Cherry Red Issue

[Artico]

Killed the URL

"Cherry Red Casino and Moneybookers: confiscation of winnings and apparent breach of the UK Data Protection Act"

Everyone should read that article.

I was not sure where to post it, so I decided post it here.

 

[Casinomeister]

Forum Etiquette

Admin note: moved from another thread that had nothing to do with this.

I'm killing the URL of this "article" since this belongs to ex-member "Caruso" (aka yokspot) who was banned from this site for frequent violations of the forum rules - mainly flaming other members and posting libelous material. He was warned more than enough times, (I keep records of all emails and banning periods for reference). He finally screwed up and was asked to leave.

Since then he has been on a mission to pretty much discredit everything I do here. He has a habit of posting troll-like untrue comments concerning Casinomeister at a number of boards - most of which ban him when they get fed up with his crap.

So no, his URLs are not welcome here. Feel free to discuss whatever he has to say about whatever, but he's burned too many bridges with Casinomeister for me to allow him to benefit from any traffic he may get from this site.

 

[tonyg82]

I read the article and it seems that if his experience is true, then it does look very bad on Moneybookers and Casinomeister. I've no idea what other offensive things he may have said or whether the article is 100% accurate mind. What's flaming?

However, if Moneybookers are sharing information with Casinos about who they do Moneybookers transactions with, then they may be breaking the law. Data protection etc..

 

[RobWin]

I read the article and it seems that if his experience is true, then it does look very bad on Moneybookers and Casinomeister. I've no idea what other offensive things he may have said or whether the article is 100% accurate mind. What's flaming?

However, if Moneybookers are sharing information with Casinos about who they do Moneybookers transactions with, then they may be breaking the law. Data protection etc..

Why would you think that it would look bad on Casinomeister? How does Casinomeister come into play here?

 

[Casinomeister]

I read the article and it seems that if his experience is true, then it does look very bad on Moneybookers and Casinomeister. I've no idea what other offensive things he may have said or whether the article is 100% accurate mind. What's flaming?

However, if Moneybookers are sharing information with Casinos about who they do Moneybookers transactions with, then they may be breaking the law. Data protection etc..

The thing is, you are only seeing half of the story. This member had PABd and when it turned out he committed fraud we closed his account in the forum. The guy was being less than truthful with us - which we don't tolerate by the way - and there is much more to this than what meets the eye.

This is just another attempt to discredit what this site stands for and what we do here.

What's flaming? Take a look at our forum rules - 1.1 to be precise.

 

[maxd]

Ok, read the 'article' and have a few things to say:

- as far as I know Moneybookers does not share private player data. What I've been told is that the casino supplies the basic player info they have and asks MB to see if there are any connected accounts and what the nature of that connectedness might be (bulk transfers, etc). Is this breaking the law? Not as far as I read the data protection stuff -- it basically says you can't share or sell player banking info -- but I'm no lawyer. This is coming up more and more often so we're all interested in clarification here.

- so the casino gets back a report saying something like yes, this player is connected to X other accounts. Presumably they can go back and forth on this until the casino has narrowed down a group of players at their casino(s) that are sharing funds via MB.

- some casinos are savvy to the moneysharing between player accounts and the likelihood that that is a way for 'syndicate' players to cross-fund each other, or even between multiple (fraudulent) accounts.

- if the casinos add MB account sharing as part of their black-listed activities in their T&Cs then any player caught doing this is in violation of the T&Cs. One hopes that the casinos are looking for large scale violations and not just incidental ones but that has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

- in this particular case the player (aka 'Lunkan') was connected to no less than 21 other MB accounts. He initially denied any connection to other players. Then when we got the report from the casino he said that regardless of his connection to any other players there was no "100% proof of fraud." And therein lies the rub: casino says MB evidence of account sharing is an indicator of fraud which they are looking out for and they'll bust players for it. Players say "sure, but who's to say it's fraud?". Bottom line AFAIC is that if casino says "we'll boot you if you do this" and you do that then, tada!, you get booted. In this case the player violated the T&Cs -- knowingly and flagrantly and repeatedly -- and that means it's over for them at the casino whether they are claiming innocence in their MB transactions or not.

- so, as stated, we supported the casino's decision and that was the end of it. The player persisted in pushing, I repeatedly explained the decision and even forwarded a final statement to the casino from the player. The casino stood fast in their decision and at that point we were done with the case.

The moral outrage and indignation that the author of the 'article' expressed is basically one-sided puffery. Since that person is known to have an agenda against me and Casinomeister I don't think it too surprising that he's blowing all the hot air into this one that he can.

 

[tonyg82]

Why would you think that it would look bad on Casinomeister? How does Casinomeister come into play here?

