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

[Jasminebed]

I have to agree if there was evidence of other breach of terms, the LGA would have based its ruling on those facts.

I'm considering closing accounts at casinos licenced in Malta, with this as my reason.

Now that a ruling has come down this way, any casino can renege paying with impunity.

Maybe if all players stopped playing at all Malta licenced casinos, the casinos would bring pressure to have changes made to the laws. This industry is a large one in Malta and provides a lot of employment and economic stimulus.

 

[betpartners]

It is possible that most licensing jurisdictions outside the UK and Isle of man are the same as Malta in that common law dictates that gambling debts are not enforceable by law,

Found this interesting piece on IBAS

Chandler challenge to jurisdiction of British Court - Racing Post - Tuesday 27th October 2009

IN a case sure to be closely monitored by the bookmaking industry, Victor Chandler International is challenging the jurisdiction of a British court to decide on a betting dispute because the company is registered in Gibraltar.

The firm's stance came to light after Paul Morris, an independent financial adviser from Sheffield, who is claiming winnings no a horse that finished second but was promoted to first at a later inquiry, initiated legal proceedings.

In an acknowledgment received from Sheffield County Court, Morris was informed: ''The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to contest the court's jurisdiction.''

A judge will have to rule on the validity of Chandler's defence and, if the case is thrown out, it could open the way to a punter deciding to test if the legislation that makes gambling debts recoverable by law is enforceable when betting with a business registered offshore.

Morris said: ''Victor Chandler are saying they don't think the court has any jurisdiction over them, and therefore can't impose any sanction upon them. That has got to be a huge concern for all punters. If they are successful, every bookie that is registered offshore is going to try to claim they are beyond UK law.

''I find it interesting that Chandler are using this defence to try to keep this out of the legal arena, but although I am only claiming £3,375, it is a test case because if I win, it will pave the way for similar claims against the company.''

Betting online with Victor Chandler, Morris staked £1,500 on Mourad to win at Punchestown on December 31 last year. The horse finished second to Jumbo Rio, a result confirmed after a stewards' inquiry, but at a Turf Club hearing the following month the places were reversed.

Although an IBAS adjudication found in favour of Victor Chandler, Morris is continuing his battle on the basis of the company's terms and conditions at the time. Victor Chandler had no comment to make yesterday.

I made the important part in bold, if i am reading this right and i may not be, Victor Chandler are stating that UK courts have no jurisdiction in Gibraltar and they are using this defence because gambling debts are not enforceable in Gibraltar.

Like i say i could be reading that wrong, but that is what i get from it, suppose the easiest way round this is to ask each jurisdiction what their national law is.

I see 32red, one of this sites most trusted and biggest award winners have a license in Gibraltar, Betfair, William Hill and Ladbrokes all have licenses in either Malta or Gibraltar, in fact the list runs in to 100s, could be a whole lot more if other licensed locations have the same national laws.

I think the bottom line is that none of us know 100% that if we gamble in any form outside the UK and Isle of Man if gambling debts are legally enforceable or not.

Food for thought.

 

[Tengil]

The problems seems to be that Civil Code hasnt been updated to reflect the current situation. It may well be that anyone hadnt even tought about it when LGA was established. The Article 1713 seems to a layman to be about "unregulated" gambling.

In another case Inspector Ivan Cilia said to a player in the BetOnBet case:

Also please be informed that if a person is convicted in a Criminal Court for Criminal Charges, the Court delivers a sentence as punishment and is not bound to order the payment to the victims. Usually it is the victim himself who has to start a court case in a Civil Court and requests payment.


Different circumstances but why couldnt they at the same order payment for the victims? And in the Civil Court the Article 1713 could be used(?).
And how would they treat poker balances? Which basically consists of deposited funds and money won from other players (if the player is a winner) not from the poker room.

 

[Balky]

I find the arguments stated in the casinos official position interesting. They have looked at the evidence of bots, bonus abuse and collusion and multiple accounts. After that they "tried to evaluate" whether they have been too harsh in their judgment. Eventually they "firmly believe" that the JP was won with funds gathered by breaching their T&C. If there is undeniable evidence and proof, there is no reason for believing and evaluating, then the issue is quite clear.
In the end they claim to "pay every penny immediately to JP winnners". That sounds kinda joke after having withheld the amount for 2 years. Even if the casino is right with its evidence against Realplayer, in that case the next JP winner should have been credited the amount that was temporarily taken out of the jackpot sum.

B.

 

[winbig]

Dear Forum Participants
I manage CasinoClub on behalf of its parent company GVC Holdings plc, and would like to state our official position on the ‘Realplayer’ case.

I have spent many hours with my team reviewing in some detail the events relating to this player. I have looked at the evidence of Bots, bonus abuse, collusion with other players and/or abusing multiple accounts, all of which clearly contravene our terms and conditions. During this review I have tried to evaluate whether we have been too harsh in our judgment and perhaps misconstrued evidence. I have also sought advice from other operators faced with the same situations.

Having done this I have to say that CasinoClub holds to the view posted by a colleague on March 16th 2009 (#73 in the thread). We still firmly believe that ‘Realplayer’ won the JP prize with money that was won by breaching our terms and conditions, both by use of Bots for bonus abuse and collusion with other players/multiple accounts. There is just no other way that I can interpret the evidence that I have sifted through and analysed over the last week or so.

If I was to take the opposite view whilst it would make ‘Realplayer’ very happy it would encourage a vast number of players to target CasinoClub, obtain multiple accounts, generate large bonus amounts and use bots to convert a large proportion into cash which they would then withdraw. We would then be forced to stop offering our bonuses and as a result our business would die. No online casino can offer attractive bonuses if there is systematic abuse of them, as perpetrated by ‘realplayer’. So ‘realplayers’ fraudulent behaviour hurts the honest player as much as the casino operator.
There has been some comment relating to the LGA. I am prepared to re visit this issue with the LGA should they wish to, and will report back to this forum shortly regarding this, but in the meantime I will commit to re funding the Video Poker progressive jackpot by the exact amount that came out of the pool on the day that ‘realplayer’ had his ‘win’. The re funding will take place within the next two weeks. This has taken longer than I would have liked and I apologise to our players for this slowness.

Finally I would like to say that CasinoClub prides itself on acting in a fair and responsible way to its customers. In contrast to competitors who apply maximum monthly payouts to jackpot winners we pay every penny immediately. Our bonuses can be redeemed on roulette when other casinos ban bonuses for this game. But for us to be able to afford this we have to take a tough attitude to fraud, and this is what we have done in this situation.

Give me a break. Why would you let someone play there for a number of years, lose money on occasion and cash out money on occasion, and then when they win a sizable amount, claim that they're fraudsters?

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[winbig]

and in regards to the JP money being returned -

Are you going to include the INTEREST that has been earned on this money during the past 2 years, as well? It's not like we're talking about a few hundred dollars here, we're talking about $15,000+

 

[jetset]

I agree Jetset that this is a worrying development, it in effect makes the license almost worthless and an open invitation to any casino world wide to legally to set up an operation, get a license and because of EU open market law in effect sneak in through the back door on to the UK white list and legally not have to pay a player, any player, ever.

With Malta's low tax thresholds makes you wonder why every casino on the planet is not flocking there, it is an ideal environment for legalised theft.

The only way round this is to enforce contract law which the player and casino enter in to and a judicial review can be taken out in the Maltese courts.

