casinoplex demanded notary paper ,from a non bonus win , beware

[rainmaker]

This discussion is kind of silly, but whatever. A quick google told me the market cap for Centrebet is $197 million. Which is around the same as the purchase price for PT Turnkey Solutions. Certainly not way above Playtech's total market cap.

Yes, this is silly

I did not necessarily referred to Centrebet. But Centrebet as a company are also much larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos (estimated). You know that most of Playtechs licensees are rather small, while the top 5 accounts for a very large part of their revenue. As for bookmakers, you have for example the William Hill company that are worth about twice as much as the whole Playtech company.

Anyway, my only original statement was only that I do not think major sportsbooks ask for documents to be sent to the Philippines. They are large enough to deal with these things themselves. And to send documents to the Philippines are unacceptable in my opinion. As for the casino in this thread (Casino Plex), they have a monthly withdrawal limit of €7000 which is terrible low and certainly gives us an indication about their size. But let us end this silly and derailed discussion.

In general, people should be aware when playing Playtech. Many small dodgy Playtech casinos out there.

 

[deucebag]

Yes, this is silly

I did not necessarily referred to Centrebet.

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

 

[rainmaker]

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

C`mon dear member. You know what I mean. That was one example I used earlier in the thread (btw, Centrebet are being acquired by Sportingbet)

 

[vinylweatherman]

ID Verification
14/F Yuchengco Tower,
RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala,
Makati City 1200,
Philippines.

That's an odd looking address too - it is supposed to be a business address, yet there is no company name, and the ONLY specification is "ID verification", which is a DEPARTMENT within a company.

I would have expected an address of the form:-

ID Verification
Acme customer support services
14/F Yuchengco Tower,
.........

The rest of the address is fine in terms of format, but if this is where notarised documents are being dealt with, I want to know the NAME of the company concerned, not just the fact that it has gone to the "ID verification department" of whatever unnamed company has leased a few offices in Yuchengco tower.

I would also like to know why almost EVERY Playtech casino uses this company, yet Playtech say they are "just the software supplier" and do NOT interfere with their licensees in the operation of their casinos.

There is something deeply disturbing about this whole "Playtech thing", and I have often gotten into arguments about it, and been "put straight" by those with contacts within the Playtech organisation. I am not satisfied however, since despite having been "put straight", things keep cropping up that are inconsistent with what I have been told.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited
14/th floor Tower 1. RCBC Plaza, Ayala Ave cor. Gil Puyat Ave. Makati City 1200.
Tel: (632) 756-7800

It's like pulling teeth

Why the goddam secrecy, what's wrong with a simple list of tennants under "retail and tenant directory"

14/F is simply the 14th Floor of tower 1.

This is a prime piece of "real estate", and houses many international companies and even embassies. Once inside, security should not be a worry, after all, the embassies wouldn't be there if they had doubts.

What this DOES mean is that you ARE sending your documents to a "call centre", rather than the casino. No doubt many companies use the services of Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, notably the majority of the stand alone Playtech casinos.

Although no sign of Playtech there, the same tower houses a couple of their "partners" and companies where a "mutual interest" exists, mainly directed towards the Asian markets. It seems this document verification centre is the only time us "western" players come into contact with the "Philipines connection" with Playtech, and in a situation where we are already feeling negative about our experience because we feel this is the start of a "screwing over". Asian players may well have many contacts with support companies, even operators, through their own Playtech branded casinos.

Emphasis Services Limited (ESL)
43/F Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza6819 Ayala Ave. cor. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City
Makati, NCR
Tel: (02) 887-2525
Fax: (02) 844-3098
Business Type: Lotteries, Casinos, Horse Racing, Gambling

This company provides gambling services directed towards the Asian market, and gets a guest appearance in the Playtech annual report 2008.

NOTE 18 – RELATED PARTIES AND SHAREHOLDERS
Parties are considered to be related if one party has the ability to control the other party or exercise significant influence over the other party’s making of financial or operational decisions, or if both parties are controlled by the same third party.

Tech Corporation, Oriental Support Services, Gamepark Trading Ltd and 800pay Ltd are related by virtue of a common significant shareholder. Emphasis Services Limited (‘ESL’), AsianLogic Limited (‘ALL’), S-tech Limited, Uniplay International Limited and Six Digits Trading Limited are related by virtue of the former chief executive officer and current director interest in those companies. WH Online and Laserstorm Services Ltd are associates of the Group.

