Roguish PKR revoking bonus for no reason.

[Fleur-De-Lis]

OMG! What a load of cr***p!
I know (sadly, from first-hand personal experience) that Moneybookers can be very difficult to communicate with... but that reference to TOS is so ridiculous that it is even offensive... I know I'd be like totally mad if I got such an email

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why did they mention 7.5

This is all about RECEIVING payments. This would be what a MERCHANT would do, you deposit, and the casino "receives" the payment.

Moneybookers can also be used for person to person transfer, and this term could also be about RECEIVING a payment via Moneybookers for a banned item (one that is would be illegal to either sell, or use, or which could assist in a crime if misused).

For this case, 7.5 seems totally irrelevant, so why on earth was it quoted?

Term 11 indicates that one or more other terms have been breached, which has resulted in the termination of the account. We know that PKR started this, thanks to one of the service reps.

Term 11 contains two provisions, one requires one week's notice, and the other is instant closure.

Which of these did Moneybookers do?

I got the impression of instant closure, and this is reserved for a serious breach of terms, and not simply them exercising their right to not do business with a customer.

This latest Email is the formal "final decision" that paves the way to complain to the Financial Ombudsman, and Moneybookers seem pretty confident they are in the right, yet the Alderney investigation has yet to produce a decision.


Moneybookers themselves are "in the pit", as they have been actively promoting "Ministering Angel" with a special promotion on the Moneybookers website, now removed of course.

It turns out that Moneybookers have been assisting with the marketing of a fake casino which was being used to extract personal and banking data for future illegal use. The logo for the casino itself was commissioned and paid for with stolen credit cards - Moneybookers can forget about impressing ME with their "high moral standards and compliance" which they use to get rid of a 62 year old recreational gambler just on the say-so of one of their merchants, yet they fell for the smooth patter of the Serbian network behind Ministering Angel, and clearly had no problem with them being "licenced" in Panama (the one thing they freely admitted), which somehow met the requirements of the UK gaming act 2007 with regard to promoting online gambling sites within the EU

 

[topoor]

Very interesting revelation. I have read some mutterings on line about this casino but wasnt aware of the Moneybookers involvement. I wrote back to Moneybookers and asked them if they are still refusing to provide me with the information I requested under the Data Protection Act. I also reminded them that I have the right to have any incorrect information held about me corrected.

I asked them to be very clear in their reply as I would be forwarding it to the ICO. The response I got informed me that they will be reinvestigating my issue at a managment level and to allow them 3 working days to do so!

Sounds positive.

The AGC still havent received the logs from PKR almost 3 weeks later. When asked why it was taking so long they informed that it wasnt a top priority for PKR.

Perhaps I am naive but if I received a request for logs from my regulatory body in connection with a player complaint I would think it important enough to respond in a timely manner.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Very interesting revelation. I have read some mutterings on line about this casino but wasnt aware of the Moneybookers involvement. I wrote back to Moneybookers and asked them if they are still refusing to provide me with the information I requested under the Data Protection Act. I also reminded them that I have the right to have any incorrect information held about me corrected.

I asked them to be very clear in their reply as I would be forwarding it to the ICO. The response I got informed me that they will be reinvestigating my issue at a managment level and to allow them 3 working days to do so!

Sounds positive.

The AGC still havent received the logs from PKR almost 3 weeks later. When asked why it was taking so long they informed that it wasnt a top priority for PKR.

Perhaps I am naive but if I received a request for logs from my regulatory body in connection with a player complaint I would think it important enough to respond in a timely manner.

Clearly, PKR do not even have proper respect for their regulatory authority. I hope Alderney are not going to sit back and take this BS, it will severely impact upon their credibility with players, and PKR's attitude shows that they may well have something to hide about this whole affair.

Producing playlogs should be both routine, and quick, the back end should be designed to ensure this.

They also claim to be licenced by the UK Gambling Commission, is this just for Poker, or does it include the casino. You could complain to them also, stating that they are failing to co-operate properly with Alderney's investigation, and stress the situation goes further than a dispute over winnings, they have caused Moneybookers to close your account without right to proper appeal and knowing why.

 

[mpt6cas]

i am get paid without a problem now.
I also hear from friends that their cash out was also succesfull.

But the conversation rate is so horrible O.o

thanks for help here

bye

 

[Snake Eyes]

The AGC still havent received the logs from PKR almost 3 weeks later. When asked why it was taking so long they informed that it wasnt a top priority for PKR.

