Casino Club confiscates a 25000 euro deposit, a 167500 euro jackpot and effectively accuses Boss Media of rigged software

Casino Club confiscates a 25000 euro deposit, a 167500 euro jackpot and effectively accuses Boss Media of rigged software

Since this article is rather long, I've broken it down into twelve sections.


Deposits and jackpot hit
Confiscation of €198,756 and Casino Club response
Solicitor's letter
Summary of main points of the letter
Analysis of the arguments and claims
   •Prediction software
   •Female account
   •Possibility of legal action
Casino Club claims "false address" for the player
Is this what really happened?
The progressive jackpot doesn't belong to the casino
Total confiscated funds include the deposits of €25,000

Deposits and jackpot hit

In late July 2008, player "Mike64" deposited €25,000 at Casino Club, subject of my recent €8000 theft article.

Casino Club was running a 20% bonus campaign at the time, and the player accordingly received €5000 in bonuses.


A week later, on 3rd August 2008 and after some blackjack play, "Mike64" switched to playing a video poker game with a big progressive jackpot - and hit it at €167,500, increasing his balance to €198,756.

The winning hand can be seen in the player's game logs...






...and the hit was confirmed in the newsletter:

The month could not have started any better for our member Mike64, with a video poker jackpot win of €167. Well done!

Confiscation of €198,756 and Casino Club response

However, when the player subsequently logged into his account, it was locked, and he was apparently unable to ascertain why.

After months of no contact with the casino, the player posted his experience at a German casino forum, and the matter was also raised at Casinomeister.

The player filed a complaint with Casinomeister, and was banned very quickly:

Apparently the casino is taking legal action against this player who has misrepresented himself (and his PAB for that matter). From what I gather, he has given a false address so it's difficult to send him the legal papers.

Max told the guy that we were putting his PAB on hold until the legal stuff is cleared up. But since it looks as though this is ANOTHER case of player fraud at CC, we've suspended his account.

The player was barred because it "looks like" fraud, an unsubstantiated allegation on the part of the casino.

So, again, it's "guilty until proven innocent" in Casinomeister land when Casino Club is the subject of the discussion.


This was the Casino Club response:

A player that was found to be, beyond any reasonable doubt, a fraudulent player, connected to a group of BOT and Bonus Abusers.

This player, and others connected to him, managed to "win" and withdraw considerable amounts of money from Casino Club during first half of 2008 (and earlier) through non-allowed gaming behavior.

Using money "won" in non-allowed gaming behavior, this player won a Jackpot in Casino Club.

At the same time period, a legal case was opened against this player, all related accounts closed pending a resolution of this case.

Likewise all money won in Jackpot is frozen pending resolution.

Solicitor's letter

The "legal case" that Casino Club refers to is simply a solicitor's letter, sent to the player by Hambach & Hambach, a legal firm specialising in gambling law, telling the player "Mike64" why Casino Club did not plan on paying him any time soon.

Here is a reasonable translation of the relevant parts of the original German - I've highlighted the important bits:

After an inspection of your personal data and player account...your IP data as well as your blackjack play showed evidence of suspicious activity, which is why your account was blocked and we were instructed to undertake the investigation.


Suspicious activities

Based on your login data of June 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and July 6th 2008 at Casino Club, patterns of play have been noted in most of your blackjack sessions which have ascertained and confirmed, unambiguously, the use of illegal software programs...which made statistical predictions to calculate play strategy. You did this to gain (financial) advantage.

The play sessions in question, of June and July 2008, correspond to such patterns of software-supported play which are expressly prohibited at Casino Club, as stated in the general terms and conditions.

Upon registering at Casino Club you agreed to the general terms of business; they include, amongst other things, provisions for abuse.


1) In point 22 of the "terms of business" you agreed to the use of no unlawful software or automatic play programmes. The examination of your login data and the pattern of your play points unambiguously to the fact that you infringed this clause.

2) Based on the investigation of your play (use of so-called "bots") our client is authorised to close your accounts and withhold any profits.

3) Additionally, our client has evidence pointing to another infringement of the terms of business, namely an infringement of 12 of the "commercial condition". This relates to the infringement of the rule stating that a user of Casino Club may only have one account. According to the information currently available you have at least one other player account with female contact data.


Legal results

On the basis of this investigation, fraudulent behaviour is technically and legally proven.

Accordingly, you are prohibited from having accounts with Casino Club with immediate effect.

We ask you to refrain from making any further payment inquiries to our client or the payment support team.

Because the profits from the above-mentioned activities were used for subsequent game play, your account, username and password have been deleted. No claim to the original account balance exists.