I'm not sure if it's true or not, but the guy said Casinomeister told him it didn't matter if he was innocent or not, they are siding with Cherry Red and he's now banned from the forum.

Basically Cherry Red said they were not paying him because he had sent/received a Moneybookers transfer from a fraudulant player.

If true Moneybookers may be acting illegally, and Cherry Red are acting very rogueish to say the least. The facts would be nice.

I signed up to them recently via this site actually and received a payout into my bank the other day, so I'm happy with them!

 

[tonyg82]

Ok good to get some more info Max. The player didn't mention he broke the T&C's and he does sound a bit dodgy. Do you have the T&C's from the other month that say no transferring between MB accounts is allowed?

Also, I think that monetry transfers within an FSA regulated company would be private data. If Moneybookers share this information with casinos then I think they might be breaking UK law, regardless of the Casinos honest intentions.

Either way, I won't be using Moneybookers again.

 

[maxd]

The facts would be nice.

Read my post.

I do have to say this: people ought to be a little more discriminating before they start waving the "Smells Like Evil!" flag. Ask yourself questions like:

- who is posting that stuff?

- what agenda have they got?

- what is their record at the places they're trying to target?

- what is the record of the places they are trying to take shots at?

- is there any reason to believe the slanderous accusations or is it basically just hearsay?

Once you've asked, and answered, those kinds of questions then you'll be somewhat qualified to judge these things for yourself.

 

[maxd]

I think that monetry transfers within an FSA regulated company would be private data.

Based on what? I've read the data protection act -- again, not a lawyer -- but when you get down to it they're talking about selling private financial data such as user banking institutions and account numbers and such to telemarketers and the like. There are no specifics about transaction endpoints being protected data, etc.

 

[tonyg82]

Read my post.

I do have to say this: people ought to be a little more discriminating before they start waving the "Smells Like Evil!" flag. Ask yourself questions like:

- who is posting that stuff?

- what agenda have they got?

- what is their record at the places they're trying to target?

- what is the record of the places they are trying to take shots at?

- is there any reason to believe the slanderous accusations or is it basically just hearsay?

Once you've asked, and answered, those kinds of questions then you'll be somewhat qualified to judge these things for yourself.

Sorry, my first post crossed with your one.

I'm more concerned with the points you have posted that I mentioned in my last post. i.e Moneybookers transfers, private data, and the T&C's...

 

[RobWin]

Ok, read the 'article' and have a few things to say:

- as far as I know Moneybookers does not share private player data. What I've been told is that the casino supplies the basic player info they have and asks MB to see if there are any connected accounts and what the nature of that connectedness might be (bulk transfers, etc). Is this breaking the law? Not as far as I read the data protection stuff -- it basically says you can't share or sell player banking info -- but I'm no lawyer. This is coming up more and more often so we're all interested in clarification here.

- so the casino gets back a report saying something like yes, this player is connected to X other accounts. Presumably they can go back and forth on this until the casino has narrowed down a group of players at their casino(s) that are sharing funds via MB.

- some casinos are savvy to the moneysharing between player accounts and the likelihood that that is a way for 'syndicate' players to cross-fund each other, or even between multiple (fraudulent) accounts.

- if the casinos add MB account sharing as part of their black-listed activities in their T&Cs then any player caught doing this is in violation of the T&Cs. One hopes that the casinos are looking for large scale violations and not just incidental ones but that has to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

- in this particular case the player (aka 'Lunkan') was connected to no less than 21 other MB accounts. He initially denied any connection to other players. Then when we got the report from the casino he said that regardless of his connection to any other players there was no "100% proof of fraud." And therein lies the rub: casino says MB evidence of account sharing is an indicator of fraud which they are looking out for and they'll bust players for it. Players say "sure, but who's to say it's fraud?". Bottom line AFAIC is that if casino says "we'll boot you if you do this" and you do that then, tada!, you get booted. In this case the player violated the T&Cs -- knowingly and flagrantly and repeatedly -- and that means it's over for them at the casino whether they are claiming innocence in their MB transactions or not.

- so, as stated, we supported the casino's decision and that was the end of it. The player persisted in pushing, I repeatedly explained the decision and even forwarded a final statement to the casino from the player. The casino stood fast in their decision and at that point we were done with the case.

The moral outrage and indignation that the author of the 'article' expressed is basically one-sided puffery. Since that person is known to have an agenda against me and Casinomeister I don't think it too surprising that he's blowing all the hot air into this one that he can.

Hmmm, my wife and I and a couple of my other family members used to transfer funds back and forth to each other when we all had our Neteller accounts back in the day, depending on who had won big that week, but we never figured that this would be looked upon as collusion or a syndicate type of thing by the casinos or even that one of the ewallets would breach our trust by sharing that type of info.