Asian Logic also appears here, which is another company marketing to the Asian players.

There is a Philipines connection to Playtech, but an indirect one, and primarily intended as a vehicle to service the Asian market. It is careless to both keep this at arms length from the main "western" markets, yet blow it by telling "western" players out of the blue to "send notarised documents" to one of their Asian market partners, rather than to partners set up to service "western" players.

The "white label" aspect is probably down to companies like Asian Logic and Emphasis Services Limited putting a number of Playtech casinos into the market. Although directed mainly towards the Asian player, this is the internet, and if the casino supports their language, there is no reason for these casinos not to take on "western" players alongside their Asian ones.

 

[rainmaker]

Yes, I also saw the the "call centre"-connection when I searched this up. Of course, who does not want to send their personal info to a call senter in the Philippines

I can understand that players may want to send their documents in order to get their winnings paid out. But I would have closed my account immediately when I had recieved my funds. I would never continued to use a casino with such a bad practice.

 

[Nifty29]

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

Time to move on. It's getting quite pathetic.

 

[Maax]

Hi,

I had the same problem as the TS. Was asked to send in my usual documents and also this "We request for the notarized physical copy of your ID to be sent via regular
or express mail...".

I was kinda surprised by this since it never happened in 9 years in any other casino. Of course I was mad, since this would cost me about $50 to get these documents and sending it to who knows who. And the waiting period alongside that.

So, I sent a PM to the Plex-rep they got here, and he said he was gonna check on this. A day passes and he can see that my ID and the address I entered in the casino dont match up. Strange, since I have never had this issue elsewhere, using the same address on all other casinos. Anyway, he requested that I sent in the usual documents to him and also a screenshot from my MB-account, so he could check this for me again.

Lo and behold, today I have received my withdrawal of $650! I requested this payout last thursday, so I must say, even if Im disappointed of the casino handling this, Im very pleased with the rep, Martin, here. He took care of it and I give much credit to his work! So, get in contact with him, Im sure he will help you out too.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

I had the same problem as the TS. Was asked to send in my usual documents and also this "We request for the notarized physical copy of your ID to be sent via regular
or express mail...".

I was kinda surprised by this since it never happened in 9 years in any other casino. Of course I was mad, since this would cost me about $50 to get these documents and sending it to who knows who. And the waiting period alongside that.

So, I sent a PM to the Plex-rep they got here, and he said he was gonna check on this. A day passes and he can see that my ID and the address I entered in the casino dont match up. Strange, since I have never had this issue elsewhere, using the same address on all other casinos. Anyway, he requested that I sent in the usual documents to him and also a screenshot from my MB-account, so he could check this for me again.

Lo and behold, today I have received my withdrawal of $650! I requested this payout last thursday, so I must say, even if Im disappointed of the casino handling this, Im very pleased with the rep, Martin, here. He took care of it and I give much credit to his work! So, get in contact with him, Im sure he will help you out too.

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

If casinos are mistakenly thinking information from registration is not matching documents, then they have a problem that is leading them to wrongly point the finger at innocent players. I find it hard to see how any competent person could make such a mistake (assuming they can read), so maybe it is the registration software itself that is "messing around" with what players enter such that when presented during a document check, a mismatch is seen.

I have occasionally caught software "messing around" with my address, name, and card details. Microgaming, for example, will NOT always let me put my name "exactly as shown on the card". I have to drop the title "Mr" from the name else the form rejects it, thus it ends up NOT being "exactly" as shown on the card. It is possible that casino-plex registration has similar problems with certain names and/or addresses, and records them wrongly, and thus they don't seem to match what turns up on an ID document.

The rep clearly saw that this was a "false positive", and was able to pass this by security by having you send in a screenshot of your Moneybookers account. Surely the casino security department could have done the same, rather than going for the full monty of notarised documents snail-mailed to Manila.

For the rep....

Why Manila? Do you not have ANY offices in the EU where you are taking your players from? What about where you are licensed, are you not REQUIRED to have an office there by the licensing body, one that could easily deal with such "rare" circumstances as players having to send things by post. If nothing else, it would be much quicker for an item to reach, say Malta than Manila. Players are also likely to accept sending notarised documents to where a casino is licensed, since this is the jurisdiction they are relying on to protect them, and where all the electronic data on them are kept on the casino's server.

