[CLOSED] Betdirect/MG robbing me of 1,200+$

[dunhill]

Hi. They accused me of fraud/colluding, while nothing like that had been done.
The thing was that a player whom I happen to know in real life lost some money to me that she owed to me in real life. There was no threat to other players or the pokerroom from these actions. The thing they are doing is stealing money from me, pure and simple. The excuse they are giving for it has no real grounds as it`s described below. T&Cs at betdirectpoker didn`t say anything about that.

If someone can help me with this, my login at betdirect is starxp

You`ll get a full picture from our correspondence:



%%%Hello.

I had a talk on the phone with you a while ago.
You asked me to repeat in e-mail what was told to you by the phone.

The reason for that quite strange game play with a player called *** was her owing me a quite significant sum of money in real life. It was decided that the debt would partly be given back by a number of means, including playing poker, as it was convenient for both of us for a number of reasons (including me prefering money on my MB account instead of cash). Playing poker in this case was not considered to be different than a transfer via moneybookers or any other system. Her game play was suspicious, I can agree on that, and even thank you for attention to player security.

During this gameplay nothing illegal or violating your T&C had been committed. I have read your terms attentively. This is not fraud or colluding whatsoever. I am a lawyer and happen to know what fraud is. In case of poker, this would be, for example, depositing from stolen credit cards or stolen electronic payment systems accounts and losing it to other player`s account. Or, another case, would be cooperating with another player (or players) when playing a 6-player table, for instance, and trying to win from individual players by taking advantage of knowing each other`s hands.
The game play between me and the mentioned player was on a two-player table, there has not been any account theft whatsoever, so this is not a case when fraud/colluding is involved. Indeed, playing online poker with a player you know in real life is fully legal as long as the things mentioned above do not take place.
Neither the poker room nor other players suffered a loss or a risk of loss because of the poker play that has taken place. Poker room collected its rake, other players did not participate as it was a 2player table. I had several hands with another player, not ***, which were just normal hands and I do not think they are of interest to you.
The funds in my account have not been gained illegally or while violating your T&C, and, while you are free to close any accounts, which is your right and property, it would be illegal to confistate funds gained while legal, though suspicious as it may seem to you, play. %%%

Their replies were
%%%
1. Just to confirm that I have sent you explanation to our governing board.
We hope to resolve this issue for you in a timely fashion and be in touch as soon as possible.
Regards

2.
Following the investigation in to your account we now have been given the results.
As there has never been any other play on your account except for the day that you chip received we believe that it was done intentional with the knowledge of breaking the rules of the game.
It is considered a risk to us and other players to let you have your account reopen.
The matter is now closed as far as we are concerned and will not be entering into any further discussion on the matter. All related funds and your account will remain frozen.
Regards%%%

I replied:
There was no intention of breaking the game rules. I am new to poker, as is ***, and, though the T&C at your site were read attentively, there was no mention of this being prohibited.
As I have said earlier, there has been no colluding or fraud. There was no risk to you or other players as I none have been involved. You are free to close my account as long as the funds on it are returned. You have no legal reason whatsoever of confiscating them.
If you are not willing to continue this discussion, either return the funds or give me any contact info of the governing body so I can discuss this with them.

 

[Casinomeister]

Ummm, what you did was laundering money. That's mega fraud.

And you're a lawyer? Come on - give us a break.

Why didn't you send your friend a check in the mail, or a peer to peer transfer in Neteller or what have you?

I'll contact Prima for you (they are the ones that probably had your account locked) and see what they can do.

But get real, if you were planning to do this, why didn't you give the casino manager a heads up that this is what you intended to do? You wouldn't have risked any of your finds this way.

 

[Casinomeister]

...Playing poker in this case was not considered to be different than a transfer via moneybookers or any other system.

That's chip dumping.

 

[dunhill]

Ummm, what you did was laundering money. That's mega fraud.

And you're a lawyer? Come on - give us a break.

Why didn't you send your friend a check in the mail, or a peer to peer transfer in Neteller or what have you?

I'll contact Prima for you (they are the ones that probably had your account locked) and see what they can do.

But get real, if you were planning to do this, why didn't you give the casino manager a heads up that this is what you intended to do? You wouldn't have risked any of your finds this way.

Neteller does not accept customers from specific countries. Using moneybookers for this is discussed later on.
The money was owed TO me, not BY me.
Concerning the last question: I am a complete newbie at poker, I read the terms at BD, didn`t find anything prohibiting this.

