Player sues casino

[Rhyzz]

People need to take some responsibility for their actions. However, I don't believe this is a case of 'you duped me into playing', I think it's more a case of 'My lawyer thinks I have a chance of reclaiming a few million Euro, lets have a stab at it'.

Can't see him getting anything from them. Do Norway even have any jurisdiction over an Australian based company? Can they force them to pay?

 

[Seventh777]

A very thin line here, when looked at from a different perspective it borders around the state of ones mind, and this holds water to such an extent that many covert undercover operations have broke down because of it, when this border line has been encroached purely by a premeditated event on the basis of being beneficial and or to the cause by luring someone to be a part of, something they would not have otherwise undertaken due to not having any knowledge of it, these type of scenarios hold judicial legislature and in many cases have resulted in otherwise guilty parties being acquitted, or at the very least, found not guilty, replace law enforcement agents with VIP managers/CS, affiliates, casino staff, and crimes with deposit bonuses, and it makes interesting reading.


ENTRAPMENT

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favourable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

If a person had no intent of depositing at a casino until he read a `Special deposit bonus just for you` email, then I personally think cases like these hold water, Lawyers fuelled by greed they may be, but and it`s a huge but, the best Lawyers in the game are the best, because they win, they win because, like any successful in the limelight word of mouth professions advertising, they weigh up the odds before even thinking of taking on such cases.

The third pointer I bolded and underlined, if found to be the case, then it`s a very close call imo.

 

[Nifty29]

A very thin line here, when looked at from a different perspective it borders around the state of ones mind, and this holds water to such an extent that many covert undercover operations have broke down because of it, when this border line has been encroached purely by a premeditated event on the basis of being beneficial and or to the cause by luring someone to be a part of, something they would not have otherwise undertaken due to not having any knowledge of it, these type of scenarios hold judicial legislature and in many cases have resulted in otherwise guilty parties being acquitted, or at the very least, found not guilty, replace law enforcement agents with VIP managers/CS, affiliates, casino staff, and crimes with deposit bonuses, and it makes interesting reading.


ENTRAPMENT

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favourable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

If a person had no intent of depositing at a casino until he read a `Special deposit bonus just for you` email, then I personally think cases like these hold water, Lawyers fuelled by greed they may be, but and it`s a huge but, the best Lawyers in the game are the best, because they win, they win because, like any successful in the limelight word of mouth professions advertising, they weigh up the odds before even thinking of taking on such cases.

The third pointer I bolded and underlined, if found to be the case, then it`s a very close call imo.

There can be no entrapment because the player is not committing a crime.

IMO none of the above applies to online gaming. Making a deposit is a conscious decision which involves several steps which gives the player ample opportunity to back out. Anyone who voluntarily goes through these steps is most certainly " ready willing and able".

What the casino did was ENTICEMENT not ENTRAPMENT, and they are very different animals.

As I said, nobody was holding their family hostage or holding a gun to their head.

It's pathetic when players blame others for their own predicaments, whether it be " rigged software" or " individual rtps" or whatever.....if you arent prepared to lose then DONT GAMBLE.

 

[Seventh777]

There can be no entrapment because the player is not committing a crime.

I distinctly made a point of exchanging the facts to coincide with gambling, I didn`t say he was committing a crime, most cases involving suing are civil and not criminal.

IMO none of the above applies to online gaming. Making a deposit is a conscious decision which involves several steps which gives the player ample opportunity to back out. Anyone who voluntarily goes through these steps is most certainly " ready willing and able".

Indeed, gambling is entirely down to the person and no physical forcing is evident, but it boils down to psychological enticement, along a par with subliminal images in adverts shown at cinemas etc just before an interlude, these are now banned in a lot of countries..

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

What the casino did was ENTICEMENT not ENTRAPMENT, and they are very different animals.

If I want a few hours of gambling I go to where it`s at, I do not want where it`s at coming to me. This I would guess is the whole basis of the court case, enticement falls under the same category of subliminal messages.

As I said, nobody was holding their family hostage or holding a gun to their head.

As long as they are not suffering from personality disorders that`s fine

It's pathetic when players blame others for their own predicaments, whether it be " rigged software" or " individual rtps" or whatever.....if you arent prepared to lose then DONT GAMBLE.

Couldn`t agree more, no one is forcing anyone to gamble, but then again, how many small children are forced into the backs of vans instead of lured in with the promise of candy?, there are many threads here regarding people depositing at a Rogue casino after receiving an eye popping email only to discover the hard way that their winnings will never be received, do these people need protecting or be prepared to lose, as after all it`s online gambling and those T&C`s did explain it, if only they had read section 18.1.2. paragraph three sentence two.