Having seen Dispatches on TV, I think you are SAFER posting those documents to Manila than to some parts of LONDON

 

[CasinoPlex]

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

If casinos are mistakenly thinking information from registration is not matching documents, then they have a problem that is leading them to wrongly point the finger at innocent players. I find it hard to see how any competent person could make such a mistake (assuming they can read), so maybe it is the registration software itself that is "messing around" with what players enter such that when presented during a document check, a mismatch is seen.

I have occasionally caught software "messing around" with my address, name, and card details. Microgaming, for example, will NOT always let me put my name "exactly as shown on the card". I have to drop the title "Mr" from the name else the form rejects it, thus it ends up NOT being "exactly" as shown on the card. It is possible that casino-plex registration has similar problems with certain names and/or addresses, and records them wrongly, and thus they don't seem to match what turns up on an ID document.

The rep clearly saw that this was a "false positive", and was able to pass this by security by having you send in a screenshot of your Moneybookers account. Surely the casino security department could have done the same, rather than going for the full monty of notarised documents snail-mailed to Manila.

For the rep....

Why Manila? Do you not have ANY offices in the EU where you are taking your players from? What about where you are licensed, are you not REQUIRED to have an office there by the licensing body, one that could easily deal with such "rare" circumstances as players having to send things by post. If nothing else, it would be much quicker for an item to reach, say Malta than Manila. Players are also likely to accept sending notarised documents to where a casino is licensed, since this is the jurisdiction they are relying on to protect them, and where all the electronic data on them are kept on the casino's server.

Having seen Dispatches on TV, I think you are SAFER posting those documents to Manila than to some parts of LONDON

Hi vinylweatherman.

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila. However, we do most of our services from Malta where we also have our office and license: Casino Plex is fully licensed in Malta under Letter of Intent Nos. LGA/CL1/637/2010, and LGA/CL3/637/2010. - Casino Plex is a part of E-PLAY 24 LIMITED - 93, St. Mary Street, Sliema SLM1105 Malta VAT : MT 1966 1023.

The mail raul1 received from us has been updated, so in the future players will be asked to send the documents via e-mail to [noparse]docs@casinoplex.com[/noparse] or directly by post to above address if a player prefers this option.

All players on casino plex are more than welcome to contact our support using e-mail [noparse]support@casinoplex.com[/noparse], live chat in the software or send a private message to me, if they have any questions or concerns, so that we can resolve any issues in the best way possible.

Have a nice day everyone..

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi vinylweatherman.

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila. However, we do most of our services from Malta where we also have our office and license: Casino Plex is fully licensed in Malta under Letter of Intent Nos. LGA/CL1/637/2010, and LGA/CL3/637/2010. - Casino Plex is a part of E-PLAY 24 LIMITED - 93, St. Mary Street, Sliema SLM1105 Malta VAT : MT 1966 1023.

The mail raul1 received from us has been updated, so in the future players will be asked to send the documents via e-mail to docs@casinoplex.com or directly by post to above address if a player prefers this option.

All players on casino plex are more than welcome to contact our support using e-mail support@casinoplex.com, live chat in the software or send a private message to me, if they have any questions or concerns, so that we can resolve any issues in the best way possible.

Have a nice day everyone..

Eh!

I was "set straight" about this, and so was Bryan. We were told that this was NOT Playtech, but a different company. The address the OP was told to send documents to comes back as "Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited", rather than "Playtech".


Playtech also state that they "don't have access to players' data". How could this be so if one of their offices in Manila does all the verification of players' documents.

This discussion has come up again and again, and this is all "on the record" somewhere in the forum archives.

I'll have to see if these references can be dug up.

If Playtech ARE this involved with operators they can damn well get involved when the rogue ones pocket progressive jackpots received from the pool rather than paying the player concerned, or at the very least returning unpaid monies to the pool from which it came.

So, if Playtech say "we don't have access to Player's data" - it's a load of bollocks - it is all at "their office in Manila" that they don't have

I don't blame you, this is Playtechs bullshit.


If Playtech still claim not to have an office in Manila, they are calling plexrep a liar.