This is not money laundering or anything like this. Heres a more complete picture.
1. I`ve been a betdirect customer for quite a long time, about six months. Played at the casino.
2. The other player (who owes me the money) registered and played at the casino initially. She had good winnings there, betting quite risky. The money that she owes me was given back to me by cash, some bets at live casinos, moneybookers. But, due to her moneybookers limits being quite low, and withdrawals using other methods taking a significant amount of time, we decided that a transfer using poker could be more convenient.
3. Deposits were made via moneybookers.

A player depositing from her own MB account, playing at the casino with a high risk of losing her money, then losing it to another player for the reasons stated above - can that look as money laundering to a reasonable person? And myself, being a customer for half a year and then suddently deciding to launder money using poker?

 

[Simmo!]

I can sympathise to a degree if it was all done innocently, and I'm no lawyer, but surely it is money laundering? Even if you only tansfer 1 this way, the fact is that you are using a poker room to receive money, and it being seen as "winnings" is therefore tax free. Betdirect is now owned by Stan James (or is due to be) and I am sure they will have very strict checks on money laundering activity. Like I say, I'm no lawyer, but I can see why they refused to play ball. That said, not quite why they refer to it as breaking "game rules", unless it's breaking the rules outlined in the T&C's regards the game in some way obviously. I would have thought they'd simply say its seen as money laundering.

Presumably they didn't keep the money? They refunded it back to your friend I assume?

 

[spearmaster]

I can sympathize with this also - but it is still clearly chip dumping, which is against the rules, and can be construed as money laundering.

I do think that BetDirect should review the case again, though. And next time you want to try this method of being repaid, ask the casino first.

... well, after going back and reviewing BetDirects T&Cs...

there is this rule -

5.6 Soft playing or chip dumping may result in disqualification from the tournament. Any unethical play may result in the termination of the offending Player’s account

The only problem with this is that the term relates to tournaments - although if you had read this you surely would have been a bit wary about doing what you did without double-checking first.

I think you can challenge them on the chip dumping part, which at least will force them to amend their rules.

However, you should also note this:

11.3 You may cancel your account or a particular subscription for a Service by following the procedures made available with the applicable Service. betdirect reserves the right to collect fees, surcharges or costs incurred before you cancel your account or a particular subscription. In the event that your account or a particular subscription is terminated, suspended or cancelled, no refund will be granted, no other credits (e.g. points or tokens) will be credited to you or converted to cash or other form of reimbursement, and you will have no further access to your account or anything associated with it (such as points, tokens or Rubies). If your account is terminated or suspended by betdirect, betdirect shall have the right to terminate or suspend any of your other accounts.

 

[dunhill]

I can sympathise to a degree if it was all done innocently, and I'm no lawyer, but surely it is money laundering? Even if you only tansfer 1 this way, the fact is that you are using a poker room to receive money, and it being seen as "winnings" is therefore tax free. Betdirect is now owned by Stan James (or is due to be) and I am sure they will have very strict checks on money laundering activity. Like I say, I'm no lawyer, but I can see why they refused to play ball. That said, not quite why they refer to it as breaking "game rules", unless it's breaking the rules outlined in the T&C's regards the game in some way obviously. I would have thought they'd simply say its seen as money laundering.

Presumably they didn't keep the money? They refunded it back to your friend I assume?

They didn`t say anything about money laudering. They accused me of fraud and colluding.
Concerning tax free, etc: the funds would either way go back to moneybookers, as we both deposited using it. (The reasons for her not withdrawing the money to MB and then sending it to me have been described). Money on MB is tax free either way.
They kept the money. They sent an e-mail to my girlfriend about fraud/colluding, too. But according to her, her account is empty, unlike mine.

 

[dunhill]

I can sympathize with this also - but it is still clearly chip dumping, which is against the rules, and can be construed as money laundering.

I do think that BetDirect should review the case again, though. And next time you want to try this method of being repaid, ask the casino first.

... well, after going back and reviewing BetDirects T&Cs...

there is this rule -



The only problem with this is that the term relates to tournaments - although if you had read this you surely would have been a bit wary about doing what you did without double-checking first.

I think you can challenge them on the chip dumping part, which at least will force them to amend their rules.

However, you should also note this:

Thanks for sympathising
However, the first quote relates to tournaments, as you said yourself.
The second one, if I read it right, says that your account may be suspended and consequently your money not refunded, i.e. stolen if the room decides so. That`s like the casinos using the bonus abuse bs not to pay the winnings. Only in this case they`d also take your deposit for your full pleasure.

 

[Simmo!]

Money on MB is tax free either way.

