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

[Rusty]

Malta is not whitelisted, but rather because it is in the EU, any company licensed there is allowed to operate in the UK.

I know it was sanctioned by the EU when it set up its new regulatory regime in 2004 but has it not since been automatically granted whitelisted status?

The UK government's announcement that only companies based in territories on its so-called 'white list' will be able to market their services in the UK from September 1 has prompted more e-gaming firms to register in Malta. To gain a place on the UK white list, countries must meet stringent new standards which are designed to stop children gambling, protect vulnerable people, keep games fair and keep out crime. Countries in the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes Malta, have been automatically accepted. Malta has serious Regulations that cater for the above and therefore are satisfactory to the UK authorities.

Old / Expired Link

 

[GrandMaster]

Here is the actual text of the law:
331 Foreign gambling

(1)A person commits an offence if he advertises foreign gambling other than a lottery.

(2)In this section “foreign gambling” means—

(a)non-remote gambling which is to take place in a non-EEA State, and

(b)remote gambling none of the arrangements for which are subject to the law about gambling of an EEA State (whether by being regulated, exempted, prohibited or otherwise).

(3)Subsection (2) shall apply to Gibraltar as it applies to EEA States.

(4)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified country or place is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) as if it were an EEA State.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

RealPlayer have you considered taking action in the Maltese Courts? Here is some information about a player in 2005 who had success so I would not give up yet:

As reported in the Malta Independent Online “Gamer demands £66,000 payout” report, and discussed in reasonable detail at the Winneronline forum, in late 2005 a player racked up £66,000 of winnings at Malta-based operation “Bingos”, which the casino subsequently refused to pay, citing “software error”. The LGA initiated an investigation, and along the way reported that there was no software error. Beyond that, they made no ruling; rather extraordinarily, they told the player to take legal action against the operator in Malta, and apparently offered some guidance with this task.

-

Before the matter came to trial, and after the player had spent a lot in legal fees, the casino in question offered a payment settlement which the player accepted. This would almost certainly have come with a non-disclosure agreement, as the player made no further comment and the exact final details were never reported.

Old / Expired Link

 

[same_old]

Hi All,

Sorry, but am i reading into this right- basically the caino has refused to pay based on the clause in the law in Malta which states they are not obligated to pay??

Are they saying , yes we ripped you off but it is legal to do so??

ALL of this online shit nowdays is just way to much.. why would ANYONE want to deposit to an online casino nowdays.

Nearly every angle you look you are being ripped off in some manner.

Look dont get me wrong, your 32reds etc are awesome and you know your safe but gee's is the bad ones getting so much attention due to there crap.

 

[winbig]

Good idea, but probably the next AGM in May 2011.

CC is registered and licensed in Malta under Gaming VC Corporation Limited and under the laws of Malta.

That is the loophole

This is an excerpt:
Article 1713 Malta Civil Code

(1) The law grants no action for a gaming debt, or for the payment of a bet.
(2) Nor does it grant any action -
(a) for the recovery of any sum lent by any person who
knew that such sum was intended for gaming;
(b) for the recovery of any sum lent by any person
interested in the game, for the payment of money lost
at such game.

Wow, they'll license casinos, but they won't police them? What a friggin joke. "Hey, we can royally !@#$ this player and keep his winnings. The law even says we can, without recourse. Even if the player sues us, the law states that gambling debts aren't enforceable!"

I wonder how many corrupt lawmakers in Malta got a kickback for passing that part of the civil law?

 

[Rusty]

Wow, they'll license casinos, but they won't police them? What a friggin joke. "Hey, we can royally !@#$ this player and keep his winnings. The law even says we can, without recourse. Even if the player sues us, the law states that gambling debts aren't enforceable!"

I wonder how many corrupt lawmakers in Malta got a kickback for passing that part of the civil law?

Tell you what, what are the chances that law was passed in 2004 when Malta was re-regulating gambling to put itself in a favourable position to receive a lot of remote casino business?

 

[winbig]

Just curious - was the deposit(s) returned, or were they lost, too, when the account was banned?

