Getting money back from PokerStars because it was illegal?

[bessola]

That is the big difference in between a experienced gambler or a problem gambler.

There are many players who are experienced gamblers and problem gamblers at the same time, so this doesn't make sense.

The fact that you have enough discipline, does not mean that others can also have this discipline. Do you understand the definition of addiction and compulsive behaviour? Why do you think the RG laws exist?

Anyway, this is off-topic, because this thread is about offering services illegaly without a license.

See Related Threads:

• Pokerstars- Unfair Treatment
• Pokerstars - What is Wrong With This Company
• Pokerstars: An Absolute Clownshow
• Pokerstars Casino
• Pokerstars Casino 1 Million Slots Race

 

[bessola]

Well i'm sorry if you have problems with gambling you shoud'nt be gambling in the first place, dont you?

If you keep suckering for the obvious then your never going to get out of it. Its you either go in there with a mission, or step out, for good. A gambling disease will progress over time the longer you battle or have to deal with it. If you have access to such tools to keep it in check, use them.

That urge to gambling will be there till the day you hit your grave. If it's the hit you seek there's a zillion other ways to get those dopamine hits. Trust me. We humans never needed gambling. Gambling needs us.

I knew people who gone so far to have their marriage inside a casino. I mean how charming it may sound, having your wedding ceremy done in a casino, it says something about how deeply rooted that was for those individuals.

A decade later i had a drink with him in the casino. He told me he could never touch it ever again, and just enjoyed the show. That is the only healthy way out.

An alcoholic is'nt told to "socially drink" either... It's a hardcore stop and never touch it again approach.

A heroine addict yields the same fate. You cant do nor touch it anymore if it tears your life apart. Simple as that!

The same goes up for gambling. If it is destroying you then stop gambling. Seek alternative pleasures, fixes or whatever floats your boat. Its each and everyone for their own.

But with all the medical knowledge, i think there should be pills that can supress the urge to gamble or the thrill to lose everything. Why is'nt this researched ?

This is off-topic, because this thread is not about addiction, but about offering services to players illegaly without a license, and taking responsibility for that.

 

[interlog]

Why play at a casino that didn't have the respective license in the first place. If you did, then don't complain afterwards.

 

[bessola]

Why play at a casino that didn't have the respective license in the first place. If you did, then don't complain afterwards.

Most players did not know they didn't have a licence, because they pretended to players it was legal. For example by accepting players based in the Netherlands, by accepting iDEAL deposit method, and by communicating to players in Dutch language.

 

[interlog]

Most players did not know they didn't have a licence, because they pretended to players it was legal. For example by accepting players based in the Netherlands, by accepting iDEAL deposit method, and by communicating to players in Dutch language.

So what. Say that they were licensed you would have lost the money.

I can understand reason for complaint if money was taken from Dutch players but no winnings paid out because they were Dutch.

Alas, that is not the case here.

Money is gone, forget about it and move on

 

[bessola]

So what. Say that they were licensed you would have lost the money.

They didn't have a license, that's the whole point.

 

[interlog]

They didn't have a license, that's the whole point.

And you would still have lost the same money if they were licensed.

 

[bessola]

And you would still have lost the same money if they were licensed.

You don't know that at all, because you don't know how much a player could have deposited and played if the provider followed RG guidelines complying with the license. So your argument is not valid.

Moreover, the point is that they didn't have a license and were acting illegal, so it does not even matter what the situation would be if they did have a license.

 

[interlog]

You don't know that at all, because you don't know how much a player could have deposited and played if the provider followed RG guidelines complying with the license. So your argument is not valid.

Moreover, the point is that they didn't have a license and were acting illegal, so it does not even matter what the situation would be if they did have a license.

You take responsibility for your own actions.

And what about those players that played and won. You I guess expect them to return their ill gotten winnings to the casino?

Governments can piss off. They don't control the Internet and shouldn't dictate where I can and cannot gamble online

 

[L&L-Jan]

Technically they had a license, because the Netherlands did not provide an alternative. Their gambling law from 1964 did not cover online gambling. The remote gambling part (KOA) was added in October 2021 to the gambling law from 1964.

So if the Netherlands does not offer a license system, but another European state does, it is Europe after all. So they can rely on European Economic Area, which state:

The EEA incorporates the four freedoms of the internal market (free movement of goods, persons, services and capital) and related policies (competition, transport, energy, and economic and monetary cooperation).

So yes, they were regulated because NL was lacking any form of regulations related to online gambling.

 

[vanessa.green]

You might try contacting PokerStars' customer care to ask for a refund if you think the money you placed there was obtained fraudulently or unlawfully. To combat fraud and money laundering, PokerStars has strong policies and processes in place. PokerStars is a registered and regulated online poker service.

