Q&A for Casino Club and "Real Player" concerning the confiscations of winnings

[RobWin]

Casino Club, I commend you for coming in here and taking the heat so to speak and also for giving what I consider to be a thorough response to a lot of the questions that have been raised here. I for one do understand that you can only reveal so much in a public forum while your case against the player is still pending an outcome and I do hope that you will continue to try your best to keep us all updated as much as is possible while this case is still ongoing.

 

[Jufo]

Finally that's what we've been waiting for! While it clearly presents a completely different side to what we've heard, it's great to finally see a post from you that isn't vague. And so I've nominated you for that reason alone.

Uh...? That response was completely vague and unsatisfactory to me. It raised more questions than it answered.

 

[Zodiac]

1) Are you accusing Realplayer of using a bot?
a. Yes we are, amongst other accusations.

My opinion is if you accuse a player using a bot, you say also in the same breath that Boss Media Software can manipulate.

is it so ?

 

[Casino Club]

My opinion is if you accuse a player using a bot, you say also in the same breath that Boss Media Software can manipulate.

is it so ?

NO. And I fail to see the connection.

A BOT is simply a program that will play for you for extended periods of time and with ideal strategy. At BJ mostly.

In response to UUngy, the collusion was not strictly related to the JP win, but prior to it. And by collusion we mean a ring of players connected by IP address/emails/addresses/multiple accounts etc...attempt to abuse the Casino bonuses and its T&C's.

 

[kmay87]

Uh...? That response was completely vague and unsatisfactory to me. It raised more questions than it answered.

As far as I'm concerned, it only raises more questions if you disbelieve what the casino has said. We've now been presented with a new list of events, mainly that the player was in collusion with others. Our only reason to consider that false is if we believe the player is telling the truth.

And personally, I don't think that any of us here are in a position to say who's lying and who is not.

What we need to understand here, is that CC are not going to consistently keep responding to our questions, however hard we may press. Realplayer told us his story, Casino Club told us theirs, and now it's up to a third party - whether it be the LGA or a court - to decide who is correct. We can deliberate all we like but I'm not sure it's going to achieve anything.

 

[uungy]

So lets get fact straight here.

The player won the JP fair and square.

The casino now wants to take back all winnings from a year ago or so, as the player may have joined a group to take advantage on the bonuses, and also bot playing (which I still dont understand whats wrong with it).

CC is holding funds of the JP pending all allegations. If the player is found in the wrong, CC will deduct all bonuses and charges for lawyers fees, pocket that, and pay the player the rest, if there is any left.

 

[thelawnet]

Dear Forum Participants,

Far from surprised by the intensive scrutiny that Casino Club in general, and this case in particular is arising in this thread, I will try once again to convey Casino Clubs official position in this matter.

1. I think the most important issue that arises from all interventions is the following
a. The JP money is being held by Casino Club pending resolution of this case.
b. Casino Club has no intention to pocket this money unlawfully.
c. Should the governing body decide that the player won this money legally (highly unlikely) he will receive the entire amount without delay.
d. Likewise, if Casino Club is found to be acting correctly, the JP money will be promptly returned to the JP pool where it belongs.
i. On this point allow me to add that, should this be the case, Casino Club will view Realplayer as responsible for all the costs and losses accrued because of his fraudulent activity, and that these costs will be deducted fomr Realplayer himself. We are talking about Lawyers, Third-party fraud specialists and the gathering of evidence for the LGA.

On what basis do you determine this? The LGA has no legal authority, and has no reputation for independence. Why don't you go ahead and sue the player?

I hope you realise that part of the reason people are asking questions is because there is no confidence in the LGA, so the casino should mount some PR to explain its case in the face of player doubt.

The questions raised throughout the forum are numerous and some of them are nothing short of delusional. I am going to address just a few here.

Could you please comment on the blackjack 2 vs. 1 game, which you were told was faulty, and yet are continuing to operate almost a year later.

