WINNERonline Gambling Discussion - View Single Post - Bellavegas won't pay 20K in winnings

Ok, here we are. I was going to paraphrase in the interests of brevity, but I really can't be arsed to do that right now, and this way I avoid misquoting. I have, however, removed a few personal items, none of which affects anything other than making the exchanges seem a tad drier than they were.

Note also I have very briefly summarised at the end.

Andrew's detailed response:

Quote:

I've been following this thread closely, and I've also explained our actions to a number of different webmasters and interested parties. There appears to be general satisfaction with the approach we've taken, considering the particular circumstances involved.

First of all, here's what happened with Bella Vegas:

* Prior to July 2005, when the player concerned was identified as an
underage player, the casino wasn't actively looking for players between the ages of 18 and 21, and matching these up against countries and states which
set an age limit of 21 (the software will automatically keep a player out that enters an age below 18). It is a difficult task to achieve this 100% effectively anyway considering the huge number of countries and states from which this group of casinos gets its players. We had also not introduced the new eGAP minimum requirement 103.R.1 at that stage which states "Reasonable steps shall be taken to verify the age of new customers before or at the time of first deposit". Our formal responsible gaming training program took place in July 2005 at which time the eCOGRA operators were encouraged to start being more proactive in the identification of underage players.

* When the big win triggered an ID check for fraud and anti-money laundering purposes (note that eGAP requirement 112.R.2 which is based on the Financial Action Task Force guidelines for anti-money laundering says "No cash-ins shall be made to a player's account where there is reason to suspect money laundering or terrorist activity or where the cash-ins exceed $/€10,000 (whether in a single transaction or a series of transactions which appear to be linked) unless the player has been properly identified"), Bella Vegas staff realised only then that the player was underage in her jurisdiction
and all the player's accounts were immediately locked (26 July 2005). No ID
checks were previously performed because of the relatively small size of the
other withdrawals;

* Bella Vegas then asked eCOGRA what they should do and we discussed this with G4. G4 advised us not to pay the player and I agreed - this action would also be consistent with many jurisdictions' regulations for this scenario that I've seen.

* Brandbox then proceeded to search their databases and ban all players in this age group from Nevada (we know they did this because another effected player approached us). They also asked us to provide them with a list of which states they should not accept players from and relevant age limits, and we told them we were not qualified to provide this sort of information. In any event such a list would be extremely difficult to accurately maintain on an ongoing basis, due to the changing nature and subjective interpretation of legislation in the various countries and states. One would also hope that the players are reasonably aware of the applicable age restrictions in their home jurisdictions.

* It's worth noting that all accounts relating to this player with Brandbox have been closed since 26 July 2005 and no further deposits have been received from her. As far as the casino is concerned, the matter was
properly settled in August 2005 when they paid her deposits from all Brandbox casinos, and no further correspondence was received from her since then.

Perhaps Bella Vegas could have been more diligent in some way to identify
players in the 18-21 bracket and match this against some list of prohibited
jurisdictions, and our recent (October 2005) eGAP review of this operator by
PwC shows that they have tightened up their underage controls considerably,
with no evidence of underage players being identified. But this issue is really about what should Bella Vegas have done with the player's winnings only once they found out she was underage.

Bella Vegas' course of action was recommended by eCOGRA, and it would be
totally irresponsible for us to have recommended that the casino pay this
underage player her winnings. In fact, we would have a serious problem with
any casino found to be doing this.

Furthermore, this would set a very dangerous precedent if this player were
to receive her winnings, not just for Brandbox, but for any other eCOGRA
casino which has denied 18-21 players their winnings. It's an awkward set of
circumstances, but I feel eCOGRA could also seriously compromise its own
position if we tried to insist that an underage player should be the beneficiary of illegally earned winnings. And if Brandbox wants to maintain a position that a player is subject to the age restrictions in their home jurisdiction as apposed to the licensing jurisdiction (despite the fact that this will ultimately mean less business), then I think eCOGRA should respect this.
Providing this player with her winnings would be like saying "It's OK to gamble underage if the casino has poor controls and you can get away with it". This could only encourage underage players and I'm sure the online gambling industry's detractors would love to get hold of evidence that underage play is being handled in this way. This player got away with it while the casino may have been lax (and perhaps she even made a profit in this time?), but once identified as an underage player then its always going to be account closed and deposits repaid.

