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

[betpartners]

Couple of things to consider

The first one was that it was not Casino Club nor was it the LGA that publicly stated that the loophole was enforced, i cannot recall exactly without going through all the thread again and i am not prepared to suffer that torment again, but i believe it was someone saying that it was something (email?) that Realplayer received.

That means to me that this was never then used as an excuse and i am inclined to believe that it was never used as an excuse and the recent statement at the LGA tends to back this up, that coupled with Casino clubs statement as well.

So if it was not used has an excuse, how did this come in to the public domain, who said it and why, an answer to that question in my opinion would certainly put some significant light on this matter.

Secondly i cannot join the chorus calling on Casino Club to pay real player because i have seen nothing to date from either side that justifies paying or not paying.

I am not saying for one minute that i do not believe RealPlayer nor will i take that position with Casino Club because i have no idea.

Casino Club never kept the money, they paid it out eventually to someone else, a genuine winner it has been confirmed, so why are they so adamant that they will not pay RealPlayer, it does not make sense to me at all, if they kept the money then i could see why, but they have not, there is simply no mileage in this to not to have paid realplayer unless they felt they had a very good reason.

Now that said, I have found the LGA and Casino Club very poor in their handling of this situation and their handling does indeed raise questions, as does the conduct of realplayer in all this, i am far from convinced about his case either.

At this stage i find Casino Club and the LGA guilty of appalling public relations nothing more, but the waters have been muddied with statements, claims and counter claims and that is the best i can say on this unsavoury situation.

I continue to reserve my judgement on this until such a time that clear and unequivical proof has been provided by one side or the other.

 

[LHofsdal]

We all have our thoughts and opinions on this Bet. But what I have a hard time dealing with is the fact they took this persons deposit with no problems. Then after he won came out stating he was part of group of bonus abusers and bot users. Then stated they have been watching him.

In my opinion, any reputable casino would not have allowed him to deposit. Would have told him he was banned for the reason stated above. But they took his deposit and then took his winnings, then tried to claim he was a fraud. If I understand correctly, they have also paid this player previously on other occasions. Why would they pay a player who is in this group of fraudulant players?

To me, they took his money, let him play. He won, they should pay him and then ban him. Because if they willingly took his "fraudulant money" then they should pay him his winnings. If they felt so strongly about this player being a bonus abuser and bot user before he deposited, why did they let him deposit?

LH

 

[betpartners]

We all have our thoughts and opinions on this Bet. But what I have a hard time dealing with is the fact they took this persons deposit with no problems. Then after he won came out stating he was part of group of bonus abusers and bot users. Then stated they have been watching him.

In my opinion, any reputable casino would not have allowed him to deposit. Would have told him he was banned for the reason stated above. But they took his deposit and then took his winnings, then tried to claim he was a fraud. If I understand correctly, they have also paid this player previously on other occasions. Why would they pay a player who is in this group of fraudulant players?

To me, they took his money, let him play. He won, they should pay him and then ban him. Because if they willingly took his "fraudulant money" then they should pay him his winnings. If they felt so strongly about this player being a bonus abuser and bot user before he deposited, why did they let him deposit?

LH

You may well be right, i just do not know the answers and for me that is the biggest problem here, you also ask some good questions and again none of us really know the answers and again that is because facts, solid fact are very thin on the ground.

But one thing is for sure, it was not Casino Clubs money, it was a progressive jackpot and they have paid that out, so while on one hand your questions are very valid, why did they let him deposit etc, on the other hand it is just as valid to ask why not pay one player but pay another player, one has to think they have a very valid reason, makes no difference to them really who they pay as long as it is genuine.

And as a progressive jackpot they had better be dam sure that whoever they pay it was genuine.

For all we know it could be a case that they did not pay realplayer, paid another win and then realised they should have paid realplayer, what a mess that would be hey, by the same token they may have info that indeed backs up their claims 100% and that they have done the right thing by players by not paying out players money to a fraud.

Who the hell knows and the responsibility of that lies with all parties concerned.

