Resolved ChipStars vs angry mob

[dmr]

well if Australia can find this casinos way cant UK do the same

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Because the UK GC can't be bothered. Much easier to bitch and moan about the "Black Market" than ever do anything about it. Same as the BGC.

 

[dunover]

FWIW Bryan and I are on the same page on this, except I (of course) have footnotes.

IMHO this business about "illegal bets" is a bit rubbish. It's not illegal if the casino is based and licensed outside the UK regardless of what the UKGC may say. It can certainly be said to be unethical since the UKGC clearly wants everyone everywhere in the world to respect their jurisdiction over UK players but UK laws are not universal and neither is the UKGC.

To the best of my knowledge no offshore casino has ever been taken to court and successfully charged with accepting UK players. There's a good reason for that: UK laws end at UK borders, unless the UK and whichever other country is involved agree otherwise. So what we're really talking about here is ethics and yes, I'd say we generally do believe that good casinos will respect the UKGC's jurisdiction and not chase UK players. But as Bryan said, not our job to police that.

That gets your knickers in a twist? C'est la vie I guess, but take a moment and look around the world at countless other industries that have "special" licensing jurisdictions so they can operate in an environment more to their liking, and effectively avoid the laws of other countries. No one seriously rails against the oil industry for doing it, or offshore manufacturing, or farming or whatever else. Hell, half the reason the UK left the EU was so they could make their own decisions (meaning laws) about stuff they said they cared deeply about. So I'd say putting it in perspective is probably worthwhile here.

@dmr , IMO the rep avoided answering your question(s) because he had better things to do than school you on ... well, on pretty much what I've just done. Take it or leave it but your "illegal bets" argument is pretty thin grounds for harassing the casino. If you'd brought that to me as a PAB I would have told you what I tell anyone who brings that argument to me: "sure, I'll take it to them but not as a case of breaking laws that have no jurisdiction over them but as a case of failing to do the right thing". Very, VERY different circumstances. And you can imagine how many casinos say "ooops, our bad" and change the way they do things re UK players. Some do, especially if they suddenly discover they have something to lose if they don't, but not many.

With all due respect, the issue of UKGC chasing a casino for unlicensed activity wouldn't likely come up with Europe anyway, neither say a German one chasing a UK casino for unlicensed German players. This is because (regardless of Brexit) the UK is still part of the legal civil and criminal agreements with EU countries and so entities that are genuinely located within the EU would know this and refrain. The issue is almost exlclusively centred around casinos outside this framework i.e. cup-o-cocoa and crypto sites.

I agree with one of your main sentiments quoted - 'unethical' - this is a word that appears in many of the CM internal reviews for rogue sites, quite rightly so. Not exclusively used in regard to untaxed and unlicensed play, but generally.

So we are now getting near that line in the sand on CM where it's possible to advertise to the membership casinos, who have without fear of contradiction, been demostrated and acknowledged to have indulged in unethical behaviours. In the case of this site in question, they could even get Grey Zone or Accredited status. That, I believe, would be a sad day for us all. There would be no going back from this, the line having been crossed and with it goes something you cannot put a price on if you are a genuine CM member - the loss of what I consider to be the USP of CM and that is integrity along with the 'advocate of fair play' authority which I personally (and would safely assume most other members) hold in such high regard.

I know it's easy to turn a blind eye to things if the casino pays out and treats the players OK and pays its affiliates etc. but moving on from the merely 'unethical' aspect there is actually a crime being committed here, viz-a-viz tax evasion. Not merely legal avoidance which in itself has got many a company bad press as we saw with Barstucks and Scamazon but outright evasion. By all means contradict me if you think I'm out of line here, but CM has relationships with numerous casinos that are properly regulated and do things by the book - I don't think it's clever to throw operators into their pool who by being, ahem! unethical gain a significant cost advantage.

Look, maybe I'm a bit too intense about this whole matter, but it's the way it all comes across to me right now. Happy Trails.

 

[pinnit2014]

Think we can safely put 'JAZ XXXX' is crap to bed: like i said, plenty of platitudes around 'oh, bad casino accept UK' but now it's an illegal/unethical distinction

C'est la vie.

Like Paul said: Grosvenor etc are deemed 'too big to care', now these casino's are somehow ok. Weird, to say the least.

 

[perunamies]

If anyone cares to notice I think you'll see that I have supported neither party in this. All I've said is that banging the "illegal bets" drum is pretty weak stuff for the reasons given.