The player does have that option and while i also agree that the casino has made accusations without any evidence being provided and withheld the winnings, it is by the same token a strange situation if the player does not follow through with taking out a case in the Maltese courts.

There is a previous example of this and so if the player is 100% in the right then i would suggest he has a very good chance of success.

But again just an opinion, i am no lawyer.

Perhaps Realplayer would like to come back and tell us whether he has instituted legal proceedings (there are legal firms even in Malta prepared to work on a contingency basis, I'm sure) and if not, why not?

I suspect a serious attempt at litigation might give Casino Club pause for thought on its catch-all accusations and whether it can produce sufficient proof to convince an independent judge.

It would also be nice (just for a change) to see some sort of interest from the LGA as this issue continues to develop - I've alerted them to the presence of this thread btw.

I feel a news story coming on....

 

[GrandMaster]

It is possible that most licensing jurisdictions outside the UK and Isle of man are the same as Malta in that common law dictates that gambling debts are not enforceable by law,

Found this interesting piece on IBAS

Chandler challenge to jurisdiction of British Court - Racing Post - Tuesday 27th October 2009

IN a case sure to be closely monitored by the bookmaking industry, Victor Chandler International is challenging the jurisdiction of a British court to decide on a betting dispute because the company is registered in Gibraltar.

The firm's stance came to light after Paul Morris, an independent financial adviser from Sheffield, who is claiming winnings no a horse that finished second but was promoted to first at a later inquiry, initiated legal proceedings.

In an acknowledgment received from Sheffield County Court, Morris was informed: ''The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to contest the court's jurisdiction.''

A judge will have to rule on the validity of Chandler's defence and, if the case is thrown out, it could open the way to a punter deciding to test if the legislation that makes gambling debts recoverable by law is enforceable when betting with a business registered offshore.

Morris said: ''Victor Chandler are saying they don't think the court has any jurisdiction over them, and therefore can't impose any sanction upon them. That has got to be a huge concern for all punters. If they are successful, every bookie that is registered offshore is going to try to claim they are beyond UK law.

''I find it interesting that Chandler are using this defence to try to keep this out of the legal arena, but although I am only claiming £3,375, it is a test case because if I win, it will pave the way for similar claims against the company.''

Betting online with Victor Chandler, Morris staked £1,500 on Mourad to win at Punchestown on December 31 last year. The horse finished second to Jumbo Rio, a result confirmed after a stewards' inquiry, but at a Turf Club hearing the following month the places were reversed.

Although an IBAS adjudication found in favour of Victor Chandler, Morris is continuing his battle on the basis of the company's terms and conditions at the time. Victor Chandler had no comment to make yesterday.

I made the important part in bold, if i am reading this right and i may not be, Victor Chandler are stating that UK courts have no jurisdiction in Gibraltar and they are using this defence because gambling debts are not enforceable in Gibraltar.

Like i say i could be reading that wrong, but that is what i get from it, suppose the easiest way round this is to ask each jurisdiction what their national law is.

I see 32red, one of this sites most trusted and biggest award winners have a license in Gibraltar, Betfair, William Hill and Ladbrokes all have licenses in either Malta or Gibraltar, in fact the list runs in to 100s, could be a whole lot more if other licensed locations have the same national laws.

I think the bottom line is that none of us know 100% that if we gamble in any form outside the UK and Isle of Man if gambling debts are legally enforceable or not.

Food for thought.

This is a different kind of issue. It is primarily about whether VC followed its own rules or the industry standard practice in the absence of specific rules for this situation. Honestly, I don't see an English court overruling IBAS on the facts.

 

[betpartners]

Based on what i have read, it should also be noted that Casino Club is not owned by vcbet (Victor Chandler).

Casino Club is owned by GVC Holdings and has nothing to do with VCbet.

I have never heard of GVC Holdings before to be honest, i do now though

 

[betpartners]

This is a different kind of issue. It is primarily about whether VC followed its own rules or the industry standard practice in the absence of specific rules for this situation. Honestly, I don't see an English court overruling IBAS on the facts.

Yes indeed, what i was highlighting though was the part about gambling debts not being enforced and while the scenarios may be different etc, the principle from my understanding is that in Gibraltar gambling debts are also not enforceable.

It is that part that is worrying, If Malta and Gibraltar have these laws, what about other jurisdictions, players should really be informed by either the casinos or the licensing authorities of this, it is rather an important issue.

 

[Tengil]

Based on what i have read, it should also be noted that Casino Club is not owned by vcbet (Victor Chandler).

Casino Club is owned by GVC Holdings and has nothing to do with VCbet.

I have never heard of GVC Holdings before to be honest, i do now though

They also own Betboo (Playtech) and Betaland (NetEnt). Its actually quite a profitable company.

 

[jetset]

See post #189

 

[jetset]

I've just spent some time going through this and the preceding thread to refresh my memory on events, and it continues to make very disturbing reading.

btw congratulations to thelawnet, whose erudite posts have done so much to clarify issues and seperate the wheat from the chaff.

The LGA's conduct comes down to post #140 from Realplayer, which describes the end result after a protracted delay of his complaint to the LGA that he was being ripped off by Casino Club.

What perturbs me the most is the perception that I have come away with that the LGA was presented with all this so-called irrefutable evidence of multi- accounting/fraud/bot use/ collusion/ bonus abuse by Casino Club (and btw did Bryan ever receive a copy of that evidence as was promised some time back?), but at the end of the day the regulator appears to have side-stepped all of these accusations and blown the case off on the grounds that gambling debts are not actionable in Malta.

If true, that's enough to scare most online players, and doesn't bode well for the future.

Even if Casino Club was to go back to the LGA for a review, as offered, it is difficult to see how that body can now reverse away from its judgement that it can do nothing because the 'you don't have to pay gambling debt' law effectively renders it toothless.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I've just spent some time going through this and the preceding thread to refresh my memory on events, and it continues to make very disturbing reading.

btw congratulations to thelawnet, whose erudite posts have done so much to clarify issues and seperate the wheat from the chaff.

The LGA's conduct comes down to post #140 from Realplayer, which describes the end result after a protracted delay of his complaint to the LGA that he was being ripped off by Casino Club.

What perturbs me the most is the perception that I have come away with that the LGA was presented with all this so-called irrefutable evidence of multi- accounting/fraud/bot use/ collusion/ bonus abuse by Casino Club (and btw did Bryan ever receive a copy of that evidence as was promised some time back?), but at the end of the day the regulator appears to have side-stepped all of these accusations and blown the case off on the grounds that gambling debts are not actionable in Malta.
If true, that's enough to scare most online players, and doesn't bode well for the future.

Even if Casino Club was to go back to the LGA for a review, as offered, it is difficult to see how that body can now reverse away from its judgement that it can do nothing because the 'you don't have to pay gambling debt' law effectively renders it toothless.

I thought it was the CASINO that did this. This would suggest that they were NOT confident their evidence stood up to INDEPENDENT scrutiny, and feared the LGA ruling against them in the end, so pulled out this "gambling debts are not enforceable anyway" to use as their "get out of jail free" card.

Bots CANNOT change the outcome of the bets they make, they can ONLY make more bets than a human in a shorter period of time. If the bonuses offered are constructed intelligently, it would NOT be possible to gain more with a bot than with a human player. Bots CANNOT be proven either, they are assumed based on length and consistency of play, but ASSUME that the average player plays in a certain manner. This has been DISPROVEN by some scientific studies into other types of comuter based gaming and addiction. Human players CAN indeed reach a state where they will "play like a bot", especially where gameplay is simple and repetitive, such as would be the case with Blackjack and Video Poker. Such players CAN play non-stop for hours, seeming never to eat or sleep. I have heard that dedicated poker players do just this, having several tables open at once, having all they need at hand by their chair (kettle microwave, etc), even a COMMODE!

