Watch those fake IDs

[Stanford]

Thanks Mary

Mary Said:

Fake id's will get your winnings forfeited in Vegas if:

*you are trying to avoid paying taxes
*you are underage
*you are a blacklisted person (the Black Book)

and there are some other special circumstances. Faked id will get you in trouble if intent to defraud can be established. It's ok to have id under more than one name if you have no intent to defraud. Strange, but true.

Thanks Mary. I forgot about the Blackbook. Another player reminded me this isnt Griffin. This is the book of people banned by the legal authorities. It isnt a listing of undesirable players made up by the casinos. Looks like there about 37 people in it. The first five by way of example are:

1. Marshall Caifano, Chicago mob leader (1960)
2. Louis Dragna, Mob leader, convicted racketeer (1960)
3. Alvin Kaohu, Hawaiian organized crime member (1975)
4. Wilford Pulawa, Hawaiian organized crime boss (1975)
5. John Vaccaro, Slot cheater (1986)

I am unsure about those attempting to avoid paying taxes. I think if they provide the correct documentation they still get paid. They might face criminal proceedings for CTR violations but that is a different matter.

Mary said:

He admitted here that he had defrauded another casino with respect to age before. That might meet that standard in Nevada, hence, a Nevada casino might legally be enabled to deny him his winnings and his deposit.

You are speculating that previously playing underage with a false ID, could allow a subsequent casino from paying when he became of age. A Nevada Casino could not use that to deny payment unless the transgression was so egregious as to get him in the Blackbook - and it wouldn't be.

I asked around and it seems the leading legal authority on false IDs is Chen v. State, Gaming Control Board. That case is instructive here.

Here is the standard per the court:

Appellant Richard Chen argues that the Nevada Gaming Control Board erred by allowing the Monte Carlo Resort & Casino to retain his blackjack winnings of $40,400. Chen contends that the Monte Carlo is unable to show either that it detrimentally relied on Chens false passport or that Chens misrepresentation was the proximate cause of the Monte Carlos damages. We agree

Chens skill in playing blackjack, rather than his misrepresentation of identity, was the proximate cause of his winnings. The false identification allowed Chen to receive $44,000 in chips, but it did not cause Chen to win. Thus, we hold that the Gaming Control Board's determination that Chen committed fraud is contrary to law because the Monte Carlo did not establish all of the elements of fraud

I think this is the correct standard. That is Is the false document the proximate cause of any loss? I would liberalize the standard and ask was there an attempted loss by fraud? If the answer were yes, I would side with the casino. If no, I would side with player.

In this case, the player having an ID altered as to age has no proximate cause to the winnings. To the contrary, the player gave all correct information prior to playing. As I stated earlier, if I accidentally submitted my wifes ID could they renege for that? One mistake is pretty much the same as the other.

It's in just about every casino's T&C's that you get paid subject to an id check. At a minimum, according to his own account, he broke the T&C's.

If he supplies an ID after the mistaken one was sent, he most likely met the Ts/Cs at that point. I would agree that they could withhold payment till he supplied correct documentation and could ask for additional assurance. Fruedian makes that point above and I think it has merit.

Mary said: They don't owe him the time and effort to verify his (possibly better edited) scans of his passport etc. they don't owe him the time and effort to examine his (promised) physical documents. (Credibility note: what kind of moron sends his physical drivers license or passport to an online casino?)

I would ask you to reconsider. If this player had supplied false information initially it would indicate he was trying to maybe pull a fast one - or if they asked for the ID prior to play and relied on it to their detriment. This was the courts reasoning in Chen. But to send the wrong thing by accident, I dont think negates his claim. That isnt in any Ts/Cs I know of.

I could easily design a test to give reasonable assurance of a proper photo scan. There is no reason to deny winnings to a player for a simple mistake.

Caruso said:

Bryan posted this as an amusing anecdote of a matter which was already closed and he certainly doesn't need telling how to do his job on such a straightforward P.A.B.

The Meister didnt tell us how he resolved this. I hope he decided to represent the interest of the player but would be interested in his comments. I point out that the Meister sometimes changes his mind after discussion on his board. Lacypuff again comes to mind.