Also, arguing that all a rep needs to do is "run to mommy and daddy" and, I assume the implication is supposed to be, get special treatment is just BS. No special treatment has been given to either party thus far. So can the moaning SVP.

When I see the evidence the casino people have against the player then maybe a decision to support one or the other party will be appropriate. Until then I wait, just like the rest of you.

If you care to notice. No one seems to like this casino. Or the rep. That's just the way it is.

You've been pretty aggressive talking about knickers in twists etc. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that tactic will not get people here to change their minds. I'm actually pretty sure it accomplishes the exact opposite. People will dislike this casino even more. I mean, if that's the goal then go for it.

 

[justdoit]

Because the UK GC can't be bothered. Much easier to bitch and moan about the "Black Market" than ever do anything about it. Same as the BGC.

I think UKGC all ready report to GOV, they got problem with black market casinos, I think next is up to police, not sure witch police M6 M5 Met police , but they need to stop all criminals they target UK gamblers

 

[goatwack]

This strikes me as a perfect example of some casinos thinking that having a presence here is enough, and will use CM as platform like any other.

Where being Grey-zoned is sufficient, and outright accreditation not the be-all and end-all, so long as a rep is here to answer queries (or not).

And if not accredited here, then it'll just be at another site, it seemingly matters not. This is why, as mentioned, reps really ought to have their own set of criteria to operate here, and not just shield themselves from problematic lines of questioning by hiding behind their brand.

What good is a silent rep to anyone? And if we're to compare, Bookies have been tarnished for their same non-communicative ways, so the standards have already long been set

 

[maxd]

If you care to notice. No one seems to like this casino. Or the rep. That's just the way it is.

You've been pretty aggressive talking about knickers in twists etc. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that tactic will not get people here to change their minds. I'm actually pretty sure it accomplishes the exact opposite. People will dislike this casino even more. I mean, if that's the goal then go for it.

"Tactic"? Not sure what your end game is but I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything insofar as the casino goes. By all means make up your own mind. As I've said, I haven't seen the evidence yet so I have no significant opinion either way, other than having it on my agenda to recommend to the casino that they not take UK players.

You appear to have taken my bit with the knickers entirely out of context. What I said was:

So what we're really talking about here is ethics and yes, I'd say we generally do believe that good casinos will respect the UKGC's jurisdiction and not chase UK players. But as Bryan said, not our job to police that.

That gets your knickers in a twist? C'est la vie I guess ...

How is that "aggressively" trying to convince anyone of anything? "Not" I'd say. YMMV but don't make accusations based on nothing more than points you're keen on making.

What I was saying is pretty clear I think: banging on that an offshore casino accepting UK bets is "illegal" is a very weak argument. Illegal where? And how is that "illegality" been proven in terms of court actions and rulings? As I've said, bugger all as far as I know so, yeah, getting in a twist about it is pretty much just righteous indignation based on sweet FA, IMHO. Yes I get the ethics of it, as clearly stated, but when it comes to arguments with your average offshore casino ethics and coffee money will get you a coffee and not much else.

As to the tax side of things and the legalities, or not, therein well, I welcome the experts in international tax law to step up and share their thoughts. I for one don't know doodly about such things and I'm not going to make judgements based on hearsay, no offence intended.

 

[perunamies]

"Tactic"? Not sure what your end game is but I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything insofar as the casino goes. By all means make up your own mind. As I've said, I haven't seen the evidence yet so I have no significant opinion either way, other than having it on my agenda to recommend to the casino that they not take UK players.

You appear to have taken my bit with the knickers entirely out of context. What I said was:


How is that "aggressively" trying to convince anyone of anything? "Not" I'd say. YMMV but don't make accusations based on nothing more than points you're keen on making.

What I was saying is pretty clear I think: banging on that an offshore casino accepting UK bets is "illegal" is a very weak argument. Illegal where? And how is that "illegality" been proven in terms of court actions and rulings? As I've said, bugger all as far as I know so, yeah, getting in a twist about it is pretty much just righteous indignation based on sweet FA, IMHO. Yes I get the ethics of it, as clearly stated, but when it comes to arguments with your average offshore casino ethics and coffee money will get you a coffee and not much else.

As to the tax side of things and the legalities, or not, therein well, I welcome the experts in international tax law to step up and share their thoughts. I for one don't know doodly about such things and I'm not going to make judgements based on hearsay, no offence intended.

I have no end game. Lol, just laughing about you getting so worked up about some shitty crapto casino. You're just making yourself look unprofessional. It makes this forum and the casino look bad.