1) Are you accusing Realplayer of using a bot?
a. Yes we are, amongst other accusations.
2) Are accusing Realplayer of fraud and/or breach of T&C's?
a. Yes we are.
3) If fraud what specifically was this fraud?
a. Collusion with other players/Mutiple Accounts and breach of T&C relating to the use of BOTs for Bonus Abuse.

When was the term relating to bots added to your terms. It wasn't there in January 2008. What steps did you take to inform players that bots were no longer allowed?

4) If T&C's what specific T&C's were broke and how?
a. They are there in our Terms & Conditions and you are welcome to view it yourself.

?

Why don't you say what they are. You can't base your case on 'here's a whole bunch of stuff, the player broke these terms'.

List the terms that werre broken, I can't see any valid reason not to.

5) On what grounds have you confiscated Realplayers deposit?
a. We have locked the account including all deposits and wins pending resolution of the case and, as mentioned earlier, should the LGA rule in our favor, we will hold Realplayer responsible for all losses accrued by Casino Club.

How much money did you give in bonuses to this player and to players you are alleging are linked to him?

There are many more questions as you are all aware, some quite delusional, like the supposed claim by Casino Club that the players BOT has predictive powers, well allow me to refrain from answer such ridiculous claims as we are not going to be dragged into a situation in which a respected and long-standing Online Casino such as Casino Club will have to comply with every whim within an online forum debate.

This comes from your lawyer's letter. And as for complying with every whim, if it's ridiculous you shouldn't have any problem replying, rather than being dismissive.

Allow me to emphasize one more time. This case is being reviewed by the LGA of Malta following a a complaint filed by the player himself and not by the Casino. We welcome this opportunity to finally come to a conclusion. We are fully confident that they will review the case thoroughly and impartially, and we will accept any decision they will take.

Hmm, the rest of us don't seem so sure about the LGA.

Now some history about the case.

Our friend MM (realplayer I believe is his name on this CM forum) has a long history with Casino Club. He has been spotted as a member of a ring of players from the town of Cottbus, Germany back in 2007. Just around that time there was a managerial change at Casino Club management which resulted in much more detail-oriented Fraud work as well as a new enterprise in the field of CRM.
This, for one, is why this player was allowed to go along undetected for such a long period of time. Prior to this time, Casino Club did not have a Fraud Team at work.
Once detected, we followed him and his fellow players for quite a while in order to understand fully what they were up to.

? If there was a ring of players in Cottbus identified in 2007, why did you continue to give them bonuses for seven months of 2008? If you removed them from your list, there would no longer be any money paid to them.

This makes no sense. You must be aware that once you have paid these players, which you did for many months, the chance of recovery of funds was near zero. You were throwing away money, if we are to believe what you say.

And as for being a ring, how many people are you alleging. In your letter, you say only one person - and this after months of surveillance. In any case how can you link players, simply because they are in the same large town in your principal territory?

In short, Casino Club is accusing Realplayer of having won the JP prize with money that was won by breaching our terms and conditions, both by use of BOTS for bonus abuse, collusion with other players/multiple accounts.

How can you possibly say this? The money was deposited by the player, you have no idea of his financial means. It is not possible to say that the money was Casino Club's money, because it came from the player's account.

Again, how much are you claiming to have lost to this player and his alter egos?

 

[thelawnet]

So lets get fact straight here.

The player won the JP fair and square.

The casino now wants to take back all winnings from a year ago or so, as the player may have joined a group to take advantage on the bonuses, and also bot playing (which I still dont understand whats wrong with it).

CC is holding funds of the JP pending all allegations. If the player is found in the wrong, CC will deduct all bonuses and charges for lawyers fees, pocket that, and pay the player the rest, if there is any left.

Hmm, I don't think they have said that? It appears to me they are saying the jackpot is void and they are going to return it to the pot AND charge the player with numerous 'fees'.

 

[uungy]

That was said originally, however the impression given now, is that their is no dispute in regards to the JP

 

[Casinomeister]

@Casino Club - thanks for the responses.

Thanks for joining in. CC have been involved reecently in a case of BOT use, and were proven wrong...

They were proven "right" with most of the issues that submitted here. Please let us not forget that bot's were used. This is a fact.