I actually like the courts reasoning. If the ID is that important, check it prior to play not afterwards. Otherwise, prove that it was the ID that caused a loss and not simply the play of the patron. It shouldnt be used as an excuse to renege on a bet.

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

Stanford.

 

[mitch]

Stanford

Like most people who feel that the casino should pay, I suspect that if it was your money and risk you would act just as the casino did. You are expecting casinos to act in a way that you personally would consider foolish.

Would you get into a financial relationship and put your own money at risk with someone who has admitted supplying you with faked documentation says it was accidental but admits he has lied and deliberately supplied faked documentation to someone else in exactly the same financial business?

I have not had many responses to my question about the dodgy tradesperson because, lets be honest, its obvious when you are the potential loser, you opt for the safe option.

Your whole arguement is based on the premise, that when the person was caught submitting faked id, the casino had to accept (as apparently you do) every subsequent statement, by an admitted liar to internet casinos, as the gods honest truth.

Why should they? Why do you? Why should they spend their own money trying to establish the veracity of someone who has breached T&Cs, he freely signed upto, by submitting faked documentation.

Would you? Would you employ an investigator, at your own expense, to get to the bottom of the person you are thinking of having a financial relationship with? Or would you, as I would, and I expect most people in the real world would do, say, 'sod it, its not worth the risk whatever the ultimate truth is its not my responsibilty to get to the bottom of it and he is the author of his own misfortune'.

Bryan posted originally, I think, because he expected members to have a chuckle over the ludicrous expectation of this person to have his complaint taken seriously even though Bryan did his job and followed up on it and got the reply he (and what he obviously thought the vast majority of members) expected as a reply.

Mitch

 

[mary]

This is the kind of case that provides very useful discussion.

For example, it demonstrates the advantages of playing under truly regulated environments: the State takes the responsibily of issuing valid identification and provides expertise sufficient to examine such id.

I agree completely that the current situation of online casinos requesting and using scans-easily modified--for id is ridiculous.

The land casino in Vegas, with the assistance of the authorities, also has the privilege of comparing the actual gambler to his id. The online casino does not have that ability. We do not have that ability. We have only this poster's word that he is of age to play in this casino, for example. If he is in fact underage, a land casino would be under no obligation to pay his winnings.

Court exists as a venue to test not only each side's argument, but the veracity of the facts. We don't have that ability here online.

Since I'm relying on the presenter's trustworthyness wholly to make a decision (playing Judge Judy) prior evidence of untrustworthiness weighs more heavily in my opinion. He's already proven himself untruthful; unlike on land the mechanism does not exist for him to repair that deficiency.

It's true that online casinos have the "we reserve the right to screw you any way we can' clause in their T&C's and that's often ridiculous. I think the clause that "hey, we need valid id before you get money" is reasonable, and I think that "hey, you've been proven and admitted that you'll submit false id, we aren't going to have anything to do with you" is reasonable given the present environment.

The potential for underage players to access gambling online is one of the reasons politicians oppose it in the US. The better operators are going to respect that.

 

[Stanford]

Answers for Mitch

Hi Mitch,

Your comments are in quotes and mine follows:

"Like most people who feel that the casino should pay, I suspect that if it was your money and risk you would act just as the casino did. You are expecting casinos to act in a way that you personally would consider foolish."

Not true at all. I have been involved in gaming since before my majority. There is a code of honor.

"Would you get into a financial relationship and put your own money at risk with someone who has admitted supplying you with faked documentation says it was accidental but admits he has lied and deliberately supplied faked documentation to someone else in exactly the same financial business?"

I would not use it as an excuse to renege on a bet. Let's try to duplicate the circumstance. John (new office employee) comes to me and we decide to bet on the Dallas Cowboys Vs. Green Bay Packers. He loves the Pack and I the Cryboys. But I think he looks young. I ask for ID to make sure he is over 21. He gives me one that was altered back when he was trying to get into the Dallas clubs. I lose the bet. Later I find that he gave me the wrong ID but he was still above the age of majority. Would I pay the bet? Certainly. Would you? You better - or no one in the office would trust *you* again. But they would trust John.

"I have not had many responses to my question about the dodgy tradesperson because, lets be honest, its obvious when you are the potential loser, you opt for the safe option."

Would you pay John in my example above? I am going to honestly answer your question and expect you to do the same.