 

[GrandMaster]

Tell you what, what are the chances that law was passed in 2004 when Malta was re-regulating gambling to put itself in a favourable position to receive a lot of remote casino business?

Very small. It is very similar to what English law was before the Gambling Act.

 

[Rusty]

Very small. It is very similar to what English law was before the Gambling Act.

Maybe but the gambling act changed that right?
Malta reappraised the whole system in 2004 because they were losing casinos and business.
If that was the law before then how come it was ignored (unlike when the gambling act was introduced) when they were coming up with the new regulations, maybe it slipped their minds or they thought it wasn't important or maybe that really was a new law.
Either way they look bad.

 

[winbig]

maybe it slipped their minds or they thought it wasn't important or maybe that really was a new law.

Not a chance for either of those explanations, IMO.

They knew **** well what they were doing. Of course casinos were beating down the doors once word got out that Malta will let online casinos welch on legitimate winnings just because they simply don't want to pay.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This law works just as well for the PLAYERS as it does for the casino. Effectively this is a $160K CHARGEBACK done by a casino to a player on the grounds that gambling debt is not enforceable. This is the VERY SAME legal loophole that FRAUDULENT PLAYERS use to get away with using the "chargeback trick" to get back all their losses, yet keep their winnings. There is NOTHING IN LAW that casinos can do about it, which is WHY they REALLY crack down on players who have a record of previous chargebacks in the industry, and often refuse to allow them to play at all.

Maybe the win was so great that the casino CANNOT pay without seriously impacting it's solvency.

This casino is pretty high risk as far as players are concerned, because it too now has a history of using this "legal loophole" to get out of paying winnings. Malta, yet again, show that they even allow REGULATED establishments to act in this manner.

Maybe one should sue the LGA for having such a glaring omission in it's regulatory regime, rather than the casino which could always use the loophole again to avoid payment.

Players should have better information on which of the regulatory regimes have this loophole available for casinos to use, and consider those that DO make gambling debts enforceable in law as a better bet.

 

[GrandMaster]

Maybe but the gambling act changed that right?
Malta reappraised the whole system in 2004 because they were losing casinos and business.
If that was the law before then how come it was ignored (unlike when the gambling act was introduced) when they were coming up with the new regulations, maybe it slipped their minds or they thought it wasn't important or maybe that really was a new law.
Either way they look bad.

A quick look at justiceservices.gov.mt suggests that it is the original, unamended 19th century text. If you believe otherwise, find the relevant act that amended it.

 

[hitobito2005]

Maybe the win was so great that the casino CANNOT pay without seriously impacting it's solvency.

Not in this case - it was a progressive jackpot. The money came from the players (myself included!) and will have been passed by Boss Media to the casino.

I wonder if Boss Media have any opinion on this case?

It seems that CC have confiscated the win on no grounds other than this legal loophole but refused to return it to the game. If this is legal, i'm amazed. I wonder if that law even applied to this win because the money isn't actually owned by the casino at any point.

 

[Rusty]

A quick look at justiceservices.gov.mt suggests that it is the original, unamended 19th century text. If you believe otherwise, find the relevant act that amended it.

You are referring to Maltese law right?
Do you have a proper link to the appropriate text?
If it was the original text then fine at least the LGA are only guilty of not giving a shit rather than conspiring to not give a shit.

 

[jetset]

OK - enough speculation - I've contacted VC Gaming (the parent company) to find out what they have to say regardng this extraordinary loophole and the morality of using it.

BTW VC Gaming shifted its domicile from Luxembourg to the Isle of Man earlier this year:

Registered Office
15 - 19 Athol Street
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM1 1LB
Fax:+ 44 (0)1624 638 333

 

[GrandMaster]

You are referring to Maltese law right?
Do you have a proper link to the appropriate text?
If it was the original text then fine at least the LGA are only guilty of not giving a shit rather than conspiring to not give a shit.

Try

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

 

[The Dude]

Well this thread has suddenly gained momentum again.

