vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
One thing is clear the poker room has no legal right to KEEP THE MONEY. Whatever it's source, be it crime, tax dodging, etc, it belongs to someone, and that someone is not the poker room.
If the worry is about chargebacks, then the funds should be returned to Moneybookers in the name of the girlfriend, or the risk of a chageback still exist from that girlfriend who still owes the money, but no longer has it. If it was down to crime, it is up to the local police to investigate, and local laws will dictate what happens to this money.
Here in the UK, proceeds of crime can be seized by court order, and become the property of the state. They can then be used for more enforcement measures. It is up to the court to decide whether seizure is appropriate in individual cases, and if this story is true, I don't think this would happen.
It seems quite a few players still believe that chip dumping is a viable way to pay money to someone, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no way the poker room can verify that this is just repayment of a personal debt, or passing on the proceeds of crime, so it has to take the more serious view and lock both accounts. Both these players now have to prove themselves, as well as come up with a good reason as to why they could not transfer the funds by any other means.
Even a personal debt could be criminal, such as a user owing money to their drug dealer, so even had the poker room been asked beforehand, they would have said no, and would probably locked the accounts in the belief that this was why they were opened.
If the worry is about chargebacks, then the funds should be returned to Moneybookers in the name of the girlfriend, or the risk of a chageback still exist from that girlfriend who still owes the money, but no longer has it. If it was down to crime, it is up to the local police to investigate, and local laws will dictate what happens to this money.
Here in the UK, proceeds of crime can be seized by court order, and become the property of the state. They can then be used for more enforcement measures. It is up to the court to decide whether seizure is appropriate in individual cases, and if this story is true, I don't think this would happen.
It seems quite a few players still believe that chip dumping is a viable way to pay money to someone, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no way the poker room can verify that this is just repayment of a personal debt, or passing on the proceeds of crime, so it has to take the more serious view and lock both accounts. Both these players now have to prove themselves, as well as come up with a good reason as to why they could not transfer the funds by any other means.
Even a personal debt could be criminal, such as a user owing money to their drug dealer, so even had the poker room been asked beforehand, they would have said no, and would probably locked the accounts in the belief that this was why they were opened.