It has been proved beyond doubt that certain Rogue casinos use amongst many other things, rigged software, hidden clauses in bonuses, bonus abuse wild cards, any excuse under the sun to refuse a payout, i`m not saying this is the case, far from it, but until every casino employs the ethics of 32Red, 3Dice, and several more, then cases like this that expose underhand tactics of exploiting peoples vulnerabilities (which obviously have been used by at least one of the casinos) need bringing to the surface.

For every 32Red group casino there`s 50 virtual group casinos, the court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff against one of the casinos, so obviously in certain circumstances even accredited casinos here, break the rules, and, certain people need protecting against these case scenarios.

 

[Nifty29]

@Seventh

Are you now saying that any player who has a personality disorder is entitled to have their losses refunded because the casino should have KNOWN they had a personality disorder? If so, then every casino in the world is in BIG trouble.

How can you even begin to compare child abduction techniques with casino enticement offers? The player KNOWS what they are getting into - the child does not. Imo it is ludicrous.

AFAIC if you have enough nouse to fund an ewallet, fund your casino account with that wallet and play games for money when you KNOW there is huge risk of losing, then you are 'sane' or 'aware' enough to bear responsibility for your actions.

Its just another excuse for the " It's never my fault its someone else's" brigade to - well - blame someone else for their own stupidity.

 

[rouletteguy]

I think it'll come down to who has the better lawyer(s) in criminal court it is beyond REASONABLE doubt no lee way if there is possibility the individual accused didn't do it then thats how it has to be viewed however in civil court there is some leeway your story only needs to be conceivable and believable and believed by the judge.
Of course even if he does win he still needs to collect. that'll take another 10 years and appeal after appeal. Chances are if he's got a leg to stand on or the casino wants good publicity they'll settle outta court. Can't see the bank being able to collect either he's broke. If he gets charged well he's crazy so they put him in a hospital as NCR (not criminally responsible) 2-3 yrs later (it's not a violent crime) he walks la dee da.
Some mentally ill people are extremely intelligent with very high I.Q. You can hear commanding voices that tell you to do things and it doesn't mean your incompetent Many great historical figures suffered from recurrent psychosis some of which led to incredible inventions and feats of engineering. In fact a very famous artist suffered from psychosis...........Can you guess who?

 

[petro]

Nobody FORCES anyone to place a bet. Until that happens, all losses are the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLAYER . End of story.

While this is mostly true there are many examples that disprove this.

A customer asking to be permanently excluded from the casino is a clear indicator to the casino that there is a problem.

If the casino were to allow the customer to gamble in this scenario it makes the casino an accessory to the harm done (financial.)

Kind of like a get away driver at the scene of a crime. While the get away driver did not commit the crime he is liable for responsibility because of the type of relation he has to the crime.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It would depend on the level of inducement. There is simply providing the opportunity, and there is the "hard sell" tactic where the "customer" is NEVER left alone, and is pestered constantly with ever better inducements until they DO buy the product, just to get some peace and quiet.

The Virtual group have a habit of phoning day & night to get a deposit out of a player, and even when told not to phone anymore, they just carry on, even INCREASING the pressure (such as phoning you at work).

The "average person" is NOT equipped to handle the professional level "hard sell", since it requires considerable "will power" to resist the technique, and wear the SALESPERSON down.

It is like a fight between a professional boxer and the average, but well built, person. It's NEVER going to be a fair fight.

These are the factors a court will look at, and key will be whether the player ONLY carried on playing because of a constant "hard sell" from the casino.

 

[rainmaker]

These are the factors a court will look at, and key will be whether the player ONLY carried on playing because of a constant "hard sell" from the casino.

Yes, I agree VWM.

As an addition. This will depend on whether that player will be seen as a "hobby" gambler or a professional gambler.

If the court thinks his livelihood was gambling, then he will be seen as a professional gambler. In that case will he not have the same protection as a "ordinary" consumer.

It will be expected that a professional player will be able to deal with "hard sell" from a casino.

 

[Nifty29]

Does all this legal advice come from a particular source? E.g a lawyer specializing in gambling-related civil matters?

If not, it just conjecture as none of us are qualified to give such advice.

Willpower, fair fight, its all crapola IMO - just another excuse to avoid personal responsibility. We aren't talking about someone being forced to 'buy' something against their will e.g a gas oven when they don't have gas lines or a bicycle when they have no legs.

I don't remember the player being severely harassed. I also don't remember them CLOSING their account and insisting they not be contacted. The player WANTED to play - the casino just provided the facilities. How about changing phone numbers etc if he was THAT desperate to NOT gamble.

Self exclusion is a different animal and it must ALWAYS be adhered to by operators IMO. However this isn't the case here.

What next? Diners having to weigh in when entering a restaurant to make sure the chef isn't enabling obesity? Gastroscopies before offering coffee to make sure nobody with ulcers is served?