So lets get fact straight here.

The player won the JP fair and square...

There is nothing fair about collusion and having multiple accounts.

...What we need to understand here, is that CC are not going to consistently keep responding to our questions, however hard we may press. Realplayer told us his story, Casino Club told us theirs, and now it's up to a third party - whether it be the LGA or a court - to decide who is correct. We can deliberate all we like but I'm not sure it's going to achieve anything.

Thank you - that's pretty much how I see it.

My only concern is about how much effort the LGA is going to put on this case. They do not have the best reputation for expediency and effectiveness. In fact, it was only a few months ago that they won the Casinomeister award for "Biggest Disappointment of 2008"
Best Worst 2008

I hope that the LGA is watching this situation carefully and will do the right thing for this player - or for the casino.

My only question is - is there a time frame when this player issue will be finalized by the LGA?

 

[Casino Club]

My only question is - is there a time frame when this player issue will be finalized by the LGA?

This i do not know. But i will look into it and come back to this forum as soon as i have an answer.

 

[uungy]

They were proven "right" with most of the issues that submitted here. Please let us not forget that bot's were used. This is a fact.

I am refering to the bot case a mnth back or so, when CC orginally cried "BOTS" and the player was paid out in full. after they were proven wrong by the stats.

There is nothing fair about collusion and having multiple accounts.

Obviously, but collusion is not really possible in regards to the JP as no bonus was taken. Having multiple accounts has nothing to do with the JP, as it may be against the terms like the bots issue, however its not fraud, as its money deposited and played with, without any bonuses, so whats wrong with that? Unless a charge back was made with the "other" accounts

 

[KasinoKing]

Our friend MM (realplayer I believe is his name on this CM forum) has a long history with Casino Club. He has been spotted as a member of a ring of players from the town of Cottbus, Germany back in 2007. Just around that time there was a managerial change at Casino Club management which resulted in much more detail-oriented Fraud work as well as a new enterprise in the field of CRM.
This, for one, is why this player was allowed to go along undetected for such a long period of time. Prior to this time, Casino Club did not have a Fraud Team at work.
Once detected, we followed him and his fellow players for quite a while in order to understand fully what they were up to.

So CC have admitted they knew RealPlayer was a fraud, but allowed him to continue depositing & playing while they watched, and they only closed his account & seized his funds when he won the big JP...

Regardless of whether the player is a fraudster or not; am I the only one round here who finds that incredibly unfair & unethical?

KK

 

[Casinomeister]

...Obviously, but collusion is not really possible in regards to the JP as no bonus was taken. Having multiple accounts has nothing to do with the JP, as it may be against the terms like the bots issue, however its not fraud, as its money deposited and played with, without any bonuses, so whats wrong with that? Unless a charge back was made with the "other" accounts

Actually, there are ways to collude using multiple accounts and moving money around in strategic ways. It may or may not pertain to this issue, but I'm pretty well schooled-up on fraudster activity. I know what fraudsters can and cannot do when it comes to these sort of situations. To think otherwise is just being naive.

 

[uungy]

Actually, there are ways to collude using multiple accounts and moving money around in strategic ways. It may or may not pertain to this issue, but I'm pretty well schooled-up on fraudster activity. I know what fraudsters can and cannot do when it comes to these sort of situations. To think otherwise is just being naive.

I was actually referring to CC response to my earlier post, and basing myself n that

In response to UUngy, the collusion was not strictly related to the JP win, but prior to it. And by collusion we mean a ring of players connected by IP address/emails/addresses/multiple accounts etc...attempt to abuse the Casino bonuses and its T&C's.

which to my understanding was exactly what I said.

Basically the casino agrees the JP was a fair win, and it was bonues a while back which are causing the issue here. So yes, I am aware there are fraudsters who do things which I probably am not as yet aware of, however basing my facts solely on CC, I think it would be fair to say the JP was fairly won, as even if in the past multiple accounts etc, however more recently that wasn't That had not happened.

 

[Casinomeister]

So CC have admitted they knew RealPlayer was a fraud, but allowed him to continue depositing & playing while they watched, and they only closed his account & seized his funds when he won the big JP...