I would really like CC or VC Gaming to address this. Or even Malta for that matter.

@Realplayer - I have an email address for a reporter at Pro7 (he's in München). That might your best shot at the moment. I can't guarantee if he'll respond though

 

[jetset]

I'm not surprised that it has re-ignited.

The crushing unfairness of a publicly listed gambling company apparently using a legal loophole to deny a winner his due because Malta law claims there is no obligation to pay gambling debts is astonishing.

Almost as astounding as a regulator (the LGA) supporting one of its licensees in pulling such a defence out of left field and allowing it to stand.

The mind boggles if this thread is a true reflection of the situation.

 

[winbig]

It seems that the LGA isn't any different than Kahnawake. They've let rogues such as the virtual scum...err, group, operate for years, and will continue to do so - as long as they keep their licensing fees paid up.

I'm not surprised that it has re-ignited.

The crushing unfairness of a publicly listed gambling company apparently using a legal loophole to deny a winner his due because Malta law claims there is no obligation to pay gambling debts is astonishing.

Almost as astounding as a regulator (the LGA) supporting one of its licensees in pulling such a defence out of left field and allowing it to stand.

The mind boggles if this thread is a true reflection of the situation.

 

[The Dude]

It seems that the LGA isn't any different than Kahnawake. They've let rogues such as the virtual scum...err, group, operate for years, and will continue to do so - as long as they keep their licensing fees paid up.

Eh? Kahnawake is an outstanding jurisdiction to be licensed in. Perhaps you are confusing them with Curacao. And since when were the Virtual Casino casinos licensed?

 

[uungy]

I have avoided posting here, as I have lost all my trust for the forum here, however to help realplayer, I think this would be benficial.

The code 1713 seems to have been changed a little as stated here Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

3) The provisions of article 1713 of the Civil Code shall not
prejudice -
(a) the right of a licensee, operator, permit holder or
person referred to in subarticle (1), to recover a debt
arising from the acceptance of payment of a stake by
any of the means of payment referred to in subarticle
(1)(a) in accordance with the provisions of the said
subarticle (1)(a); or
(b) the right of a winner of a monetary prize under an
authorised game or, as the case may be, under a game
operated in terms of a permit granted under regulations
made under article 78(3), to recover any debt arising
from acceptance of payment of such prize by any of the means of payment referred to in subarticle (1)(b).

 

[sticaz]

 

[Rusty]

Eh? Kahnawake is an outstanding jurisdiction to be licensed in. Perhaps you are confusing them with Curacao. And since when were the Virtual Casino casinos licensed?

So outstanding they could not even manage whitelisted status.

and wasn't there a small case involving a certain poker scandal...
Forgotten=forgiven=legitimised?

 

[jetset]

Yes, there were two poker scandals, which the KGC had investigated by a legal expert; suspended the licensing and ultimately insisted that the prejudiced players be compensated (an exercise which cost the offending parent company over $20 million in total).

In addition the KGC imposed million dollar fines and insisted on extended punitive monitoring measures on the company.

The KGC is making a sincere effort to address acknowledged past shortcomings, has tightened up its regulatory structures and of late has beefed up its player dispute service.

I think they should be given an opportunity to show that this is an ongoing and positive initiative.

 

[jetset]

I have avoided posting here, as I have lost all my trust for the forum here, however to help realplayer, I think this would be benficial.

The code 1713 seems to have been changed a little as stated here Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

The way I read this, it negates the flawed rationale that denied Realplayer his jackpot, surely?

Still nothing back from VC Gaming btw.

 

[Rusty]

I have avoided posting here, as I have lost all my trust for the forum here, however to help realplayer, I think this would be benficial.

The code 1713 seems to have been changed a little as stated here Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Thanks for digging that information up and here is the relevant part of the civil code again.

1713. (1) The law grants no action for a gaming debt, or for
the payment of a bet.
(2) Nor does it grant any action -
(a) for the recovery of any sum lent by any person who
knew that such sum was intended for gaming;
(b) for the recovery of any sum lent by any person
interested in the game, for the payment of money lost
at such game.