I want to emphasize that in your example the documentation check is done prior to performance. I don't think I would employ the dodgy tradesman. And this fits perfectly with the logic from the Chen case cited above. I felt the issue was sufficient to check the document prior to the work. However, if I didn't check the documents before hand and like the tradesmans work - I would pay him for a job well done.

"Your whole arguement is based on the premise, that when the person was caught submitting faked id, the casino had to accept (as apparently you do) every subsequent statement, by an admitted liar to internet casinos, as the gods honest truth."

No it isn't. My argument is that there was no attempted fraud. Assume that the patron was really that age. Assume the player was a different age. But assume both ages are above 21. What difference does it make? In other words, the player never tried to gain undue advantage by altering his age. There was no fraudulent intent. No harm of any kind.

"Why should they? Why do you? Why should they spend their own money trying to establish the veracity of someone who has breached T&Cs, he freely signed upto, by submitting faked documentation."

Because we know there was no fraudulent intent. We can surmise this because the document as altered presented him with no advantage. Thus, we can surmise their was a submission by innocent mistake. For example, I submit my wife's ID in error. Should that be a reason to renege?

"Would you? Would you employ an investigator, at your own expense, to get to the bottom of the person you are thinking of having a financial relationship with?"

No investigator is needed. We can surmise from the document submitted that there was no intent to gain an advantage. I would pay the bet after getting the correct documents, which would fulfill the Ts/Cs. I think the Chen case is very much on point in this respect. Since there was no reliance on the mistaken document, there is no need to confiscate the winnings. Do you disagree?

Now I have answered honestly all your questions. Answer mine. Would you pay John in the example outlined above? Would you pay me if I submitted my wife's ID in error? Do you disagree with the Nevada Supreme Courts reasoning in the Chen case as to proximate cause of loss?

Stanford.

 

[Stanford]

This is the kind of case that provides very useful discussion...

...Since I'm relying on the presenter's trustworthyness wholly to make a decision (playing Judge Judy) prior evidence of untrustworthiness weighs more heavily in my opinion. He's already proven himself untruthful; unlike on land the mechanism does not exist for him to repair that deficiency...


...The potential for underage players to access gambling online is one of the reasons politicians oppose it in the US. The better operators are going to respect that.

Hi Mary,

I agree and have very much enjoyed the discussion with you and other patrons.

I don't think you need to totally rely on the players honesty in this case. I think you can surmise there was never fraudulent intent based on the fact that the document provided no advantage.

However, I agree if reasonable assurance cannot be provided that the player is of age, he should not be paid. I think it can be done, however.

If the casino industry wants to exclude every patron who has ever submitted a fake ID, they are going to knock out a lot people here in Texas. Take it from a former bar employee.

Stanford.

PS - I hit my first small nickle jackpot in a shop in Las Vegas when I was about 16. I scooped up the coins and when asked for an ID - I declined. I simply left with my nickles. Must have won 10 bucks or something.

 

[mary]

*I don't think the "office mate' friendly bet analogy applies, because of the context again: you know how old your office mate is. If he should welch in the future (say, chargeback his gambling deposit) you can go break his kneecaps.

*I also don't think that the "I won a bunch of nickels in Nevada" analogy works either. Nevada is a pretty strange state when it comes to gambling in some ways.

In my home state, we have small cardrooms; every one has a security officer posted at the door. The card room is responsible for checking patrons id and the card room must exclude underage players.

In fact, there was a recent sting done by the gaming commission and several places were fined.

If any of these places had asked for id, recieved id that was obviously faked, and had paid out on wagers anyway they'd run a real risk of losing their licenses especially when the player explained the "wrong" id was to fake age! Heck, that player could have been a gaming agent doing a sting.

Speaking of gaming regulations, where was this casino licensed and what are the regulations of the jurisdiction involved? It may seem nutty, but, hey, the casino might be obliged to not pay wagers once a patron has supplied faked id. (Yeah, I'm laughing too. I've emailed a lot of online gaming agencies as a journalist asking questions about their regulations and only one has ever done the courtesy of even replying to my email. That was the Northern Territory of Australia. Kahnawake, Antigua, and all the rest can just bite me.)

 

[mary]

Just for giggles I looked up Antigua's regulations.