That's like them telling Wal-Mart that I also do more business with Sears than I do with them. Why would your bank or ewallet share this private data with someone that you had only made a transaction with? That kinda blows me away there knowing that they are sharing my transaction data with a third party.

Just one of your friends low on funds and you decide to help them out by way of a transfer which they will later transfer back to you. But (for example) if in fact Moneybookers are telling casinos that I am transferring money back and forth to one of my friends or family members then I would also see that as an invasion of privacy issues.

How is my scenario different from what you had described here Max, sorry for my ignorance..

 

[tonyg82]

Based on what? I've read the data protection act -- again, not a lawyer -- but when you get down to it they're talking about selling private financial data such as user banking institutions and account numbers and such to telemarketers and the like. There are no specifics about transaction endpoints being protected data, etc.

Ok I'll ring the FSA when I get time to see what their take on it is. I certainly wouldn't want Moneybookers giving out my transfer information. I've had a couple of transfers from people at work and now I am just hoping they haven't done anything naughty with Casinos, as I'd be grouped in with them. Whether it's illegal or not I'm not sure.

Another thing added to the long list of Casino terms easily broken without and knowledge, it just gets worse and worse.

 

[maxd]

Truth is I'm in no position to talk about what Moneybookers does and does not share with the casinos but I do think you guys are jumping to conclusions here.

Primarily, I think, there is the question of granularity: if the casino supplies a list of players and MB (speaking theoretically) says "yes, player A transferred many times to players X, Y and Z in the past week" that's a whole lot different than MB sending the casino a list of all your transactions since you signed on.

The former is very specific, very targeted info and, as far as I can gather, the type of info the casinos get from them.

The latter is generic, wide-open data that I have no reason to believe is available to the casinos.

Fight it as you see fit but I think you'll be a lot more likely to get satisfaction if your concerns are based on what actually happens as opposed to what you imagine might happen.

 

[tonyg82]

Doesn't matter what level of detail is shared. The fact is it has been shared. You can't say oh I've only broken the law a little bit with good intentions, you either do it or don't. I don't care if the player is innocent or guilty, I'm more concerned with Casino's using such data to refuse winnings, at what point would it stop?

In my opinion it doesn't matter who he has transferred money too either, everyones Moneybookers account is a seperate entity, and I'm sure any court would agree. I've transferred money to the Virtual Group before, does that make me rogue?

 

[RobWin]

Somebody private message me the link to that article please if you don't mind, I would like to read it for myself...thanks..

 

[maxd]

Doesn't matter what level of detail is shared. The fact is it has been shared. You can't say oh I've only broken the law a little bit ....

And what if it's not breaking the law at all? Do you know the law? Are you a lawyer who can comment on it intelligently? Or are you just a regular schmuck like me who is guessing and interpolating?

The truth is that the data protection act (DPA) is becoming a pretty hot topic:

• Joe Average is holding up the DPA and saying "don't want nobody messing with my private data because it violates the DPA."
  
• Casinos want to hold up the DPA and say "we can't talk about the player's case with you because it violates the Act." How convenient.
  
• Fraudsters are holding up the DPA and saying "no one should ever know anything about anything I do because it violates the ACT."
  
• I'm holding up the DPA and saying "WTF? Does anybody know what this really says?"

Like I said earlier, it will be good when we get a reliable judgment about what the DPA really does and doesn't say because all this conjecture is doing much more harm than good.

And trust me, the casinos are going to hide behind it if they can, some of them already are. And that means they'll use it to try and shut folks like us out of the negotiation process, whether we're speaking on behalf of the player or not.

Be careful what you wish for guys, you may find yourself in a lot worse position than you imagined.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am unhappy about the wider implications of this, it seems that it is possible for too many innocent players to get caught up just because they have done unrelated business with what turns out to be a fraudulent player. examples might be that they used Moneybookers with sites like eBay, or even online classified ads, and paid/got paid through Moneybookers. No-one knows whether you are dealing with another online casino player or not, and provided it isn't a violation of Moneybookers terms, players should not suffer adverse treatment as a result.

As Max says, there needs to be a formal complaint made, so that a ruling can be made. The UK Information Commissioner will ONLY accept a complaint from the person affected, so it would be up to the banned Caruso to make such a complaint and get a ruling.

Generally, the data protection act guarantees data privacy, and allows data sharing "with government or law enforcement agencies" where it is suspected that criminal offences have been committed. Depending on what Moneybookers is sharing, they may be breaching the act simply by confirming that player A has made a particular transaction on their account to person B, since the information is NOT being given to a "government or law enforcement agency", but a private company.