So basically the civil code has not just prejudiced the LGA regulation it has taken precedence?
That would seem to be in violation of LGA regulations if correct.
Where is a lawyer when you need one? (Oh yeah, I forgot, they won't even sneeze for free)

By the way I nominated the post for bringing this information to light not for the statement on trust on the forum.
I disagree with that because it is a contradiction to have the ability to speak freely and still suggest that the truth is being suppressed.
If their are distorted truths or unsaid truths then that requires you post more and challenge them, not post less because you think they exist.

 

[Jasminebed]

True, lawyers are expensive, but we are not talking chump change here. I can understand persuing another avenue first.

The whole thing just makes me want to puke. If this casino can get away with it, then why would every casino licensed in Malta not follow suit?

I checked the rogue list, Casino Club should be sent straight to the pit for this one.

 

[GrandMaster]

Yes, there were two poker scandals, which the KGC had investigated by a legal expert; suspended the licensing and ultimately insisted that the prejudiced players be compensated (an exercise which cost the offending parent company over $20 million in total).

In addition the KGC imposed million dollar fines and insisted on extended punitive monitoring measures on the company.

The KGC is making a sincere effort to address acknowledged past shortcomings, has tightened up its regulatory structures and of late has beefed up its player dispute service.

I think they should be given an opportunity to show that this is an ongoing and positive initiative.

Kahnawake may be good now, but if I remember correctly there were plenty of people who had problems with various Kahnawahke licensed casinos, some cases going back more than 10 years. Have all these cases been satisfactorily resolved? What about the athletes and spectators at sports events interrupted by a streaker sponsored by a Kahnawake licenced casinos? Have they been compensated yet? Until this happens, I don't consider Kahnawake a reputable licensing jurisdiction.

 

[Tengil]

Kahnawake also let casinos steal winnings by just citing "bonus abuse".
Plus they handled the AP/UB cases lously.

 

[GrandMaster]

I have avoided posting here, as I have lost all my trust for the forum here, however to help realplayer, I think this would be benficial.

The code 1713 seems to have been changed a little as stated here Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

In my view it does not mean that you can sue for your winnings, but that if the casino pay, for example, by cheque and the cheque bounces, then you can sue.

 

[The Dude]

I have avoided posting here, as I have lost all my trust for the forum here...

This forum is pretty much a voice of players and some affiliates. You should have noticed by now that most of the moderators (to include myself) stay out of the way of the momentum of threads unless they turn into a flame war, or if someone is posting bogus material.

But then, you see only what you want to see - so whatever.

I still stand by my comment that Kahnawake is one of the more responsive and viable jurisdictions at the moment.

As for Casino Club not being in the rogue pit...

 

[winbig]

Yes, there were two poker scandals, which the KGC had investigated by a legal expert; suspended the licensing and ultimately insisted that the prejudiced players be compensated (an exercise which cost the offending parent company over $20 million in total)..

The players weren't offered compensation until the second time around. IIRC, the first "investigation" only resulted in a small fine against the poker room. Basically all they got was a slap on the wrist. The only reason they opened up a 2nd investigation was because of the public outrage resulting from the 1st investigation.

 

[winbig]

Kahnawake may be good now, but if I remember correctly there were plenty of people who had problems with various Kahnawahke licensed casinos, some cases going back more than 10 years. Have all these cases been satisfactorily resolved? What about the athletes and spectators at sports events interrupted by a streaker sponsored by a Kahnawake licenced casinos? Have they been compensated yet? Until this happens, I don't consider Kahnawake a reputable licensing jurisdiction.

Thanks, GM. That's exactly what I was getting at. As mentioned before, forgotten doesn't mean forgiven.

 

[The Dude]

The players weren't offered compensation until the second time around. IIRC, the first "investigation" only resulted in a small fine against the poker room. Basically all they got was a slap on the wrist. The only reason they opened up a 2nd investigation was because of the public outrage resulting from the 1st investigation.