First, may I suggest that the undoubtedly young with keen eyesight sadist who formatted their web page in yellow mouse type on a black background be turned into shark food for the entertainment of the tourist industry.


Part VIII
AGE VERIFICATION

114. A licence holder must not allow a person under the age of eighteen (18) years to participate in operations related to the conduct of authorized games.

115. A person involved in the conduct of an authorized game must not allow a person under the age of eighteen (18) years to participate as a player in an authorized game.

116. A prize won by a player under the age of eighteen (18) years by participation in an authorized game contrary to the foregoing regulations is forfeited to the Authority. The Authority shall pay any such forfeited prizes to an account established by the Authority.
RESPONSIBLE GAMING

117. A licenced interactive gaming or interactive wagering site must display on the entry screen, a warning of the addiction possibilities of gambling, and information on sites to assist compulsive gamblers.

118. A player may request to be self excluded from a licenced interactive gaming or interactive wagering site by means of a telecommunication device. Self-exclusion by a player may be revoked by giving a seven (7) days notice.


PLAYER REGISTRATION

119. A licence holder shall only register a person as a player on receipt of an application for registration in a form approved by the Authority. A licence holder must not permit a person to play an authorised game unless the person is registered as a player. For registration to take place, the player must confirm his or her identity, date of birth and place of residence.

120. A licence holder must not allow a registered player to participate in an authorized game until the player's identity has been authenticated under the licence holder's approved control system. The licence holder must also inform the player that it is the player's responsibility to be cognizant with the interactive gaming or interactive wagering law in his place of jurisdiction and to comply with such laws.

121. The licence holder shall make available to the player all game rules.

122. The licence holder shall make available to the player the cost to the player, if anything, of any processing fee.

 

[arbster]

115. A person involved in the conduct of an authorized game must not allow a person under the age of eighteen (18) years to participate as a player in an authorized game.

116. A prize won by a player under the age of eighteen (18) years by participation in an authorized game contrary to the foregoing regulations is forfeited to the Authority. The Authority shall pay any such forfeited prizes to an account established by the Authority.

Worth checking, but this discussion is based on this player being of legal age and the casino being offered every chance to validate it. I don't think anyone here would be arguing that this player should be paid if he were not of legal age, and too many people are hanging onto the final "he might be lying" thread of an argument in the face of Stanford's excellent case.

I'm still convinced that this player should be paid - we can't allow casinos to go round "making examples" of players just because it saves them a few bucks. I'm sure that, faced with Stanford's well-researched and careful arguments above, the casino would be forgiven for reviewing its decision and deciding the player's favour. Anyone who can say "I was wrong" in this way deserves recognition and respect.

 

[mitch]

Because we know there was no fraudulent intent. We can surmise this because the document as altered presented him with no advantage. Thus, we can surmise their was a submission by innocent mistake.
Stanford.

HI Stanford

I am afraid your comments above illustrates a certain naiviety about the real world view of people who possess fake id.

As an example I was in Chicago O' Hare International Airport a couple of weeks ago. I was in a bar and I was asked to produce id when I ordered a drink.

Now this pisses me off because I couldn't be taken for being twice 21 nevermind actually 21.
But suppose to express my annoyance I had constructed fake id to use in such situations and I had used it here.

Now if this fake id had been spotted do you think there might possibly be other consequences?

Do you think airport security might become involved, ( you know on the basis if I am prepared to lie about this, what other things might I be, or prepared to be, getting upto) that I might be detained until my credentials were established, that I might be charged with an offence in any event? Even if I was released but I had missed my flight, would I have a serious claim against the airline or airport authorities for a refund of my money?

Or do you think everyone would look at it the way you would probably advise them to 'here is a man submitting faked id at an airport but nothing to worry about because as he was obviously over 21 anyway we can surmise that he was not seeking to commit fraud and we can further surmise that he is perfectly above board and he is free to go without question'!

Mitch

 

[Casinomeister]

Great thread. And like Mary said a lot of useful information.

I started this thread to generate something more cerebral than the usual casino x didnt give me my bonus boo-frigging-hoo discussion This is a discussion that brings in a number of elements into play and can easily be looked at from both sides of the fence.

Like I mentioned near the beginning of the thread this situation can be approached two ways one: as the issue transpired. Two: as after the fact requesting that the casino relook at this case.