Collusion - how? It's a casino, not poker, so how would collusion affect the outcome of the games? Players talking to each other happens, but if THIS is going to be called "collusion", then surely ALL of us have been guilty of this when discussing a casino WE play at with another member who also plays at the same casino.

Multiple accounting seems to be the ONLY thing they have a chance of proving, yet they used to "gambling debts are not enforceable" cop-out instead. How good WAS the evidence of multiple accounting? Was this all based on suspicion, and those mysterious "flags" we keep hearing about.


How can the rest of us be certain that this is NOT an innocent player ripped off by an unfortunate set of coincidences, yet unable to get the casino to "see the wood for the trees".

Surely if the casino were confident they were right, they would NOT have kept this progressive jackpot "on ice" for two years, but would have returned it to the pool.

 

[betpartners]

I think we can all draw our conclusions but without seeing the cold hard evidence we are left with for the most part assumptions and the casinos word against the players word.

As an example we have no idea if the LGA straight off the bat told Casino Club that they cannot deal with this issue as it is a gambling debt.

It could just as easy be the case that Casino Club sat on this info knowing that they cannot get the LGA to actually investigate the case and in the absence of a legitimate investigation have no actual grounds other than suspicion in keeping the players winnings.

On the other hand it could be that the LGA told Casino Club that based on the evidence that while it does look suspicious it cannot be proved and that the best course of action is to stipulate the gambling debt clause under Malta law.

Pure assumption by me.

We simply do not know what happened behind the scenes and with the lack of disclosure by all sides, The player, The Casino and The LGA, we may never know.

I cannot recall without going back through all the posts, but what evidence was Bryan provided, i recall Bryan stating that the player misrepresented himself, but what evidence did the Casino provide and did the player provide any other info that could help his case.

Seriously its a mess and i am sure the Casino could have handled this far better, they have not and even if they are the victims of fraud here, they have done their own reputation some damage by their very own actions.

Also the player makes it hard for anyone to 100% take his side either, will be interesting to hear Bryans input when he returns, as he probably knows a little more than most of us based on his own discussions with the Casino and the aborted PAB.

 

[jetset]

"We simply do not know what happened behind the scenes and with the lack of disclosure by all sides, The player, The Casino and The LGA, we may never know."

I would have to agree with the above.

Realplayer needs to clarify exactly who told him (the casino, its lawyers or the LGA) that his complaint had no chance of success due to the 'unenforceable gambling debt' loophole.

We already know that Casino Club claims it submitted its evidence to the LGA on the allegations it made about Realplayer, because its representatives have confirmed that in earlier posts.

And don't forget a CC poster said that the casino would consider asking the LGA for a further review, which would seem to support the notion that its dossier on Realplayer was submitted to the LGA.

The question is: what did the LGA do with this information? Did it make a ruling based on the evidence presented to it, or did it simply invoke or support the casino with the 'unenforceable debt' loophole? I believe that is an important issue that needs to be answered because it carries with it moral and ethical implications.

If the LGA reached a finding that the loophole took precedence, or supported that argument, then that imo is truly appalling, because it effectively negates what the regulating authority should be all about - ensuring fair, legal and safe gambling for both player and casino.

A CC poster mentioned legal action against Realplayer - what was that for and has it been dropped following the success of the loophole argument?

I also hope Bryan can tell us whether he was sent a copy of this CC evidence - which was also promised in an earlier post by a Casino Club representative - and what he makes of it.

The LGA and Casino Club are as aware of this thread as the player - I believe it is in the interests of them all to justify their actions.

 

[The Dude]

...

I also hope Bryan can tell us whether he was sent a copy of this CC evidence - which was also promised in an earlier post by a Casino Club representative - and what he makes of it.

I've just checked Realplayer's PAB, and we had put this on hold until the legal mess had been ironed out. This was in March 2009. The only thing we received from the casino were statements regarding that they were serving cease and desist papers to the player, and had produced receipts of the letter being delivered. That's it. Max and I stepped out of it since the casino rep told us it was out of his hands since the casino's lawyers were handling it, and that it was being dealt with by the LGA.

I have no record of any "evidence" from the casino that indicates that the player is a fraudster. All we have is what the casino rep has posted in the forum.

The LGA and Casino Club are as aware of this thread as the player - I believe it is in the interests of them all to justify their actions.

The LGA should be awarded "Disappointment of the Decade". Time and time again they have turned their backs on the player. They are habitually non-responsive and appear to be completely flaccid when it comes to getting involved with player issues.

„Due to a legal loophole they are not obliged to pay out winnings, the matter is resolved, therefore. “

That still has me bewildered. Why would anyone tell a player "we're not paying you because of a legal loophole"? Simply mind-boggling. Are we telling players that licensing jurisdictions have legal loopholes that casinos can exploit in order not to pay someone? Yeah, jetset - there is a news story here that ought to be tipped off to the mainstream press.

 

[betpartners]

Are we telling players that licensing jurisdictions have legal loopholes that casinos can exploit in order not to pay someone? Yeah, jetset - there is a news story here that ought to be tipped off to the mainstream press.

In a nutshell i would say yes.

The UK have eliminated this in law and my understanding is that the Isle of Man has followed suit, however i have been unable to find anything in regards to any other jurisdiction other than Gibraltar, which appears to still have that law in effect, though i say appears only, still don't know for sure.

This all goes back to English common law and apparently over 200 countries or localities worldwide adopted it and thus a lot of countries are stuck with 200 year old laws that have no place in this day and age.

 

[elscrabinda]

As it seems from the CasinoClub response that the legal issues have still not entirely run their course (grounds for appeal) etc, maybe it is unwise to commit to replenishing the jackpot pool within two weeks?

I'm all for them not pocketing the money, but it would be a real mess if the jackpot is won by another player and then someone, somewhere, rules in favour of realplayer. Maybe if CC agree to replenish it when it has 100% been resolved (assuming it goes against realplayer), with some contribution accounting for interest earned in the interim (to avoid accusations of deliberately dragging their feet) this would satsify people for now.

 

[Simmo!]

Two things stand out for me:

Firstly, bottom line for players is that any casino with a Maltese licence can simply refuse to pay out because of the Gambling Debt loophole and there's nothing that can be done. That in itself makes a Maltese licence worthless.

Secondly, Malta is included in the UK Gambling Commission's "White List" to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't this apparent contradictory legislation be looked into by them?

 

[betpartners]

Two things stand out for me:

Firstly, bottom line for players is that any casino with a Maltese licence can simply refuse to pay out because of the Gambling Debt loophole and there's nothing that can be done. That in itself makes a Maltese licence worthless.

Secondly, Malta is included in the UK Gambling Commission's "White List" to the best of my knowledge. Shouldn't this apparent contradictory legislation be looked into by them?

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

 

[Rusty]

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

If a casino uses Microgaming, Rival, RTG, Playtech etc software it will not be licensed by the UKGC so that is a correct observation.

Regarding whitelisting and regulation for UK facing offshore markets such as Malta there was a very interesting consultation paper, Regulatory Future of Remote Gambling in Great Britain, issued by the Department of Sport and Culture which is the government department that oversees the UKGC and whitelisting earlier this year.