Perhaps I am naive but if I received a request for logs from my regulatory body in connection with a player complaint I would think it important enough to respond in a timely manner.

It really is laughable. Regulators need to grow some teeth (and some balls, perhaps). This isn't the first time i've heard something like that when it comes to a regulatory investigation - and not simply the likes of Costa Rica etc. Its amazing what some operators think they can get away with - the sad thing is, it sometimes seems that they can

The AGC need to come down hard on this attitude, or it simply makes a mockery of regulation

 

[Rusty]

First of all let me say how sorry I am for you topoor being put through this nonsense and I hope it all gets sorted out in the end.
With the fantastic advice you have received from VWM and others there is still hope of a favorable outcome.

How I missed this thread I have no Idea so thanks to VWM and fleur de lise for pointing it out to me.
I posted about this company in the Poker section because I was very suspicious about them being licensed by the UK gambling commission.
There is no clickable link to the gambling commissions website which seemed strange and the fact they are also licensed by alderney seems odd.
I have written to the UK gambling commission and asked them to clarify if this company is indeed licensed by them.
Any response I receive I will post here.

I am shocked by Moneybookers role in all this and I really hope the reasons they closed Topoor's account come to light.
Even more shocking was the Ministering Angel revelation, are Moneybookers going to get away with advertising a rogue Casino run by crooks on their site?

How many of us are seriously considering closing our accounts with moneybookers?
I certainly am.

A Bank with moral standards?
That will be the day.

 

[topoor]

Alderney has sided with PKR. These are the reasons.

You made two large deposits, $200 and $500. The first depost of $200 is the maximum eligible amount for a first time deposit bonus. The second deposit is again the maximum eligible amount for reload bonus.

As soon as the bonuses were cleared you requested a withdrawal, each time within five minutes of clearing the specific bonus.

You did not engage in any play between the first withdrawal and the second deposit when the reload bonus became available.

The only game you played was casino hold em.

The vast majority of the bets you made were the minimum $1. This is quite a small bet amount when compared to the amounts that you deposited. Only the basic main bet was played, never the side bet (AA bet).

The total amount you bet on the account was $20,002.00, this reflects the $10,000 bet to claim the first deposit bonus and then a second $10,000 to claim the reload bonus. It is clear that as soon as the bonus was released no more games were played.

Play only occured while a bonus was pending.


So there you have it, if a casino invites you to an offer and you take them up on it, follow the terms to the letter and dont breach any rule or law the casino is allowed to deny you the bonus. This is the finding of the Alderney Gambling Commission.

I found this comment particularly laughable:

PKR are more than within their rights to close your account and seize all funds.

So according to Alderney if I break no rules or laws and deposit to a casino they have the right to steal my money should they wish.

Absolute joke. What on earth does this say about the gambling industry?

 

[maxd]

FWIW, I have received and read Alderney's decision on topoor's case and the bottom line is that Alderney backs PKR and clears them of having any connection to the Moneybooker actions.

In detail this is their decision re: the topoor case:

The Commission has thoroughly investigated your claims and are found to be in agreement with PKR Limited’s decision to exclude you from their site. On obtaining details of your game play it’s apparent that you have abused the bonus scheme that was offered to you. ...
In accordance with sections 9 and 10 of PKR Limited’s terms and conditions, of which you agreed to adhere to at all times, they are more than within their rights to close your account and seize all funds.

They go on to present the evidence for the "bonus abuse" claim.

Our position on this is our usual position on bonus abuse claims: there is, generally speaking, no such thing. Playing by the strict terms of the bonus in order to take advantage of it is properly called "advantage play." The term "bonus abuse" is often just a euphemism for "we don't like how you play": by calling it "abuse" the offended casino generally hopes to then use is as grounds for withholding monies, etc. Our position is that if the terms of the bonus have been met without fraud or cheating (ie. bots, etc) then the player is due their winnings.

What the casino choses to do after the winnings are paid is a different matter. If they don't like the player's action then we think they're justified in asking them to leave, but they are not justified in confiscating their winnings, at least not on those grounds.

So the bottom line is that we do not support Alderney's affirmation that the casino was justified in confiscating the player's winnings. By the strict reading of the T&Cs PKR can claim the right to do so: we would say those are unreasonable T&Cs and stand by our decision that the player should be payed.