If your allegation is valid, they might look into it and restore your money, but you might have to offer proof to back it up. To seek guidance and assistance in getting your money back, you can also think about contacting a legal representative or the regulatory body that controls online gambling. But, you are unlikely to be able to claim a refund if you deposited money and lost it through fair gameplay.

 

[jasonuk]

Firstly, I'd be careful with wording - there is a significant difference between a "crime" (proven in a court of law) and an "administrative penalty" ("bestuurlijke boete", imposed by a government body).

It was no coincidence that the KSA started to flex their muscles a couple of years before they introduced formal licensing in 2021 - both by applying administrative fines, and by imposing a 33 month "cooling-off" period for operators who had an unlicensed presence prior to 2021.

When it comes to "grey markets", many will naturally think of Curacao - but many European players used to play with Isle of Man (as with PokerStars) or Alderney operators also.

The ambiguity comes from the legality - it was legal for a IoM/Alderney casino to offer licensed gambling remotely, it was legal for a player to register and play on said sites, it might not be legal to operate in the country itself (and in the case of PokerStars, is where the KSA seemed to lean on - the use of iDEAL payment processing, and the use of Dutch professionals like Lex Veldhuis).

It's certainly not as clear cut as the OP is making out - if we highlight that:

• Many of the enforcement actions are administrative penalties or cease and desist notices - naturally operators are more willing to comply if they wish to enter the regulated NL market or they have other EU/UK operations (because even if the KSA can't do anything, their own regulator can ask "fit and proper" questions if the operator refused).
• There is a tension between national and EU law, as the Dutch authorities found out when they
  You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
  - after five years of legal wrangling the consensus was that as PokerStars EU was based in Malta, EU law overrides NL law and gambling tax could not be imposed on players however Pokerstars FR was (at the time) based in Isle of Man, and because IoM is not part of the EU, then NL law applies and players were liable for gambling taxes.
• For problematic jurisdictions (like Curacao), the KSA are - like any other industry - forced to target local footprints - they will target local partners like payment providers or advertising partners instead, the ICLG article (below) notes that they've struggled to collect fines from foreign operators.

Additional background:

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

Which comes back to the OP and the legal ambiguity - Flutter's legal team have pretty much explained the situation - they were based in Malta, held a MGA license, and could offer their services to EU players. This had already been tested in court by Betfair (a Flutter company) in

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

(warning, it's a lot of legalese - but parts 48 to 55 are the key ones, which seemingly gives Betfair the green light to operate in this way until NL offer an open licensing model).


So to summarise: they operated legally within the legal framework that was available, the KSA wanted to flex their muscles and issued a fine, because KSA were planning to introduce open gambling licenses (the pivotal clause they lost on in the 2010 court case) it made sense for PS to pay up rather than challenge it and risk setting a bad precedence for themselves.

... and breathe ?
<disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is for general information only>

 

[bessola]

Firstly, I'd be careful with wording - there is a significant difference between a "crime" (proven in a court of law) and an "administrative penalty" ("bestuurlijke boete", imposed by a government body).

It was no coincidence that the KSA started to flex their muscles a couple of years before they introduced formal licensing in 2021 - both by applying administrative fines, and by imposing a 33 month "cooling-off" period for operators who had an unlicensed presence prior to 2021.

When it comes to "grey markets", many will naturally think of Curacao - but many European players used to play with Isle of Man (as with PokerStars) or Alderney operators also.

The ambiguity comes from the legality - it was legal for a IoM/Alderney casino to offer licensed gambling remotely, it was legal for a player to register and play on said sites, it might not be legal to operate in the country itself (and in the case of PokerStars, is where the KSA seemed to lean on - the use of iDEAL payment processing, and the use of Dutch professionals like Lex Veldhuis).

It's certainly not as clear cut as the OP is making out - if we highlight that:

• Many of the enforcement actions are administrative penalties or cease and desist notices - naturally operators are more willing to comply if they wish to enter the regulated NL market or they have other EU/UK operations (because even if the KSA can't do anything, their own regulator can ask "fit and proper" questions if the operator refused).
• There is a tension between national and EU law, as the Dutch authorities found out when they
  You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
  - after five years of legal wrangling the consensus was that as PokerStars EU was based in Malta, EU law overrides NL law and gambling tax could not be imposed on players however Pokerstars FR was (at the time) based in Isle of Man, and because IoM is not part of the EU, then NL law applies and players were liable for gambling taxes.
• For problematic jurisdictions (like Curacao), the KSA are - like any other industry - forced to target local footprints - they will target local partners like payment providers or advertising partners instead, the ICLG article (below) notes that they've struggled to collect fines from foreign operators.