Come on. If you can't do the time don't do the crime

 

[vinylweatherman]

Does all this legal advice come from a particular source? E.g a lawyer specializing in gambling-related civil matters?

If not, it just conjecture as none of us are qualified to give such advice.

Willpower, fair fight, its all crapola IMO - just another excuse to avoid personal responsibility. We aren't talking about someone being forced to 'buy' something against their will e.g a gas oven when they don't have gas lines or a bicycle when they have no legs.

I don't remember the player being severely harassed. I also don't remember them CLOSING their account and insisting they not be contacted. The player WANTED to play - the casino just provided the facilities. How about changing phone numbers etc if he was THAT desperate to NOT gamble.

Self exclusion is a different animal and it must ALWAYS be adhered to by operators IMO. However this isn't the case here.

What next? Diners having to weigh in when entering a restaurant to make sure the chef isn't enabling obesity? Gastroscopies before offering coffee to make sure nobody with ulcers is served?

Come on. If you can't do the time don't do the crime

With so many "nanny state" governments around, there is no such thing any longer. We are not ALLOWED free choice in many aspects, even where the ONLY person likely to come to harm from a choice is OURSELVES. For example, we cannot CHOOSE not to wear a seatbelt, or a motorcycle helmet, the LAW dictates which choice we must make.

The "nanny state" also curbs what it thinks are the excesses of the business world, and businesses are NOT free to do business by "any means they like".

Civil litigation has often given us some pretty weird results, with cases where common sense tells us the plaintiff has on-one to blame but themselves, yet he achieves VICTORY against the company.

Many SMOKERS have brought cases, some SUCCESSFUL, yet there was NEVER any case of them being FORCED to smoke. The tobacco companies merely gave them the opportunity to smoke, and made access to the products as easy as possible, and showed their smoking products in a positive light. Although there were risks, there was no PROOF until fairly recently that these risks were directly linked to smoking, yet there have still been victories.

Asbestos is another. At the time, no-one knew there was a risk of exposure to the fibres, and thus this "dust" was treated like any other workplace "dust", which meant workers often inhaled it. When the risks were proven, working practice changed to prevent such exposure, yet workers who were made ill from inhaling the fibres BEFORE the risks were known are WINNING case after case against the companies.

This shows that even "we could not have known at the time" is NOT necessarily a watertight defence against a claim, and this case could end up going either way, and there is a great deal of money at stake.
It's not even the PLAYER that has lost out, it is those who loaned him the money that stand to recover it, the player will see little even if they DO win the case. It may not just be the player's lawyers the casino has to worry about.

 

[rainmaker]

Does all this legal advice come from a particular source? E.g a lawyer specializing in gambling-related civil matters?

I see this as a forum for discussions based on people's experiences and knowledge. I do not think it is necessary to have a formal education in order to express a opinion in a forum.

I have studied what is called "law and management" (Norwegian and European law) several years. With that background, I will be quite interested in such cases even though I am not a lawyer. But I do not care if people here are lawyers or not. It's a forum. People have different backgrounds.

 

[Nifty29]

I see this as a forum for discussions based on people's experiences and knowledge. I do not think it is necessary to have a formal education in order to express a opinion in a forum.

I have studied what is called "law and management" (Norwegian and European law) several years. With that background, I will be quite interested in such cases even though I am not a lawyer. But I do not care if people here are lawyers or not. It's a forum. People have different backgrounds.

I agree to a point.

My intention was to point out that nobody should rely on legal opinions expressed in this forum and should just see it for what it is - like you said, just an opinion like any other. I certainly wasn't inferring that nobody should express them, that is not my right nor desire. It's also important to note that the law is different everywhere and what applies in one jurisdiction may not fly in another.

Now, continue opining.......

 

[rainmaker]

I agree to a point.

My intention was to point out that nobody should rely on legal opinions expressed in this forum and should just see it for what it is - like you said, just an opinion like any other. I certainly wasn't inferring that nobody should express them, that is not my right nor desire. It's also important to note that the law different everywhere.

Now, continue opining.......

Yes, I also agree to what you say. I just assume that people here understand that this can not be regarded as "formal" advises.

You do have a good point about "It's also important to note that the law is different everywhere ". You're absolutely right. Some in this forum is talking about these cases like there is a "common" worldwide law. That is of course not correct. And in this concrete case, only the Norwegian law will apply.

*back to my opinions*

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, I also agree to what you say. I just assume that people here understand that this can not be regarded as "formal" advises.