If my memory serves me right, I think that's when the new and improved Kahnawake stepped in.

If we'd like to continue discussing Kahnawake (which I'm encouraging), let's please start a new thread. Thanks!

 

[Rusty]

Yes, there were two poker scandals, which the KGC had investigated by a legal expert; suspended the licensing and ultimately insisted that the prejudiced players be compensated (an exercise which cost the offending parent company over $20 million in total).

In addition the KGC imposed million dollar fines and insisted on extended punitive monitoring measures on the company.

The KGC is making a sincere effort to address acknowledged past shortcomings, has tightened up its regulatory structures and of late has beefed up its player dispute service.

I think they should be given an opportunity to show that this is an ongoing and positive initiative.

Ah, posted before reading CM's posts above.(feel free to move)

Sure, I can't take that opportunity away from them even if I wanted to, so no fear there, but we should also bear in mind past indiscretions if considering promoting them as an excellent jurisdiction.
Personally it will take a lot more than recognising past failings because they were forced to before I could consider them excellent.
After all if it was not for player pressure or the scandal being uncovered by players we have no reason to believe they would not still be the same sorry excuse of a licensing authority as they used to be and players would still be being ripped off under their watch.
Yup, fair to point that out I feel.

 

[Pinababy69]

I still stand by my comment that Kahnawake is one of the more responsive and viable jurisdictions at the moment.

Completely agree with that sentiment Bryan. I bumped this thread here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/kahna-whacky.36041/

Anyone who isn't familiar with the changes they made, and the player dispute process they now have in place, should give it a quick read. I also was skeptical, until Micki mediated a dispute between a player and Casino Rewards, and actually ruled in favour of the player (for a 50% settlement). Details are in the thread, but it was a dispute over T&C's. I also believe they are offering a 48 to 72 hr turnaround on player complaints. I find that reasonable.

Maybe the Kahnawake discussion could continue in that thread. Just a thought.

 

[Tengil]

So would contacting Maltese newspapers possibly be of any help for Realplayer?

 

[realplayer]

So would contacting Maltese newspapers possibly be of any help for Realplayer?

I don't know.
My experience in Malta are very bad (concerns LGA and lawyer). The contact and the confidence in my lawyer is disturbed. For this reason, it is time to change the lawyer. I have contacted another law firm in Malta.
The case is now being reviewed and I hope they reply soon. Unfortunately, Malta is a waiting game.

 

[jetset]

OK - enough speculation - I've contacted VC Gaming (the parent company) to find out what they have to say regardng this extraordinary loophole and the morality of using it.

BTW VC Gaming shifted its domicile from Luxembourg to the Isle of Man earlier this year:

Registered Office
15 - 19 Athol Street
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM1 1LB
Fax:+ 44 (0)1624 638 333

BUMP

Just a progress report. GVC Holding's PR representative has responded, although no statement has yet been forthcoming. Clearly the communication gears grind very slowly at this company!

 

[winbig]

BUMP

Just a progress report. GVC Holding's PR representative has responded, although no statement has yet been forthcoming. Clearly the communication gears grind very slowly at this company!

Why would they move fast? They're making a good amount of interest every day that there is no official decision handed down by the LGA. So even if they do return the JP money to the VP machine in question, you know that they're going to keep the interest earned. And this has been going on for just over 2 years now. So if you figure 5% a year in interest, they've pocketed $16,750+, so far. I just wonder how big of a cut the LGA is going to receive.

 

[jetset]

It's taken the best part of a week to get any sort of corporate response from GVC Holdings through its PR company regarding this case, and the results are not worth the wait.

The reply to my enquiries was (eventually and after some chasing) a blunt "no comment", and the impression I came away with was that they were totally disinterested in this thread and what is being said about them.

Very strange behaviour for a listed company, I have to say.

 

[The Dude]

It's taken the best part of a week to get any sort of corporate response from GVC Holdings through its PR company regarding this case, and the results are not worth the wait.

The reply to my enquiries was (eventually and after some chasing) a blunt "no comment", and the impression I came away with was that they were totally disinterested in this thread and what is being said about them.