Now if you are in the US or elsewhere this concerns you as well because many of the concerns listed and reasons given for the need for change are the same concerns that you have and many of the jurisdictions will have remote casinos you play at.

The full document can be found

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

and I will give a few brief extracts here and expand upon these in the regulation thread here.

The White List
2.8 Under section 331(4) of the Act, the Secretary of State has the power to designate certain countries or places permitted to advertise remote gambling services in the UK. That list is more commonly referred to as the white list and jurisdictions that wish to be included must demonstrate that their regulatory system for gambling is robust and meets the Government’s published criteria.

2.9 The Government does not demand that a jurisdiction’s licensing and regulatory regime must mirror that of the UK: the key question is whether a jurisdiction has embedded within its regulatory regime the same core values which underpin ours. That is to say, that they too regulate gambling in order to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited; to keep crime out; and to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly, and that they have the facilities and resources in place to ensure compliance and enforcement with those values and the regulatory regime in operation




The Need for Change
concerns were raised by Parliamentarians and others as to whether the current protections for British consumers are sufficient, given that an increasing number of gambling operators are now regulated offshore, outside the scope of the Act and the Commission’s regulation.
This includes Malta Rusty

3.10 Many European and international countries such as France, Italy, Denmark and South Africa are moving from a prohibition stance to a national licensing and regulation system based upon a set of requirements for operators wanting to access their particular market and target their consumers. This is in contrast to some existing offshore remote jurisdictions where the regulation is not provided for the protection of their citizens but for operators using their jurisdiction as an outward facing hub from which to access other markets. In particular, we are aware that some offshore jurisdictions which license remote gambling do not permit their own citizens to access that gambling.

Standards and Software testing
3.15 Overseas licensed operators have different levels of testing and security requirements and the Commission is not able to assess their robustness. This may ultimately mean that consumers are gambling on websites that have not been independently tested or audited to the standards expected of Commission licensees.

Fairness
4.4 We consider that consistency in regulatory standards is closely linked to the issue of fairness – all operators active in the British gambling market should be required to adhere to the same standards.


Options in respect of EEA member states and Gibraltar
4.8 Taking into account the criteria set out above, we have considered a range of options in respect of EEA member states and Gibraltar.

They then go on to list some very interesting options and revealing recommendations which I will expand upon on in the regulation thread.

 

[jetset]

Coincidentally with this scandal, an article on internet gambling regulation appeared in the Malta Independent recently, in which the following par gives an indication of how successful regulation has been for this Mediterranean island:


QUOTE

Malta has licensed operators who hail from all corners of the world, providing first class regulation and fair play efficiently monitored by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority. This silent revolution has generated a good proportion of our recent 3.9 per cent GDP increase from a negative last year.

This is commendable. It provides well-paid jobs to over 2,500 people together with the economic multiplier effect of fees generated – to lawyers, accountants and IT engineers – and acts as the backbone support for the burgeoning ICT sector through extensive use of bandwidth.UNQUOTE


Old / Expired Link

 

[jetset]

Latest financial numbers for GVC Holdings:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

I note that the company's ongoing litigation against Boss Media is due in court again on October 14.

 

[Rusty]

Latest financial numbers for GVC Holdings:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

I note that the company's ongoing litigation against Boss Media is due in court again on October 14.

GVC’s legal actions against Boss now scheduled for court hearings in Malta and
Sweden.

The irony of this makes it even more news worthy.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the story to break in the newspapers though, remember this?

 

[gamblingmace]

today I received an email from Casino Club saying that on the first of October 2010 they will put 200000 euros into the jackpot of "Jackpot Poker"-Videopoker. and one can claim a bonus of 20% up to 100€ until the 31st of October which is a special bonus only for "Jackpot Poker".

 

[vinylweatherman]

Not just Malta Simmo, reckon it is quite a few of them

Also they are white listed but they are also European Union and while i am not a lawyer i cannot see a how they can actually exclude Malta, i don't know who finances and oversees the Gambling commission in the UK but i suspect it is the UK government in some form.

The European courts would never allow one member state to stop another member state from free trade within its borders, would negate the whole concept of the European Union.

And if i understand rightly, to be white listed entails among other things the right to advertise within the UK, no UK organisation can stop another European member state from advertising in the UK.

And so even if they were removed from the white list they would still be able to advertise to UK residents, they cannot be stopped,, thus making the white list almost worthless.

But like i mention, it is not just Malta and without knowing for sure the only safe bet to avoid this ever happening is to gamble with UK licensed Casinos only.

Not sure that would too many Casinos to choose from.

It's not so clear cut now. The EU court recently ruled that states CAN prohibit other EU states from entering the remote gambling market, provided the motive is protection of consumers, rather than protection of internal markets.

The cases were brought against Germany, where some EU based companies were arguing for the right to operate remote gambling within Germany. Some German states decided to prohibit remote gambling except where offered by GERMAN companies. The fight ended with a partial victory for Germany, who managed to argue that they COULD prohibit remote gambling in order to protect it's own citizens.

In a similar vein, the UK could argue that striking off some firms/jurisdictions is permitted where it can be shown that this is necessary for consumer protection.

In the case of Malta deciding that casinos regulated there CAN simply rely on the "gambling debts are unenforceable" nature of Maltese law to justify non payment of winnings, there IS a case for banning firms based in a jurisdiction that allows this law to trump standards of fairness towards players in order to protect consumers from an unfair environment.

Surely this same law ALSO means that the legal action against RealPlayer for recovery of winnings later regarded as gained "fraudulently" will fail on the same grounds. It ALSO means that any player OWING money to Casino Club as a result of placing LOSING wagers can use this law to dodge any legal consequences of making a "chargeback" for no reason other than to renege on these losing bets.

Casino Club have made it clear to such fraudsters that there is NO legal means to recover gambling debts in Malta, so Casino Club are "on their own" when it comes to fighting the frauds that deliberately play with the intention of charging back losses but hoping to keep winnings, just as much as players are "on their own" when Casino Club (and other casinos based in Malta) decide to use this legal loophole to avoid paying winnings.

The UK had this law, and it was OPERATORS, not players, that wanted it changed. Operators feared that they would be unable to recover debts run up by gamblers on credit accounts of the sort often used for horseracing (TOTE for example), yet would be expected to make timely payments to winning punters without all the "hoops" beloved of the offshore operators.

The change protects players from rogue operators too, since a gambling debt can be recovered in court in the same way that any other debt can.

Incidentally, I read an article about "Rome 1" in a newspaper some while back. IF implemented, "Rome 1" gives the consumer the legal right to have an internet dispute settled under THEIR consumer laws, rather than the laws in the country where the vendor is based.

This could be an important avenue, since here in the UK gambling debts ARE enforceable, and "Rome 1" would appear to offer consumers the right to take a Maltese company to court in the UK, rather than Malta, with UK law governing the contract. This should work throughout the EU, provided both states signed up to this agreement. The question is whether "Rome 1" made it, or whether it died before birth - I can see why many COMPANIES would be happy to see this die, since it would prevent them from selecting EU countries with the least consumer protection regulations as a base to target consumers with trading practices that would be illegal in the target market's country.

Malta seemed VERY popular with online casinos, and it seems it IS very much the case that of all EU based jurisdictions, they have the least robust system for protecting PLAYERS.