 

[vinylweatherman]

We were recently informed of an allegation by a poster that Gaming VC lawyers had attempted to rely on a legal loophole to avoid payment of a jackpot. Specifically, the words were:

“The answer of Gaming VC respectively their lawyers is the following one: „Due to a legal loophole they are not obliged to pay out winnings, the matter is resolved, therefore. “ ”

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement, and we agree with the LGA’s recently published view on this issue.

Our attention was also drawn to a recent article published on the website www.Online-Casinos.com, where the article (the reporters details are unknown) stated that:

“a Casino Club spokesperson said they were justified in taking the action and that the LGA had been supplied with all the details, finding in favour of the casino with regards to this issue”.

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement. We understand that the LGA is still looking into the relevant complaint.

It seems that the outcome is a foregone conclusion then, given that you have ALREADY reinstated the disputed jackpot, and it has been won.

If the LGA were really still "looking into it", who is to say that they will STILL rule in your favour. I can only surmise that you already know that the LGA will stick with a ruling in your favour, which is something you, as a regulated entity, really have no business knowing BEFORE the LGA have made their findings known.

Waiting so long before saying this claim that you relied on the unenforceable gambling debt "loophole" has allowed this rumour to take hold across the internet, and this belated correction is NEVER going to get the high profile that the discussion of the earlier claim has gained for itself.

Far from putting this issue to bed, this has raised further questions over the conduct of all parties involved. Until the legal action is settled, or dropped, this case will drag on.

Players in general are fed up with the general increase in the "rip off" they are getting (or think they are getting) from the industry. The impression is one of things having got even WORSE for players in the last few years, so they are NOT just going to let this go. Players want to see evidence of the regulators having "teeth", and protecting the PLAYERS rather than feathering their own nests with the fees paid by operators.

The LGA can't even be bothered to so much as REPLY to complaints raised by players, let alone offer meaningful protection. This has been evident from the many players who have waited "months" to hear a peep from the LGA after submitting a complaint.

 

[jetset]

Excellent points, VWM - especially on this statement: "We understand that the LGA is still looking into the relevant complaint."

What does this mean? That the LGA made a finding but have reopened the case? Or that after two years the LGA is still "looking into the relevant complaint?"

Factual, unambiguous and truthful communication is needed from all parties in this dispute, which shows no sign of going away. There have been 304 posts on this thread, and 16,532 views, indicating intense interest in this affair.

And just for clarity, imo this statement actually does reflect the posts made (presumably) by a casino rep for CC in this thread:

“a Casino Club spokesperson said they were justified in taking the action and that the LGA had been supplied with all the details”.

 

[jetset]

Old / Expired Link

 

[LHofsdal]

I think the bigger question here is the LGA looking "AT THE COMPLAINT" or LOOKING INTO THE COMPLAINT? I mean c'mon, don't you think this has gone on long enough? If they were looking into the complaint I am sure it would have been settled already. If they are just "LOOKING AT IT" hence the long wait.

LH

 

[sticaz]

I think the bigger question here is the LGA looking "AT THE COMPLAINT" or LOOKING INTO THE COMPLAINT? I mean c'mon, don't you think this has gone on long enough? If they were looking into the complaint I am sure it would have been settled already. If they are just "LOOKING AT IT" hence the long wait.

LH

:notworthy

 

[Rusty]

Indeed, what is it now, two years?
Since Casino Club indicated that the evidence they had against Realplayer was very strong, should one not reasonably assume that findings of the LGA would be concluded within a month or so if it were such a cut and dry case - let alone two years?
All we can deduce from this is that either the evidence is weak but the LGA are looking for a way to support Casino Club and/or the LGA are inept at dealing with complaints.

Some important aspects of this case have been reiterated by LHofsdal but a couple of others that I have mentioned previously and are worthy of mention.

Casino Club acted arbitrarily of the LGA in confiscating Realplayers original deposit along with his winnings.
I can understand the winnings being withheld but on what basis of law have Casino Club kept his 25,000 deposit?
It was not lost in wagering.
Casino Clubs comment that they are withholding the money in lieu of any legal expenses incurred is absurd.
Costs are pursued in a court of law by respectable businesses not by prejudicing the outcome of a supposedly independent investigation and keeping the deposits of their customers.