That's not right - certainly not in the UK anyway. Any resident is liable to pay tax on any "income" (above a threshold) except in one or two areas, gambling winnings being one, irrespective of how it is collected or from what area of the world it comes from. I'm not sure how repayment of a debt works mind.

They kept the money.

Now that doesn't sound right. Surely they should refund it to the original depositor?

 

[Vortran007]

Just so we are clear on colluding:

To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire.

To have secretly a joint part or share in an action; to play into each other's hands; to conspire; to act in concert.

Win or lose - you were colluding once you put that plan into action.

I am curious - as a lawyer, how do you define "collusion"? That is an unloaded question.

Also, why did you not contact the manager to see if there was a possibility to do this legitimately?

I have PMd the Prima rep here, but he has not logged onto the forum for a while. Feel free to Pitch a Bitch, and we will see if we can get some answers for you.

 

[dunhill]

That's not right - certainly not in the UK anyway. Any resident is liable to pay tax on any "income" (above a threshold) except in one or two areas, gambling winnings being one, irrespective of how it is collected or from what area of the world it comes from. I'm not sure how repayment of a debt works mind.

When I or anyone else receives money to the credit card or to bank account from a sender called moneybookers, for example, if the sum is not large, nobody gives a damn. The banks should report transations over ~$23k to financial control agencies. Thats how things are in my countries. Anyway, I very much doubt that casino/poker players in other countries, if they do not have a very large net win, include all this in their tax declarations. I am sure most don`t. So the presumption that this was money-laundering is quite ridiculous.


///QUOTENow that doesn't sound right. Surely they should refund it to the original depositor?

If the last sentence is a question (I think you meant a period to be there?), then yes, they should either pay out the funds in my account to me or reverse the things to the state at which they were before the game play took place, i.e. send those winnings to my friend and leave my deposits in my account. AND UNFREEZE THESE FUNDS.

 

[dunhill]

Just so we are clear on colluding:

Win or lose - you were colluding once you put that plan into action.

I am curious - as a lawyer, how do you define "collusion"? That is an unloaded question.

Also, why did you not contact the manager to see if there was a possibility to do this legitimately?

I have PMd the Prima rep here, but he has not logged onto the forum for a while. Feel free to Pitch a Bitch, and we will see if we can get some answers for you.

There was no deceitful illegal, etc purpose. Colluding is usually done to achive some financial gain. If our play had taken place on a 6-10 player table with us knowing each others card - I`d totally agree with you. The table was two-seat.
I`ve now found the Prima`s definition of it in the help section (not in betdirect`s T&C where it really should be!). It is:
"When Players form partnerships with the intent of defrauding other players. For example, Players may signal their hand to their Partners, so that the best hand is played"

I think that explaining the fact that what had taken place is not what is defined by the poker room as collusion would be placing reader`s intelligence under doubt. Judge by yourself.

 

[GrandMaster]

Ummm, what you did was laundering money. That's mega fraud.

Money laundering involves the proceeds of crime, in fact, in the UK any transaction involving any kind of proceeds of crime, not just money, without the permission of the police is defined to be money laundering. Even the possession of a stolen object by the thief is money laundering. You can still do almost anything with your own legally obtained property and it is not money laundering. If you deposit your own money from legal sources in a poker room and deliberately lose it to a friend, that's perfectly legal (assuming you can play poker legally). It will be flagged as suspicious and it will be against the T&C of the poker room, but not against the law.

 

[Casinomeister]

Money laundering involves the proceeds of crime, in fact, in the UK any transaction involving any kind of proceeds of crime, not just money, without the permission of the police is defined to be money laundering. Even the possession of a stolen object by the thief is money laundering. You can still do almost anything with your own legally obtained property and it is not money laundering. If you deposit your own money from legal sources in a poker room and deliberately lose it to a friend, that's perfectly legal (assuming you can play poker legally). It will be flagged as suspicious and it will be against the T&C of the poker room, but not against the law.

Okay, let me reword this to "it looks like money laundering"

But who's to say what the outcome of the funds are. Let's say these are two drug dealers trying to move money. Sign up at a poker room and then "lose" the money to one another. This is one of the reasons poker rooms are adamant about this sort of thing. Even though it looks innocent - two friends paying each other back - if there is any criminal element involved, the poker room becomes an instrument of that crime.

What if the OP and his friend get popped by the local police? (this is only a theoretical scenario) They confiscate their computers and see that he received his funds from his "friend" via the poker room. Guess what will happen to poker room? That's why this behaviour is discouraged.

This "lawyer" should have figured this out already

 

[Casinomeister]

There was no deceitful illegal, etc purpose. Colluding is usually done to achive some financial gain...