Max Drayman
Casinomeister.com, Player Grievance Manager

LATER: I've been told by the PKR rep that topoor's winnings _were_ paid, it was only the bonus that was withheld. My mistake in saying it was otherwise.

 

[jetset]

Max, is it not worth communicating that imo correct view to Alderney with a request for a review?

Andre Wilsenach is a professional and reasonable director at Alderney, and he should be prepared (as is eCOGRA in their system) to go back and take a second look at any case where there is a doubt as to the fairness of the decision.

 

[maxd]

Max, is it not worth communicating that imo correct view to Alderney with a request for a review?

Good point, they even say as much in their ruling. Let's see what topoor has to say and we'll take it from there.

 

[topoor]

Well I am appalled. More so with the comment regarding PKR's right to seize deposits than the actual decision regarding the reversal of bonus itself.

How can any regulatory body feel that it is acceptable when no fraudulent or dishonest act has been committed for a casino to commit theft?

Personally I feel that this ruling should rogue the entire jurisdiction.

Alderney have confirmed that all I did was stick to the terms and conditions of the offer. No fraud, no bots, no nothing except what I was required to do to avail of thier offer. Something I had done only a few days earlier without issue.

 

[maxd]

Well I am appalled. ...

In which case an appeal would probably be in order. Alderney signs off by saying:

If you wish to pursue your complaint further, the matter would first be considered by the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission and, if you are still not satisfied with his preliminary determination of the matter, you may request referral of your complaint to the Commission for a hearing under its Regulation 342. When deciding whether to pursue the matter further please also consider Regulation 343(2), which advises you of the possibility of your being required to pay part or all of the costs incurred by the Commission and PKR Limited in this matter.

That pretty much spells it out: justice, or the possibility of it, costs money. It's your call.

 

[topoor]

Max, what is your view on the status of both PKR Casino and the AGCC?

 

[maxd]

Max, what is your view on the status of both PKR Casino and the AGCC?

I take my queue on AGCC from the Casinomeister himself (because he has more experience and has been dealing with folks like that for a long time): I believe he has faith in them and what they do.

As to PKR, we're learning as we go and so far I will say that they do care how this case goes and are concerned about the impact it will have on their operation. That may not seem like much but I take it as a very good sign: not all casinos give a damn and when they don't the water can get deep and hot real fast. So I'd say let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[topoor]

Why? They have lied to Moneybookers about a player and they have invited me to a bonus only to remove it when I adhere to the terms and conditions.

What doubt is there?

It sounds to me that all they care about is their ability to make money and ensure that other trusting players are snared. Doesnt sound like much of a good attitude to me and certainly not one that this website should be seen to be supporting in any shape of form.

It is in my mind a good step that you have taken to disagree with PKR and the AGCC but I cant help feeling that more direct action should be taken and a warning should be issued against both.

Although it seems I am the only one who complained I am not the only one who was treated in this way.

 

[blizeH]

Two (or more) weeks on and still no response from them, I've pretty much given up on ever seeing that $250 bonus again. Oh well.

 

[lauram]

I take it this is another place not to deposit. I prefer no bonus but looking at the issue at hand it seems that even if you didnt take their bonus and they didnt like your style of play they can shut you down. Sorry topoor this to me is uncalled for I hope this all works out for you if you submit a further complaint.

 

[maxd]

They have lied to Moneybookers about a player and they have invited me to a bonus only to remove it when I adhere to the terms and conditions.
What doubt is there?

I have not reached the same conclusions you have and I don't see it as being that cut-and-dried. I understand why you might reach the conclusions you have but I'm not on that page.

It sounds to me that all they care about is their ability to make money and ensure that other trusting players are snared.

If I had a nickel for every time I'd heard that old saw from a pissed-off player I'd be living in a much warmer climate and working a lot less. Sorry, but it's easy to blurt out things like that ... reality is more complicated.

... more direct action should be taken and a warning should be issued against both.

Thank you for your suggestion but (a) the PAB is still in progress as far as I'm concerned and it's too soon to invoke those kinds of measures, (b) there's absolutely no reason to throw in the towel just yet and doing what you've suggested would probably kill any chances of a decent resolution, and (c) it's my job to decide if and when such actions are necessary, not yours, and as (a) and (b) clearly illustrate I'm not convinced of that just yet.

Besides, what's the rush?

