gamble. If it were, casinos would not be able to take deposits from credit cards.

If a casino deliberately miscodes a transaction in order to circumvent a bank's policy of not permitting gambling transactions, this IS fraud, on the part of the casino.

 

[syrus2]

You got me

Casinos (not just in the UK) need to stop crying "fraud" when they REALLY mean "smart player, dumb marketing department". Fraud is NOT finding a way to win within the terms that are intended to let the casino win. Fraud is presenting false documents for ID verification, stealing the money used for the deposit, pretending to your bank that you didn't authorise the deposit just because you lost, etc.

Casinos also need to accept that THEY don't define what fraud is, that's the preserve of governments and lawmakers. It is NOT fraud for someone to borrow money off a mate and use it to gamble any more than it's fraud to borrow money off a bank and use it to gamble. If it were, casinos would not be able to take deposits from credit cards.

If a casino deliberately miscodes a transaction in order to circumvent a bank's policy of not permitting gambling transactions, this IS fraud, on the part of the casino.

I was lucky.

Well, casinos are not faultless, that's for sure .
Various organizations in the world are inclined to perfection. Unfortunately, that's just in theory.
They all make mistakes and they all have weaknesses related to how they run their bussines as well as their approach towards their disagreements with customers.

for example few casinos did not manage to provide some clear T & C.
Some of those T &C , can easily be interpreted in casinos' advantage.

Hope they try to get these weaknesses better organized in future.
On another note, I'm glad we have a rule of law in society. This way fair players get the chance to take their case to court and use it as the last option. Sometimes a simple disagreement is the reason for both parties to take their chances in court.
And believe me, the judge does'nt see everything black and white all the time .

In the mean time the battle continues here on CM to make the gambling world a better world.
I hope so !!!!

 

[maxd]

This is how the law sees it, and not just in the UK. Fraud is a criminal matter, whereas breach of terms is a civil matter....

Casinos also need to accept that THEY don't define what fraud is, that's the preserve of governments and lawmakers. It is NOT fraud for someone to borrow money off a mate and use it to gamble any more than it's fraud to borrow money off a bank and use it to gamble. If it were, casinos would not be able to take deposits from credit cards....

Again I point out "the short-fall in procedure where the pragmatics of dealing with widespread but relatively low-level fraud well exceeds any legal structures in place to dissuade and/or penalize such activity."

In strictly legal terms I don't doubt you are correct, as no doubt the UKGC itself is. The point I'm trying to make is that wide-spread low-level fraud -- faked docs, multiple accounts, etc -- is far too pervasive a problem for "take it to the courts" to be a practical response. This means that either the casinos evolve to remove the incentives for fraudsters to operate, as you've spoken to, or the legal structure within which these things are processed morphs to encompass a broader, more accessible definition of "fraud". I think it far more likely that the casinos will evolve in real time than the legal system is likely too.

That said I personally think that your "casinos brought this on themselves" mantra has more to do with your personal preoccupations than the actual state of affairs. Many casinos have behaved (and behave) badly, many players have done (and do) the same. I'd say choosing the "guiltier" party says more about one's social politics than anything else.

IMO pointing fingers at this stage of the game is counter-productive at best. The question is how will this nut be cracked and in general I agree, the casinos will move first and they'll do what they need to in order to minimize their risk and losses. If the players lose some perks in the process then I don't doubt that the casinos will take a "so be it" position and press on as needs be.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Again I point out "the short-fall in procedure where the pragmatics of dealing with widespread but relatively low-level fraud well exceeds any legal structures in place to dissuade and/or penalize such activity."

In strictly legal terms I don't doubt you are correct, as no doubt the UKGC itself is. The point I'm trying to make is that wide-spread low-level fraud -- faked docs, multiple accounts, etc -- is far too pervasive a problem for "take it to the courts" to be a practical response. This means that either the casinos evolve to remove the incentives for fraudsters to operate, as you've spoken to, or the legal structure within which these things are processed morphs to encompass a broader, more accessible definition of "fraud". I think it far more likely that the casinos will evolve in real time than the legal system is likely too.

That said I personally think that your "casinos brought this on themselves" mantra has more to do with your personal preoccupations than the actual state of affairs. Many casinos have behaved (and behave) badly, many players have done (and do) the same. I'd say choosing the "guiltier" party says more about one's social politics than anything else.

IMO pointing fingers at this stage of the game is counter-productive at best. The question is how will this nut be cracked and in general I agree, the casinos will move first and they'll do what they need to in order to minimize their risk and losses. If the players lose some perks in the process then I don't doubt that the casinos will take a "so be it" position and press on as needs be.