Regardless of whether the player is a fraudster or not; am I the only one round here who finds that incredibly unfair & unethical?

KK

Following this train of thought, would it be unethical for me to know who the fraudsters are in this forum, and not say anything while I keep tabs on them to see what they're doing?

 

[uungy]

Following this train of thought, would it be unethical for me to know who the fraudsters are in this forum, and not say anything while I keep tabs on them to see what they're doing?

a slight difference. One is depositing funds, while here, no $$$$ being exchanged.

Saying that I am not saying its wrong. If CC honestly belive they were defrauded, I may understand them, but sounds crazy to me, that they were playing a game of wait and see, if this guy wins the jackpot, which leads me to think thats not the case. They basically only started scrutinizing once a withdrawal was going through. Personally of a player at 30K in their account, they could have nubbed it then. 30K is a reasonable amount, and considering their are other accounts, another 10 or 20 there (I imagine) so they have it already.

Still not sounding right to me.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

How can the player get a fair hearing at the LGA when CC are paying fees to them for an operating license and server usage? It is a blatent conflict of interest.

Suppose a hearing takes place at the LGA and they find in favour of CC. What then is the option for the player? Can he bring a High Court action in the UK? This would be the logical step as CC are based here. Or is any court action invalidated by the fact that the player was legally deemed to be in Malta at the point of playing. Could the player take action in Germany?

If the player puts a complaint in to the LGA would it mean he was unable to take any more legal action should the hearing go against him? Here in the UK if you go to certain arbitration courts you can get into a position where you can take no more action and are bound by the decision of that court. It would be somewhat ironic if the player were to fall into the trap of having to accept the LGA's verdict as being final given that they are in reciept of payments from CC.

I would be very wary of putting in a complaint to the LGA if it in any way restricted my legal options.

If the only legal redress is via the LGA then it really doesn't bear thinking about.

I make no comment on who is right or wrong in this particular case but I am finding it very hard to understand how the player can get a fair hearing.

 

[kmay87]

a slight difference. One is depositing funds, while here, no $$$$ being exchanged.

Saying that I am not saying its wrong. If CC honestly belive they were defrauded, I may understand them, but sounds crazy to me, that they were playing a game of wait and see, if this guy wins the jackpot, which leads me to think thats not the case. They basically only started scrutinizing once a withdrawal was going through. Personally of a player at 30K in their account, they could have nubbed it then. 30K is a reasonable amount, and considering their are other accounts, another 10 or 20 there (I imagine) so they have it already.

Still not sounding right to me.

I think we have to look at it in the same way they probably did. Which is, unless you have hard evidence on someone, you just can't throw in accusations until you have gathered enough evidence to be certain of the conclusions. My tone has changed distinctively since the beginning of this issue, but I do always like to see both perspectives. While we had generated a number of questions that put Casino Club in a bad light, they must have been a good reason why they decided this course of action. Hence, we all made a huge deal of it (myself included) and from that, a number of conspiracy theories and the like were created as a result.

I don't want to rule the player out, but based on what CC told us, they do seem pretty confident. They haven't said realplayer won't get paid - they will pay him if this is the decision - so that is good. What interests me the most is why they made this move when they did, and whose best interests were at heart. i.e. if the casino thought it was unfair that a 'fraud' won the progressive jackpot, and believes it should go to a loyal, honest player, then that is a good move.

Hopefully realplayer will continue to post further in this thread even after the comments of Casino Club. I'm sure at the moment noone is taking sides here: we just want to see an appropriate outcome for the player, the casino and the other members at the casino.

 

[thelawnet]

Following this train of thought, would it be unethical for me to know who the fraudsters are in this forum, and not say anything while I keep tabs on them to see what they're doing?

The casino's claims are scarcely credible.

Let's say they had identified a ring of players from this German town and noticed that they had given them xk in bonuses. Why would they continue to give bonuses? They have near zero chance of recovering their funds, it was only by a freak event that he won the jackpot.

And what kind of ring only has two members, as per their lawyer's letter?