Even if Casino Club were vindicated in their allegations of bot use (and as many others I do not believe it is possible to prove this in a court of law) they should still return the players original deposit.
If they wish to pursue the matter further then they should do so through the courts as they threaten in their T&C's

Secondly we should not forget that it is on record that Real player was encouraged to continue playing by Casino Club themselves after his jackpot win. Obviously there was no "evidence" against Realplayer at this time which also means there was no evidence against him in all his other transactions with the Casino over the years he played there.
This evidence only mysteriously emerged after Realplayer made his withdrawal request.
How does all this along with the fact he was allowed to deposit and receive a bonus on a large amount of money tie in with Casino Club's claim that they had been watching him for sometime and knew of his fraudulent activities?

 

[Tengil]

I think the bigger question here is the LGA looking "AT THE COMPLAINT" or LOOKING INTO THE COMPLAINT? I mean c'mon, don't you think this has gone on long enough? If they were looking into the complaint I am sure it would have been settled already. If they are just "LOOKING AT IT" hence the long wait.

LH

It may be that they dont have clue what the issue is about? They mostly deal with sportsbook complaints AFAIK (and that is done quite poorly too).

They have shown their gross incompetence in handling some issues before.
Interwetten back in 2008 for example. It took them a few months only to repeat what the casino had said, a classic whitewash. https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/interwetten-confiscating-winnings.23088/

Hopefully they have more competent personal with even an ounce of integrity nowadays.

Edit: so the main point: Do LGA even possess the knowledge to make the right decision, whatever that might be. Do they, for example, know anything about how to analyze logs in order to find out whatever bot play was used or not?

 

[realplayer]

We were recently informed of an allegation by a poster that Gaming VC lawyers had attempted to rely on a legal loophole to avoid payment of a jackpot. Specifically, the words were:

“The answer of Gaming VC respectively their lawyers is the following one: „Due to a legal loophole they are not obliged to pay out winnings, the matter is resolved, therefore. “ ”

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement, and we agree with the LGA’s recently published view on this issue.

Our attention was also drawn to a recent article published on the website www.Online-Casinos.com, where the article (the reporters details are unknown) stated that:

“a Casino Club spokesperson said they were justified in taking the action and that the LGA had been supplied with all the details, finding in favour of the casino with regards to this issue”.

Nobody from our organisation made any such statement. We understand that the LGA is still looking into the relevant complaint.

This statement of Casino Club (Gaming VC) is not true.
In May 2010, my lawyer sent an e mail to the legal department of the LGA. He sent me a copy of this e mail. Important is the 2nd sentence in this context.

Here are the first lines of this e mail :

Dear Dr.....

the matter in caption refers, within which I am addressing your Authority in my capacity as Lawyer.

Contrary to the lawyers of Messrs. Gaming VC my client does not detect any “loophole” in Maltese law.
My client is prepared to appoint me for reporting to the police and to initiate a lawsuit against Messrs. Gaming VC.

After due examination of the law we have come to the conclusion that according to the last half-sentence of Art. 1717 civil code, too, Art.² 1713 ff. civil code do not apply for credits on player accounts with operators licensed by your Authority………
and so forth

 

[Rusty]

This statement of Casino Club (Gaming VC) is not true.
In May 2010, my lawyer sent an e mail to the legal department of the LGA. He sent me a copy of this e mail. Important is the 2nd sentence in this context.

Here are the first lines of this e mail :

Dear Dr.....

the matter in caption refers, within which I am addressing your Authority in my capacity as Lawyer.

Contrary to the lawyers of Messrs. Gaming VC my client does not detect any “loophole” in Maltese law.
My client is prepared to appoint me for reporting to the police and to initiate a lawsuit against Messrs. Gaming VC.

After due examination of the law we have come to the conclusion that according to the last half-sentence of Art. 1717 civil code, too, Art.² 1713 ff. civil code do not apply for credits on player accounts with operators licensed by your Authority………
and so forth

This may be evidence that Casino Club's statement may be untrue but for proof you need the original message rather than a 3rd party reference.