The rules are rather vague in this act, and the rules are being better defined by such "test cases" as they come along. Some companies are overly worried about breaching the act, and this works AGAINST the very people the act was intended to protect.

When an entity claims they cannot share information about a person because of the data protection act, all you need is a signed letter from said person authorising the sharing of their personal data with the person/entity who is helping them out. This applies whether it is the Citizen's Advice Bureau trying to help someone with their bank, or Max helping a player with their casino account.

 

[maxd]

When an entity claims they cannot share information about a person because of the data protection act, all you need is a signed letter from said person authorising the sharing of their personal data with the person/entity who is helping them out.

Yes, and they know this. I'm already receiving these demands from the casinos.

It goes like this: I receive the PAB from the player and process it to the casino peeps. They say "oh no, we can't discuss that with you, privacy blaa blaa blaa". I press the issue, indicating that is was the player that contacted me in the first place, they can verify that with them, blaa blaa blaa.

Well if they're feeling benevolent they'll say "the player must file such and such a statement in writing on paper via snail-mail to us at our head office in Whateverland. When we have received that and verified it we will get back in touch with you regarding this matter. Until then nothing can be done."

Care to guess how many times that has actually happened? If you guessed Z-E-R-O you'd be right.

This all adds up to a great big PITA for a process that is already replete with discomforts and delays. I do not see this as a step forward in any way, shape or form.

 

[maxd]

Somebody private message me the link to that article ....

Rob, just google it, pops up right away.

 

[Casinomeister]

I'm afraid this whole issue is stemming from player fraud - fraudsters who are using Moneybookers and are hoping that they can get as much info as possible in order to find another way to make a quick buck. Don't be so naive to think that this is not plausible.

Most people - besides the casino operators - haven't a clue on how widespread player fraud is. When it comes to player fraud, casinos are tight-lipped about it because the more the fraudsters know, the more they will attempt to navigate around whatever obstacle or pitfall the casinos throw out in front of them.

It's only when you begin dealing with complaints - and I mean doing this for years - complaints from any player for any casino that this all starts falling into place. I'm sure Max hadn't a clue on the enormity of fraud until he took over the Pitch a Bitch section here at Casinomeister and became a moderator here as well. We not only deal with fraudulent claims, we also deal with bogus accounts, shills, and spammers in our forum.

That said, sometimes you won't get 100% of what we know out into the open - sometimes we're bound by agreements with the casino; sometimes we make the decision ourselves because it's on a "need to know" basis.

The main thing is that we trust that the player is being 100% honest with us and is disclosing everything they can to assist us in convincing the casino that it's a legitimate grievance. We have ZERO tolerance for bogus claims or attempts to use our services to defraud casinos.

What I hope is that this thread is genuine and not another attempt for fraudsters to see what kind of info they can milk from us - or Cherry Red for that matter.

Me thinks there is trickery afoot.

 

[Jasminebed]

When an entity claims they cannot share information about a person because of the data protection act, all you need is a signed letter from said person authorising the sharing of their personal data with the person/entity who is helping them out. This applies whether it is the Citizen's Advice Bureau trying to help someone with their bank, or Max helping a player with their casino account.

Spot on VWM. Today I had to sign a release for the hospital to be able to leave a message on my answering machine, because it can be accessed by other people.

Personally, I've never made any moneybooker's transactions other than gambling. But I do know that at one point I had to make a MB deposit to confirm my account, and had a friend helped me, other than managing a modest win with another casino (I've had impossible obstacles to funding other than casino withdrawals) I could have found myself in a similar predicament.

Just because Caruso is possibly a fraudster and has a vendetta does not make every point he may make untrue.

And IMO no way reflects poorly on CM.

Perhaps someone can answer if casinos or ewallets operating under UK law have obligations to protect the data of players NOT from the UK?

 

[RobWin]

Just because Caruso is possibly a fraudster

Where did you get that idea from Jasmine..

 

[maxd]

I'm sure Max hadn't a clue on the enormity of fraud until he took over the Pitch a Bitch section here at Casinomeister ....

Basically that's quite true. I've been in the business a long time, though in a much different capacity that my current role here at CM, so I knew that player fraud was an issue. What I didn't know was how big an issue it is, several times larger a problem than I would have guessed.

 

[Jasminebed]

The thing is, you are only seeing half of the story. This member had PABd and when it turned out he committed fraud we closed his account in the forum. The guy was being less than truthful with us - which we don't tolerate by the way - and there is much more to this than what meets the eye.

This is just another attempt to discredit what this site stands for and what we do here.

What's flaming? Take a look at our forum rules - 1.1 to be precise.

So sorry Robwin...less than careful read and I got confused about which banned member was which.

And I was careful to say possibly. My mistake and I apologize.