A chance here for Playtech to cut the crap and tell the truth, as well as stop pretending they have no influence over rogue operators because "we only supply the software".

 

[rainmaker]

.

I think it is great to see that Casino Plex`s practice have been changed and that players now can send these documents to your office in Malta or per e-mail. I see that VWM has raised some other questions in his latest post. That is fair enough, but the most important thing is that this issue has been resolved. OP and other players will not again be asked to send documents to the Philippines when playing at Casino Plex. I think we at least should give the rep some credits for his engagement here. He clearly listens to his players and the members of this forum. Great

 

[vinylweatherman]

.

I think it is great to see that Casino Plex`s practice have been changed and that players now can send these documents to your office in Malta or per e-mail. I see that VWM has raised some other questions in his latest post. That is fair enough, but the most important thing is that this issue has been resolved. OP and other players will not again be asked to send documents to the Philippines when playing at Casino Plex. I think we at least should give the rep some credits for his engagement here. He clearly listens to his players and the members of this forum. Great

It is not clear whether such documents will simply be forwarded internally to Manila, and the questions remain about the "two faced" nature of official statements from Playtech when similar cases have been brought up before. Not just documents, but payment of progressives, who has access to player data and where, who really "calls the shots" when it comes to operators' policy decisions, etc.

The Manila offices do at least appear to meet (if not exceed) standards expected, but players still worry about such a long postal journey that passes through less secure parts of the world, so the change does at least hide this from them. I expect many other casinos forward such things to to their security contractors, but players don't know the inner workings, so don't get so worried.

 

[Maax]

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

I dont think there was anything wrong with my info from the start. My ID as they claim they have must have come from Moneybookers (why do they even send the address info when depositing?) where 1 address line is shown as a c/o address, which I cant erase (trust me, Ive tried). So in the info from MB it looks like I got 2 street addresses, everything else is fine and I never even reflected about the extra address line before.

I think Plex got some hard and some very tough security check and every single syllable must match, whether other casinos have some leniency against misspelling and what not.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I dont think there was anything wrong with my info from the start. My ID as they claim they have must have come from Moneybookers (why do they even send the address info when depositing?) where 1 address line is shown as a c/o address, which I cant erase (trust me, Ive tried). So in the info from MB it looks like I got 2 street addresses, everything else is fine and I never even reflected about the extra address line before.

I think Plex got some hard and some very tough security check and every single syllable must match, whether other casinos have some leniency against misspelling and what not.

This could be the problem, and you need to get it sorted.

How did Moneybookers place this extra line there in the first place. This seems like proof of my suspicion that software "messing about" with your input before storing it, compounded by denying the customer the opportunity to correct the information, leads to innocent players getting flagged as suspicious.

As far as players have been told, this is NOT important, because if Moneybookers are happy with the address, it isn't something that should screw up their dealings with a casino, since officially the casino is never supposed to even SEE this data.

If Moneybookers are routinely passing a players address to a merchant during a transaction, and have NOT sought explicit permission from the customers to do so, they are breaking the law.

If it is the other way around, and the merchant passes the address registered at the casino to Moneybookers, and Moneybookers does the comparison and sends a flag back to the merchant, this would NOT be breaking the law as far as Moneybookers are concerned, and it is likely that casinos have this covered in their general "permission to share with contractors" term.

If the street address matches, this extra line should not be causing problems, as it simply infers that the property is not owned by the player, and that they are staying with someone who pays the bills.

It seems that ensuring street address (and probably other details) match across the board is more important than players are lead to believe, and it isn't enough that the addresses match for a physical location, but the FORMAT must match too. The same problem will affect a woman player who legally takes the married name, as this will lead to a changeover period where they will have their maiden name at some places, and be using their new married name at others. I recall seeing a female player hit by this exact problem in a previous thread, where they "got away" with something they shouldn't have because they had become 2 diffferent players (one with the maiden name, and one with the married name). She only hit a snag when the two entities were tied together, and it became clear they were getting away with something that should have been caught far earlier.

 

[rainmaker]

Eh!

I was "set straight" about this, and so was Bryan. We were told that this was NOT Playtech, but a different company. The address the OP was told to send documents to comes back as "Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited", rather than "Playtech".


Playtech also state that they "don't have access to players' data". How could this be so if one of their offices in Manila does all the verification of players' documents.