I understand this, but I believe Vortran was giving you several definitions of colluding that are applicable. As soon as you "conspire", it's colluding regardless of the outcome. You acted in concert with your friend.

But saying this, I hope the poker room takes a relook at this to determine what should be done.

 

[dunhill]

Okay, let me reword this to "it looks like money laundering"

But who's to say what the outcome of the funds are. Let's say these are two drug dealers trying to move money. Sign up at a poker room and then "lose" the money to one another. This is one of the reasons poker rooms are adamant about this sort of thing. Even though it looks innocent - two friends paying each other back - if there is any criminal element involved, the poker room becomes an instrument of that crime.

What if the OP and his friend get popped by the local police? (this is only a theoretical scenario) They confiscate their computers and see that he received his funds from his "friend" via the poker room. Guess what will happen to poker room? That's why this behaviour is discouraged.

This "lawyer" should have figured this out already

Even not being lawyer you should know that there is a presumption of innocence, and it would be reasonable to refrain from making such assumptions unless you can prove this. It was a repay of a debt, not money laudering or fraud of any kind.

 

[dunhill]

I understand this, but I believe Vortran was giving you several definitions of colluding that are applicable. As soon as you "conspire", it's colluding regardless of the outcome. You acted in concert with your friend.

But saying this, I hope the poker room takes a relook at this to determine what should be done.

I quoted the definition of that the poker room defines as "collusion". I believe this should be the criteria used in this case, and it is obvious that the actions that had taken place are not what the poker room defines as collusion.

I too hope that they take a relook at this and come out with a reasonable resolution. If they are concerned with this "money-laundering" nonsense, they may refund the money that I won back to my girlfriend and my deposits to me.

I would like to thank you if you contacted them, too, to help this case being reviewed unbiased and in a fair way.

 

[Casinomeister]

Even not being lawyer you should know that there is a presumption of innocence, and it would be reasonable to refrain from making such assumptions unless you can prove this. It was a repay of a debt, not money laudering or fraud of any kind.

Now you're sounding like a lawyer. Right on!

I would like to thank you if you contacted them, too, to help this case being reviewed unbiased and in a fair way.

Awaiting their response...

 

[Casinomeister]

Well, they've responded and something is not quite right. Explain to me why you decided not to make a peer to peer transfer to this other person via moneybookers.

They've also provided me with the hands - undoubtedly chip dumping which is strictly forbidden.

Why have the funds been confiscated? The reason for this is to protect the poker room from any chargebacks the chip dumper might initiate.

You two are in the same city, why not pay each other in person? The poker room is not a bank, you know.

 

[Casinomeister]

I've also been informed by BetDirect that they are awaiting word back from Moneybookers before they decide on what the next move is. When they hear from them, the casino contact will be contacting you.

The thing is, it would be easier for the poker room to access this situation if you guys were long term players, but you aren't. Your girlfriend opened her poker account 4 days ahead of the "dump" - playing only on that "dumping" day. You opened your account merely to receive these "winnings". It's not like you were poker players there. You were only using them as a bank.

Pretty strange indeed

 

[dunhill]

We might prefer to discuss all the details via PM

 

[dunhill]

I've also been informed by BetDirect that they are awaiting word back from Moneybookers before they decide on what the next move is. When they hear from them, the casino contact will be contacting you.

The thing is, it would be easier for the poker room to access this situation if you guys were long term players, but you aren't. Your girlfriend opened her poker account 4 days ahead of the "dump" - playing only on that "dumping" day. You opened your account merely to receive these "winnings". It's not like you were poker players there. You were only using them as a bank.

Pretty strange indeed

My account at betdirect was opened about hald a year ago, as far a I remember. I played casino.
Other things are answered in my previous post.

 

[Casinomeister]

Did you check the URL for the poker room?

It's Betdirectpoker.com not Betdirectbanking.com .

I'm not concerned about the casino account. You opened this poker account only for the transfer of these funds by pretending to play poker, and so did she; this has nothing to do with the casino.

It's collusion, it's chip dumping, and it's wrong. Simple as that.

You should be hearing from them when they have a response from Moneybookers.

 

[dunhill]

via pm

 

[Keyser]

No sympathy from me

Im sorry, but I can't have much sympathy for this situation. How difficult is it to mail a check? You have to use a pokerroom to transfer funds? Personal check, money order, bank check, all of these methods can be used. If you are a lawyer, you can't be ignorant of these normal methods of transferring money. Heck, what about Paypal?

You should be happy that this issue is being looked into at all. If it were me, I would tell you to take a hike.