The original issue still stands. The rep is nowhere to be seen and we all know why he isn't answering. Because while it might not be technically illegal, he knows it's a gray area and would rather not publicly admit to something that might later come back and bite him in the ass.

Anyway, life goes on. With or without knickers.

 

[syntynyt]

The real question is why, despite its strigent regulations, the UKGC doesnt simply create a black list containing all unlicensed casinos(public reporting of domains for updates) and then to be enforced upon internet providers across UK? Ban the links, problem solved. They are a government body and can do that. It would alleviate problem gamblers going offshore seeking bonus buys and would retain £ within the territory and make a greater tax return. It was a logical step from its inception that was not even considered? Licensed operators should seek this by deafult claiming unfair competition and loss of revenue if not else. All this kinda discussions would never happen. Did someone mention Ethics is this scheme of things? Dreaded be the day i registered to the first online casino, it has to be the most unethical money grabber industry out there and its only getting worse. The gods with abilities of shafting loads a minute, Evolution conglomerate aka the speller of magnets upon balls, wheel breakers and technical issues, talks big money and creates a monopoly by buying them all that matters. Surely more concerning and unethical given the Evolution recent tainted history than a dude in Bosnia that launched a poors man casino taking UK bets with no licence.

 

[Guntis]

the UKGC doesnt simply create a black list containing all unlicensed casinos(public reporting of domains for updates) and then to be enforced upon internet providers across UK?

I think they either don't care or haven't got a proper clue on know how to deal with it. Here are some resources to read:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[goatwack]

Excellent, so we have an apathetic governing body ignoring indifferent overseas businesses that ensnare UK punters!

The UKGC are a self- serving business that gave up improving the UK gambling landscape long ago. They're likely content with their current revenue stream and will only spring up 'to defend UK players' once their finances are truly affected

- round about the time there's no legit UK casino left to slap a huge fine on!

Wouldn't even surprise me if there's a few convenient 'arrangements' made in this industry, God knows it's more bent than a 9-Bob note. There's probably more stuffed brown envelopes passed around daily than at my local sorting office

 

[slot_zombie]

The real question is why, despite its strigent regulations, the UKGC doesnt simply create a black list containing all unlicensed casinos(public reporting of domains for updates) and then to be enforced upon internet providers across UK? Ban the links, problem solved. They are a government body and can do that. It would alleviate problem gamblers going offshore seeking bonus buys and would retain £ within the territory and make a greater tax return. It was a logical step from its inception that was not even considered?

Probably something to do with the fact that a VPN is a prerequisite for gambling at most of these casinos. So an internet provider "ban" would achieve precisely bugger all.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just to jump in here real quick. Sorry, but I don't have time to answer this thread as thoughly as I'd like to.

But one thing that I keep hearing is "lowering standards" for the casinos listed or reviewed here at Casinomeister. That is the polar opposite of what is true.

We try to review ALL casinos here whether or not they are stellar, or if they are rogue. When we do this, they are placed into categories: Grey Zone or Not Recommended. Some GZ casinos end up going through the Baptism by Fire ONLY if they meet our standards and are reviewed by the membership.

Most of you should know this. But I guess I need to repeat myself - at least for the newbies.

Some go on to become Accredited, and that is only if they can meet our standards - which are crystal clear - thus becoming Accredited. This casino is NOT a CM Accredited casino, nor is it trying to be one. This is only a review and Jelena announces the review, and the rep - if one, and we go on from there.

This is a Grey Zone casino - not some BBF thread. Thanks.

And this casino is listed here as NOT taking UK bets. So I don't really get why I'm receiving flak on my end.

 

[goatwack]

I viewed it as the casino not taking UK bets, but the OP stating the opposite to be true, hence why the whole confusion. Which needed further clarification, as it watered down to 'my word against theirs'.

Question is, how are these things ever held to account, if not for players' experiences, and where does the buck stop? Who delves into the brass tacks without needing to open a PAB? Why am I asking so many questions? Do I even care?

 

[Casinomeister]

Guess with Crypto payments and the like the face of online casinos is changing.

But looking at this forum off late. It seems just about any new casino can get a review and a Rep on here no matter how bad they may be.
Okay it can be pointed out they are not going for accredited but are Grey area casinos and if it turns out they are bad they will be moved to Rogue or not recommended. Fair enough but many people would look at this forum and just see a new Casino with an active Rep and go oh if they are on here must be okay. Without checking reviews. Then if they turn out to be crap the player has no chance of money and little help to them if casino is then rogued. Surely there should be a process where before reviewing any casino and adding a Rep there should be some research given to casino, maybe only casinos that have been around a certain length of time with some sort of positive history online would be a good place to start.
....