Additional background:

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

Which comes back to the OP and the legal ambiguity - Flutter's legal team have pretty much explained the situation - they were based in Malta, held a MGA license, and could offer their services to EU players. This had already been tested in court by Betfair (a Flutter company) in

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

(warning, it's a lot of legalese - but parts 48 to 55 are the key ones, which seemingly gives Betfair the green light to operate in this way until NL offer an open licensing model).


So to summarise: they operated legally within the legal framework that was available, the KSA wanted to flex their muscles and issued a fine, because KSA were planning to introduce open gambling licenses (the pivotal clause they lost on in the 2010 court case) it made sense for PS to pay up rather than challenge it and risk setting a bad precedence for themselves.

... and breathe ?
<disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is for general information only>

That's great information, thank you very much!

This is also what I was asking about originally: the contradiction between EU and NL law.

The exact definition of a crime in the (cambridge) dictionary is 'illegal activity':

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

Breaking the law is not legal. Gambling in The Netherlands was in this period regulated under the Betting and Gambling Act 1964 (Wet op de kansspelen) (BGA), taking a clear 'prohibited unless licensed' approach (see article 1A), same as in the new law:

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

. The administrative penalties of the KSA are also based on, and refer to, breaking this law.

 

[jasonuk]

Gambling in The Netherlands was in this period regulated under the Betting and Gambling Act 1964 (Wet op de kansspelen) (BGA), taking a clear 'prohibited unless licensed' approach (see article 1A), same as in the new law:

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

. The administrative penalties of the KSA are also based on, and refer to, breaking this law.

This is where the logic falls apart - there are potentially three jurisdictions involved: a) the location of the player, b) the location of the casino and c) the location of the game provider.

So when you signed up to a MGA-licensed casino, while you are physically located in the Netherlands, you agree the contract has jurisdiction in Malta and gambling occurs (on a server) in Malta.

The KSA assumed they had complete regulatory authority if only the first jurisdiction was true - which the EU courts have shot down on multiple occasions (including the 2010 Betfair v NL case previously mentioned). They have been fighting this losing battle seemingly for the best part of two decades.

The only reason this (as far as I can see) hasn't been tested yet again in the EU courts is because the companies willingly want to apply for an NL licence and don't want to rock the boat (i.e. delay their application). If that wasn't the case, they could trivially stick two fingers up at the KSA and the KSA may have little to no recourse (as has been the case with some of the shadier operations from Curacao who have no intention of applying).

Which is exactly what is happening in Norway:

Trannel International (Kindred)	Netherlands (KSA) - Transition to Open Market	Norway (NGA) - Monopoly Market
Regulation	August 2019, KSA fined TI €470k for "illegally" accepting bets from Dutch customers	2019, NGA issue cease-and-desist against TI, threatening a €116k daily fine for "illegal" gambling
Counter	TI intends to appeal, but drops the case in December 2019 to focus on their NL licence	TI quoted the EEA law (similar to EU v NL above), and continued to accept customers.
Current	Unibet NL launches in July 2022	TI continues to ignore NGA rulings for three years [1][2] and still accepts customers from Norway (under EEA laws) - pending any constructive dialogue regarding market reform

So just because the regulator claims that it is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it is... that is for a suitable court to decide.

[1] June 2022 -

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

[2] Nov 2022 -

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

 

[slot_zombie]

Most players did not know they didn't have a licence, because they pretended to players it was legal. For example by accepting players based in the Netherlands, by accepting iDEAL deposit method, and by communicating to players in Dutch language.

So.. when depositing, gambling and spinning:. Blissfully ignorant of all regulations and licensing requirements. Gamble gamble gamble. It matters not.

Post - depositing (in loss): Expert on casino licensing requirements and timelines in native country.

I have to say this is quite creative, but ultimately in a similar disingenuous camp to the self-excluded who sign up with slightly different details then try to claim a refund.

 

[jasonuk]

I have to say this is quite creative, but ultimately in a similar disingenuous camp to the self-excluded who sign up with slightly different details then try to claim a refund.

I was getting that vibe as well. As soon as they understand the KSA had (previously) no legal jurisdiction over the casino, the whole argument falls apart. It's an interesting conversation to have (particularly learning about the mess in Norway), but no refund will be forthcoming.

 

[bessola]

You take responsibility for your own actions.

And what about those players that played and won. You I guess expect them to return their ill gotten winnings to the casino?

Governments can piss off. They don't control the Internet and shouldn't dictate where I can and cannot gamble online

No, they offered their games illegal.

