StarSports - Duplicate Account

[herc83]

A little while ago I mentioned an issue I had with Planet Sport Bet where they refused to make a payout of £10k winnings because I had, by accident, created a duplicated account. They cited their T&C for their refusal to pay.

Is there anything to be said about the reverse scenario?

I've been going through my emails ahead of filing my tax return and I noticed I had signed up to Star Sports in November and tried 3 times to deposit large amounts. £10k, £20k which were rejected each time. They sent me a KYC which I failed by non compliance (I didn't answer their email).

A few month later in February, I sign up using a different email address. They notify internally that it is a duplicate of my prior account from November but they let me continue to gamble.

Should they have not closed my account the same way Planet Sport Bet did as I've broke their T&C by having more than one account? T&C says; 14. Customers may open only one account. Should we identify any customer with more than one account we reserve the right to treat any such accounts as one joint account.

Therefore should I not have failed with this second account because a) it's opening more than 1 account and b) I had previously failed the KYC?

I'm obviously frustrated because Planet Sport Bet refused to pay £10k for this scenario but Star Sports, where I did lose money, are perfectly fine with it.

Is there any recourse here for claiming the deposits made on Star Sports should be refunded for breaking the T&C, even if it was me who broke them? Albeit, again, unintentionally.

Just feels like the T&C are always one sided. So the casinos can always have it their way to interpret rules when they want to.

 

[mulven]

Planet Sport Bet:

14. Customers may open only one account. Should we identify any customer with more than one account Planet Sport Bet reserves the right to close any duplicate account immediately on discovery and without prior notice to the Customer and in such circumstances Planet Sport Bet will void all bonuses, free bets and winnings accrued using the duplicate account, which shall be forfeited by the Customer, and will return all funds deposited by the Customer into the duplicate account using the payment method used to deposit the funds in the first instance

Star Sports

14. Customers may open only one account. Should we identify any customer with more than one account we reserve the right to treat any such accounts as one joint account.

The T&Cs for Star sports are far more lenient as you can see and know full well considering the Planet T&C was highlighted to you previously. You also stated it yourself, that in this T&C they just treat the two accounts as the same account for all intents and purposes.

You neglect to mention in this thread that Star Sports is the same site you had committed fraud by false representation against when you signed up as your wife (third account after the first signup, then the second, treated as a joint account). I assume these are the losses that led to the wife account happening.

I'm obviously frustrated because Planet Sport Bet refused to pay £10k for this scenario but Star Sports, where I did lose money, are perfectly fine with it.

Planet Sport Bet refused to pay out money because their terms - that were different - allowed them to, you can't compare an apple to an orange.

There is definitely no way you would get anything from these guys with the wife incident so its not worth mulling over whether or not you would have a case if that didn't happen.

 

[herc83]

But if they count it as the same account, does the failure of the KYC from earlier not mean I have failed their checks? The other casino did not give me a second chance to go through it again.

Yeah the third account I didn't mention as it's not relevant to this, unless I'm misunderstanding. It's not the wife incident I'm referring to, just this specific duplicate that were both under my name.

 

[mulven]

But if they count it as the same account, does the failure of the KYC from earlier not mean I have failed their checks? The other casino did not give me a second chance to go through it again.

Was it basic KYC on the first account? What were your deposit sizes on the second? It probably should have triggered KYC and eventually SOW again on the new account. The other casino didn't give you a chance to go through it again because you aren't allowed a second account there and you refused a CDD.... StarSports only allow one account but if you make a second they just treat the two accounts as a singular joint account. You'd need to clarify if the KYC you was a basic kyc you ignored or a full on CDD.

Yeah the third account I didn't mention as it's not relevant to this, unless I'm misunderstanding. It's not the wife incident I'm referring to, just this specific duplicate that were both under my name.

It isn't relevant to the events itself but could be relevant if you were trying to get money back from them as it could potentially be taken into account. It happened after this but prior to a potential claim.

 

[herc83]

The first time around they did a basic KYC (proof of ID, proof of address etc). They suspended the account on the 1st day before any bets were made based on the size of the deposits and it was never reopened when I never replied to the KYC emails.

On the second account the deposit sizes were similar to the first and often up to the max of £40k per transaction.

I see what you're saying they didn't do source of funds check with Star Sports on this first account so I guess it's not quite the same thing.

 

[mulven]

On the second account the deposit sizes were similar to the first and often up to the max of £40k per transaction.

The only thing of merit in this instance is that you shouldn't have been able to deposit that kinda money without some checks and stops, just like what happened with the first account.

I see what you're saying they didn't do source of funds check with Star Sports on this first account so I guess it's not quite the same thing.

Since it was only basic documents request, the non-compliance means very little other than the account remaining suspended. With the CDD on planet, the non-compliance was a big deal legally.

With this case it was different due to:

• The terms being different
  • Planet - You can only ever have one account and if you make new one any winnings will be void
  • Star - You are only allowed one account but if you make a new one we'll just treat the second one as "one joint account" of the first.
• The AML/KYC requests being different
  • Planet - CDD with big ramifications of non compliance
  • Star - Basic POA/ID with no ramifications of non compliance (other than the account remaining suspended).

In conclusion, the only problem was that you were able to deposit such large amounts unchecked. A possible explanation for this would be an error with their automation due to the edge case of the dupe account. There would have been a little bit of potential in a claim (at the time, not a long time later) but I think the subsequent actions in the wife's name would sour the ADRs opinion if you were allowed to bring the case today.

 

[jasonuk]

@mulven has covered most of it, so I'll focus on the KYC/AML part...

Much like the different terms and conditions regarding duplicate accounts, KYC/AML have different levels of burden.

For KYC:

The LCCP states that as a minimum, remote operators will have to verify the name, address and date of birth or a player before allowing them to gamble.

For CDD/AML:

Where a casino operator is unable to apply the required CDD measures in relation to a particular customer, the operator:
...

• must terminate any existing business relationship with the customer

So in the first instance your account is locked until you comply, in the second instance your account is terminated when it's clear you are unable or unwilling to comply.

It sounds like they've applied the rules correctly - they identified the duplicate account, they applied the (different) terms and conditions and merged the two together, and that's the end of the story.

The size of the deposits is naturally a concern, but that is more of a regulatory question than a breach of the contract - and so it's unlikely that anything would be due, doubly so given subsequent fraudulent actions.

 

[herc83]

Thank you both, I appreciate this