Should My Bank Have Done More?

[jasonuk]

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.

 

[Guntis]

OP, check the FOS site - they're apparently familiar with cases like yours. If you dig through it a bit, you might find out what to expect.

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

:

Going through these PDFs could also give you an idea of what to do:

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

.

You'll see many cases are from people on Gamstop who are essentially just trying to get their money back because they lost. But there are also cases where people got some money back because casinos circumvented gambling blocks by using incorrect MCC codes, and the banks were made to pay. Like the case here -

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

- where NatWest had to refund 70% of the disputed transactions plus 8% interest.

 

[Disconet]

Any updates on this one? Did the OP manage to go through with a chargeback, hopefully some good news.

 

[Lucky Loser]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

 

[Avernite]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

Bit harsh.

Banks aren't exactly innocent here either (it's not rocket science to see what's going on), and operators who deliberately use incorrect merchant codes need to be held to account.

 

[Disconet]

Just accept your losses and move on.

Banks aren't the money spending police and the attempted card chargebacks will get declined for good reason.

Lol disagree with this completely. There are allot of variables and also a chargeback doesnt affect the banks its merely a tool for the OP to recover his money from the shady casinos. Bleed them dry for all I care.

 

[Educated_ant]

It's been a slow process. I have a complaint with Lloyds which was initially rejected but has been escalated to a higher team and they seem to be taking it seriously. Had a lot of dialogue with them and they seem sympathetic to what happened but whether they decide it's something to compensate on, I don't know.

Chargeback dispute is also ongoing and taking some time. Will update when I know more.

 

[Educated_ant]

Another update on this. My bank are sympathising with me in regards to a scam case if I can prove Donbet (or whenever they have advertised as Santeda International) are not a legit company. Do they actually have a license in Curacao? I've seen some suggest online that it's a fake license? I've already proven via the gambling commission that they don't have one in the UK.

Has anyone got any evidence, past experience or anything they've seen online about Donbet or Santeda operating as a scam casino in not actually doing what they should in terms of rules, regulations and licenses?

 

[conker]

@mulven is very hot on this subject. If he is about I am sure he will share some of his knowledge on this subject.

Glad to hear you are getting somewhere - hopefully you can keep going!

 

[mulven]

Another update on this. My bank are sympathising with me in regards to a scam case if I can prove Donbet (or whenever they have advertised as Santeda International) are not a legit company. Do they actually have a license in Curacao? I've seen some suggest online that it's a fake license? I've already proven via the gambling commission that they don't have one in the UK.

Has anyone got any evidence, past experience or anything they've seen online about Donbet or Santeda operating as a scam casino in not actually doing what they should in terms of rules, regulations and licenses?

It's a valid licence, I believe they hide it from UK players. Unfortunately this seems to be a common practice among quite a few GCB licencees and theres no sign of it being cracked down on. In lieu of the actual company the footer/terms will either be left blank or in some cases replaced with a costa rica company. In Santeda's case they actually keep their name their but use old copy on purpose that mentions their previous sub-licence from 1668/JAZ (Curacao E-Gaming, one of the five old master licences). On the proper website the terms and conditions are changed and properly cite the new GCB licence.

They are technically a legitimate company however hiding their licence while taking illegal play is a very rogue practice.

It's displayed properly in other markets.

I'll hyperlink when I get home. In LIDL.

EDIT:

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

This footer was obtained by visiting with a VPN

This footer was obtained by visiting with my actual IP (UK)

 

[Educated_ant]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

 

[Avernite]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

Presumably it's a feeble attempt at not losing their CGB license, as they may crack down harder on casinos going after the US/UK market.

 

[mulven]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

As Avernite said it's an attempt to shield their licence while taking illegal play.

They don't need a UK licence to be legitimate and not a scam, however without one it does mean taking UK players is illegal. Unfortunately I don't think thats what your bank need.

 

[Disconet]

Many thanks for this. This is all very helpful.

Can I ask, why would Donbet/Santeda do this? What benefit to them is showing an old license for UK customers and then something else when under a VPN?

If they are illegally accepting customers from the UK, what difference does it even make as neither license would presumably be backed by the UK gambling commission?

 

[Educated_ant]

At the beginning of this thread I mentioned that I had lost £80k+ in a few days with an unlicensed overseas casino and had contacted my bank about chargebacks as they were done on my debit card. I have put in a dispute with my bank because PH Casino are knowingly advertising to and accepting UK customers and withholding payments due to their "Swagger level" ladder. I.e. - the limits what you can withdraw based on how much money you deposit, not something that the UKGC would allow.

My bank agreed on putting through a dispute for me. Right up until the deadline to respond (literally hours before it expired), PH replied to my bank suggesting that because I accepted their T&Cs, I should not be due anything. I found their arguments really weak to be fair but nevertheless they have challenged it, which feels ballsy considering they are not supposed to accept customers from the UK. And presumably VISA/Lloyds shouldn't knowingly allow these transactions either.

I've got 10 days to respond to their rebuttal. As I say, their arguments feel week and ignored much of what I highlighted but obviously I'm not a solicitor. And probably not many on this forum are.

My question is, considering that there's potentially £80k here at stake, should I seek a solicitor on perhaps a no win no fee to look over my case over a few hours and write my response to Lloyds? If this cost me 10-20%, it may be worth it to them and very much worth it to me if it gets me my money back.

Hiring a solicitor who would likely charge me £1k+ if it was a normal basis is obviously risky if I get nothing. And may not be necessary if it's possible I'm going to win anyway? And is this even anything a solicitor would ever do? I hear about solicitors doing this with romance scams/fraud etc, i.e. - contacting banks on your behalf. Is this a field they would too?