Rusty has also revealed that the UK Gambling Commission have FINALLY NOTICED the evident hypocracy of those offshore jurisdictions that "regulate" remote gambling, but do NOT think their "regulation" robust enough to allow the regulated firms access to their OWN internal markets.

This should make it even HARDER than before to get on this "whitelist". What concerns me though is that the UK Gambling Commission seems to have no channel for players to complain about operations based in jurisdictions not on the white list. Although the commission has no power to intervene, it WOULD be getting valuable data on how these jurisdictions and operators were behaving, which they could then take into consideration if said jurisdiction applied for whitelist status, or the operators concerned applied for a UK license.

 

[betpartners]

Vinylweatherman, some very good points.

You may well be right about what happened in Germany having some effect on Malta operating legally in the UK, however some things spring to mind.

The German case, was that a gambling company and not a wholesale jurisdiction, it is one thing banning a company from another EU state, it is another thing to ban another EU state organisation, any state doing that would open up a can of worms.

And even if the UK did do that it would take years in the European courts to resolve as it would involve two states and not a singular state against a company.

Also my point about the white list is that it would be rendered useless in the sense that if a non white listed company wants to advertise in a UK newspaper or magazine or website or on TV they can if they are based in the EU, to say no would be determined as discrimination and unfair practise and covered by the EU open trade policies.

Now that is just conjecture because it has not been tested as all jurisdictions in the EU are on the white list i believe.

Finally i cannot see the UK government allowing one of its quangos to make a song and dance about the unenforceable debt law just yet, it was the UK that invented it and passed it on to the world and it would be a bit cheeky of them just 5 years after they repealed it to then start acting holier than thou about its former colonies not yet getting round to repealing the law.

That said, there is still contract law and that is enforceable, this has nothing to do with gambling laws, this is pure contract law, when a player joins a casino there is a contract that is agreed upon, that is enforceable and so while it is worrying that most jurisdictions have this get out clause, it can and is negated by the contracts that both parties enter in to.

The player in question simply has to open up a case in Malta, there is previous history on this and if the player has done nothing wrong then he will win.

The Maltese courts have not allowed this ancient law to take precedent over contract law, so in a way this law is meaningless but worrying at the same time.

The important factor here is what did the contract say when the player joined up, what terms and conditions did the casino and the player enter in to

 

[The Dude]

LGA - wake the hell up!

I'm seeing this as Malta's "Ultimatebet". The Ultimatebet/Absolute Poker scandal is what woke Kahnawake up and propelled them into a player focused licensing jurisdiction. I hope that this will happen here.

As I mentioned before, I was not handed evidence of this player being a fraudster - or of him breaking numerous terms and conditions. But I have been assured by the casino representative that this player has numerous accounts, and that he has used bot software to play out bonus wagering requirements.

Now, the player's PAB was set aside a year ago since the casino was already submitting his account info to Malta, and that there were legal proceedings against the player. That's the reason why we sat this one out. The system was already at work. The problem is, the LGA has screwed this up in a very bad way. So bad that most operators who are licensed in Malta should be shaking their heads and asking themselves why they are paying the LGA licensing fees - it's a flaccid worthless license! If I was an operator, I would be screaming to high heaven for the LGA to pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, and issue a damn statement explaining that this player has been found 110% guilty of fraud - and state exactly in explicit detail why.

Players are owed several explanations from this licensing jurisdiction:
why is having more than one account fraudulent and detrimental to the casino. What is the damage caused by bot play and why casinos prohibit its use? Explicitly - why did this player have his funds confiscated, and why should we trust anything that is published by an LGA spokesperson?

As far as I am concerned, we as a gaming community are owed this.

LGA? the ball is in your court. Let's see some public relations kick into action. Anything less is committing corporate suicide.

By the way, Casino Club has been removed from the Rogue section since they have demonstrated to me that they are being communicative and are doing whatever possible to resolve this.

 

[betpartners]

Have the Casino actually confirmed the debt being unenforceable was the reason given? from what i recall this was said by the player or someone saying this is what the player received.

Would certainly clear it up a little if that was confirmed by the casino.

Also surely the same applies to Gibraltar as well, i agree that Malta should get its head out of its ass, but they are not the only ones it seems.

Not sure just Malta should be targeted here, should be ALL the jurisdictions that have this loophole.

 

[jetset]

I am still of the opinion that Casino Club-GVC Holdings as a supposedly respectable and publicly listed company needs to be more specific and clear on exactly what is going on/ has been going on here.

Preferably with a public statement that can be evaluated by all concerned.

It's not just the LGA - though God knows they're bad enough - it's this obfuscation and contradictory statements that are flying around that is creating an extremely suspicious and frustrated environment.

1) Who ruled that this matter was 'resolved' because gambling debt in Malta is unenforceable? And what is the LGA's official position and comment on this very relevant law?

2) Exactly who passed that ruling on to Realplayer (the complainant on CC's conduct in disallowing the jackpot).

3) Was the [LGA?] ruling made against the player solely based on the 'unenforceable debt' loophole, or was there a parallel finding confirming that Casino Club was justified in refusing to pay on grounds of various offences by Realplayer? In other words, was the complaint fully investigated on Realplayer's claims, or merely dismissed based on the loophole?

4) Was the player sued by Casino Club as that company threatened, and what was the outcome?

5) Has Realplayer launched a civil action in Malta yet?

6) Why has it taken until now (when the bad stuff is hitting the fan) for Casino Club to put the confiscated Euro 167 500 back in the players' jackpot, bearing in mind this issue was supposedly finalised early this year?

There's still a very bad smell surrounding this affair imo.

I agree with CM here - if I was a Malta licensee I would be raising merry hell with the LGA over its handling of this issue, and seeking clarity on the deployment of that 'unenforceable' law, which effectively emasculates the regulator and is potentially detrimental to the player.

 

[realplayer]

but in the meantime I will commit to re funding the Video Poker progressive jackpot by the exact amount that came out of the pool on the day that ‘realplayer’ had his ‘win’.

Dear Jon from Gibraltar,

the exact amount is 167,478.53 Euros not 200.000

see screenshot
Old / Expired Link

CC paid 200,000 euros in the video poker jackpot at midnight.This is
€ 32,521.47 more than necessary. Why?

After winning the jackpot in August 2008, the account balance was exact 198,756.94, about 200 thousand. But, the account balance is at € 6.94 only (I have got this information from a trustworthy source).

What has happened after the 3rd August, 2008 is a modern form of robbery. The access to my account is blocked, and CC can manipulate my account balance unhindered and invisible from the outside. By this procedure they were able to acquire the money, as there is no further possibility of a payout now.

Simply put, CC pays stolen money into the jackpot.

 

[jetset]

Realplayer, can you give us your perspective on the questions in the post above yours - #231?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Vinylweatherman, some very good points.

You may well be right about what happened in Germany having some effect on Malta operating legally in the UK, however some things spring to mind.

The German case, was that a gambling company and not a wholesale jurisdiction, it is one thing banning a company from another EU state, it is another thing to ban another EU state organisation, any state doing that would open up a can of worms.

And even if the UK did do that it would take years in the European courts to resolve as it would involve two states and not a singular state against a company.

Also my point about the white list is that it would be rendered useless in the sense that if a non white listed company wants to advertise in a UK newspaper or magazine or website or on TV they can if they are based in the EU, to say no would be determined as discrimination and unfair practise and covered by the EU open trade policies.

Now that is just conjecture because it has not been tested as all jurisdictions in the EU are on the white list i believe.