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

Playtech never contributed directly to the forum discussions, but some industry members here were pretty close to Playtech, and the record was "put straight" through them.

I remember Bryan saying he had visited "Playtech's offices in the Philipines", which promoted a "putting straight" of the form "Playtech doesn't have offices in the Philipines, this was the offices of an operator". What had promoted this debate was the fact that all Playtech casinos seemed to know how players approached bonuses across ALL Playtech powered casinos, yet Playtech said no such "bonus abuser" list existed. It was even insinuated that continuing to repeat this theory as though it were fact might result in "legal action" being taken (by whom was not stated). Someone clearly wanted this rumour buried, yet there was no other explanation for operator A knowing how a player played at operator B UNLESS there existed a shared list that ALL Playtech casinos had access to, a list not of fraudsters, but of winners and bonus abusers. It seemed to operate in a similar way to how all Rival casinos knew about players at their supposed competitors. It was eventually discovered that Rival themselves operated a "player rating system" that pooled playing and bonus data from all the different Rival casinos, and computed "gradings" for each player, which could then be used to automatically bonus ban a player across ALL Rival casinos simultaneously - and this is exactly what players were experiencing.

This was illustrated recently in a complaint about Grand Duke, a brand new operator that only recently signed up with Playtech, yet when the complainant registered they were immediately told they were a "bonus abuser" before they had made a single deposit. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Grand Duke to have known this from their own "first party" data, and the ONLY way "bonus abuse" could have been claimed is if Grand Duke had access to a Playtech wide "player rating database" that held details showing the complainant habitually milked the bonuses at other Playtech casinos. However, since Playtech state this database does not exist, and processors ONLY share information related to fraud and chargebacks, there is no LEGAL way Grand Duke could have obtained this data.

The ONLY explanation that would make knowing this information legal is that ALL Playtech casinos are operated by ONE top level operator, and are licensed out as "white labels" to the others, the same way that Rival works.

The fact that almost all Playtech casinos have chosen this one company in Manila out of many thousands of similar companies throughout the world suggests that individual operators did NOT apopoint this company, the top tier white label supplier did, with the operators bound by contract to use them to verify players.

If this company does turn out to be wholly owned by Playtech, then Playtech ARE in possession of players data, all of it.

The 2008 company report for Playtech shows that they have many cross-shareholdings and vested interests in a number of companies at those offices. UK company and stock exchange laws require that these be declared in the reports. The current position will be more accurately reflected in the 2010 end of year report.

Since the deal with William Hill, Playtech officially became an operator, not just a software supplier. William Hill Online is an operator created by a partnership between the two, and each stands to profit (or lose out) on the success or otherwise of the venture. It appears the pair had a "domestic" a while back, so not exactly a stable marriage

 

[rainmaker]

.

Thanks for updating me about the discussion you guys had then. I want to add some info.


I looked at Playtechs "admission documents" (admission to AIM on London Stock Exchange 2006).

"Paragon International Customer Care Limited" are listed as an affiliate of Playtech in that document. An affiliate in this context are in the same section defined as "related parties of the Playtech Group by virtue of common beneficial shareholding and/or management.



This is stated on page 81 in that document :

A call option agreement dated 21 March 2006 between (1) the Company and (2) Nomicom
Limited (“Nomicom”) pursuant to the terms of which Nomicom granted the Company with
an option (the “Paragon Option”) to purchase the entire issued share capital of Paragon
International Customer Care Limited (“Paragon”) held by Nomicom (the “Paragon Option
Shares”) for the Paragon Option Price (as defined below).

The Paragon Option Price shall be calculated on the basis of a multiple of the average monthly
net profit received by Paragon from Licensees. The Paragon Option becomes exercisable in
the event that the standard of service provided by Paragon falls below that acceptable to the
Company and, in such circumstances, can be exercised at any time prior to 20 March 2011 (the
“Paragon Expiry Date”). In addition, if, prior to the Paragon Expiry Date, Nomicom receives a
bona fide third party offer to purchase Paragon for a price greater than the Paragon Option
Price, Nomicom shall inform the Company and the Company shall have 30 days to exercise
the Paragon Option, after which Nomicom may sell Paragon Limited to such third party. The
Paragon Option is only exercisable in respect of all of the Paragon Option Shares.