Very strange behaviour for a listed company, I have to say.

I was contacted over the weekend by one of their (new) top executives who I know from past experiences - all positive. He assured me that there is a statement forthcoming and that the progressive fund would/are being replaced. I'm on the road at the moment, so unfortunately I can't deal with in greater detail.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I was contacted over the weekend by one of their (new) top executives who I know from past experiences - all positive. He assured me that there is a statement forthcoming and that the progressive fund would/are being replaced. I'm on the road at the moment, so unfortunately I can't deal with in greater detail.

This will please other players who feel the casino intended to pocket these funds, but it does nothing to alleviate the idea that the casino will pull this legal loophole out of the hat in order to not pay a player their winnings. If they did it once, they could do it again, and the response of the LGA in all of this makes us think the LGA will be OK with this.

My impression is that they had no evidence that stood up to scrutiny, but took the view that Realplayer "must have cheated somehow" based on the results.

There are many PLAYERS that take the view "the casino/software is rigged" based purely on their results, yet PLAYERS are expected to believe it is nothing more than "bad luck" when they have a long term run of bad sessions.

Unless Casino Club manage something better than this legal loophole, any forthcoming statement is unlikely to make things better, and the current policy of waiting as long as possible to come out with "no comment" to media inquiries makes it look as though they are "guilty as hell" of something.

 

[CasinoClub]

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.

 

[betpartners]

I believe that the UK law has now changed and that gambling debts are now enforceable, however not so long ago any gambling debts were viewed as debts of honour and thus not enforceable under the law.

The UK in that sense has only cleaned up its act in the last couple of decades, Malta probably has some catching up to do.

I am sure that the LGA regulations cannot take precendence over the law of the land and if the law of the land states that Gambling debts are not enforceable then the LGA cannot make the casino pay.

Whether the LGA has it within its contract with a license holder that a license can be revoked for this i do not know, i would not have thought so, the Casino has acted within the law, whether we like it or not.

That said, they will only have acted within the law providing they have not broken any of their contract agreement with the player, as we all know we agree to terms and conditions with a casino and visa verse.

If the Casino have broken the terms and conditions and this can be proven in a court of law then a court can find for the player as a previous poster has shown.

In conclusion from what i can see, the LGA is acting within the law and cannot force the casino to pay, nor i suspect can they suspend the license unless this is stipulated in the license agreement, the player however does have case law on his side in Maltese courts forcing a casino to pay.

There is a difference between contract law and a gambling debt it appears.

I am not a lawyer and my opinion above is just that an opinion.

As an affiliate and a player there is a worrying element here in that the LGA is powerless to act to enforce their own regulations if they come in to direct collision with the law of the land, some of the worlds largest betting and casino companies are licensed in Malta and while ever this loop hole is in effect the risk to players is greatly enhanced.

Malta as a country is not a cowboy town, they have laws, lawyers and courts of law and if the player honestly feels that he has a case and we are talking a lot of money here, then he should contact a Maltese lawyer and allow justice to take its due course or at least seek legal advice.

Only recently i was asked about going after a casino in the Maltese courts and advised against it, my thinking at that time is that the courts would not interfere with the LGA as a licensing authority, this however would be a different scenario now that the LGA has ruled apparently.

I also believe that this may well have been the case that a person asked for info on Maltese lawyers about (not the player, someone acting on his behalf), in fact i am almost certain it is.

If it is then the player certainly has the info required now to contact lawyers in Malta, if this is not the case, then there are still avenues to pursue here and Casino club would be a little hasty if they think they can just stick the money back in because the LGA has ruled.

That is not neccasarily the end of the matter.

 

[jod5413]

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.

I have just about gone blind reading and then re-reading this thread. I remembered it from the past, but not completely. I have never in my life seen as much BS as I have here. On line casinos are still out there in the "Wild and Wooly West", with very little legal options for gamblers to get their due if cheated by a casino.