Finally i cannot see the UK government allowing one of its quangos to make a song and dance about the unenforceable debt law just yet, it was the UK that invented it and passed it on to the world and it would be a bit cheeky of them just 5 years after they repealed it to then start acting holier than thou about its former colonies not yet getting round to repealing the law.

That said, there is still contract law and that is enforceable, this has nothing to do with gambling laws, this is pure contract law, when a player joins a casino there is a contract that is agreed upon, that is enforceable and so while it is worrying that most jurisdictions have this get out clause, it can and is negated by the contracts that both parties enter in to.

The player in question simply has to open up a case in Malta, there is previous history on this and if the player has done nothing wrong then he will win.

The Maltese courts have not allowed this ancient law to take precedent over contract law, so in a way this law is meaningless but worrying at the same time.

The important factor here is what did the contract say when the player joined up, what terms and conditions did the casino and the player enter in to

It was a gambling company that started proceedings, but the EU ruling was more general, and allowed individual states to effectively ban ALL companies from offering remote gambling in it's internal market. Whilst it doesn't stop German players from playing in the same way that UIGEA has not stopped US players from playing, it prevents formal access to their market under EU free trade rules. It also means that it is harder for an EU regulated casino than an offshore one to offer services to the German market, since this ruling can ONLY be enforced on a company based elsewhere within the EU.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm seeing this as Malta's "Ultimatebet". The Ultimatebet/Absolute Poker scandal is what woke Kahnawake up and propelled them into a player focused licensing jurisdiction. I hope that this will happen here.

As I mentioned before, I was not handed evidence of this player being a fraudster - or of him breaking numerous terms and conditions. But I have been assured by the casino representative that this player has numerous accounts, and that he has used bot software to play out bonus wagering requirements.

Now, the player's PAB was set aside a year ago since the casino was already submitting his account info to Malta, and that there were legal proceedings against the player. That's the reason why we sat this one out. The system was already at work. The problem is, the LGA has screwed this up in a very bad way. So bad that most operators who are licensed in Malta should be shaking their heads and asking themselves why they are paying the LGA licensing fees - it's a flaccid worthless license! If I was an operator, I would be screaming to high heaven for the LGA to pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, and issue a damn statement explaining that this player has been found 110% guilty of fraud - and state exactly in explicit detail why.

Players are owed several explanations from this licensing jurisdiction:
why is having more than one account fraudulent and detrimental to the casino. What is the damage caused by bot play and why casinos prohibit its use? Explicitly - why did this player have his funds confiscated, and why should we trust anything that is published by an LGA spokesperson?

As far as I am concerned, we as a gaming community are owed this.

LGA? the ball is in your court. Let's see some public relations kick into action. Anything less is committing corporate suicide.

By the way, Casino Club has been removed from the Rogue section since they have demonstrated to me that they are being communicative and are doing whatever possible to resolve this.

NONE of this is "fraud", merely "breach of contract". The term "fraud" implies CRIMINAL activity, whereas "breach of contract" is a civil matter.

Having multiple accounts is merely breach of contract. It is ONLY detrimental to the casino where +EV welcome bonuses are used to lure in players, such as free chips where you can keep winnings (player can only win or draw on each account).

Bot play is one of those things that seem unprovable. It NEVER changes the outcome of the games, and provided the games have a house edge, the casino stands to make money faster. This term seems merely to be a means to arbitrarily void winnings from the most skilled players by the use of a "value judgement" of the form "no human could play like that, therefore the player MUST have used a bot, case proven". This then allows them to use "breach of contract" to void the play.


The problem with this case is that realplayer was playing for quite some time like this, and was regularly being paid winnings, and getting offered further promotions in the hope that he would eventually play everything back.

The confiscation of the jackpot was not down to the play in that session, it was based on a RETROSPECTIVE action that decreed that the money he deposited was itself "invalid", since it was available by virtue of previous withdrawals, which although paid, were RETROSPECTIVELY reclassified as "fraudulently obtained".

What is even MORE puzzling is that this money didn't even BELONG to Casino Club, unlike all the other money that realplayer won. Casino Club have gone to all this trouble to reclaim money for their software provider, not themselves.

The ONLY thing that seems to make sense is if it was the software provider, rather than Casino Club, that questioned payment of this jackpot to realplayer, and Casino Club was TOLD to "dig deeper" before the software provider was prepared to release the monies for payment.

It would have made more sense for Casino Club to pay realplayer, but then close his account(s), and all that seemed to be connected to him. This would have prevented this jackpot money from being used for further "advantage play", which WOULD have directly cost Casino Club money. Whilst realplayer may well have bitched & moaned, this would NOT have become such a major scandal, which must surely have cost Casino Club dearly in lost reputation (such as being thrown in the pit here), which in turn would have kept players away.

 

[realplayer]

Fact is, I have only one account in Casino Club. I never used a bot. The CC management is not competent and has a vivid fantasy.

 

[The Dude]

NONE of this is "fraud", merely "breach of contract". The term "fraud" implies CRIMINAL activity, whereas "breach of contract" is a civil matter....

I understand where you are coming from, but I think it's time for a licensing jurisdiction to define these things, not us. They are the ones who oversee and approve casino terms and conditions. They are the ones with jurisdictional power. It should be the licensors who regulate the online gaming industry - not the operators, not the players.

This is an opportunity for the LGA to grab the bull by the horns and set a standard. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they will remain aloof about this entire matter.

Fact is, I have only one account in Casino Club. I never used a bot. The CC management is not competent and has a vivid fantasy.

You didn't answer Jetset's questions.

 

[Rusty]

I'm seeing this as Malta's "Ultimatebet". The Ultimatebet/Absolute Poker scandal is what woke Kahnawake up and propelled them into a player focused licensing jurisdiction. I hope that this will happen here.

As I mentioned before, I was not handed evidence of this player being a fraudster - or of him breaking numerous terms and conditions. But I have been assured by the casino representative that this player has numerous accounts, and that he has used bot software to play out bonus wagering requirements.

Now, the player's PAB was set aside a year ago since the casino was already submitting his account info to Malta, and that there were legal proceedings against the player. That's the reason why we sat this one out. The system was already at work. The problem is, the LGA has screwed this up in a very bad way. So bad that most operators who are licensed in Malta should be shaking their heads and asking themselves why they are paying the LGA licensing fees - it's a flaccid worthless license! If I was an operator, I would be screaming to high heaven for the LGA to pull its head out of its fourth point of contact, and issue a damn statement explaining that this player has been found 110% guilty of fraud - and state exactly in explicit detail why.

Players are owed several explanations from this licensing jurisdiction:
why is having more than one account fraudulent and detrimental to the casino. What is the damage caused by bot play and why casinos prohibit its use? Explicitly - why did this player have his funds confiscated, and why should we trust anything that is published by an LGA spokesperson?

As far as I am concerned, we as a gaming community are owed this.

LGA? the ball is in your court. Let's see some public relations kick into action. Anything less is committing corporate suicide.

By the way, Casino Club has been removed from the Rogue section since they have demonstrated to me that they are being communicative and are doing whatever possible to resolve this.

If it is not a player focused licensing jurisdiction from the start then it is worthless, just saying.
The alternative is a Casino focussed jurisdiction (Just show us the money) and we have more than enough of those.
That is why it sticks in my throat a little (a lot) when Kahnawake are suddenly proclaimed as a worthy jurisdiction - they changed because they had to if they wanted to keep raking in the cash not out of feeling any moral obligation.
In fact, the whole industry continues in this cycle, all kinds of scams until the proverbial hits the fan and becomes a scandal where it then becomes a case of, "sorry about that but we have changed now", and barring another scandal within 12 months that is good enough to suddenly make them the bastions of justice.