If you can prove it conclusively it would certainly show Casino Club in a very bad light (Understatement?) but unfortunately it won't prove your play was legitimate.
I would be requesting a definitive answer from the LGA as to when they will conclude their investigation.
In the meanwhile I wish you luck with your lawsuit - if you win I would think you are owed substantial damages on top of the amount owed.
I am sure that between yourself and your solicitor you can draw up a long list of claims.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This statement of Casino Club (Gaming VC) is not true.
In May 2010, my lawyer sent an e mail to the legal department of the LGA. He sent me a copy of this e mail. Important is the 2nd sentence in this context.

Here are the first lines of this e mail :

Dear Dr.....

the matter in caption refers, within which I am addressing your Authority in my capacity as Lawyer.

Contrary to the lawyers of Messrs. Gaming VC my client does not detect any “loophole” in Maltese law.
My client is prepared to appoint me for reporting to the police and to initiate a lawsuit against Messrs. Gaming VC.

After due examination of the law we have come to the conclusion that according to the last half-sentence of Art. 1717 civil code, too, Art.² 1713 ff. civil code do not apply for credits on player accounts with operators licensed by your Authority………
and so forth

What we need is the actual letter/email from "The lawyers of Messrs. Gaming VC" showing that this WAS indeed the argument made to legitimise the non-payment.

Currently, we don't have evidence that your new lawyers are doing nothing more than disputing a rumour that this argument was used.

If this does get to court, Casino Club will have to open up their "secret" evidence to scrutiny, and this had better be pretty good evidence or they could end up paying out even MORE than your initial claim, and as a business they will suffer a considerable loss of trust from players.

 

[asianeyes]

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....

WTG, Jetset! Keep on them!!!

 

[asianeyes]

Course he is....and on weekends, him and Frank Sinatra get together and sing a few ditties. Hell, maybe they even have an anonymous account at Casino Club, and maybe it's one of them who won the JP using the pseudonym "Gavin". Anything is possible right?

Pina you sure do make me laugh

 

[jetset]

BUMP

I've been out of action for awhile - any new developments on this case?

Realplayer?

 

[realplayer]

BUMP

I've been out of action for awhile - any new developments on this case?

Realplayer?

On Friday, a judicial letter was filed to the civil court in Malta (containing payment demand ). This is the last chance for an out of court settlement. I'm waiting for a response by Gaming VC in the next two weeks, depend on duration of mail delivery.

 

[jetset]

Thanks - please keep us posted; a lot of people are following this case with great interest.

 

[realplayer]

Thanks - please keep us posted; a lot of people are following this case with great interest.

Sure, I do it.

 

[LHofsdal]

Good Luck!

I wish the best of luck RealPlayer. I really hope everything works out for you in the end. I know this is very frustrating for you, and Jod is right, many people are interested in the outcome.

I think what they have done or are doing to you is just horrible, and in the end I hope everything comes out in your favor.

LH

 

[realplayer]

xxxx

 

[The Dude]

El bump-o-runo

In other words, what's up with issue?

 

[petro]

I spent some hours reading every post.
I took some notes along the way.

The first thing I noticed was the guys name; realplayer. As if he was trying to say that he is genuine not fake.
The second was that he was a high roller. Depositing EUR25k+ in one week.

…AFTER jackpot (R.Flush) were hit, in the same minute was hit another bet..then another..!! Why does realplayer no break if he the Jackpot wins?

I play lots of video poker myself. Unless it’s on auto play I clearly see what I have won on my last hand before pressing the deal or double button.
The explanation provided by realplayer here does not make any sense.

And he never knew before what a bot is…

This doesn’t have the ring of truth about it either.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can play Black Jack for so long and not know what a ‘bot’ is.

From what I have gathered the casino at the time in question had a rule against bots.

Make up your own minds.

 

[Jufo]

I think the strict policy against bots at Casino-Club was because they used to have a single deck Blackjack game with 100.15% return for a long time and several people started botting it 24/7 for small long-term profit. It's not clear to me whether bots had any actual relevance in 'realplayers' case though.

 

[zaaaaabaaaaam]

Oh dang. This thread got me so curious. I want to know the outcome! NAO!

Must be some update since Nov 2010!

BTW, I might have missed it, but where are the legal actions taking place? I mean if there would be a court case would it be in Malta?

 

[TopAff]

Any news on this?