You've made some excellent points here - so I will come up with something that works for most everyone.

I viewed it as the casino not taking UK bets, but the OP stating the opposite to be true, hence why the whole confusion. Which needed further clarification, as it watered down to 'my word against theirs'.
...

Correct me if I am wrong, didn't he confuse this Chipstars with another Chipstarz, whatever?

 

[goatwack]

You've made some excellent points here - so I will come up with something that works for most everyone.


Correct me if I am wrong, didn't he confuse this Chipstars with another Chipstarz, whatever?

I think there was some confusion at a point in this thread, but I believe the OP asserted that it was Chipstars

 

[perunamies]

I think there was some confusion at a point in this thread, but I believe the OP asserted that it was Chipstars

Yeah, the op was never confused. Others were. No surprise though when there's a chipstars and a chipstar casino. Fucking amateurs.

 

[perunamies]

Also, while I'm here. What the fuck does the following mean?

The free spins deposit bonus is designed to enhance the entertainment at Chipstars. Any player who takes advantage of this promotion might have to forfeit the bonus, and also miss an opportunity to receive any bonuses in the future.

Lol, casinos are funny. You probably have to be retarded to work for these clip joints.

 

[dmr]

Just to jump in here real quick. Sorry, but I don't have time to answer this thread as thoughly as I'd like to.

But one thing that I keep hearing is "lowering standards" for the casinos listed or reviewed here at Casinomeister. That is the polar opposite of what is true.

We try to review ALL casinos here whether or not they are stellar, or if they are rogue. When we do this, they are placed into categories: Grey Zone or Not Recommended. Some GZ casinos end up going through the Baptism by Fire ONLY if they meet our standards and are reviewed by the membership.

Most of you should know this. But I guess I need to repeat myself - at least for the newbies.

Some go on to become Accredited, and that is only if they can meet our standards - which are crystal clear - thus becoming Accredited. This casino is NOT a CM Accredited casino, nor is it trying to be one. This is only a review and Jelena announces the review, and the rep - if one, and we go on from there.

This is a Grey Zone casino - not some BBF thread. Thanks.

And this casino is listed here as NOT taking UK bets. So I don't really get why I'm receiving flak on my end.

Just to clear any confusion up I wrote the below on this thread at 11:08 on Saturday 25th June

"The only casino I have mentioned, and is the one that this thread should be about is chipstars.bet. This is also the thread which chipstars.bet rep Bojan reads on a daily basis but doesn't seem to wish to reply to the questions raised, especially around their illegal transacting with UK customers."

Furthermore I can assure you that chipstars.bet do accept customers from the UK. This can be verified by Max if he so wishes as I have have sent him both my username and password for the site chipstars.bet. He can log in all see all of my transactions and my account registration details from the UK as I have nothing to hide. Furthermore chipstars.bet asked me to send them a copy of my UK passport to verify my account but they never did verify it after receiving the passport copy.

 

[dmr]

You've made some excellent points here - so I will come up with something that works for most everyone.


Correct me if I am wrong, didn't he confuse this Chipstars with another Chipstarz, whatever?

No I didn't and never have.

 

[slot_zombie]

Who delves into the brass tacks without needing to open a PAB? Why am I asking so many questions? Do I even care?

We probably shouldn't care very much.

We're clinging to a spinning disc hanging in a potentially infinite black void filled with billions of lights, which has existed for billions of years but no-one knows what was there before that, or what is beyond the observable universe. Yet our heads are instead turned by semi-abstract potential licensing and RG "issues" at a hitherto unknown casino business of which we are not patrons. Interesting

 

[goatwack]

We probably shouldn't care very much.

We're clinging to a spinning disc hanging in a potentially infinite black void filled with billions of lights, which has existed for billions of years but no-one knows what was there before that, or what is beyond the observable universe. Yet our heads are instead turned by semi-abstract potential licensing and RG "issues" at a hitherto unknown casino business of which we are not patrons. Interesting

Never knew you had it in you, Zomb. Who knew such a putrid, undead git could pose such eloquent philosophical musings, you rotten bastard

 

[dmr]

I'm looking for some help with chipstars.bet T&C's so if their Rep, Bojan or anyone else would like to give me their opinions it would be very welcome.