I agree all those questions should be asked of the LGA but the problem is all those questions have been asked of the LGA and we are still waiting 2 years down the road to hear an answer.
All licensing authorities should be obligated by law to publish findings on resolved cases and players should have the right to appeal that judgement to an independent body (That means no conflict of interest)
Not only this though, those questions assume the case was investigated with all the evidence taken into account.
As far as we know the case was resolved because gambling debt is not enforceable in Malta. Hence the heat.

May I ask how Casino Club demonstrated to you they are being communicative and doing all they can to resolve this?
As far as I know all you have is their word from over 12 months ago that Realplayer is a fraudster and a scam artist.
No evidence from them, nothing from the LGA, Nada.
It appears that as far as they are concerned it is resolved.

I honestly doubt that Casino Clubs accusations against Realplayer are completely baseless but without any clarification from the LGA, which as you point out needs to be forthcoming, then I can not see how any party can be satisfied with the current situation.

 

[Rusty]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think it's time for a licensing jurisdiction to define these things, not us. They are the ones who oversee and approve casino terms and conditions. They are the ones with jurisdictional power. It should be the licensors who regulate the online gaming industry - not the operators, not the players.

This is an opportunity for the LGA to grab the bull by the horns and set a standard. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they will remain aloof about this entire matter.


You didn't answer Jetset's questions.

I disagree with this to some extent.
All interested parties including lobby groups should be invited into the consultation process* to define what they wish regulation to achieve from their perspective.
The regulatory body should then figure out how relevant and attainable each request is and how best to serve each wish by forming its standards and regulations appropriately. These should also be based on civil law.
This would normally be followed by a review where all interested parties could comment on how they felt this regulation addressed their needs or concerns.
Don't do this and there is a very high chance you will not have fair and balanced regulation which represents all interested parties and thus at least one important party will feel disenfranchised which in turn will lead to a loss of credibility for said regulator.

I think the above is relevant if you are talking about genuine and practical ways such bodies as the LGA and Kahnawake can improve themselves.

* If there is no consultation process said jurisdiction is already blowing smoke out of its ass - and there are plenty such smoke signals.

 

[jetset]

@Realplayer....please answer the questions at post #231 - by not doing so you are playing this forum in the same way that CC is and, by its silence, the LGA is ignoring.

 

[realplayer]

@Realplayer....please answer the questions at post #231 - by not doing so you are playing this forum in the same way that CC is and, by its silence, the LGA is ignoring.

Hello jetset,

the answers come soon. Sometimes I need help from a translator. I don't speak fluent English. The problem is, for many questions, I have no answer.
I never got a reply from Gaming VC and the LGA. The situation in Malta is unbearable for me. In Malta, players are treated like lemons, squeeze out and discard.

realplayer

 

[Jufo]

today I received an email from Casino Club saying that on the first of October 2010 they will put 200000 euros into the jackpot of "Jackpot Poker"-Videopoker. and one can claim a bonus of 20% up to 100€ until the 31st of October which is a special bonus only for "Jackpot Poker".

It seems the Jackpot has already been won. There is this message at Casino Club lobby:

Gavin cracked the Jackpot of Jackpot Poker and won 234 231€.

The jackpot has been reset to 25875.29€ at 25€ per hand.

It doesn't come as a suprise to me that the jackpot was won so fast. Video poker analyzer says that with this high a payout for royal the game had 118.5830% return percentage with perfect play. However the variance is huge with 25€ per hand. On average a player would expect to lose 69 785€ before hitting the royal. There has probably been a few well-bankrolled advantage players who have immediately tackled this opportunity when the jackpot was reinstated.

 

[jetset]

Hello jetset,

the answers come soon. Sometimes I need help from a translator. I don't speak fluent English. The problem is, for many questions, I have no answer.
I never got a reply from Gaming VC and the LGA. The situation in Malta is unbearable for me. In Malta, players are treated like lemons, squeeze out and discard.

realplayer

I understand your difficulty but hope you will persist in responding so that we can attempt to get to the bottom of this in as balanced and clear a manner as possible.

Could one of the forum's fluent English speaking German members assist you perhaps?

If you "never got a reply from Gaming VC and the LGA" where did you get the information that the "unenforceable gambling debt" loophole had been used - was it through GVC's lawyers?

You are the only one communicating on this debacle at present, and unambiguous answers to the questions raised would be much appreciated, now you have our attention.

 

[realplayer]

some answers to jetset’s posting #231

The situation in Malta is very bad and dominated by corruption. The Player Support Channel of the LGA is a joke. The LGA is not independent. The Authority is subordinate to the Minister of Finance, and remote gaming is a major source of income for Malta, player protection is secondary or does not exist. If Gaming VC answer "loophole", then it’s ok for the LGA. LGA officials have worked and can close the file. That settles the matter. Of course, the argument "loophole" is a fake argument and pure rhetoric.

5) Has Realplayer launched a civil action in Malta yet?

Theoretical yes but in reality? I don’t know. I think, the Ex Lawyer is corrupt and was bribed by Gaming VC. The Ex lawyer told me in June that he had filed a judicial protest to the First Hall of the Civil Court on my behalf.
The Ex Lawyer had explained to me that he was waiting for the invoice of the court to inform me about the costs. Since then, 4 months have passed. I had a contact with him on the 31st of August for the last time, since then the contact has broken off. I can not reach him by phone, and he does not answer my e-mail. This is crazy.


Now I have a response from the new lawyer. here is the answer:

Further to recent correspondence, we can confirm that, even though Section 1713 of the Civil Code, as rightly pointed out by you in your email below, grants no action for a gaming debt or for payment of a bet, the Lotteries and Other Games Act Chapter 438 of the Laws of Malta (hereunder referred to as the LOGA), provides that 1713 shall not apply with respect to an authorised game and to a game operated in terms of a permit granted under the regulations laid down by the Gaming Authority. The Civil Code is only applicable in the context of unauthorised gaming.

Article 49 Lotteries and Other Games Act (LOGA) specifically safeguards stakes and prizes under authorised games and specifically remote gaming (LOGA Art,78(3)). Thus Article 1713 shall not prejudice your right, as a winner of a monetary prize, to recover a debt arising from acceptance of payment of such prize. Therefore, the law allows for the recovery of the debt, from an authorised licensed holder, exclusive to the limitation found in the Civil Code.

Also, we have analysed the Casino Club's Terms and Conditions. The License Agreement provides that since Gaming VC is a company registered in Malta and operates under Maltese Law, the online gaming system are subject to the laws and regulations of Malta. Any dispute arising out of or relating to the online gaming system, games, prizes, website, client software, the company or the managing of the gaming account, shall be governed by the laws of Malta excluding choice of law principles. Simply put, this means that any dispute must be resolved by the application of Maltese Law, regardless of where the company is being sued.

In reply to your final question, the action for the repayment of your claims is barred by the lapse of 5 years. With regards to this time bar, we advise that we file a judicial letter to interrupt this 5 year prescriptive period.

With respect to filing a lawsuit here in the Maltese Courts, if is very difficult to predict the outcome of the case as the success of the claim depends on the evidence that emerges in the course of proceedings. Therefore, prior to proceeding further, we should evaluate any proof (documents/contracts/evidence of winnings etc) which may be used in our favour.