I hope this answers your question.

My reply:

Quote:

Hello Andrew,

Understood the matter of the underage issue, and the need to be as tight as is possible on your side of things to avoid heading towards a slippery slope. However, I have to stress that there's is a little more too it. You said:

"Prior to July 2005, when the player concerned was identified as an underage player, the casino wasn't actively looking for players between the ages of 18 and 21, and matching these up against countries and states which set an age limit of 21...It is a difficult task to achieve this 100% effectively anyway considering the huge number of countries and states from which this group of casinos gets its players...When the big win triggered an ID check for fraud and anti-money laundering purposes...Bella Vegas staff realised only then that the player was underage in her jurisdiction and all the player's accounts were immediately locked (26 July 2005). No ID checks were previously performed because of the relatively small size of the other withdrawls; Bella Vegas then asked eCOGRA what they should do." etc etc

Andrew, my problem is they are applying principles at the time of (big) cashout that they were not applying at the time of deposit. Circumstances of the introduction of the relevant eGAP requirement notwithstanding, the casino was not checking, then they WERE checking. The timing of the checking is also disgracefully disadvantageous to the player, since the checks coincide with the win - anti-money laundering considerations etc accepted.

Scenario A: casino routinely checks at signup for the 18 - 21 group; underage player deposits; casino refunds deposit.

All good.

Scenario B: casino doesn't check for 18 -21 age group; underage player deposits and wins; casino refunds deposit.

Not good.

Andrew, the casino's laxity, and the extremely coincidentally advantageous nature of their ship-tightening - cannot be allowed to work to the player's detriment. Bella Vegas was lax. Not only did they accept the intial deposit, they accepted about twenty more and paid three winning cashouts - up to the value of £3000. Now, the casino is using the new eGAP rules on underage clampdowns to their advantage.

Since the laxity of Bella Vegas allowed the player to deposit, lose and win, they should really accept that the error was there's and act accordingly in some way. Admitedly their was error on both sides, as the player was in contravention of her state's statutes, so a compromise could be proposed which would reflect the casino's acknowledgement of the error. As it stands, the casino is benefitting tremendously from their laxity, and this is unfair. All your points about the need to uphold the principles of underage gambling your end acknowledged and undisputed, this is an unfair resolution for the player - again, because principles are being applied at cashout that were not applied at any prior point (date of eGAP ruling again acknowledged).

I don't dispute your obvious need to maintain the letter of the law, nor that your recommendation was correct with regard to said law, but I have to stress that there are facts involved here which make the ruling unfair and unfriendly to the player, and that the matter would have benefitted from a more global approach, an approach which would not compromise the law but would not been seen as so grossly unfair to the player. As it stands, technicalities of the law notwithstanding, this is an unfair resolution. Again I stress that I acknowledge the awkwardness of the position you are in, that another decision could lead to another whole load of issues, but at the end of the day it remains unfair and reflects terribly on the casino.

All the best,

Me

Andrew's follow up:

Quote:

I appreciate the points you are making, and they certainly have merit. However, there is nothing here that leads us to believe that the operator has behaved in an inappropriate manner and tried to avoid payment to the player. They have withheld the winnings on our instruction, and the reason for our position has been made clear in my previous email. Under no
circumstances will eCOGRA ever permit an underage player to knowingly be
paid their winnings by an eCOGRA approved operator.

Have a good weekend.
Andrew

Summary

eCOGRA's position is that the player is an underage gambler and that paying her would effectively open a whole can of worms and send them down an perilously slippey slope; as such, they cannot endorse any kind of payment - be it full, partial or whatever.

My position is that, this undeniable fact notwithstanding, the casino is grossly unfairly playing the age card at a time it suits. There were no checks done at any point until she cashed out big. My guess is she would have gone on happily losing, and still be so doing now, if she hadn't hit a big one.

eCOGRA are entitled to maintain their stance, and are technically in the right.

The casino is using this technicality as an excuse for refusal to pay ANYTHING - not a compromise, goodwill part payment, NOTHING.

This matter should be publicised far and wide, and Bella Vegas should be exposed for what they truly are.