You might try contacting PokerStars' customer care to ask for a refund if you think the money you placed there was obtained fraudulently or unlawfully. To combat fraud and money laundering, PokerStars has strong policies and processes in place. PokerStars is a registered and regulated online poker service.

If your allegation is valid, they might look into it and restore your money, but you might have to offer proof to back it up. To seek guidance and assistance in getting your money back, you can also think about contacting a legal representative or the regulatory body that controls online gambling. But, you are unlikely to be able to claim a refund if you deposited money and lost it through fair gameplay.

Thanks for your reply, but it's per definition not 'Fair gameplay' what they offered, since they did not have a permit, so it was illegal and they did not follow mandatory 'Fair Play rules' imposed by the government.

 

[bessola]

So.. when depositing, gambling and spinning:. Blissfully ignorant of all regulations and licensing requirements. Gamble gamble gamble. It matters not.

Post - depositing (in loss): Expert on casino licensing requirements and timelines in native country.

I have to say this is quite creative, but ultimately in a similar disingenuous camp to the self-excluded who sign up with slightly different details then try to claim a refund.

They offered everything under false pretenses (pretending it was legal), so there was no reason to check regulations and licenses. When we found out it was illegal, of course we started looking into licensing requirements and timelines. Nothing weird or ignorant about that.

I'm really suprised that this Casinomeister forum has title "advocating Fair Play since 1998' but when we talk about illegal activities of casinos
(which is clearly not Fair Play) experienced board members here don't advocate Fair Play but seem to choose the side of casino who offer illegal activities.

 

[bessola]

I was getting that vibe as well. As soon as they understand the KSA had (previously) no legal jurisdiction over the casino, the whole argument falls apart. It's an interesting conversation to have (particularly learning about the mess in Norway), but no refund will be forthcoming.

It's not clear at all yet "the KSA had (previously) no legal jurisdiction over the casino" . Moreover, looking at all available information, it seems much more likely the KSA is handling correct and The Netherlands definjitely has jurisdiction over gambling offered inside the Netherlands.

 

[bessola]

This is where the logic falls apart - there are potentially three jurisdictions involved: a) the location of the player, b) the location of the casino and c) the location of the game provider.

So when you signed up to a MGA-licensed casino, while you are physically located in the Netherlands, you agree the contract has jurisdiction in Malta and gambling occurs (on a server) in Malta.

The KSA assumed they had complete regulatory authority if only the first jurisdiction was true - which the EU courts have shot down on multiple occasions (including the 2010 Betfair v NL case previously mentioned). They have been fighting this losing battle seemingly for the best part of two decades.

The only reason this (as far as I can see) hasn't been tested yet again in the EU courts is because the companies willingly want to apply for an NL licence and don't want to rock the boat (i.e. delay their application). If that wasn't the case, they could trivially stick two fingers up at the KSA and the KSA may have little to no recourse (as has been the case with some of the shadier operations from Curacao who have no intention of applying).

Which is exactly what is happening in Norway:

Trannel International (Kindred)	Netherlands (KSA) - Transition to Open Market	Norway (NGA) - Monopoly Market
Regulation	August 2019, KSA fined TI €470k for "illegally" accepting bets from Dutch customers	2019, NGA issue cease-and-desist against TI, threatening a €116k daily fine for "illegal" gambling
Counter	TI intends to appeal, but drops the case in December 2019 to focus on their NL licence	TI quoted the EEA law (similar to EU v NL above), and continued to accept customers.
Current	Unibet NL launches in July 2022	TI continues to ignore NGA rulings for three years [1][2] and still accepts customers from Norway (under EEA laws) - pending any constructive dialogue regarding market reform

So just because the regulator claims that it is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it is... that is for a suitable court to decide.

[1] June 2022 -

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

[2] Nov 2022 -

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

Some news: Today the KSA announced new fines (of over 26 million euros total) to casinos (based in Malta) for the illegal offering of online gambling in the Netherlands (without a license). See here:

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

Of course I follow the line of the KSA and the Dutch government, because I'm based in the Netherlands as a player. Also all gathered information about it, confirms to me only more and more that indeed the Dutch law is leading here, and overrules the other jurisdictions.

Its clear that Dutch law overrules the law of Malta, regarding the offering of gambling inside The Netherlands.
You are right there is a friction between Dutch law and EU law (since NL is also part of EU), but there were actually also law suits in EU court in favour of the member states, as someone earlier in this thread already pointed out.

Last but not least, it doesn't matter if the casinos paid the KSA fines willingly 'for other reasons' , because purely by paying the fine they still confirmed they accept the Dutch law and fines, and basically admit their illegal activitities.