Players are not privy to the casino experience of fraud, and even when we do hear of a case, such as in a forum, we only get the player's side of the story. The casino will not normally explain why a case was fraud, as opposed to "smart player, dumb marketing", and it often looks like the casino are screwing over an ordinary player by making completely unreasonable demands in order to ensure the player has no chance of proving they are who they say they are.

ID fraud may be common, but it's not considered "low level" by any means. It is more a case that the banks, who are often the ultimate victim of such frauds, prefer to sweep it under the carpet and pay out rather than admit to the scale of the problem. This leads to complacency, and makes such fraud even easier. The last government made sure that victims of bank fraud had to go to their banks, not the police, and it was up to the banks to decide whether or not the police should get involved. Victims are not happy with this, they may get their money back, but they see the fraudster getting off lightly and simply trying his luck with someone else.
Hardly surprising that this common type of fraud isn't just confined to banks, it's also targeting the welfare system, retailers, and of course casinos.

Governments need to step in and bring about a more robust means of ensuring that someone is who they say they are because the current systems have been compromised. If the governments won't do it, maybe the casino industry should get together and come up with a centralised and standardised system of verifying players that can then work at all casinos. It would have to be more onerous than the current system, but it would also be a one-time only chore for the player, as once verified, they would be issued with some kind of "digital passport" that will verify them throughout the industry.

 

[chuchu59]

I fully support Bryan's decision to withdraw the application. While we should always aim for transparency, too much of it from the casinos would arm fraud players with the ammo they need to commit more fraud.

 

[slotter999]

Players are not privy to the casino experience of fraud, and even when we do hear of a case, such as in a forum, we only get the player's side of the story. The casino will not normally explain why a case was fraud, as opposed to "smart player, dumb marketing", and it often looks like the casino are screwing over an ordinary player by making completely unreasonable demands in order to ensure the player has no chance of proving they are who they say they are.

ID fraud may be common, but it's not considered "low level" by any means. It is more a case that the banks, who are often the ultimate victim of such frauds, prefer to sweep it under the carpet and pay out rather than admit to the scale of the problem. This leads to complacency, and makes such fraud even easier. The last government made sure that victims of bank fraud had to go to their banks, not the police, and it was up to the banks to decide whether or not the police should get involved. Victims are not happy with this, they may get their money back, but they see the fraudster getting off lightly and simply trying his luck with someone else.
Hardly surprising that this common type of fraud isn't just confined to banks, it's also targeting the welfare system, retailers, and of course casinos.

Governments need to step in and bring about a more robust means of ensuring that someone is who they say they are because the current systems have been compromised. If the governments won't do it, maybe the casino industry should get together and come up with a centralised and standardised system of verifying players that can then work at all casinos. It would have to be more onerous than the current system, but it would also be a one-time only chore for the player, as once verified, they would be issued with some kind of "digital passport" that will verify them throughout the industry.

It's surprising to see anyone refer to ID fraud as low level because it most certainly is not. It's a serious criminal offence for which you can be imprisoned. The part I've always found strange regarding casinos and fraud (in the UK at least) is the lack of criminal convictions. To date I've found one such case and the convict ended up with a custodial sentence despite having no prior convictions so it's not as if the courts don't take these matters seriously. Interestingly his motivation for the crimes was to exploit sign up bonus offers.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's surprising to see anyone refer to ID fraud as low level because it most certainly is not. It's a serious criminal offence for which you can be imprisoned. The part I've always found strange regarding casinos and fraud (in the UK at least) is the lack of criminal convictions. To date I've found one such case and the convict ended up with a custodial sentence despite having no prior convictions so it's not as if the courts don't take these matters seriously. Interestingly his motivation for the crimes was to exploit sign up bonus offers.

I remember that case. A few more prosecutions would send the message that this is not "low level", but something likely to end with you going to jail. A few stories about people who use other people's ID to sign up at casinos going to jail should cut a fair bit of this fraud, especially what the casinos call "low level", where they probably mean someone just getting together with a few friends and doing it, rather than stealing or buying ID on the dark web in industrial quantities.

Trouble is, even the banks tend not to report many instances to the police, and even if they did, the police would only investigate those where they believe the perpetrator is in the UK, or easily extradited to the UK. The banks don't want too many cases being reported though as it will scare customers if they thought it was common to have your accounts or cards defrauded.

 

[petro]

This is kind of related to the subject;

Law enforcement doesn't have to state how they detected the crime.
I read the papers here in Australia and police are always getting into trouble because they wont state in court how they first detected the crime, or their story of detection doesn't make sense. They do get punished by courts for this, but I don't believe the punishment is very harsh.

One of the last things I read in the papers about this was an appeal made to the government to make it legal for law enforcement to hack people's computers and present the evidence with impunity. My thoughts are; it's at the stage where you need to go out on a lake in a wooden boat to have a private conversation, so why fight it?