4) Was the player sued by Casino Club as that company threatened, and what was the outcome?

There is no legal action against me.
On the 23rd of December 2008 I contacted the law firm Hambach & Hambach and received an e-mail answer on the same day with a letter as attachment. That was the last time I heard anything from this law firm.
On the 07th of January 2009 I answered Hambach & Hambach that the accusations were simply untrue and demanded to receive evidence. Additionally, I demanded the payout of the entire amount of my casino account. I did not receive any answer.

As already reported, the letter of the law firm Hambach & Hambach (dated on the 21st of August, 2008):
The letter does not prove anything and only has the purpose of intimidation.

Englisch version (translated)

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

German version (original)

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

The Problem is, CC makes accusations against me and then, they ignore your statement itself or have self-doubt.

an example, excerpt from the CC letter:
In particular the logarithm of the executed stakes and the handling of the cards confirm the suspicion that you used software to calculate statistical predictions on the possible events of the game. You also did this – amongst other things – to secure a superior playing strategy and thereby to also gain a (financial) advantage.

And here, the statement in this forum, posting #73:

There are many more questions as you are all aware, some quite delusional, like the supposed claim by Casino Club that the player�s 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am still of the opinion that Casino Club-GVC Holdings as a supposedly respectable and publicly listed company needs to be more specific and clear on exactly what is going on/ has been going on here.

Preferably with a public statement that can be evaluated by all concerned.

My ideas and suggestions about the public statement:

A public statement step by step
Step 1- CC publishes the game history / the accounting balance process for the relevant games and a statement (why bot use?).

referred to this:
With regard to your log-in data, in particular your log-in data from June (23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th) and July (6th) 2008, Casinoclub.com discovered a schematic playing behaviour with most of your BlackJack games which unequivocally confirms the use and aid of illegal software programs.

 

[heador112]

During the time Realplayer won the JP and got his acc frozen , CC accused many people of using bots . It could be proven by some people from here a few were innocent . It would be good to publish a gaming history , as realplayer said.

 

[realplayer]

If you "never got a reply from Gaming VC and the LGA" where did you get the information that the "unenforceable gambling debt" loophole had been used - was it through GVC's lawyers?

That is the secret of the ex lawyer. He had contact (connection) with the LGA but without official inspection of files. It's all I know.

 

[jetset]

@Realplayer

In a player security sense I think it is encouraging to note your Malta lawyer's opinion that the "unenforceable debt" clause in Malta law is apparently not applicable where the company involved is an "authorised" (presumably Malta-licensed) operation. I believe that strengthens your case insofar as it would seem to dismiss the loophole.

I am still not clear on the following:

1) The LGA's response to your complaint that Casino Club was screwing you on the Jackpot Poker win. Are you saying that they never responded directly to you?

If they did respond directly to you, what did they tell you? ie what were the grounds for them supporting CC's confiscation of your jackpot?

If they didn't directly respond to your complaint, who told you that your case had been dismissed ('resolved') and what grounds were given for such dismissal? Was it the 'unenforceable debt' loophole, or the acceptance of the CC accusations against you?

2) Exactly where did this 'unenforceable gambling debt' claim originate? Was it in a communication to you? If so, who made that claim - CC? their Lawyers? The LGA? I want to be clear on this point.

The LGA has continued to ignore this issue, leaving unanswered my enquiries regarding the grounds on which it supported CC's actions against you. There can be only two relevant answers imo:

A) LGA mistakenly accepted the claim that gambling debts are unenforceable under Malta law, when (according to your new lawyer) such debts can be pursued if the operator is licensed by Malta or

B) LGA reviewed the evidence provided by CC, and accepted this as valid justification for confiscating your jackpot win.

What is not clear to me is on which of these two the LGA based its judgement on your complaint.

 

[jetset]

I think we cross-posted there, judging by your post #246, from which it appears that your former lawyer was told by the LGA that gambling debts were unenforceable, thus neutralising your complaint.

I think in your shoes that would encourage me to challenge the LGA again, using your new Malta lawyer to contact them direct with his interpretation of the law (ie that it does not apply to 'authorised' operators like CC).

That would at least achieve more focus on the evidence of CC's allegations against you and less on blowing off the claim because of a legal loophole imo.

As a side note, I still find it difficult to understand why the LGA has not stepped up on this serious issue to clear the confusion about why it supported CC and not Realplayer in this matter.

Footnote to Realplayer - in your position I think I would try to stick to the facts and not digress into unproved statements about corruption etc - that just distracts attention away from the main points at issue here.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think we cross-posted there, judging by your post #246, from which it appears that your former lawyer was told by the LGA that gambling debts were unenforceable, thus neutralising your complaint.

I think in your shoes that would encourage me to challenge the LGA again, using your new Malta lawyer to contact them direct with his interpretation of the law (ie that it does not apply to 'authorised' operators like CC).

That would at least achieve more focus on the evidence of CC's allegations against you and less on blowing off the claim because of a legal loophole imo.

As a side note, I still find it difficult to understand why the LGA has not stepped up on this serious issue to clear the confusion about why it supported CC and not Realplayer in this matter.

Footnote to Realplayer - in your position I think I would try to stick to the facts and not digress into unproved statements about corruption etc - that just distracts attention away from the main points at issue here.

I noted this also:-

an example, excerpt from the CC letter:
In particular the logarithm of the executed stakes and the handling of the cards confirm the suspicion that you used software to calculate statistical predictions on the possible events of the game. You also did this – amongst other things – to secure a superior playing strategy and thereby to also gain a (financial) advantage.

This is NOT "proof of bot use". A "bot" doesn't simply calculate strategy, it plays the game for you. CC appear to be saying that they have voided winnings merely because the player played "perfect strategy" on the games, rather than that "illegal software played on their behalf".

Could this be WHY CC issued so many accusations of bot use, many of which were found to be wrong?

Blackjack is a pretty simply "perfect strategy" to learn. It does not even need "software", just a printed strategy card. Video Poker would be the same, with most variants having a relatively simple strategy. Only the more exotic formats have complex strategies, but a well practiced player could learn these, and not need "software" to help them.

With the thought that other "advantage players" would have leapt on to the game as soon as the jackpot was restored, would these players not also play "perfect strategy", just as realplayer did earlier? If so, what will CC do, they can hardly void the jackpot AGAIN, even if the same "offences" that realplayer comitted were repeated, since the potential damage it would do to their reputation could finish them off because players will lose trust in them.

Having put the jackpot back, and it having been won, CC could be in a fix if a court DOES rule in favour of realplayer.

The suggestion that corruption, particularly a bribe from the operator, brought the first action to a premature halt needs investigating.

The additional fact that both CC and the LGA are hiding behind "no comment" when receiving media enquiries does nothing to bring this matter to a close, if anything, it is making matters WORSE.

 

[jetset]

I agree - silence in this case is definitely not golden, unless there is something to hide...

I am also disturbed by a casino ruling that appears to confiscate winnings on a VP progressive on grounds that the player had earlier won under allegedly suspicious circumstances on another game (blackjack).

With this amount of money at stake, and assuming everything we have been told so far is true, I would definitely be hiring local lawyers to pressure the LGA into a clear statement on exactly why and on what hard evidence it ruled against Realplayer in this case.

It's hard to believe that the LGA did not respond direct to Realplayer on the result of his complaint, unless of course they thought they were communicating with him via his legal representative.