As far as I am concerned, this post above is total BS. It has been shown over and over again that playing with bots can not help you win. And, if I read all this properly, nothing was proven. If there were multiple sign ups by Realplayer, why hasn't this been shared with Casinomeister or anyone else?

The most ugly aspect of all this is that, even if Realplayer didn't win the jackpot legitimately, why in Hell has it taken two years (more or less) to get this money "almost" back in the right place?

Casino Club should be rogued, tarred and fethered and run out of Dodge, as far as I can figure. I hope no one plays there, as the only way to hurt rogues is to withhold deposits.

I sincerely hope that Realplayer follows up on this the best he can so he might see his winnings eventually.

 

[jetset]

I was contacted over the weekend by one of their (new) top executives who I know from past experiences - all positive. He assured me that there is a statement forthcoming and that the progressive fund would/are being replaced. I'm on the road at the moment, so unfortunately I can't deal with in greater detail.

Based on this, and the communication to Realplayer, you have to wonder whether the right hand knows what the left is doing in this company!

 

[jetset]

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.

This post, and the one following it from Betpartners, makes me feel very uneasy for the following reasons:

1) The length of time taken to refund the progressive leaves me with the uncomfortable suspicion that this is only now being done because the proverbial is seriously and publicly hitting the fan on this matter.

2) Whilst the reason for Realplayer not being paid was ostensibly some antique quirk in Maltese law that allows an operator to avoid any obligation to pay out winnings, we're also being regaled with unproven allegations that Realplayer is in fact a scam artist playing on our sympathies here. Has the LGA been shown the evidence to support this? If so, why have they not commented on this aspect either generally or to Realplayer?

3) Regardless of the superiority of national law, I cannot get my head around a ridiculous situation where a state-appointed regulator (the LGA) is in the business of online gambling licensing when there's a national law that allows gamblers to walk away from a gambling debt. And when an operator does so, said regulator then supports the failure to pay a debt, citing national law? If the Maltese feel so strongly about not allowing gambling debts to be honoured, why the hell are they raking in tens of millions every year from licensing fees from internet gambling operators (who theoretically can get away with not paying players)? Is there not a moral as well as practical dichotomy here?

4) This is a substantial sum of money, and if Realplayer is as innocent as he claims he is I would really like to see this Casino Club 'evidence' presented in a court of law and tested by an independent judiciary. That would be a real first imo, and may have a beneficial effect within the industry, too.

5) Failing that, we have the tried and historical precedent whereby Bryan acts a middle man, examining the evidence in confidence and then giving an unbiased and independent opinion on the justice of Casino Club's decision.

The present situation is unsatisfactory. The regulator doesn't seem to care, hides behind the law that noone has to pay a gambling debt and probably wishes it would all just go away; the gambling company is making all sorts of accusations against the player but there is no independent substantiation...and it appears to have an aversion to candidly answering legitimate media questions on the issue.

Something smells here....and I'm not sure from whom.

 

[betpartners]

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.

 

[Rusty]

Regarding the "evidence" against realplayer;

If this evidence is worth anything at all why is it the LGA would not make a ruling on it and instead CasinoClub had to resort to a legal loophole to withhold his winnings?
The logical conclusion would appear to be that any evidence presented must have been very weak indeed - if any was actually presented.

Also something does not sit right with me when the player is accused of the following;

"...won by breaching our terms and conditions, both by use of Bots for bonus abuse and collusion with other players/multiple accounts."

Bots, bonus abuse, collusion and multiple accounts - that basically reads like a wish list of reasons for a casino not to pay and while it is possible a scam might involve all these elements I find it more likely that CasinoClub has no strong evidence of any these and so has lumped them together in the naive hope that if enough mud is slung some is sure to stick.

I won't reiterate what others have said about other aspects of this case except to say I agree with their comments and the probable reason it took so long for ClubWorld to return the jackpot funds is precisely because they knew their case was weak and they felt their was a good possibility they might, until now, have to pay out the funds.
That or they thought they could simply pocket it and nobody would notice.
Either way they will get little credit from me for finally doing the minimum of what is right.