I've not done this before. If my bank is siding with me to the point they allowed me to put the case together and have given me a further chance at a rebuttal, that has to be a good thing right?

Don't know if anyone has ever experienced this before. Just very surprised the merchant is challenging me when presumably their own bank would not want illegal payments being filtered through them?

 

[Guntis]

Maybe try

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

- at least to see what they say, there is a live chat option in the corner. To find similar services, search for "gambling chargeback solicitors." Just prepare a concise, to the point message and send it to them all.

 

[Educated_ant]

Thanks for that. I've spoke to a few solicitors and got a bit nervous about paying essentially a few K to reply to my bank, with absolutely no guarantee it will help.

Has anyone on this forum ever done what I've suggested? Hire a solicitor to try and engage with a bank over chargeback? Is it as mad an idea as it sounds? I can't find anything at all on google for gambling chargeback solicitor searches.

Also, has anyone got any experience in a chargeback request rebuttal from a casino providing illegal transactions? I honestly thought it would have been a pass/fail procedure when I made my initial claim. I can reply easy enough myself to most of the points raised (i.e. - the merchant saying that "it's the customer's responsibility to ensure gambling is legal in their jurisdiction" - which is fine - but they are using that to suggest it's the customer's responsibility to ensure the operator they use is a legal company to do so, which isn't the case according to UKGC - and stuff like the withdrawal limits not being in their T&C) but I don't know how close I am to being refunded here and don't want to lose the best chance of getting a substantial amount of money returned because I miss a key argument.

How are these disputes usually adjudicated? Is the fact my bank has given me another opportunity to provide more evidence a good thing?

I'm just stunned a company involved in illegal transactions is openly challenging a chargeback like this.

 

[essuk]

Im going through something similar. Based on your posts ( so I may be wrong here but from my interpretation of what you wrote) I think youre missing a number of key points. Given the size of the claim I personally would engage a solicitor as you cant afford to get things wrong. To pick a simple point. From what you write Im not sure if you are aware that according to my bank your bank's feeling on the matter is ultimately irrelevant. I believe its a good inidicator of the strength of your claim as they deal with large volumes of chargebacks and should know the rules very well. However if the merchant doesnt accept the dispute its my understanding from the bank that ultimately its VISA who determines the outcome not your bank. The point being are you relying on the fact you think the bank supports you?
My big concern is how much new info/factors you are allowed to introduce at this point in the proceedings.
There are a lot of case specific factors that I believe need to be considered.
Please note Im not a solicitor so nothing written is meant to be legal advice.
My personal feeling is with such a large claim you need to make sure your are covering all the points correctly and advancing the right basis for your claim....they got Al Capone on tax avoidance rather than say murder or bribery.

 

[Betreels Casino & Sports]

Did you get a letter from the UKGC stating this casino was operating without a UKGC license? If yes, then your bank should be able to use that and *do the chargebacks for you. If no, then try and get one asap.

If all else fails, then please hire a Solicitor, to issue a letter of demand to the bank. You can use AI to draft the letter (to save costs) and your solicitor can send it, along with all evidence gathered, to the bank/s and the Financial Ombudsman.

*note: as the casino is aware of your chargeback attempt, there is strong likelihood, they have emptied and closed the account where the money went. Not sure what a bank does in this event. Read more

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

 

[Educated_ant]

Yeah I provided the UKGC's message in regards to PlayHub in my initial dispute with my bank. My bank then put in a dispute (which I think is a chargeback??) but then the merchant has challenged it with a rebuttal. I have then been given 10 days to respond to their response.

I guess I'm just in a situation I didn't expect to be in where I have to provide more evidence. It just feels more real somehow. I don't want to miss any key argument I could include in my response. Maybe it's because I feel close to winning as the bank initially were on my side (I think?) with the chargeback, so they must think I have a strong claim.

 

[Educated_ant]

In relation to this, does anyone know why they don't have a full license and only an "application" of license? What is the difference fundamentally if they are still able to operate anyway?

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

 

[mulven]

In relation to this, does anyone know why they don't have a full license and only an "application" of license? What is the difference fundamentally if they are still able to operate anyway?

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

Certificate of operation is given to casinos whilst their application is in progress.

A licence is given once their application has been approved.

P*rnhub casino have a certificate of operation from GCB not yet a licence.

Pertaining to your case there is not a difference between the two

 

[Educated_ant]

Like a provisional drivers license? But in this case the casino can effectively do everything a fully licensed one can?

 

[essuk]

My understanding is that the merchants bank is liable to pay the cashback ie if you win the chargeback claim you get paid but not an expert so may be wrong.
Also is the mere fact they are operating illegally enough to win a charge back? In my case I used this as only a tertiary reason. You could ask VISA on that one. Im not sure if VISA gets involved in awarding chargebacks on questions of legality as it could involve a lot of legal stuff and a can of worms - but if you ask them they should be able to tell you. My fear is they will deny the chargeback on the basis of it being a legal dispute. In other words do you need a stronger basis for your claim than just simply they were unlicenced? I simply dont know. I would hope a solicitor could help you examine whether there is a stronger basis for your claim and what is needed.

 

[mulven]

Like a provisional drivers license? But in this case the casino can effectively do everything a fully licensed one can?

So they were licenced (probably 1668/JAZ) before the new Curacao overhaul.

This is just them getting a new licence from the new system.

They are equally sketchy with and without a licence.

I wouldn't compare it to a provisional per se, it's more so to give continuity whilst their application is under review. When all the casinos lost their old sub licences, it was a way to prevent them all from being "unlicenced" whilst they starting to go through all the applications.

A Curacao licence doesn't change too much before and after. It looks better for the casino but apart from recently a push for kyc, there's not much of a difference.