You do have a good point about "It's also important to note that the law is different everywhere ". You're absolutely right. Some in this forum is talking about these cases like there is a "common" worldwide law. That is of course not correct. And in this concrete case, only the Norwegian law will apply.
*back to my opinions*

This is the interesting bit. Normally, a casino that is entirely offshore could not be EFFECTIVELY sued, because even if the court ruled against them, how would they ENFORCE it. There are many cases here in the UK where consumers have won judgements, but actually GETTING the money has proven to be impossible, because some companies who are determined to be rogue even ignore the courts, and know how to duck & dive to make any rulings against them ineffective, even WITHOUT hiding offshore. If this player wins, how will the Norwegian authorities ENFORCE the judgement, or indeed ANY sanction, given that the casino is not SUPPOSED to be accepting players from Norway in the first place.

 

[rainmaker]

This is the interesting bit. Normally, a casino that is entirely offshore could not be EFFECTIVELY sued, because even if the court ruled against them, how would they ENFORCE it. There are many cases here in the UK where consumers have won judgements, but actually GETTING the money has proven to be impossible, because some companies who are determined to be rogue even ignore the courts, and know how to duck & dive to make any rulings against them ineffective, even WITHOUT hiding offshore. If this player wins, how will the Norwegian authorities ENFORCE the judgement, or indeed ANY sanction, given that the casino is not SUPPOSED to be accepting players from Norway in the first place.

Yes agree. This is quite interesting.

First of all. There are no laws in Norway that forbids Norwegian people to gamble online (offshore gambling). The only relevant law we have about online gambling is that Norwegian banks are not allowed to approve transactions marked MCC 7995 from Norwegian customers to gambling sites. MCC 7995 is the Merchant Category Code for gambling. If I do a transaction with my Norwegian card to for example Centrebet, then the Norwegian bank is the one who violates the law, not Centrebet and not the customer. So Centrebet does not violate Norwegian law by offering gambling to Norwegian players.

And yes, there is a always a problem when international companies are convicted in one country, but operates from another country. Especially for a gambling company who in addition might have licenses in other countries. For example Centrebet. They operates mostly from Australia (in my knowledge). They do have a license from UK for their international customers who are betting on sports. They have a license from Malta for international customers who uses their Casino. Centrebet does not even have a office here in Norway. So the Norwegian law system has no opportunity to seize any assets.

The customer in this case (the man this thread is about) did use the casino and he did bet on sports. So this is of course only a mess

As a guess, I will assume that a company like Centrebet do consider the Norwegian law system to be reliable. I think that they will obey the verdict. As we know, reputation is everything when it comes to gambling. And I think the Scandinavian market is quite important for Centrebet.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes agree. This is quite interesting.

First of all. There are no laws in Norway that forbids Norwegian people to gamble online (offshore gambling). The only relevant law we have about online gambling is that Norwegian banks are not allowed to approve transactions marked MCC 7995 from Norwegian customers to gambling sites. MCC 7995 is the Merchant Category Code for gambling. If I do a transaction with my Norwegian card to for example Centrebet, then the Norwegian bank is the one who violates the law, not Centrebet and not the customer. So Centrebet does not violate Norwegian law by offering gambling to Norwegian players.

And yes, there is a always a problem when international companies are convicted in one country, but operates from another country. Especially for a gambling company who in addition might have licenses in other countries. For example Centrebet. They operates mostly from Australia (in my knowledge). They do have a license from UK for their international customers who are betting on sports. They have a license from Malta for international customers who uses their Casino. Centrebet does not even have a office here in Norway. So the Norwegian law system has no opportunity to seize any assets.

The customer in this case (the man this thread is about) did use the casino and he did bet on sports. So this is of course only a mess

As a guess, I will assume that a company like Centrebet do consider the Norwegian law system to be reliable. I think that they will obey the verdict. As we know, reputation is everything when it comes to gambling. And I think the Scandinavian market is quite important for Centrebet.

It seems the laws do not match the INTENT, and the offshore operators have taken full advantage. All the need do is disguise the transactions by using a different code, and even the BANKS are not technically breaking the law, as it doesn't seem to require them to investigate miscoding, only block what are clearly 7995 transactions.

What the industry risks is that if their activites come to the attention of the authorities in a negative way, the laws will be changed to make them more effective, just as happened in the US where they always considered the Wire Act to prohibit offshore gambling, but it was completely ineffective at stopping it until UIGEA came along to make the rules much stronger.

It's also easier for a dodgy operator to avoid changing planes at a Norwegian airport than an American one, which is how many of the high profile arrests of offshore operators was achieved in the USA.

 

[deepsky2]

Im so tired of people trying to sue casinos for there gambling problem and losses.
Why not sue every one. There are people shop till they drop, do we sue stores because they sell to much to a customer.
Come on. I know some have gambling addiction and I know I do to but in the end its me who makes the choice. I love gambling and its what I like but because I may have lose alot Im not going to sue its me and only me that made that choice so to every one thats blaming casinos for there lost, its not the casino fault its your and you should hold up to it!