Nomicom gives certain representations, warranties and undertakings to the Company
including in respect of title to the Paragon Option Shares and an undertaking to procure that
Paragon is debt free at the time that the Paragon Option is exercised (save only in respect of
expenses which have accrued in the ordinary course of business which are not due to be paid
prior to such exercise).


So NOMICOM at this point owned Paragon. But the section above gives Playtech an option to buy Paragon before 20 mars 2011 (the “Paragon Expiry Date”).


And what or who is Nomicom ?

Well...Nomicom are on this document (Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2005) listed as Director of Playtech . Remember that this was before they got accepted on the AIM list.






As you can see on this document, Nomicom were replaced (of course they had to replace them) with other directors (or maybe the same people but with real names ) before Playtech were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

 

[rainmaker]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,






It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

 

[vinylweatherman]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,


View attachment 28703



It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

So, if Playtech consider Paragon as just a division of Playtech, why on earth was I warned off by continuing to insist that Playtech were operating this office in Manila, and when Bryan thought he had visited "Playtech's office" and said so, we were both put straight by the statement :-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines. Some Playtech casinos do. Some do not.

Well, if Playtech have always considered Paragon was simply a division of theirs, this statement was wrong. It came from a highly respected member here, who lived and worked around the Philipines, and would have been told this by his employers (Playtech). Playtech seemed happy for this to stand as an "official" clarification of the position at the time, which was the middle of 2010.

It was all triggered by a complaint that Mansion casino insisted on a player sending their documents to Manila based Paragon, rather than to them in Gibraltar.

It seemed odd that EVERY Playtech casino happened to choose Paragon as their verification and fraud detection company.

However, the picture is becoming clearer. Given that Paragon was expected to be profitable, it is a very strong motive for the contract between Playtech and operators to insist that Paragon is used for player verification. This has allowed Paragon to build a database of players throughout ALL Playtech powered casinos, and hence in the perfect position to create the infamous "Playtech-wide player blacklist (of bonus abusers)", and use this to inform "new" operators when they net a player with a "history of bonus abuse" at other Playtech casinos.

I can figure out how this might work.

1) Player registers at new casino.

2) Details of that player are sent back to Paragon electronically for checking against the database.

3) A "rating" is returned to the operator before the player even gets the chance to claim the welcome bonus.

4) If the rating is negative, such as "history of bonus abuse", the player doesn't get the bonus after their deposit.

5) When player contacts CS, they are told they are an "abusive player at other casinos", and are not getting the bonus.

This generates a complaint thread with the player genuinely puzzled at how on earth a completely new operator with little history and no sister casinos can possibly know that he played like this at "other casinos".

The "send notarised documents" is probaby down to another flag coming from Paragon, triggered by the first withdrawal request. The operator would not necessarily know WHY, but would get the message that he then has to ask his player to send the requested documents to Paragon.

In some cases, casino management looks at things, and may decide that Paragon went over the top, and will thus overrule the automated flag and let the player send additional supporting documents instead via the normal electronic means.

If operators did NOT use Paragon, then Paragon would make less money, and this would not suit those Playtech board members who have an interest in Paragon meeting targets.

This murky construction has allowed Playtech to pull the wool over our eyes by making it seem that Paragon is nothing to do with them, and the offices of Paragon are classed as simply one of those generalised as "belonging to a casino operator".

The Plex casino rep was clearly not briefed (by Playtech), and so let the cat out of the bag in saying:-

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila.

yet officially:-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines.

Is it any wonder then, that I won't let this drop and swallow the above "official position" as gospel truth.

If it wasn't for UK stockmarket and company reporting rules, this would have remained pretty well hidden.

Playtech had to "come clean" in the listing documents and annual reports, but presumed players would never read these, nor understand them even if they did.

I was also "put straight" when I said that all Playtech casinos had much higher WR for UK players because of "advice from Playtech" given to operators, yet the "official line" was that this never happened, and it was simply the fact that one operator did it, and the others "ran scared" and followed suit of their own volition.

Maybe "Playtech" didn't offer such advice, but what's the betting that it was advice coming from Paragon that prompted operators to all step into line and have this doubling of WR for UK players.

Now, what happened in March 2011?

Did Playtech buy Paragon, or options expire, allowing Paragon at last to REALLY be an independent company. The 2011 report should reveal this, but we might have to wait a little longer for it to be published.