Its only natural to view this as after the fact with the information that we have at hand but in this situation, I am inclined to view this as the situation progressed. As soon as the casino detected a Photoshopped ID, all negotiations were over. As far as I know, they never asked Please send us a better ID, this one looks like its been modified. Once it was detected, case closed.

I would assume (safely I guess) that player fraud is more widespread with online casinos as apposed to their brick and mortar brethren. Obviously anyone with a bit of ingenuity and Photoshop 6.0 has an umpteen thousand opportunities to be creative. . And if you get caught, ha ha ha, there aint no Costa Rican jail cell waiting for you, no Vegas goons to rough you up and cut off your little pinky. There is virtually no risk.

Innocent as it may seem, oops, I gave you the wrong ID its already too late. What we are witnessing is a non-negotiable zero tolerance for fraud. Here was the response from the casino: We shall not be paying the player his winnings but we also voided his purchase. Therefore the player is not of pocket in any way. Now its even Steven no one is out any real cash except the casino the casino no longer has a deposit and has banned a player.

This casino belongs to a group of casinos who is to say that this player did not use this fake ID at one of the casinos sister sites and committed the underage 21 fraud? Would that have made any difference in some of your thoughts on this?

Going back to the fraud this thread touches on the fact that there are differing levels of fraud, and different ways it can be defined and viewed by those who deal with it. With what information that I have, I would say that this is not a player out to scam a casino, but one who is broken the rules at one and has paid for this mistake at another. The casino acted in accordance to its policies, and the player learned a lesson.

Its a Kahnawake casino by the way. And Im not going to name the casino, just like Im not going to name the forum member who transgressed (hopefully just briefly) to the dark side.

Perhaps if situations like this happened once in a blue moon, they would have had a chuckle a reaffirming pat on the back we understand, no biggie just give us the real ID and everyone is happy. But imagine producing a Xeroxed copy of a $20 bill at the grocers (oops!) or the fake ID to the 65 bouncer at the local biker bar (double oops!). I dont think they would give you any consideration after the fact.

 

[Vesuvio]

I would assume (safely I guess) that player fraud is more widespread with online casinos as apposed to their brick and mortar brethren. Obviously anyone with a bit of ingenuity and Photoshop 6.0 has an umpteen thousand opportunities to be creative. . And if you get caught, ha ha ha, there aint no Costa Rican jail cell waiting for you, no Vegas goons to rough you up and cut off your little pinky. There is virtually no risk.

Though, as in this case, on-line casinos can get away with things on-line that they couldn't at a land-based casino, so the increased player fraud is balanced out by an increase in the potential for casino malpractice.

Innocent as it may seem, oops, I gave you the wrong ID its already too late. What we are witnessing is a non-negotiable zero tolerance for fraud. Here was the response from the casino: We shall not be paying the player his winnings but we also voided his purchase. Therefore the player is not of pocket in any way. Now its even Steven no one is out any real cash except the casino the casino no longer has a deposit and has banned a player.

1) I can understand zero tolerance for fraud, but the problem here is there isn't any fraud. There's no intent to profit from deception, which is a necessary part of fraud. It's not even clear what took place at the first casino constitutes fraud.
2) I don't see how the casino could possibly be considered to be 'out' the deposit. The player fairly won money from the casino - they're getting to keep the money he won (seems like real cash to me!). If he lost his deposit, presented the altered ID and they then voided his purchase & returned the deposit maybe I'd admire the casino's high moral stance & agree they could feel a bit hard done by

This casino belongs to a group of casinos who is to say that this player did not use this fake ID at one of the casinos sister sites and committed the underage 21 fraud? Would that have made any difference in some of your thoughts on this?

It usually doesn't break any rules to be under 21 at on-line casinos. Even if it does I doubt 'fraud' is an accurate description of it. A player playing when under 21 doesn't carry any more risks for the casino than someone playing when 21 or over. It should make the casinos money, although bonuses might cloud the issue. The only reason I can see why this might be a risk for the casino is if Kahnawake fine them for paying underage players. That seems like an unlikely scenario for one of these on-line gaming jurisdictions to rent.