You as a website owner lose nothing, they lose money every time a fraudster players. So yes, it makes sense for you, it makes no sense for them.

 

[realplayer]

if we were talking poker, I can understand, however playing on a jackpot, I find it hard to understand how this can be an excuse to refuse payments. Even if a group of friends decided to play for the jackpot, whats wrong with that?

Correctly, CC is no poker-room. Everybody plays alone against CC-software.
In addition, CC promotes: Refer your friends to CASINO CLUB!
See CC homepage

 

[Rusty]

The casino's claims are scarcely credible.

Let's say they had identified a ring of players from this German town and noticed that they had given them xk in bonuses. Why would they continue to give bonuses? They have near zero chance of recovering their funds, it was only by a freak event that he won the jackpot.

And what kind of ring only has two members, as per their lawyer's letter?

You as a website owner lose nothing, they lose money every time a fraudster players. So yes, it makes sense for you, it makes no sense for them.

I agree with that completely.
The Casinos statement fails on a simple point of logic anyway.
A fundamental interpretation of what they are saying is this;

We knew they were frauds but we didn't know how or why so we let them play and win so that we might find out.

So the question has to be, how did they know they were frauds?
The only way I can think of is that they were beating the system but that would mean there had to be a system to beat which implies the software is not random.

It is the same paradoxical argument CC used when stating the player was gaining an advantage over the Casino by using a bot.

Either the statement is incorrect or the statement is correct but by implication would mean the software is not random.

Casino Club;

The questions raised throughout the forum are numerous and some of them are nothing short of delusional. I am going to address just a few here.

1) Are you accusing Realplayer of using a bot?
a. Yes we are, amongst other accusations.
2) Are accusing Realplayer of fraud and/or breach of T&C's?
a. Yes we are.
3) If fraud what specifically was this fraud?
a. Collusion with other players/Mutiple Accounts and breach of T&C relating to the use of BOTs for Bonus Abuse.
4) If T&C's what specific T&C's were broke and how?
a. They are there in our Terms & Conditions and you are welcome to view it yourself.
5) On what grounds have you confiscated Realplayers deposit?
a. We have locked the account including all deposits and wins pending resolution of the case and, as mentioned earlier, should the LGA rule in our favor, we will hold Realplayer responsible for all losses accrued by Casino Club.
6) Has Casino Club submitted any evidence to the Maltese licensing authorities?
a. Indeed we have

I will assume you did not consider these questions delusional since you answered them, thanks.

So you are saying the snatching of Realplayers deposit was a preemptive action that precludes the judgment of the LGA Malta should you wish to recover costs.
That is incredibly unethical and probably illegal.
If and when a judgment was found in your favour you would have the right to pursue Realplayer for damages and costs through the courts but obviously you prefer to act arbitrarily.
Certainly something for your players to bear in mind.

I appreciate your replies though even if I disagree on principle or argument of some of what you state.
I am still of a mind that neither party will come out of this smelling of Roses.

 

[thelawnet]

Correctly, CC is no poker-room. Everybody plays alone against CC-software.
In addition, CC promotes: Refer your friends to CASINO CLUB!
See CC homepage

Could you please answer the question regarding other players linked to you, in your town, or elsewhere?

 

[realplayer]

Questions for Realplayer.
1 Have you ever been banned from any online Casinos previously?

never

2 Are you a member of any other online Casinos?

2003-2008 I was only actively member of CC
CC accepts euro and offers a German-speaking Support, there was no reason to change

 

[Rusty]

never
2003-2008 I was only actively member of CC
CC accepts euro and offers a German-speaking Support, there was no reason to change

Now that is very interesting.
If this is provable I think it could help your case.

Your argument would be that if you had found a way to defraud or otherwise gain an advantage over a Boss media Casino then why would you perpetuate that behaviour at just One Casino when the natural and obvious thing to do would be to copy the process at other Casinos thus increasing your profit and decreasing the likelihood of detection.

That to me is quite a powerful argument as it would show that much of Casino Clubs claims are counterintuitive unless they have very strong evidence that proves otherwise.