According to chipstars.bet and any affiliate websites they were formed in May 2021 and operated under the Curacao Master License 8048/JAZ

Here are a selection of their T&C's as of today 28/06/22

1.3.1 the Rules For All Sports Bets on the DBG Sportsbook as set out under the general Help section (“the Betting Rules”);

Does anyone know who DBG Sportsbook are?

1.8 The Terms of Use govern Your contract with the Operator and will come into effect on 1 august 2015 For the avoidance of doubt, each and all sections of the Website and Telebetting are governed by the Terms of Use, and You should ensure at all times that Your use of the Services is in accordance with the Terms of Use.

A couple of points. Why would there T&Cs come into effect almost 7 years BEFORE they began? And why the mention of Telebetting when they clearly don't offer it? Telebetting is mentioned numerous times in the T&C's

7.3 We are required by our license to inform customers about what happens to money which we hold on account for You, and the extent to which such money is protected in the event on insolvency. Money deposited by You to Your Account will be held in a bank account and/or escrow account which will be kept separate from our company funds. Money in Your Account are not insured, guaranteed, sponsored or otherwise protected by any deposit or banking insurance system or by any other similar insurance system. As such, money in Your Account is not protected in the event of insolvency. This meets the Gambling Commission’s requirements for the segregation of customer funds at the level: basic segregation.

This reads as a copy and paste from a UK GB website as Curacao license holders certainly aren't required to do the above to the best of my knowledge.

9.2.2 When using Telebetting, your bet will be read back to you and you will be asked to confirm that it is correct to our telephone agent.

More Telebetting nonsense as the only phone number mentioned anywhere on their website is a fake UK one +44 1158 88 2716

12.4.3 In our reasonable opinion your continued use of the Services may be detrimental to our regulated status, including our continued ability to be licensed by the Gambling Commission and/or the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner;

Therefore in chipstars.bet "own" words they are saying in their T&Cs that they are licensed by the UK Gambling Commission AND Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner. If that was the case then there would be no problem with UK customers then.

24.2 We are required by law (in particular the Data Protection Act 2004) to comply with data protection requirements in the way in which we use any personal information collected from You in Your use of the Services. We therefore take very seriously our obligations in relation to the way in which we use Your personal information.

Again why would a company licensed in Curacao be quoting the Data Protection Act of 2004 which relates to Gibraltar?

Chipstars accepts bets made online. Bets are not accepted in any other form (email, telephone, fax, etc.) and if received will be void, win or lose.

So why the need for a load of Telebetting T&Cs?

A lot of their betting rules are copy and paste jobs from betway, amongst others

I'm sure this isn't uncommon though with Curacao casinos?

11. What will happen to my account if it isn't verified?​

Until you get verified you can use play money to check out the platform and gameplay. After you get registered you can make a deposit and receive deposit bonus and get included in the VIP program.

That's very strange as my account is STILL UNVERIFED but I was able to deposit over EUR27,000 in less than a month. Trust me it definitely wasn't play money . I did get included in the VIP program though.

8. Is Chipstars a Legal and Regulated Online Gambling Site?​

Chipstars.bet is licenced through Games & More BV, under the licence No. 8048/JAZ issued to Curacao E-Gaming, Authorised and Regulated by the Government of Curacao. Chipstars.bet is operated by Games & More BV, a company registered in Curacao with the Commercial Register of Curacao No. 149948, and having its registered address at Pareraweg 45, Willemstad, Curacao.

9. Chipstars prohibits the use of its services​

by people in the following countries: USA, France, Netherland, Singapore, Curacao.

So clearly no mention of the UK in the prohibited list.

My thoughts, which are preciously that, is that ALL chipstars.bet T&C's have been copied from a 3rd party and they have just not done their proof reading very well. Either way their T&C's full of lies ,whether intentional or not.

Apologies for the length of the post but I'm not forcing anyone to read it

 

[Guntis]

Also, while I'm here. What the fuck does the following mean?


Lol, casinos are funny. You probably have to be retarded to work for these clip joints.

That is likely the creation of Chipy's or Willy's cousin... Chipy and Willy are bots that work for Skybet and William Hill

 

[paul7388]

Do i believe Trustpilot Reviews. No.

But do notice a review from a UK player in April praising Chipstars and the review clearly states they accept UK players. The review has a thank you reply from the Chipstars team thanking them for their praise. So not going into whether they now accept UK players, whether it is right or wrong, merely pointing out that 2 months ago they themselves did not seem to have a problem with a gambler thanking them and clearly stating they accept UK players so pretty obvious they did then.

dmr being curious. When was it you lost the 27k at the casino. Recently or a while back.