Kudos for starting a very interesting discussion, Casinomeister! I think Stanford's posts above are worth the admission price alone :notworthy

 

[mitch]

Hi Mitch,


I would not use it as an excuse to renege on a bet. Let's try to duplicate the circumstance. John (new office employee) comes to me and we decide to bet on the Dallas Cowboys Vs. Green Bay Packers. He loves the Pack and I the Cryboys. But I think he looks young. I ask for ID to make sure he is over 21. He gives me one that was altered back when he was trying to get into the Dallas clubs. I lose the bet. Later I find that he gave me the wrong ID but he was still above the age of majority. Would I pay the bet? Certainly. Would you? You better - or no one in the office would trust *you* again. But they would trust John.

Now I have answered honestly all your questions. Answer mine. Would you pay John in the example outlined above?
Stanford.

Hi Stanford

I am sorry, I did not answer your question in my last post. So here it is.

Of course I would pay John in the circumstances you described,
I know for certain who he is and I don't have to expend further time and money verifying his statements and I guess that he would have paid me if I had been the lucky one.

However, yours is not a correct analogy. To be correct, John (who is not a colleague) would have had to have e-mailed me out of the blue saying he had heard I liked to take a bet and was I willing to take his wager. John is not known to me but supplies id.

I take the bet (yeah right!) and lose. I then find the id is false, John gives me the same tale and says he is happy for me to make further checks and enquiries about his veracity, at my own expense of course.

I tell him to take a running jump and he can whistle for his money because grave doubts are in my head about whether he would have paid me if I had actually won the bet.

In the Chen case, do I agree with the verdict?
I don't know the facts of the case but I doubt very much whether Chen had signed up to T&Cs in this B&M casino in which he agreed, inter alia, that winnings would be forfeit in the event of the provision of false documentation as our player has done. If he had, I don't think he would have had a cat in hells chance of winning this verdict.

Mitch

 

[Vesuvio]

I tell him to take a running jump and he can whistle for his money because grave doubts are in my head about whether he would have paid me if I had actually won the bet.

Except in the actual case the player deposited money and if he loses all that happens is the casino keeps the cash. There's no question of not being paid.

Your only real objection seems to be the "time and money" required to establish the player's identity, but really, if the casino's considering confiscating funds (significant funds for all we know), then I think they can spend five minutes checking documents before doing so. It doesn't look as though the player's identity is really in doubt here.

The casino's case appears just to be that the player broke one of their terms and they can choose not to pay him. That's at least arguable - complaining about the time and expense of checking ID or that the player represents a 'risk' to the casino (which means he should have his money taken away rather than being banned ) isn't.

 

[dominique]

Great thread. And like Mary said a lot of useful information.

I started this thread to generate something more cerebral than the usual casino x didnt give me my bonus boo-frigging-hoo discussion This is a discussion that brings in a number of elements into play and can easily be looked at from both sides of the fence.

True, and thank you for starting it.

I have been quiet in this thread - but have been following closely and want to thank both Mary and Stanford for some great contributions.

 

[jetset]

I think that Mitch, Caruso and Arbster deserve a round of applause for well argued posts, too.

 

[GrandMaster]

Except in the actual case the player deposited money and if he loses all that happens is the casino keeps the cash. There's no question of not being paid.

Your only real objection seems to be the "time and money" required to establish the player's identity, but really, if the casino's considering confiscating funds (significant funds for all we know), then I think they can spend five minutes checking documents before doing so. It doesn't look as though the player's identity is really in doubt here.

The casino's case appears just to be that the player broke one of their terms and they can choose not to pay him. That's at least arguable - complaining about the time and expense of checking ID or that the player represents a 'risk' to the casino (which means he should have his money taken away rather than being banned ) isn't.

I tend to agree with this and Mary also had a relevant example from Nevada. If the player supplies adequate documentation to establish his identity, age and address and whatever else is needed, for example, in the form of notarized copies, and the casino is satisfied that he has not used fake IDs to open multiple accounts, then he should be paid and then banned as an ethically challenged person. At this point the player's credibility is zero, the casino has no way of knowing if either of the scans is real, they both could be fake. It would also be acceptable for the casino to deduct the cost of the investigation from the payout.

As an example I was in Chicago O' Hare International Airport a couple of weeks ago. I was in a bar and I was asked to produce id when I ordered a drink.