Additionally, we maintain the right to claim for damages on behalf of our client, caused by your illegal activity and contrary to the terms of the agreement. This includes any costs incurred through a legal defence.

In addition, we have informed our client of our findings of wilful deception, and that an appropriate judicial procedure could be initiated.

Summary of main points of the letter

There are three main points here:

1) The player used a programme that was able to effectively circumvent the software's random number generator and enable the player to play in such a way as to gain a statistical edge. The casino has this information "ascertained and confirmed, unambiguously".

2) There is an additional account with "female contact data" in this player's possession.

3) The lawyers have told the casino that legal proceedings could be initiated.

Analysis of the arguments and claims

Taking these matters in order:

1) Prediction software

The casino's claim that the player used "illegal software programs which made statistical predictions to calculate play strategy" ranks amongst the most absurd, risable claims I have ever seen from an online casino. Casino Club is effectively accusing their software provider, Boss Media (and, as such, accusing THEMSELVES), of using non-random software - because if software is random and fair it is not possible, however you organise your wagers or play your cards, to gain an edge. If the impossible were possible, casinos would simply not exist.

Casino Club and their lawyers would do worse than read Michael Shakleford's article "The truth about betting systems", a subject they are clearly ignorant about. The only way it would be possible to get an advantage over the Boss Media software would be if there were a non-random element that could be predicted.


Boss Media software is tested and certified by Technical Systems Testing, a globally-regarded software testing company for terrestrial and interactive / online gambling systems.

TST has tested and certified Boss Media software - see this TST certification of Boss Media RNG letter:

It is TST's position that the Boss Media core RNG generates outcomes that are fairly distributed, sufficiently non-predictable and unbiased to any particular outcomes.

Now compare this to the solicitor's letter, where the player is accused of...

...the use of illegal software programs which made statistical predictions to calculate play strategy.

As such, in addition to accusing the player of the impossible, Casino Club is accusing 1) Boss Media of non-random software and 2) TST of not doing its job correctly.

I wonder how Boss Media and TST feel about this?


To compound this absurd and dangerous allegation, Casino Club claims that all this is "ascertained and confirmed, unambiguously".


Where is the proof, then? Is Boss Media aware that their software is "ascertained and confirmed, unambiguously" to be non-random, when their own testing facility has issued a certification based on the direct opposite?

Has TST now confirmed that Boss Media's RNG is "ascertained and confirmed, unambiguously" non-random?

This claim on the part of Casino Club is ignorant and idiotic beyond description.

2) Female account

The solicitor's letter's second point, that of an "additional account with female contact data", is mentioned right at the end of the accusations, taking second place to the preposterous "illegal prediction software" claim. One would have to assume therefore that the evidence for this is even shakier than the non-evidence of the "prediction software". Why would this rather standard online casino winnings confiscation excuse not take centre stage? It would have at least the credibility of the commonplace, if still totally unproven. Yet they position it almost as an afterthought.

My guess would be that the evidence for this is very shaky, and almost certainly legally unsubstantiatable.

3) Possibility of legal action

The lawyer letter's concluding remarks are important to read in conjunction with the Casino Club statement:

We maintain the right to claim for damages on behalf of our client.

In addition, we have informed our client of our findings of wilful deception, and that an appropriate judicial procedure could be initiated.

Casino Club said something very different:

At the same time period, a legal case was opened against this player, all related accounts closed pending a resolution of this case.

This is incorrect. There is no "legal case".

The lawyer letter above, which would cost about a hundred euros to have sent, does not represent a court case or the notification of any such pending procedure. It simply states the situation and that rights are reserved to take further action as and when.

So why does casino claim that "...a legal case was opened against this player"?


Irrespective of Casino Club's misinterpretation of a solicitor letter as a "legal case", one has to ask: why does the solicitor even raise this issue? What might the casino claim from the player?

Before depositing for these bonuses totalling €5000, giving a starting balance total of €30,000, the player's account was empty. Whatever deposits and withdrawals had been previously made, these were out of his casino account.

So, does the lawyer "maintain the right to claim for damages" and state that "appropriate judicial procedure could be initiated" on the basis of withdrawals previously made? Clearly they will not mount an "appropriate judicial procedure" on the basis of money which they owe the player - you do not sue people for money you owe them, it's the other way round.

To confiscate €198,000 from a player's account and then suggest that they might also take legal action against him is an extraordinarily bizarre situation.

It is equally bizarre for Casino Club to state that there is a "legal case" in process when there is no more than a solicitor's letter indicating that such a thing may occur at some future date.