 

[topoor]

I wasnt aware the PAB was still ongoing. I thought the ruling from Alderney made this final. PKR are hardly likely to turn around now and say OK our regulator has backed our decision we will look at it again and overturn it, are they?

I have to disagree with you on a lot of points Max particularly the disgrunted player/sour grapes angle, Alderney have confirmed that I have done nothing wrong. No fraud, no bots just play to the terms. This is something I have clearly stated since post 1.

Unless you are privy to a process that I am not there is no grey area and I am very much talking in "reality" - it is completely cut and dried.

Whats the rush? Perhaps if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud.

 

[GrandMaster]

This term is often seen, but has no real standing. It can be challenged as being "unfair" in a consumer contract, as it restricts your right to participate in a LEGAL activity.

A bank is not obliged to open an account for you, even less lend you money even if you want it for a legal activity. Similarly, an insurance company does not have to insure you in order to enable you to drive legally on the public highways. There are a few grounds on which companies are not allowed to discriminate, but apart from that there are few restrictions on what they can do.

 

[maxd]

I wasnt aware the PAB was still ongoing. I thought the ruling from Alderney made this final.

The PAB process is determined by us, not Alderney nor anyone else. You seem to make a lot of assumptions and then base your conclusions on those. This can lead to deeply flawed thinking, as I've already indicated.

PKR are hardly likely to turn around now and say OK our regulator has backed our decision we will look at it again and overturn it, are they?

Maybe yes, maybe no. The PAB process is full of surprises. And there's the appeal process to consider. It ain't over till it's over and there's some way to go before we get there.

Unless you are privy to a process that I am not there is no grey area and I am very much talking in "reality" - it is completely cut and dried.

Clearly there is a lot going on here that you are not privy to, so yes, your conclusions are premature and there's still work to be done.

On the other hand if PKR reads the things you've been posting they'll probably be quite happy to fullfull your expectations and close the book on you. That's one of the primary reasons why the grievance upon which the PAB is based should remain private until the process has run it's course. Public debate is a highly unpredictable means of negotiation, and often equally unsatisfying.

Whats the rush? Perhaps if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud.

By that logic we should Rogue everyone and then you'd be quite safe, no? Bosh!

The process exists precisely so we can give the good operators the chance to do the right thing, and allow the grey operators to improve themselves. The bad guys are unlikely to be swayed by our process or any other and they'll reveal themselves for what they are in due course. Process first, conclusions later. Anything else is superstition and paranoia.

 

[topoor]

By that logic we should Rogue everyone and then you'd be quite safe, no? Bosh!

I think this is an unreasonable thing to say. In this instance we have a casino who has by their own admittance removed a bonus and banned a player for no reason other than bonus abuse which they have classed as play which sticks to the terms of the offer.

If every casino practices this then yes every casino should be rogued. But they dont.

 

[Rusty]

I always thought paranoia was a heightened sense of reality

Topoor I understand how angry you are about this but Max is the wrong person to be shouting at.
Even if some of his posts do seem to lack empathy he is bound to react if he feels he is being attacked when he is trying to help you.
Take a step back and regroup.

I hope this one has a happy ending.

 

[maxd]

Topoor, you may have forgotten that I basically agree with you insofar as PKR's misuse of the T&Cs to pull your bonus, as Rusty alluded to.

Where we seem to disagree is how soon and how fast we should blacklist people. You must understand that the Casinomeister PAB process has been years in the making and it works because we ask casinos to adhere to a set of expectations that all reasonable people in the industry basically agree with. Before we can blacklist someone for failing to follow those expected guidelines we have to give them the chance to do so, and that takes a little time.

I'm sure you feel your claim is valid and your frustration reasonable. But Casinomeister has years of experience doing this over thousands of cases with hundreds of casinos. You came to us because you felt it was a worthwhile process to participate in and I dare say you thought so because of the reputation Bryan has built up over the years doing this. Trust the process, in spite of how heated you may feel at this particular moment, and let it run it's course.

You said "if warnings had existed on this casino or juristiction I wouldnt have deposited and then been subjected to this fraud." Sorry but you're the first case with PKR where we've had a serious difference of opinion. How exactly are we supposed to issue Warnings against problems that we didn't know existed?

The truth is that you're on the bleeding edge of this particular problem and there's not much anyone, including me, can do about it. It simply takes some time, however vexing that may be to you in your particular circumstance.