Now this pisses me off because I couldn't be taken for being twice 21 nevermind actually 21.
But suppose to express my annoyance I had constructed fake id to use in such situations and I had used it here.

Now if this fake id had been spotted do you think there might possibly be other consequences?

Do you think airport security might become involved, ( you know on the basis if I am prepared to lie about this, what other things might I be, or prepared to be, getting upto) that I might be detained until my credentials were established, that I might be charged with an offence in any event? Even if I was released but I had missed my flight, would I have a serious claim against the airline or airport authorities for a refund of my money?

These days you would probably get a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay , but you would not get convicted for underage drinking, which is most analogous to this situation. I am not sure whether possession of a fake ID especially on a computer is illegal or not, but the casino is not an authority that can punish people over such issues, or I hope that the casino shows similar vigour in enforcing other laws which are not to its financial advantage. The relationship between the player is based on a contract, and if any terms specified the confiscation of the player's funds in such a case, it could be struck down as an unfair term.

This player may have committed fraud at another casino, but this current casino cannot take action against the player on this basis, otherwise players could do the same, and if you get stiffed by Spammer Bob's Online Viagra Shop and Casino, you could do a chargeback at Intercasino.

 

[mitch]

but the casino is not an authority that can punish people over such issues.

True in a legal sense GM. However, let me give another example of what happened to me over id the last time I was in the USA.

My wife and I were in a restaurant in Chicago (what is about Chicago? Come on down Wolfgang Puck!), I ordered some wine with our meal and the waiter asked for my id!

I was severely pissed by this seeing as my wife and I are, of what could be said to be, 'mature years'. I queried this with the waiter and with a rather bored expression he pointed to a notice on the wall which said, 'that company policy was, that id would be required of all clients and that staff were not to be harassed or abused on account of this rule'.

I told the waiter that this was clear but, therefore, in all fairness I needed to point out my policy, which, was that when I was asked, when I got the bill at the end of the meal, to consider good service or not, that I generically consider being forced to produce id, just to get wine with my meal, bad, indeed, terrible service.

I then asked whether he wished to continue to verify my id, he apparently then decided this rule could be waived on this occasion!

So GM, legal or not, people can set punishments if they are in charge of the T&Cs, which I was in relation to tipping for my meal and the casino is, in relation to its own T&Cs which punters either sign upto or go elsewhere.

Mitch

PS
Thanks Jetset.
Mind you this is an enjoyable thread, and who doesn't enjoy a good arguement with other intelligent people!

 

[maxlevine]

I think that Mitch, Caruso and Arbster deserve a round of applause for well argued posts, too.

And also Vesuvio.

It is an interesting thread and a good change from bonus policy arguments.

Max

 

[GrandMaster]

So GM, legal or not, people can set punishments if they are in charge of the T&Cs, which I was in relation to tipping for my my meal and the casino is, in relation to its own T&Cs which punters either sign upto or go elsewhere.

Tipping is discretionary, not a contractual obligation. British court have been known to strike down punitive terms as unfair and unenforceable. Of course, this player's case might come under Costa Rican or Kahnawake Indian law, of which I know nothing.

 

[mitch]

Tipping is discretionary, not a contractual obligation. British court have been known to struck down punitive terms as unfair and unenforceable. Of course, this player's case might come under Costa Rican or Kahnawake Indian law, of which I know nothing.

Absolutely right as usual GM.

I also don't know anything about the law in those jurisdictions but I doubt that there is a court on this planet that would consider T&Cs that required you to produce genuine id as a condition of being paid as punitive. Hell, bars and restaurants can make you produce id just to get a drink, even when you are 50 and I don't think I could get that condition struck out by a court, stupid as it is.

Mitch

 

[GrandMaster]

Absolutely right as usual GM.

I also don't know anything about the law in those jurisdictions but I doubt that there is a court on this planet that would consider T&Cs that required you to produce genuine id as a condition of being paid as punitive. Hell, bars and restaraunts can make you produce id just to get a drink, even when you are 50 and I don't think I could get that condition struck out by a court, stupid as it is.

