Either something is getting lost in translation, or CC have made a poor choice of lawyer. All Realplayer has to do is use those lawyers letters in court. CC clearly didn't mean that this was in any way a "clairvoyant bot", but the lawyer seems to have misunderstood what a bot is, and what it does, and made an inaccurate statement of the "charges" in a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
Sometimes, the WRONG party can win a court case due to incompetence on the part of the legal representatives of the RIGHT (honest) party. Many lawbreakers get off on a "technicality" because the prosecution has prepared the case badly, or procedure was not followed.
Simply being one of a number of players from the same town is NOT "collusion", in fact, casinos with these "refer a friend" scheme are MORE likely to have "linked" players simply because a player has referred all their friends, and naturally, they are "linked" to all their friends in many ways.
Fraud would be different, and the use of the word "collusion" means something a little different. It suggests multiple accounts, where the "friends" referred did not actually play their own accounts, or did not even exist.
Moving money between accounts is NOT possible in standard casino games, collusion or not, but the recent trend of having tournaments and live tables has made it conceivable that something similar to "chip dumping" could be worked out in a casino environment.
A model of this would be the Microgaming "sit n go" tournaments that no-one seems to bother with. 5 "colluding" players could buy in, and decide beforehand who is going to win, thus we have, albeit on a VERY small scale, something akin to "chip dumping" in the MGS Viper lobby. IF MGS offered very high stakes and prizes, yet still a limit of 5 to 10 participants, they would be hit pretty hard by "chip dumping" type frauds, so perhaps this is why these tournaments have only ever offered prizes around $10 to $20 so far.
A similar thing could happen with multi player blackjack, assuming the "colluding" players could monopolise a table. It needn't be live Blackjack either, just multi-player.
The purpose of such collusion would be to transfer BONUS chips to a player with no WR on their account from those who have, something that has plagued poker sites for a while. Such collusion does not necessarily mean that fake IDs or multiple accounts were used.
Allowing a fraud to continue under surveillance is a tactic used by many police forces. There is a need to gather enough evidence to make a case stick, however it does carry the risk that this allows the fraudsters to gather in even more money, with no guarantee that they will be "busted" before they figure out they are being watched & run with the money.
Since there IS a bot for Boss Media Blackjack (plays "perfect strategy"), AND with multi-player tables & tournaments within a casino application it IS possible to "collude" in a similar manner as with poker rooms to gain from bonuses, it is entirely possible that CC have been taken by a pretty clever (until now) fraud because they neglected to have a dedicated fraud team until relatively recently.
All they now have to do is PROVE that this case is one of them.
If CC can PROVE fraud, they would be within their rights under UK contract law to recover their costs from the fraudster. This could be argued in a civil court, which would decide what most probably happened, and decide what costs CC would be allowed to recover. Any remaining balance from the confiscated deposit would have to be returned to realplayer. The MOST CC could easily recover is the money they have already seized, if they wante more THEY would have to take realplayer to court for it, and risk the possibility of losing, and the whole judgement going into reverse, having to PAY realplayer the Jackpot AND damages & costs.
IF LGA rule in favour of CC, I believe this is where CC will leave it. Pursuing realplayer further would only make this issue drag on for what could be YEARS more, and with no guarantee of success. It would likely be realplayer that would have to take CC to court should the LGA rule in favour of CC, and there surely would be a legal time limit for taking such action, after which the money could be returned to the pool.
Since CC have now stated on record that they have the money, and what will happen to it for each of the two outcomes of this case, there is little point in insisting they put it in escrow, lodge it with lawyers, etc. They will be held to account by the player community after this affair is resolved.
Advantage players have to realise that the days of "casibot" are up, and it is no longer such a "steal" at $250 or whatever. The casinos KNOW about it, and are watching for it. Hell, even
I know about it
)
