- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Location
- UK
Regarding the MC statement - it sounds like that may cover most of the scenarios, particularly any use of the "chips" or balance is covered (e.g. people filing fraudulent chargebacks because they lost).
It's worth mentioning with the change in liability rules for VISA/MC, it forces them to tighten up because that money can leave the system faster than before (via improved merchant rights). Otherwise, banks have to deal with more gambling-related complaints and potentially be chasing ghosts because a merchant could have cleaned out the balance long before the chargeback procedure comes to a conclusion. There's a reason the rogue casinos keep stalling out players for weeks and months...
If the "casino" is an outright scam, then the intent was to participate in gambling (which is the first part), but you can demonstrate that it isn't a gambling account (which is the last part) - so perhaps there's a little more wiggle room. Also as dunover mentions, the law takes priority so those rights are not eroded in situations such as this.
Much like self-exclusion fraud of recent years, chargeback fraud has been a problem in the gambling sector for decades at this point... both for the operators, and for the card providers - and that headache has only increased as criminals on both sides (fraudulent operators and fraudulent players) have accelerated that trend.
It's worth mentioning with the change in liability rules for VISA/MC, it forces them to tighten up because that money can leave the system faster than before (via improved merchant rights). Otherwise, banks have to deal with more gambling-related complaints and potentially be chasing ghosts because a merchant could have cleaned out the balance long before the chargeback procedure comes to a conclusion. There's a reason the rogue casinos keep stalling out players for weeks and months...
If the "casino" is an outright scam, then the intent was to participate in gambling (which is the first part), but you can demonstrate that it isn't a gambling account (which is the last part) - so perhaps there's a little more wiggle room. Also as dunover mentions, the law takes priority so those rights are not eroded in situations such as this.
Much like self-exclusion fraud of recent years, chargeback fraud has been a problem in the gambling sector for decades at this point... both for the operators, and for the card providers - and that headache has only increased as criminals on both sides (fraudulent operators and fraudulent players) have accelerated that trend.