Mitch

Once he provides verifiable good ID, e.g., a notarized copy, then refusal to pay him is a punishment. Not being served in a bar is not a punishment, you don't suffer any loss. If the bar posted a notice that if you show fake ID then you agree that they can charge your credit card up to its limit or be beaten up by the bouncer, that would be a punitive term.

 

[mary]

The "denied drink" analogy doesn' work either, because if you don't get served the drink, you don't get charged for the drink.

The "we card everybody" policy probably arose after one too many Liquor Department stings. Since servers are put into confrontational situations with overdeveloped yet underage patrons (who have been using steroids since elementary school) when expected to exercise discretion, it's easier on the staff to just make a blanket rule.

The fact that the casino goes ahead and accepts deposits and conducts betting *before* getting id does put the casino on a lower moral ground than otherwise. If an underage player deposits and loses, the casino doesn't have to give any money back. Thus, the casino is bad.

That's not quite the whole story however, for two reasons:

*There is a presumption here that players have some brains and wouldn't enter into a wagering situation in which they can't collect. I think this should apply to the underage players who have enough savvy to set up Netteller accounts, they should be able to figure out that they won't have valid id to present.

*Parents of stupid kids (in the US) have the option of reversing the charges on credit cards used to make deposits to casinos (if the kid managed to use a credit card). Thus, there is a legal remedy (In the US) for taking money from kids.

The casinos well know that they are in a business environment in which their deposits may be withdrawn at any time without notice. That doesn't happen to land casinos. If kids come into a Vegas casino and play the slot machine, they don't get that money back. There is a US riverboat case in which a parent sued for her son's losses; she lost.

 

[mary]

It looks like whether or not this player is entitled to his winnings may depedn on the jurisdiction--good chance in Nevada, bad chance in Washington (see below)--I have tried to download the Kahnewake .pdf of their regulations with no success from two computers. Could be the Adobe 7.0 update.

Here's the Washington State Gaming Commission's FAQ on the matter:

Old / Expired Link

If a player refused to produce proper identification or provides fake identification, do I have to pay the winner?

No. WAC. rules specify that all winners over $20.00 must provide adequate and true identification. If the person refuses to do so, you are under no obligation to violate the WAC. by paying the winner. If a person produces fake identification, he/she may be attempting to defraud you. Get a hold of your local law enforcement agency immediately.

What type of identification should I accept to identify the winner?

WAC. 230-30-070 does not specifically address what is acceptable identification; however, the type of identification that would be acceptable by the Liquor Control Board would be good identification for your purposes. You obtain identification that assures that you, as a licensee, have no question as to the identity of the winner. Whatever you would accept in order to allow a person to cash a check would be appropriate, also.

 

[jerryg]

The entire debate is based on a fairly large degree of assumption here.

It starts with the original player email. You're assuming that the information in that message is both complete and accurate. I have no way of knowing if it is either.

However, if you assume that the information is complete and accurate, then I see no reason why his winnings should be void at this particular casino. If they do not want his business then they are free to tell him as much and to lock his account, but his winnings should still be paid first.

His winnings were voided because of "fraud". I see the definition of fraud as "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

Under that definition, I do not see how this person has committed any fraud against the casino. Perhaps the casino can elaborate on their definition of fraud, or even at least list a specific clause of the T&C by which they are forfeiting the winnings. I have not seen either of these presented in this thread.

But again, even that much is based on the assumption that the original message is truthful. For all I know, the guy (girl/whatever) could be in the habit of using altered images to claim winnings, and then later on using the discrepency as grounds for charging back purchases.

If more complete information can not be presented in a verifiable format, then it's pretty much a useless debate that could go on indefinitely with no resolution in sight.

At the very least, this has been one of the most thought-provoking threads I have read through in a long while. Lots of great points on both sides of the coin.

 

[mary]

But again, even that much is based on the assumption that the original message is truthful. For all I know, the guy (girl/whatever) could be in the habit of using altered images to claim winnings, and then later on using the discrepency as grounds for charging back purchases.

Ooh, good point. My experience with doing a charge reversal (it was not gambling related, it was underage related, I have a teenage son, you can figure out what I'm saying here....) was that my bank didn't require any proof other than my word.

Now, my credit card account didn't have any other charges for that category of industry transaction and that was the only charge I've reversed on that account. Maybe to reverse a Neteller charge or any of the other processors one needs to point to data inconsistencies.