Conclusion: It would be very reasonable if the casinos give the money back to the players, that they generated illegaly.

 

[interlog]

Some news: Today the KSA announced new fines (of over 26 million euros total) to illegal casinos (based in Malta) for the illegal offering of online gambling in the Netherlands. See here:

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

Of course I follow the line of the KSA and the Dutch government, because I'm based in the Netherlands as a player. Also all gathered information about it, confirms to me only more and more that indeed the Dutch law is leading here, and overrules the other jurisdictions.

Its clear that Dutch law overrules the law of Malta.
You are right there is a friction between Dutch law and EU law (since NL is also part of EU), but there were actually law suits in EU court in favour of the member states, as someone earlier in this thread already pointed out.

Last but not least, it doesn't matter if the casinos paid the KSA fines willingly 'for other reasons' , because purely by paying the fine they still confirmed they accept the Dutch law and fines, and basically admit their illegal activitities.

Conclusion: It would be very reasonable if the casinos give the money back to the players, that they generated illegaly.

You still haven't properly answered my question to you. You keep banging on about refunding when players lost, what about those that won. Should their winnings be confiscated through the Dutch legal system considering that they were illegally obtained? Should those winners have to repay them else they will be imprisonned?

 

[bessola]

You still haven't properly answered my question to you. You keep banging on about refunding when players lost, what about those that won. Should their winnings be confiscated through the Dutch legal system considering that they were illegally obtained? Should those winners have to repay them else they will be imprisonned?

That's comparing apples and oranges, because with that question you confuse two different things legally: The fact that the casino took money illegally from players that lost, does not automatically mean that players that won also took money illegally from the casinos.

There is different legislation in the Netherlands for the latter: for players that play illegal casinos the KSA can give the player a fine up to 6400 euro.

But since the casinos did everything to pretend it was legal (using Dutch language, offering iDEAL deposit method, accepting Dutch players and ID-uploads, etc.) , in court there would be a strong case that the players can't be blamed for playing illegally as they simply were fooled by the casino.

And if by any chance the casino would have a proper legal argument to get back the winnings of players, they first have to confess their activities were illegal, with all consequences, so it seems pretty unlikely that this issue is relevant.

 

[interlog]

That's comparing apples and oranges, because with that question you confuse two different things legally: The fact that the casino took money illegally from players that lost, does not automatically mean that players that won also took money illegally from the casinos.

There is different legislation in the Netherlands for the latter: for players that play illegal casinos the KSA can give the player a fine up to 6400 euro.

But since the casinos did everything to pretend it was legal (using Dutch language, offering iDEAL deposit method, accepting Dutch players and ID-uploads, etc.) , in court there would be a strong case that the players can't be blamed for playing illegally as they simply were fooled by the casino.

And if by any chance the casino would have a proper legal argument to get back the winnings of players, they first have to confess their activities were illegal, with all consequences, so it seems pretty unlikely that this issue is relevant.

You can't have it both ways. Either all players played at an illegal casino or none did. If it is deemed that it was an illegal operation and as a result of this all losses are to be refunded, then all winnings should be confiscated.

This is aside from whatever fine was imposed onto the casino by the KSA as that has essentially no consequence for the players.

 

[bessola]

You can't have it both ways. Either all players played at an illegal casino or none did. If it is deemed that it was an illegal operation and as a result of this all losses are to be refunded, then all winnings should be confiscated.

This is aside from whatever fine was imposed onto the casino by the KSA as that has essentially no consequence for the players.

Yes, all players played at an illegal casino or none did.
No, that does not mean that if losses would be refunded, winnings would also need to be confiscated.
It's simply a different thing.

For example:
- If you go to a bar that does not have the proper license, and you have a drink there, the bar could be labeled as illegal by the government and get a fine, but the visitors don't get fines.
- If you buy a product at the supermarket which turns out to have some illegal ingredient in it, the producer or seller could get a fine, but not the buyer.

In both cases, the visitors/buyers were scammed, in both cases it was not the responsibility of the visitors/buyers to check the permit or ingredients themselves in advance, in both cases the visitors/buyers are treated different legally than the sellers.

So yes, the players played at an illegal casino (the 'seller') . but that does not mean at all the players ('the buyers') should be treated the same way as the casino regarding fines, refunds, etc.

I do agree with you though that the fines imposed by the KSA are something different than getting a money refund, and the fines have no consequences for the players.

 

[brianmon]

- If you go to a bar that does not have the proper license, and you have a drink there, the bar could be labeled as illegal by the government and get a fine, but the visitors don't get fines.

But you can't then expect a refund from the bar (or anyone else) for the drinks you bought there