Casino Club claims "false address" for the player

Also bizarre is the claim on the part of Casino Club that the player supplied them with a "false address". This remarkable allegation was passed on second hand by Bryan "Casinomeister" Bailey.

And he was pretty insistent about it:

From what I gather, he has given a false address so it's difficult to send him the legal papers.

The guy has not given the casino a legit address, and has not contacted their lawyers via email.

The player won't give them an address to send the legal docs to, and he won't contact the lawyers via email.

The player has been given the lawyer's email address, but refuses to contact them.

I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.

For all Bailey's insistence, this allegation is actually technically impossible on several proven levels:


Upon depositing at a Boss Media casino, you are sent PIN number and security code to your home address. The last time I used Boss Media, the security code was required to deposit sums greater than (if I recall correctly) $500, and also to withdraw.

The reason for this is to ensure that the address you provide is legitimate, which actually exists and you haven't stolen someone's identity.


The player in this case received, as normal, his security code to his home address - he effectively confirmed this in his initial post at the German forum:

Can you ask please ask on what grounds they closed my account? I can give you the PIN number.

He confirmed receipt of the security code and PIN number when I asked for clarification:

The PIN number and security-code only via mail to my home address.

Additionally, the player was also required to provide some utility bills as proof of address, which would have been required to process his previous withdrawals. The casino confirmed receipt of these documents to the player, and since Casino Club mentioned those previous withdrawals in their statement above, they have essentially confirmed receipt of these address verification documents themselves publically, as he could not have received withdrawals without having sent them.


So:

1) The player received his security code and PIN to his registered address, and used those numbers as required for his transactions.

2) He further corroborated his address with household utility documents, receipt of which Casino Club has confirmed.

Yet Casino Club claims, in spite of the proof to the contrary, that the player's address is "illegitimate" and "not real".

This can only be a lie.

Is this what really happened?

The following is my opinion of the truth of the matter; I believe it accounts for all the absurd allegations and inconsistent, illogical and bizzare "legal" claims and misrepresentations. I also believe it sets a dangerous precedent for the online gambler:


• Player wins a lot of money at Casino Club.

• The casino cites a load of unsubstantiatable nonsense as justification for not paying - retrospective allegations of "long-term abuse", use of "prediction software", suggestions of a secondary "account with female contact data". However, none of this is likely to stick, so...

• The casino then pays a lawyer to send a letter to the player, a letter which will include all the above, plus some suggestions regarding the casino's right to take further action against the player - irrespective of the fact that it is the casino that has taken the player's money.

• The casino then claims that the letter, with the suggestions of subsequent possible legal action, represents a "legal case", and as such everything is frozen until the "case" is concluded.

• Since there is no actual case, it can never be concluded. You cannot conclude that which does not exist.

• The casino therefore "freezes" the money forever, ie. keeps it.


This is a very dangerous precedent to be setting: it's a generally accepted fact that genuine legal proceedings put things on hold and stifle public comment. As such, in order to not pay out on a big win, a casino can pay a lawyer a few euros to write a letter, claim that this legal communication represents a "court case", and that its hands are therefore tied until the conclusion of the "legal procedure", which will never happen because it doesn't exist.

A solicitor's letter must not now become an excuse for a casino to conveniently renege on a large payment.

The progressive jackpot doesn't belong to the casino

The €167,500 jackpot in question does not belong to Casino Club. This is a progressive jackpot, fed by players' wagers, and it ALWAYS belongs to the players: either to the player in question, "Mike64", or the game it came from. Casino Club must either pay it to the player who hit it, or return it to the jackpot pool for other players to continue chasing.

But they are not going to do this, because there is a "legal case pending".

And since the "legal case" in question does not appear to exist beyond a solicitor's letter, it will never be anything other than "pending".

And as such, Casino Club will keep the money.

Total confiscated funds include the deposits of €25,000

Of course, the €167,500 jackpot is not the only money that Casino Club is withholding.

Prior to hitting the jackpot, the player deposited €25,000 into his account, receiving bonus money of €5000.

That €25,000 deposit belongs exclusively to the player. The winnings may be under discussion, as may be the €5000 bonus, but the money the player deposited belongs to him.

It came out of the player's online wallet / bank account.

It went into the player's Casino Club account.

It belongs to the player alone.

Casino Club has stolen this money.


So, in summary:

• Casino Club has stolen deposits to the sum of €25,000.

• It is also withholding jackpot winnings totalling €167,500.

• Casino Club has essentially accused their own software, provided by Boss Media, of being non-random.


And let's not forget: Casino Club is a Casinomeister accredited casino

Oh dear.

Page top

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed