Non payment

Hello

Where can I publish in this forum about an online casino that won't pay me $14,000

You can put it right here in this thread.

Quote: utanfu2

Hello

Where can I publish in this forum about an online casino that won't pay me $14,000
link to original post

We'd love to read about it, but please relay the facts calmly.

Here are the facts

I won $14,000 at INETBET.COM , I won the random jackpot at Paydirt and was never paid my winnings.

Right after they denied my winnings they went to change the terms and conditioned and added my country to the restricted country list.

They offered to pay $2000 in order to resolve the issue thru Casinomeister Pitch bitch process – I refused to accept their offer

When I registered and played on October 1st 2022 Switzerland was not in the list of banned countries (now it is listed as a banned country in the faq section)


The casino admitted they added the terms right after I won and gave this excuse for not paying.



Hi Aharon,



Upon review of your account it has come to our attention that you are residing in a country where it is not permitted by law for us to accept your wagers.



While we make every effort to comply with regulations, it is ultimately your responsibility to determine the legality of any activity prior to participating.



As such we have refunded your full deposit amount via the method you used to make your purchases and have permanently closed your account.


Kind Regards

Support


I had my documents approved there before I won the big amount. The documents included a fax back form with my name and full address, photo holding the form and my ID and bill.

If you check now the FAQ - 'can I play at inetbet ?' my country is mentioned there as not allowed


If you go to google cached from 13 of October you will see Switzerland is not there in the list

The casino is licensed in Curacao and accept and pay US players.

They offered you $2k and you didn’t take it???? Are you going to go to Curaçao and sue them?

It’s a harsh reality, but if an online casino decides to screw you, you generally have little recourse.

Does $2000. represent a net win or net loss for you?


When a U.S. or European company does something wrong, there are agencies to which a U.S. or European resident may complain. Are there any that may apply any pressure on a Curacao company?

the $2000 is net win for me but they can keep the $2000 for themselves.

When you win in a casino you expect them to pay. This casino is a Casinomeister Accredited Casino and Casinomeister is the one that contacted them and got the offer of $2000 - I think it is a shame.

Welcome to WoV, by the way! My apologies that CM seems to have prevented you from further discussing this over there.

Yes, I was very disappointed

Do other online casinos prevent residents of Switzerland from placing online wagers. That is, is it correct Swiss law prohibits online gambling outside their borders?

If so, then you're going to have a hard time getting any agency/regulator/muscle to get your 14k.

Quote: utanfu2

the $2000 is net win for me but they can keep the $2000 for themselves.

When you win in a casino you expect them to pay. This casino is a Casinomeister Accredited Casino and Casinomeister is the one that contacted them and got the offer of $2000 - I think it is a shame.
link to original post

You can also file a complaint at lcb.org they seem to help even if you didn't sign up through them.

Did Casinomeister take them off their Accredited Casino list? Probably not.

Big Affiliate sites have the power to put the hurt on online casinos that do this type of stuff, they can drastically reduce the BS if they were to band together and refuse to list the sites and blacklist them for stuff like this. I would guess 80% of their customers come from affiliates.
Inetbet has been around for a long time, they have a good reputation.

Did they add the 14k jackpot back to the pool?

They didn't return the money to the pool ,why to return money they took from me, isn't it obvious they wanted simply to avoid their loss and steal the funds

The casinomeister was very dishonest with me as well - he told me -' you shouldn't have played there from the first place.'

The one that did a honest unbiased report was Steve Russo from Gambling Grumbles

Quote: utanfu2

They didn't return the money to the pool ,why to return money they took from me, isn't it obvious they wanted simply to avoid their loss and steal the funds

The casinomeister was very dishonest with me as well - he told me -' you shouldn't have played there from the first place.'

The one that did a honest unbiased report was Steve Russo from Gambling Grumbles
link to original post

Why are you saying casinomeister was dishonest when he said you shouldn’t have played their in the first place? Since they weren’t going to pay you if you won, and I’m sure they would NOT have given you your money back if you lost, it is clear that YOU SHOULDNT HAVE PLAYED THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Frankly, nothing can be MORE true.

Your story is why I wouldn’t touch any online casino that isn’t US sanctioned/regulated.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: utanfu2

the $2000 is net win for me but they can keep the $2000 for themselves.

When you win in a casino you expect them to pay. This casino is a Casinomeister Accredited Casino and Casinomeister is the one that contacted them and got the offer of $2000 - I think it is a shame.
link to original post

You can also file a complaint at lcb.org they seem to help even if you didn't sign up through them.
(snip)
link to original post

Quite a few years ago, I found askgamblers.com great in helping me get my money back^^^ (I am "geo-locked", so can't access that site easily, anymore).

^^^: This was before the "restricted countries" thing became normal though, so it may not work for you, but anything is worth trying (especially for $14k).

----
Extra info:
Also, almost a year and a half ago I was in a similar situation where I "supposedly won" over $125k from a "special promo", but they decided to use the old "we have confiscated your winnings and funds because you are betting from a restricted country".

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: utanfu2

They didn't return the money to the pool ,why to return money they took from me, isn't it obvious they wanted simply to avoid their loss and steal the funds

The casinomeister was very dishonest with me as well - he told me -' you shouldn't have played there from the first place.'

The one that did a honest unbiased report was Steve Russo from Gambling Grumbles
link to original post

Why are you saying casinomeister was dishonest when he said you shouldn’t have played their in the first place? Since they weren’t going to pay you if you won, and I’m sure they would NOT have given you your money back if you lost, it is clear that YOU SHOULDNT HAVE PLAYED THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Frankly, nothing can be MORE true.

Your story is why I wouldn’t touch any online casino that isn’t US sanctioned/regulated.
link to original post

Here's what I gather from the CM thread as undisputed getting a *** and my reading of the thread getting no ***:

1.) Evidently, Switzerland has some sort of restriction in place (as claimed by INetBet and CM) that makes Switzerland a prohibited country.***

2.) OP was able to sign up for the site anyway.***

3.) OP checked to make sure Switzerland was not on the restricted list; it wasn't.***

4.) OP his a 17k random jackpot and attempted to withdraw 14k.***

5.) INetBet declined on the grounds that Switzerland is a prohibited country and they cannot legally offer their online casino there.***

6.) iNetBet then added Switzerland to the list of prohibited countries.***

7.) iNetBet refunded the initial deposit.***

8.) OP says INetBet had previously received documents that left no doubt he was in Switzerland. Evidently, the casino representative also did not realize Switzerland was prohibited. ***

9.) CM says the casino would be breaking the law to payout on winnings, but then CM also says that a settlement of $2,000 was offered and OP refused. One can't help but wonder how the casino can legally pay $2,000 if they cannot legally pay the winnings.***

10.) CM admits this sucks for the player and states that, "...it wasn't their (the player's) fault, depending on how you look at it."

So, evidently, the list of restricted countries now exists as a mere courtesy and the casino, seemingly, isn't responsible to pay out a player winnings if they:

A.) Do not prevent the player from signing up in the first place.

B.) Do not have the country on their restricted list.

AND:

C.) Receive documents from the player indicating that the player is in what iNetBet's own staff should know is a prohibited country and takes no action at that time.

To thier ever so small credit, CM does admit that the casino screwed up and Switzerland should have been listed as restricted.

11.) Of course, that was the first post from that person. A later post as much as said it's OP's job to know his country is restricted and it's not the, "Casino's job," to make the OP respect the laws of OP's country.

12.) I wonder if there are any other iNetBet players from Switzerland and whether or not all will receive refunds on all lifetime deposits, at least, any taking place after INetBet's operation there became illegal.

13.) CM also uses verbiage such as, "The jackpot you think you won," even though I don't believe OP hitting the jackpot was ever actually in dispute.

14.) CM then basically said OP would not be allowed to, 'Hammer away,' at the casino, but other people could still comment on it.

15.) OP made another post and was promptly banned from the thread and told any new thread creation on this topic would result in a site ban.

16.) CM refers to the casino's offered resolution as, "A generous offer," and also makes statements such as, "You could have had a decent Christmas. But that was your choice."

And then the thread will eventually be forgotten about. You can read it for yourself, if you like. I'm obviously not going to link to them. CM gonna CM, G.

I like how they only got snarky after they had banned OP from the thread and told him he could not comment on the subject elsewhere. Keeping it classy over there, guys, you're doing the Lord's work.

Quote: Mission146

9.) CM says the casino would be breaking the law to payout on winnings, but then CM also says that a settlement of $2,000 was offered and OP refused. One can't help but wonder how the casino can legally pay $2,000 if they cannot legally pay the winnings.***

Easy, the $2,000 would be a settlement of a customer dispute and not a gambling win.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

9.) CM says the casino would be breaking the law to payout on winnings, but then CM also says that a settlement of $2,000 was offered and OP refused. One can't help but wonder how the casino can legally pay $2,000 if they cannot legally pay the winnings.***

Easy, the $2,000 would be a settlement of a customer dispute and not a gambling win.
link to original post

Doesn’t come close to passing the sniff test! If they can give him $2000 to settle a customer dispute, they can give him $14,000 to settle a customer dispute.

To me what is amazing about this thread is that anyone is actually surprised that an online casino registered in Curaçao is not acting ethically! Who could’ve thought!?

(Originally, I read this as you won 1,400, which made the 2k seem like a great deal I know now that this is wrong).

Honestly, I would just take the 2K and file it in your brain as an expensive lesson to not gamble at any online casino that is not State regulated.

Unless you have a relative who is a lawyer in (I am not even going to attempt to spell that country), its not worth it..... Or, you can just further cut your losses and not deal with trying to collect the 2k (which is sounds like you are leaning towards) to just get them out of your life. Either option is fine in my view. But, you are not going to see the 14k, and at a certain point you have to factor in the costs of your time and mental stress trying to resolve this issue.

If it were me, I would accept the 2k and them promptly demand that they delete my account and information (which they probably will not, and not much you can do about it, but it's worth putting in writing).

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

9.) CM says the casino would be breaking the law to payout on winnings, but then CM also says that a settlement of $2,000 was offered and OP refused. One can't help but wonder how the casino can legally pay $2,000 if they cannot legally pay the winnings.***

Easy, the $2,000 would be a settlement of a customer dispute and not a gambling win.
link to original post

Could they settle for half? $5,000? Seems like it.

I don’t know why the 2k is the first and last offer, necessarily.

Did you sign up for the site through CM?

I guess I could understand if you didn’t sign up through their link, but it still shows that CM, apparently, has nothing but disdain and contempt for online players. That surprised me the most. Why shouldn’t you feel like you’re entitled to the jackpot you hit?

I will say it was nice of them to try to help if you didn’t sign up through CM’s site, but I still don’t see the need to bend over backwards to say it’s partially your fault, refer to 1/7th of the amount as a, “Generous offer,” and then to ban you from your complaint thread and kick some dirt on you on the way out.

If you signed up through CM, then their behavior is just astounding.

Reminder - FTX is soooo Bahamian!

I think if Brian Bailey mark a casino as an accredited casino and at the same time tells me it was my mistake to register and play there from the first place is very dishonest.

I played at couple more RTG casinos and other software that accepted my country and had no issue. How can it be my mistake ? they had a list of banned countries and Swiss was not one of them. They accepted me as a player and also approved my documents that included a fax back form and photo holding the form.

What is exactly my mistake ? every country has laws against gambling which is not licensed in the country so all of you here breach the laws of your own country when you play - or lets agree over 50% of the community breach some laws when they play. and look how he treated me in the forum ? do you think it is hoest or dishonest? There are things you don't know that made me sure that both Max and Brian were dishonest with me in the process of mediation. It doesn't matter if I used their site to register inetbet or not - when you put yourself as a mediator you immediately being judged for your actions as a mediator.

I suggest reading gambling grumbles report - I think it is a honest report of what they did to me.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

9.) CM says the casino would be breaking the law to payout on winnings, but then CM also says that a settlement of $2,000 was offered and OP refused. One can't help but wonder how the casino can legally pay $2,000 if they cannot legally pay the winnings.***

Easy, the $2,000 would be a settlement of a customer dispute and not a gambling win.
link to original post

Doesn’t come close to passing the sniff test! If they can give him $2000 to settle a customer dispute, they can give him $14,000 to settle a customer dispute.

To me what is amazing about this thread is that anyone is actually surprised that an online casino registered in Curaçao is not acting ethically! Who could’ve thought!?
link to original post

I don't disagree. As long as it is framed as a payment for a non-gambling reason they can probably give him anything. I think they are cheating him.

Quote: utanfu2

I think if Brian Bailey mark a casino as an accredited casino and at the same time tells me it was my mistake to register and play there from the first place is very dishonest.

I wouldn't exactly say dishonest; let's just say it's a weird argument for him to make considering that United States (I don't really know the laws of other countries all too well) players play on casinos that should technically not legally operate within their own states all the time. Of course, the United States is a huge market, so I would be surprised if an online casino used this argument and then proceeded to add the United States to the banned list; they'd lose too many potential customers that way.

Quote:

I played at couple more RTG casinos and other software that accepted my country and had no issue. How can it be my mistake ? they had a list of banned countries and Swiss was not one of them. They accepted me as a player and also approved my documents that included a fax back form and photo holding the form.

I've agreed with you on this. I don't think anyone here on WoV has disagreed with you as to this point. If they did, I missed it.

Quote:

What is exactly my mistake ? every country has laws against gambling which is not licensed in the country so all of you here breach the laws of your own country when you play - or lets agree over 50% of the community breach some laws when they play. and look how he treated me in the forum ? do you think it is hoest or dishonest? There are things you don't know that made me sure that both Max and Brian were dishonest with me in the process of mediation. It doesn't matter if I used their site to register inetbet or not - when you put yourself as a mediator you immediately being judged for your actions as a mediator.

I suggest reading gambling grumbles report - I think it is a honest report of what they did to me.
link to original post

I'm not going to speak as to, "Honesty or dishonesty," because I don't think honesty is at issue here. After all, he told you what the casino's explanation was, and CM admits that the casino screwed up in not having Switzerland on the prohibited country list. I will say that saying things like, "You could have had a decent Christmas. But that was your choice.," is a bit ridiculous...especially when you can't even reply in that thread any longer.

That said, I don't think he's being dishonest because he's just relating what the casino's offer was. As far as I know, he does not, personally, run iNetBet and is in no position to dictate to them what they should offer.

Whether or not you signed up through them is something that I asked because I have to give credit to CM for attempting to help you at all if you did not sign up through them. I'm definitely on your side when it comes to this issue, but I'm not going to be unfair about it.

If you did not sign up through them, then whatever the result, it has to be said that it was nice of them to try to help you in the first place. Their treatment of you after you declined the resolution was terrible, but trying to help you in the first place was nice. It seems to me that CM might have been offended that they went out of their way to help you (if you didn't sign up through them) and you didn't take the offer. You still shouldn't talk to players like that, though.

If there are things that I don't know, then I have no idea why you are not stating them. It certainly doesn't appear as if doing so would change the outcome. I can only opine on the things that I can look at, so saying, "There are things you don't know," is a bit of a non-mover for me.

Feel free to link to the GG report in a post. It probably won't appear because you don't have enough posts yet, but I will be able to see it and I can copy it into one of my posts, if you wish. You're not advertising anything, which is the main reason you have to have, I think, ten posts before your links will show up.

Here is the link to the Gambling Grumbles report px?404;:80/reports/inetbet_check-with-your-lawyer

Check with your lawyer

by Steve Russo
November 2022

Gambling Grumbles is a bit stunned to have to write this report. iNetBet's track record with us has always been a good one, but this case is so outlandish that nobody, no matter where he lives, can feel safe in playing at iNetBet without first checking with his lawyer. Aharon S of Switzerland found this out the hard way, with it costing him $14,000.

Casinos, of course, have the right to refuse players from any country that they want -- as long as they post that in their T&Cs before a player wins. iNetBet decided not to allow Swiss players only after Aharon won $14,300.

Most of the facts of this case are agreed to by both the player and the casino:

Let me review the facts which are undisputed:

1. Aharon registered with iNetBet on 1 October 2022. He made an immediate deposit of $100 and received a welcome bonus of $200. He also sent his documents proving his address and ID, and it was approved on 10 October. However, he lost all the money.

2. On 14 October, he made another $200 deposit got and received a 120% bonus of $240 120% bonus. This time he hit the Paydirt jackpot for $17,000 but as he had not finished his required playthrough, continued playing, lost some of it, but finally cashed out at $14300.

3. At this point, iNetBet told him that it is illegal under Swiss law for him to bet at an internet casino. It also cited its FAQ which reads, "If you are in one of the following countries you are not permitted to create a new account and play for real money" and Switzerland is, indeed, listed there. However, Aharon says that Switzerland was not on the list when he registered, deposited, played, and won. Additionally, he has a screenshot from 13 October of the casino's FAQs and, Switzerland is not on it. Moreover, the casino admitted that they "screwed up a bit in that their terms were not up to date regarding Swiss players."

We should also point out that the FAQ says that prohibitions on playing from residents of the prohibited countries applied to those creating "a new account" and as Aharon opened his account when Switzerland was not yet on the list, his account would not be considered a new one.

This brings us to the last point -- that it is illegal for Swiss residents to play at internet casinos. This may or may not be correct, we do not know. However, if it is right it would apply to casinos operating in that country, not to the player, and as the casino is licensed in Curacao, it is immaterial. This is why iNetBet is able to accept (and pay) players in the United States, where it is also against the law. As it was able to refund Mr. Aharon his $300 in deposits, it clearly has the ability to send money to Switzerland. (Indeed, Aharon has told us that iNetBet is willing to settle this dispute by paying him $2000, but he doesn't agree to it.)

When we wrote to iNetBet, we were told "iNetBet prides itself on offering all our players exciting games, fast payouts and excellent customer service. Unfortunately, some countries have passed laws that prevent us from offering these services to everyone.

"We cannot reasonably undertake to review the legality of online gaming for every jurisdiction, in every country in the world, on an ongoing basis. As such, the first item of our terms of service clearly defines that it is the player's responsibility to determine the legality of their actions prior to participating. Where we become aware of illegal activity on the part of the player we will refund the purchases made as appropriate, and close the account."

Yet that is not how it works. In the United States, for example, a few states allow online gambling -- but only to residents of its particular state. In other words, if an online casino is licensed in New Jersey, a player cannot bet at that casino in any other state, and definitely not at a casino in another country. As a practical matter, however, this prohibition is not aimed at the player -- it is aimed at the casino. Still, iNetBet has long allowed Americans to play there, nor is the US listed as one of the banned countries in the casino's T&Cs.

We have to wonder if iNetBet would pay an American who wins $14,000 or if it suddenly discovers that online betting is not legal in the US. What about players in other countries? According to the answer we received, it is the player's responsibility to check the law in his own country. If you are in India, Mongolia, Iceland, or any other jurisdiction not listed in the casino's T&Cs you would have to get an attorney and have him research this for you. In real life, who is actually going to do this?

Parts of quote clipped:

Oh, now I see why CM thought the offer was so generous, it's because you're not a big player. The Christmas dig actually comes off as being a lot colder now than it did before; I'd originally just found it offensive, but now he's trying to say that the 2k would have meant a lot to you.

I still hold that it was nice of them to try to help you if you did not sign up through the CM site, but the way they talked to you after you declined the offer was deplorable. It sounds to me as if you did not sign up through their site or you would just say you signed up through their site. Since that would make CM look worse, and you are not saying you did, I assume you did not. It still doesn't excuse what they said to you after you refused the offer.

Quote:

3. At this point, iNetBet told him that it is illegal under Swiss law for him to bet at an internet casino. It also cited its FAQ which reads, "If you are in one of the following countries you are not permitted to create a new account and play for real money" and Switzerland is, indeed, listed there. However, Aharon says that Switzerland was not on the list when he registered, deposited, played, and won. Additionally, he has a screenshot from 13 October of the casino's FAQs and, Switzerland is not on it. Moreover, the casino admitted that they "screwed up a bit in that their terms were not up to date regarding Swiss players."

We should also point out that the FAQ says that prohibitions on playing from residents of the prohibited countries applied to those creating "a new account" and as Aharon opened his account when Switzerland was not yet on the list, his account would not be considered a new one.

Haha! They nailed iNetBet to the cross on that point! It doesn't even say that you can't play from an existing account and Switzerland wasn't listed to begin with.

The one thing that I will say might be incorrect, but perhaps Steve Russo looked into it, is that it's possible that Switzerland has laws that say you can't play there. While there are no laws prohibiting players in the United States (as a whole) some individual states, such as Utah, do have laws that make it specifically illegal for a player to play online.

Of course, if iNetBet's excuse is that they cannot legally operate in Switzerland, well, they cannot legally operate anywhere in the United States, either, but I doubt they would do this same tactic in the United States just because they would be losing so many potential players. I think Switzerland's total population is less than ten million, right? We have a few states more populated than that.

Quote:

"We cannot reasonably undertake to review the legality of online gaming for every jurisdiction, in every country in the world, on an ongoing basis. As such, the first item of our terms of service clearly defines that it is the player's responsibility to determine the legality of their actions prior to participating. Where we become aware of illegal activity on the part of the player we will refund the purchases made as appropriate, and close the account."

Why the hell couldn't they? They are basically saying that it is unreasonable for them to be asked to know where they are, or are not, allowed to operate. That argument makes no sense. The state-regulated casinos in the U.S. know what states they are allowed to operate in. You don't see something like DraftKings operating in Texas and then hiding behind, "Oh, we can't reasonably undertake to review the legality of what states we can or cannot operate in."

Also, why they are so concerned with players breaking jurisdictional laws when they break jurisdictional laws themselves, knowingly, I might add, all the time!

I'm also curious as to whether or not they refunded all players from Switzerland, assuming they had any others.

My Theory

I actually agree with GG's theory on this one.

My theory is that they saw you were from Switzerland and hit that jackpot. They also looked at your two deposits you made in your life and noticed that both of those deposits were for, no offense, small amounts. I tend to think that they took a look at how much action they were getting from the country of Switzerland, saw that it is not very much, and decided that they would simply save 14k by coming up with this excuse and saying that they can't pay you.

Anyway, iNetBet is not legally permitted to operate in ANY U.S. state that I am aware of, so while I doubt this would happen, I would have to say that I would not personally play at iNetBet out of concern that they could conceivably use this excuse with me. I doubt that they would, because there is a much larger pool of potential players in the United States, but they conceivably could. Even with my doubts that they would do this to a U.S. player, I don't think that gives them the right to kick players from small countries around and no-pay them if they hit some jackpot or another.

Either way, I will say that CM's treatment of you after the fact was abysmal, but it was nice of them to at least try to help if you did not sign up from a link on their site. They can't force the casino to offer you the 14k, so I think they did what they could in that regard. They might have tried to get a higher offer if you had signed up through them, but the fact that they did anything at all is more than they were required to do.

Just spitballing here, but I'd be curious if the casino and its ownership have ties to the Swiss banking community and want to stay on their good side.

The casinomeister can make them pay easily. If you dig to Casinomeister website you will see there are 4 status of casino.

1. Blacklisted casinos
2. non listed casinos which he has no option about
3. Grey Zone casinos - casinos that he advertise but won't give the seal of accredited which means they are not good enough to pass the highest standard of being an accredited casino but usually they offer decent treatment to players.
4. The greatest casinos that are called accredited casinos by Casinomeister. These casinos have to pass very high standard to be kept there and to be accepted there. And there are conditions mentioned in the site of how to become accredited.

We all agree except Casinomeister that Inetbet cheated me - if he just tell Inetbet that he removed them from the accredited casinos list they pay me in a minute (they are an accredited casino). By the way - if they use this excuse not to pay their affiliate Casinomeister his commission because he is located in Germany and we all know the German laws ... he woulud remove them immediately from the accredited and blacklist them.

One more thing - I think you look a bit in a wrong perspective at Casinomeister site. If it was a regular affiliate site yes you are right, the fact the webmaster was willing to help would be much appreciated especially if I didn't register thru his or her site but here this site is different.

Casinomeister announce himself as a watchdog of online casino and also offer a service as a mediator in the forum and pitch a bitch section.

The casinomeister get his reputation and trafficbecause of this fact that he is a watchdog - a mediator.

When you offer mediation service it has to be a honest point of view like Gamblimg Grumbles represent it.

Not like he did - what the casinomeister and max did to me was far from being a honest mediation.

I said before therre are thing you don't know so here is 1 example. Max asked me many times that the offer from Inetbet to me of $2000 must be kept a secret and never go public even if I refuse the offer. He asked me that 3 or 4 times and I promised him it will stay between us.

I kept my promise although it could be used against the casino big time. I could also accept their offer take the 2000 and continue my shaming...but I promised him and kept my promise. all of a sudden I go to the forum and see that Max and the Casinomeistr brought that fact to the public in the forum and not only that they use it as something to attack me ? is this ok ? is it right is it honest ? and look how they are so worry about the casino that is being attacked, and don't attack them please.. and the repeating of them saying and threatening me I shouldn't attack the casino and good word and mouth about how the casino as so good over the years and how reputable they are while they are stealing live money from me. Look how they are worried about the casino not to be hurt. It is a shame and I think dishonest is a nice way to represent these 2 people Max and Casinomeister

Anybody who respect himself, especially if he calls himself a watchdog that gives accreditation to Inetbet after he reads what they did to me is dishonest - super dishonest.

I don't say anybody who advertise them is dishonest I am saying if he gives them the special accreditation that only few casinos get together with announcing himself as a watch dog

Quote: Mission146

Parts of quote clipped:

Oh, now I see why CM thought the offer was so generous, it's because you're not a big player. The Christmas dig actually comes off as being a lot colder now than it did before; I'd originally just found it offensive, but now he's trying to say that the 2k would have meant a lot to you.

I still hold that it was nice of them to try to help you if you did not sign up through the CM site, but the way they talked to you after you declined the offer was deplorable. It sounds to me as if you did not sign up through their site or you would just say you signed up through their site. Since that would make CM look worse, and you are not saying you did, I assume you did not. It still doesn't excuse what they said to you after you refused the offer.

Quote:

3. At this point, iNetBet told him that it is illegal under Swiss law for him to bet at an internet casino. It also cited its FAQ which reads, "If you are in one of the following countries you are not permitted to create a new account and play for real money" and Switzerland is, indeed, listed there. However, Aharon says that Switzerland was not on the list when he registered, deposited, played, and won. Additionally, he has a screenshot from 13 October of the casino's FAQs and, Switzerland is not on it. Moreover, the casino admitted that they "screwed up a bit in that their terms were not up to date regarding Swiss players."

We should also point out that the FAQ says that prohibitions on playing from residents of the prohibited countries applied to those creating "a new account" and as Aharon opened his account when Switzerland was not yet on the list, his account would not be considered a new one.

Haha! They nailed iNetBet to the cross on that point! It doesn't even say that you can't play from an existing account and Switzerland wasn't listed to begin with.

The one thing that I will say might be incorrect, but perhaps Steve Russo looked into it, is that it's possible that Switzerland has laws that say you can't play there. While there are no laws prohibiting players in the United States (as a whole) some individual states, such as Utah, do have laws that make it specifically illegal for a player to play online.

Of course, if iNetBet's excuse is that they cannot legally operate in Switzerland, well, they cannot legally operate anywhere in the United States, either, but I doubt they would do this same tactic in the United States just because they would be losing so many potential players. I think Switzerland's total population is less than ten million, right? We have a few states more populated than that.

Quote:

"We cannot reasonably undertake to review the legality of online gaming for every jurisdiction, in every country in the world, on an ongoing basis. As such, the first item of our terms of service clearly defines that it is the player's responsibility to determine the legality of their actions prior to participating. Where we become aware of illegal activity on the part of the player we will refund the purchases made as appropriate, and close the account."

Why the hell couldn't they? They are basically saying that it is unreasonable for them to be asked to know where they are, or are not, allowed to operate. That argument makes no sense. The state-regulated casinos in the U.S. know what states they are allowed to operate in. You don't see something like DraftKings operating in Texas and then hiding behind, "Oh, we can't reasonably undertake to review the legality of what states we can or cannot operate in."

Also, why they are so concerned with players breaking jurisdictional laws when they break jurisdictional laws themselves, knowingly, I might add, all the time!

I'm also curious as to whether or not they refunded all players from Switzerland, assuming they had any others.

My Theory

I actually agree with GG's theory on this one.

My theory is that they saw you were from Switzerland and hit that jackpot. They also looked at your two deposits you made in your life and noticed that both of those deposits were for, no offense, small amounts. I tend to think that they took a look at how much action they were getting from the country of Switzerland, saw that it is not very much, and decided that they would simply save 14k by coming up with this excuse and saying that they can't pay you.

Anyway, iNetBet is not legally permitted to operate in ANY U.S. state that I am aware of, so while I doubt this would happen, I would have to say that I would not personally play at iNetBet out of concern that they could conceivably use this excuse with me. I doubt that they would, because there is a much larger pool of potential players in the United States, but they conceivably could. Even with my doubts that they would do this to a U.S. player, I don't think that gives them the right to kick players from small countries around and no-pay them if they hit some jackpot or another.

Either way, I will say that CM's treatment of you after the fact was abysmal, but it was nice of them to at least try to help if you did not sign up from a link on their site. They can't force the casino to offer you the 14k, so I think they did what they could in that regard. They might have tried to get a higher offer if you had signed up through them, but the fact that they did anything at all is more than they were required to do.
link to original post

Why do you keep saying "I still hold that it was nice of them to try to help you if you did not sign up through the CM site"

It shouldn't be considered nice of them to do the right thing, especially since they make millions off of players. The nice thing would be to calculate how much money they have made from that casino and pay this guy his his14 grand if its exceeded 14k. I bet if the casino stiffed them for 14k they would immediately add the casino to its rouge list.

Where do they say that's a requirement for their services? Their entire shtick and one of their main draws revolve around the following.

"Advocate of Fair Play Since 1998
Casinomeister has been in operation since June 1998, a lifetime in cyber years. One of the first online casino portals to write online casino reviews, Casinomeister was quick to realize that this industry had failed to establish basic governing principles that fostered security and trust among online gamblers."

We were the first website to assist players who needed help with casino issues. We even coined the phrase “Rogue Casino”. Casinomeister®has been awarding the Best and the Worst in the online casino industry since 2000. And most importantly, we were the first website to create a set of standards for legitimate, trustworthy, reputable casinos to abide by: the Accredited Casino certification.

So, NO, it's not nice of them. That's what they claim to do and it's how they draw players to their site and profit.

I am disappointed by Max and Brian at Casinomeister much more than I am from the casino.

The casino are crooks - ok I fell on crook people there and they stole the money but the Casinomeister I follow for years. I even brought another case of Autumn from Las Vegas from year 2006 that he supported her back then and it is exactly the case as mine.

I watched a a podcast series of Casinomeister and Max about casino fruad. and what Inetbet did to me is excatly what they mentioned both of them talking in the podcast.

The retroactively changing the terms... and more in my story were all mentioned in their podcast of casino fraud.

It is a shame how they treated me and banned me from the thread as if I am the bad in the story and not they casino - they should ban the casino not me.

and the way they protect the casino in every response is simply disgusting.

Quote: AxelWolf

Why do you keep saying "I still hold that it was nice of them to try to help you if you did not sign up through the CM site"
It shouldn't be considered nice of them to do the right thing, especially since they make millions off of players. The nice thing would be to calculate how much money they have made from that casino and pay this guy his his14 grand. I bet if the casino stiffed them for 14k they would immediately add the casino to its rouge list.

Where do they say that's a requirement for their services? Their entire shtick and one of their main draws revolve around the following.

"Advocate of Fair Play Since 1998
Casinomeister has been in operation since June 1998, a lifetime in cyber years. One of the first online casino portals to write online casino reviews, Casinomeister was quick to realize that this industry had failed to establish basic governing principles that fostered security and trust among online gamblers."

We were the first website to assist players who needed help with casino issues. We even coined the phrase “Rogue Casino”. Casinomeister®has been awarding the Best and the Worst in the online casino industry since 2000. And most importantly, we were the first website to create a set of standards for legitimate, trustworthy, reputable casinos to abide by: the Accredited Casino certification.

So, NO, it's not nice of them. That's what they claim to do and it's how they draw players to their site and profit.

Why should CM pay 14k when it is the casino stiffing the player? Do you have reason to believe that CM owns iNetBet or has any direct business/financial interest in iNetBet aside from being an affiliate partner? If not, then CM should not be the one to pay the player; the casino should pay the player. That would be a pretty risky business model to pay players every time the casino no pays on someone and CM would most likely be out of business within weeks. The casinos would say, "Why should we pay anyone? CM will just do it."

That might be what they claim to do, but it's still nice of them; that's all I am saying. I don't think that WoO/WoV intervene directly with casinos unless they are on the WizardofOdds APPROVED list AND the players also sign up through our sites, so that's why I am saying that.

Anyway, no, CM should not pay out of their own accounts what they have made via iNetBet or casinos would stop paying everyone (counting on CM to just do it) and CM would be bankrupt inside of a year. iNetBet should pay this player.

That said, CM's treatment of this player after the player declined the casino's offer remains inexcusable.

Quote:

The casinomeister can make them pay easily. If you dig to Casinomeister website you will see there are 4 status of casino.

1. Blacklisted casinos
2. non listed casinos which he has no option about
3. Grey Zone casinos - casinos that he advertise but won't give the seal of accredited which means they are not good enough to pass the highest standard of being an accredited casino but usually they offer decent treatment to players.
4. The greatest casinos that are called accredited casinos by Casinomeister. These casinos have to pass very high standard to be kept there and to be accepted there. And there are conditions mentioned in the site of how to become accredited.

We have basically the same thing here, except the gold standard is Wizard of Odds APPROVED casinos. If a casino gets the Wizard's seal, then we will intervene and try to mediate between player and casino if there is an issue, but only if the player signed up through one of our affiliate links.

Quote:

We all agree except Casinomeister that Inetbet cheated me - if he just tell Inetbet that he removed them from the accredited casinos list they pay me in a minute (they are an accredited casino). By the way - if they use this excuse not to pay their affiliate Casinomeister his commission because he is located in Germany and we all know the German laws ... he woulud remove them immediately from the accredited and blacklist them.

Yeah, CM seems to think that you share in the blame because somehow it was your job to know either that you couldn't play there or that the casino could not operate there. That's obviously a ridiculous position to take, but again, CM gonna CM, G.

I agree with the rest of your statement, except I don't know how much business iNetBet gets directly from CM. If they don't get a substantial amount of new traffic from CM, then it's possible that they would prefer to keep the 14k rather than their accredited status. I'd have to see the financials to have a strong opinion either way.

Quote:

Casinomeister announce himself as a watchdog of online casino and also offer a service as a mediator in the forum and pitch a bitch section.

The casinomeister get his reputation and trafficbecause of this fact that he is a watchdog - a mediator.

When you offer mediation service it has to be a honest point of view like Gamblimg Grumbles represent it.

Not like he did - what the casinomeister and max did to me was far from being a honest mediation.

I don't know that any of it was, 'Dishonest.' Was everything stated in the CM thread an accurate reflection of what went down? They definitely treated you like garbage after you refused iNetBet's offer...and as much as it may benefit our sites to say that CM was, 'Dishonest,' I'm not going to agree with that statement unless you can demonstrate that they actually lied about something.

I understand that you didn't get the result you wanted, but that doesn't mean they were dishonest. iNetBet was absolutely dishonest; if they can pay you 2k, then they can pay you 14k, but I don't see anything that would lead me to say that CM itself was dishonest. CM themselves were total @$$holes, but I don't see dishonesty.

Quote:

I said before therre are thing you don't know so here is 1 example. Max asked me many times that the offer from Inetbet to me of $2000 must be kept a secret and never go public even if I refuse the offer. He asked me that 3 or 4 times and I promised him it will stay between us.

Okay, so you broke your promise. I don't really care if you broke your promise or not and I don't think that promise should be binding if you do not agree to the offer anyway.

Usually when these things are resolved between players and casinos the mediator will ask for the player not to discuss the situation anymore. That's not a particularly unusual thing to happen. It's not unusual with online casinos, and in formal documents and courts, at least in the U.S.A., this is a common contractual agreement called a, "Non-Disclosure Agreement," so that comes as no surprise.

Homeboy probably just didn't want you talking about it if you didn't get the settlement that would satisfy you, so I bet he's really ticked off. I think he's a complete @$$hole anyway, so let him be ticked off.

That said, if you had agreed to a resolution, then being asked not to discuss the matter any further is quite common. I don't know why you would be asked not to discuss the resolution if you don't accept it, though, that part is weird.

Quote:

I kept my promise although it could be used against the casino big time. I could also accept their offer take the 2000 and continue my shaming...but I promised him and kept my promise. all of a sudden I go to the forum and see that Max and the Casinomeistr brought that fact to the public in the forum and not only that they use it as something to attack me ? is this ok ? is it right is it honest ? and look how they are so worry about the casino that is being attacked, and don't attack them please.. and the repeating of them saying and threatening me I shouldn't attack the casino and good word and mouth about how the casino as so good over the years and how reputable they are while they are stealing live money from me. Look how they are worried about the casino not to be hurt. It is a shame and I think dishonest is a nice way to represent these 2 people Max and Casinomeister

At one time, you might have kept your promise, but you're here now discussing it. I don't think you should be held to that promise unless you actually accept an offer anyway.

Oh yeah, CM staff are totally fellating the casino on this one. Either that, or they're bending over for the casino and taking it right in the you know where; you pick which of the two actions you prefer for them to be doing. That's not unexpected behavior for CM to engage in, from my perspective and just in my own opinion, which may not be the opinion of Wizard, LCB or any of the LCB family of websites.

There's NO REASONABLE WAY this event could ever be construed as your fault, so that argument is totally ridiculous. There's no question that CM is totally selling out for the casino on this one, but that doesn't come as much of a surprise. I still don't think CM should, personally, pay you 14k because the casino should pay that.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: AxelWolf

Why do you keep saying "I still hold that it was nice of them to try to help you if you did not sign up through the CM site"
It shouldn't be considered nice of them to do the right thing, especially since they make millions off of players. The nice thing would be to calculate how much money they have made from that casino and pay this guy his his14 grand. I bet if the casino stiffed them for 14k they would immediately add the casino to its rouge list.

Where do they say that's a requirement for their services? Their entire shtick and one of their main draws revolve around the following.

"Advocate of Fair Play Since 1998
Casinomeister has been in operation since June 1998, a lifetime in cyber years. One of the first online casino portals to write online casino reviews, Casinomeister was quick to realize that this industry had failed to establish basic governing principles that fostered security and trust among online gamblers."

We were the first website to assist players who needed help with casino issues. We even coined the phrase “Rogue Casino”. Casinomeister®has been awarding the Best and the Worst in the online casino industry since 2000. And most importantly, we were the first website to create a set of standards for legitimate, trustworthy, reputable casinos to abide by: the Accredited Casino certification.

So, NO, it's not nice of them. That's what they claim to do and it's how they draw players to their site and profit.

Why should CM pay 14k when it is the casino stiffing the player? Do you have reason to believe that CM owns iNetBet or has any direct business/financial interest in iNetBet aside from being an affiliate partner? If not, then CM should not be the one to pay the player; the casino should pay the player. That would be a pretty risky business model to pay players every time the casino no pays on someone and CM would most likely be out of business within weeks. The casinos would say, "Why should we pay anyone? CM will just do it."

That might be what they claim to do, but it's still nice of them; that's all I am saying. I don't think that WoO/WoV intervene directly with casinos unless they are on the WizardofOdds APPROVED list AND the players also sign up through our sites, so that's why I am saying that.

Anyway, no, CM should not pay out of their own accounts what they have made via iNetBet or casinos would stop paying everyone (counting on CM to just do it) and CM would be bankrupt inside of a year. iNetBet should pay this player.

That said, CM's treatment of this player after the player declined the casino's offer remains inexcusable.
link to original post

I didn't say they should, I said that would be nice of them.

I'm shaking my head that you still believe it's nice of them to do their job and what they claim they do.
---------------------------------------------
That's a WOO/WOV requirement.
Nowhere do I see that to be a requirement of theirs. Feel free to correct me on that aspect

Quote: utanfu2

I am disappointed by Max and Brian at Casinomeister much more than I am from the casino.

The casino are crooks - ok I fell on crook people there and they stole the money but the Casinomeister I follow for years. I even brought another case of Autumn from Las Vegas from year 2006 that he supported her back then and it is exactly the case as mine.

I watched a a podcast series of Casinomeister and Max about casino fruad. and what Inetbet did to me is excatly what they mentioned both of them talking in the podcast.

The retroactively changing the terms... and more in my story were all mentioned in their podcast of casino fraud.

It is a shame how they treated me and banned me from the thread as if I am the bad in the story and not they casino - they should ban the casino not me.

and the way they protect the casino in every response is simply disgusting.
link to original post

Send them one of their own mottos.

"Trust is what holds this industry together. If you don’t have trust, you don’t have anything worth dealing with."
"Casinomeister’s definition of fairness: treating everyone equally – free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Consistent with logic and ethics."

One of the first online casino portals, Casinomeister was quick to realize that this industry had failed to establish basic governing principles that fostered security and trust among online gamblers. As a result, reputable online casinos were constantly forced to carry the burden of the rogue casinos which failed to maintain a standard of quality required by the online gambler. Casinomeister, recognizing the need for these basic standards, stepped into this void and established itself as a beacon of light guiding the Internet gambler to safe and trustworthy online gaming establishments.

Quote: utanfu2

I am disappointed by Max and Brian at Casinomeister much more than I am from the casino.

The casino are crooks - ok I fell on crook people there and they stole the money but the Casinomeister I follow for years. I even brought another case of Autumn from Las Vegas from year 2006 that he supported her back then and it is exactly the case as mine.

I watched a a podcast series of Casinomeister and Max about casino fruad. and what Inetbet did to me is excatly what they mentioned both of them talking in the podcast.

The retroactively changing the terms... and more in my story were all mentioned in their podcast of casino fraud.

It is a shame how they treated me and banned me from the thread as if I am the bad in the story and not they casino - they should ban the casino not me.

and the way they protect the casino in every response is simply disgusting.
link to original post

I don't know what you expect from CM. The casino presented an offer, they relayed that offer, you declined the offer and the casino did not want to make a more reasonable offer. That's basically what happened.

I suspect that CM didn't press harder for a number of reasons:

1.) You did not sign up through their site.
2.) You're not a big player in terms of your deposits. (No offense, but it is what it is)
3.) Switzerland is not an important country for iNetBet, I would assume.
4.) They do not want to delist iNetBet or remove their accreditation.
5.) iNetBet actually does have a decent track record otherwise.
6.) CM probably thought you wouldn't publicly discuss it.

If you're disappointed in the way CM handled it, then your expectations for CM are simply too high. The situation really sucks, but none of these developments are any great surprise to me.

My theory on iNetBet:

1.) You are a small player. (No Offense)
2.) You hit a large jackpot.
3.) They did not expect they would make the money back from you anytime soon.
4.) They do not have many players in Switzerland.

So, iNetBet suddenly realizes that they can't offer services in your country and decides not to pay you. They also claim they can't be held to account to know what countries they can or cannot legally operate in---which is hilarious. They almost certainly knew they can't operate there, so they got out of paying a jackpot is what they did.

I agree that them silencing you, thread banning you and then threatening to site ban you if you brought it up anywhere else is totally ridiculous. Only after you were banned from the thread did the CM account itself start throwing snarky comments and kicking some dirt on you, which is the definition of cowardice.

Honestly, my biggest problem with CM on this is how they treated you in that thread. Obviously, the casino is the entity that stiffed you, not CM. That said, I am not surprised with how CM treated you in the thread---I think that is just how they are as human beings.

Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't say they should, I said that would be nice of them.

I'm shaking my head that you still believe it's nice of them to do their job and what they claim they do.
---------------------------------------------
That's a WOO/WOV requirement.
Nowhere do I see that to be a requirement of theirs. Feel free to correct me on that aspect
link to original post

I know this; I am saying it is a nice service.

I'm going to paraphrase because I am not linking to a competitor, especially not those @$$holes, but:

One of the first things they say is that their program is not a way to force the casinos to pay. They do not guarantee results. That doesn't mean that it's not a player positive service for them to offer, in general terms.

They also state after that it is to remain private and between CM, the aggrieved party and the casino. That's right on the main page. I don't know why that requirement exists and I could only understand where players shouldn't be allowed to discuss it if they agree to the resolution with the casino. If the players don't agree with the resolution, then they should be permitted to talk about it.

That said, CM's own terms right on the page where you submit the complaint say it's supposed to remain private.

I can't believe you are backing me into a corner where I actually have to defend them. I hate those guys, but it doesn't mean that I can throw all fairness out the door, or I would be just like they are, wouldn't I?

Anyway, the resolution sucks. I don't know that you remove accreditation for one incident, but certainly CM should not be bending over backwards to imply that this is, in any way, the player's fault.

Quote:

Max asked me many times that the offer from Inetbet to me of $2000 must be kept a secret and never go public even if I refuse the offer. He asked me that 3 or 4 times and I promised him it will stay between us.

And it's obvious why they want all this stuff kept a secret. It's Because bad press regarding their top earners costs them money.

Their entire "Player’s ArBitration" is filled with... keep your mouth shut and don't make a stink.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote:

Max asked me many times that the offer from Inetbet to me of $2000 must be kept a secret and never go public even if I refuse the offer. He asked me that 3 or 4 times and I promised him it will stay between us.

And it's obvious why they want all this stuff kept a secret. It's Because bad press regarding their top earners costs them money.

Their entire "Player’s ArBitration" is filled with... keep your mouth shut and don't make a stink.
link to original post

I think it's not only that, but if the resolution dispositions are not fully made public, then they can imply whatever success rate they want to and nobody could ever prove it wrong.

Maybe I used the wrong word dishonest but you represented it even better As?hole which is true.

I agree with all being said here but I expected things to be different.

It is also bad for the industry. Other casinos are watching and it gives them an idea on how not to pay and still stay accredited in the Casinomeister or other portals

Quote: Mission146

Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't say they should, I said that would be nice of them.

I'm shaking my head that you still believe it's nice of them to do their job and what they claim they do.
---------------------------------------------
That's a WOO/WOV requirement.
Nowhere do I see that to be a requirement of theirs. Feel free to correct me on that aspect
link to original post

I know this; I am saying it is a nice service.

I'm going to paraphrase because I am not linking to a competitor, especially not those @$$holes, but:

One of the first things they say is that their program is not a way to force the casinos to pay. They do not guarantee results. That doesn't mean that it's not a player positive service for them to offer, in general terms.

They also state after that it is to remain private and between CM, the aggrieved party and the casino. That's right on the main page. I don't know why that requirement exists and I could only understand where players shouldn't be allowed to discuss it if they agree to the resolution with the casino. If the players don't agree with the resolution, then they should be permitted to talk about it.

That said, CM's own terms right on the page where you submit the complaint say it's supposed to remain private.

I can't believe you are backing me into a corner where I actually have to defend them. I hate those guys, but it doesn't mean that I can throw all fairness out the door, or I would be just like they are, wouldn't I?

Anyway, the resolution sucks. I don't know that you remove accreditation for one incident, but certainly CM should not be bending over backwards to imply that this is, in any way, the player's fault.
link to original post

Stop, just stop. You know exactly why they want this stuff kept private/secret. FYI this isn't the first time they have done this type of stuff trying to silence people.

There's no reason to defend them or not. But let's not act as if they are doing something nice or offering a nice service.

That would be like claiming a casino is nice because they offer more gamblers anonymous information than required.

Would you think it was nice if the tobacco industry gave to a lunge cancer charity?

Quote: AxelWolf

Stop, just stop. You know exactly why they want this stuff kept private/secret. FYI this isn't the first time they have done this type of stuff trying to silence people.

There's no reason to defend them or not. But let's not act as if they are doing something nice or offering a nice service.

That would be like claiming a casino is nice because they offer more gamblers anonymous information than required.

Would you think it was nice if the tobacco industry gave to a lunge cancer charity?
link to original post

What are you talking about? I know that; that's why I called them @$$holes. If I had to guess, their successful resolution rate is maybe 50% and I would be surprised if players get paid in full by the casinos 10% of the time that they get involved. They probably fight harder for people who signed up through their site, though.

Okay, in theory, it's a nice service. It started out as a nice service. Is that better?

If the cancer charity has more money than it did before the cigarette company donated, then sure. The tobacco company is certainly not required to donate to the cancer charity, so the donation, taken alone, is nice. Does that make tobacco companies good on the whole? No. Is CM good on the whole? No, because they are @$$holes.

Is the CM service good with they will try to help with casino issues even if the player didn't sign up there? Probably sometimes. That doesn't make CM a good website, though.

It is obvious and clear as the sky in August that the Casinomeister and his Sancho Pancho support the casino and not me.

Their actions and words prove that.

The actions:

1. Max banned me from the thread without any reason
2. The lack of action from Casinomeister - not removing Inetbet from the accredited casinos status

Their words:

1. In every message in the thread of Casinomeister and Max they always so worried about not mocking the casino, not hurting the casino... it is obvious they care about the casino and not about the theft of $14,000
2. The style of talking about me laughing at me that I could have a much better festive holidays with the $2000 that they can keep for themselves!

And you can add your proof, it is simple and clear that Casinomeister and Max supports the criminal activity support the fraudulent non pay and therefore it is a fact that nobody can dispute - pure fact, all based on facts that nobody can dispute - The casinomeister and Max are crooks that support a charlatan casino

Yeah, I'm gonna stick an oar in here. But only in the limited area of two questions:
1. Should a potential customer know if he can patronize online casinos generally, and specifically foreign ones, before they sign up and play?
2. Must a foreign casino be pro-active should the customer fail in #1, and sign up and play, while in a country where patronizing foreign casinos is illegal?

On Question 1:
On June 10, 2018, Switzerland had a vote about a referendum amending the country's Gambling Law. It passed a foreign casino gambling ban. Now, when the law became active is not clear, but a casino.org article from June 9, 2019, said the ban was in place. Assuming no changes from then until now, and unless the actions of our correspondent from Switzerland took place prior to 6/10/18, then he was in violation of his country's laws when he tried to gamble at iNetBet. From where I sit (as a non-lawyer), I believe that's a uncontestable fact.

There's a saying heard on US court dramas: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Given how many laws and regulations we have in the US, I would think the real quote is "ignorance of the law is inevitable". But this is not some obscure thing. This is online gambling. It took me literally two minutes to find out the info in the above paragraph. I don't see how it's "hilarious" that a citizen of CH intent of gambling via the Internet shouldn't be held to knowing the basic laws governing casinos both brick and bits. I may not know the laws of 50 states with regard to online gambling, but I sure as hell know the laws that pertain to the state I am in.

Lastly, I'm not going to base my freedom or bank account on the output of some anonymous person coding a web page of prohibited countries. Maybe Switzerland was on the source list and got skipped over because the coder was texting his hottie. In a world where people get arrested for wrongspeak, I'm not going to bet that my illegal online gambling is going to be ignored.

On Question 2:
There are something like 206 sovereign states in the world (thanks, Wikipedia). Some, like, oh, Vatican City and Saudi Arabia, one can say with 99.999% certainty probably consider online gambling illegal. Given the sheer number of sovereign states, some of which have political subdivisions that have their own legal code (anyone want to guess what Prince Edward Island's laws are? What about Burkina Faso?), I can see upwards of 350-400 different jurisdictions that a up-and-coming online casino would have to check and recheck for legal status. Not to mention the language difficulties.

As you can see, it's pretty unmanageable for a casino operator. So, there are several things our online casino can do.
a. Ignore the problem. You're in the islands, mon. Worry about dem hurricanes instead.
b. Rely on a trade association. I don't know if there are any who compile prohibited country lists, but hell, isn't that what TAs are for? To do common grunt-work like this?
c. Draw a line in the population column and cut off everyone below a certain population based on expected business. So you block Andorra--and lose the business of 34 people. Big whoop.
d. Draw a line based on language, or other delineating characteristic, and block everyone else.
e. Block everyone, then only open up for jurisdictions that you know you are legal. Probably lose a lot of business that way, but hey, that's called erring on the side of caution.

All of the above choices are a tradeoff between blocking potential customers and finding your business confronted with an angry winner or a vindictive government. Should iNetBet have negotiated directly with our correspondent? Probably. It's the honorable thing to do. But maybe they are not honorable. If they aren't, well the $300 spent on their site is a relatively cheap lesson in knowing the law before you play. Oh, that $14k? My Dad had a saying with regards to the stock market: "You haven't won or lost until you've sold." I suspect he would have altered it for online gambling: "You haven't won until the cashout clears your bank."

Dear correspondent: I know it's harsh, but it really is your fault for not knowing your own country's laws. Should iNetBet have known? Probably. Switzerland is not a nobody country. But I suspect they haven't been keeping the ban list up to date. Given that your laws never addressed online gambling, but now ban it, I suspect they never updated their list. Should they have treated you as they did? No. But again, perhaps the people on the other end of the keyboard aren't as honorable as you and I.

(Quotes will be clipped to respond directly to certain sections of the previous post)

Great post, BillHasRetired! There are a few things I should like to respond to:

Quote: BillHasRetired

There's a saying heard on US court dramas: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Given how many laws and regulations we have in the US, I would think the real quote is "ignorance of the law is inevitable". But this is not some obscure thing. This is online gambling. It took me literally two minutes to find out the info in the above paragraph. I don't see how it's "hilarious" that a citizen of CH intent of gambling via the Internet shouldn't be held to knowing the basic laws governing casinos both brick and bits. I may not know the laws of 50 states with regard to online gambling, but I sure as hell know the laws that pertain to the state I am in.

Lastly, I'm not going to base my freedom or bank account on the output of some anonymous person coding a web page of prohibited countries. Maybe Switzerland was on the source list and got skipped over because the coder was texting his hottie. In a world where people get arrested for wrongspeak, I'm not going to bet that my illegal online gambling is going to be ignored.

The first thing that you want to do is make sure that you have an understanding of the Swiss law. I'm citing a source, so it's possible that this is wrong, but according to:

https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-gambling-law-review/switzerland

Quote:

The Gaming Act stipulates different sanctions for different offences. The most severe penalties apply in relation to illegally operating casino or large-scale games and illegally assisting such operations by providing the technical means (felonies). Such actions are punishable with a custodial sentence of up to three years or a fine. It can be up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of not less than 180 daily rates if clearly committed with a commercial interest or as an organised form of crime.16 As noted earlier, there is uncertainty to what extent these criminal law provisions would be applicable to foreign operations.

Less severe penalties apply to other offences.17 They constitute mere misdemeanours and are subject to a maximum fine of 500,000 Swiss francs. Other criminal offences such as advertising only qualify as misdemeanours too. Accordingly, advertising for unlicensed gaming offers is treated as such an offence. The specific legal norms in relation to media in Article 28 and 322 bis Criminal Code may further apply, too.

Players who make use of unlicensed games are not punishable. However, in particular players who use illegal land-based offers run a certain risk that their stakes and winnings will be confiscated in criminal proceedings against the operator.

With that, it would appear that the player playing at that casino, similar to several U.S. states, is either not violating the law at all, or is, but is not subject to any sort of punishment.

In contrast, if iNetBet operators set foot in the country of Switzerland, in theory, they could be arrested and would end up doing prison time.

With that, you have a player who is, quite probably, not actually violating the law and you have an operator who is committing an action subject to possible imprisonment, except they are out of the jurisdictional reach for arrest. Of the two, who should have a better understanding of the law to know what Switzerland may or may not do?

Also, why should players be subject to knowing the law and not casinos? iNetBet DID know the law, in my opinion, and selectively pointed to the law in order to save themselves 14k in a country where they probably don't get a whole lot of business anymore. Do you REALLY think iNetBet cares about the fact that they were operating in Switzerland contrary to Swiss laws? Of course they don't. They operate in a lot of countries contrary to the laws of those countries.

Quote:

As you can see, it's pretty unmanageable for a casino operator. So, there are several things our online casino can do.
a. Ignore the problem. You're in the islands, mon. Worry about dem hurricanes instead.
b. Rely on a trade association. I don't know if there are any who compile prohibited country lists, but hell, isn't that what TAs are for? To do common grunt-work like this?
c. Draw a line in the population column and cut off everyone below a certain population based on expected business. So you block Andorra--and lose the business of 34 people. Big whoop.
d. Draw a line based on language, or other delineating characteristic, and block everyone else.
e. Block everyone, then only open up for jurisdictions that you know you are legal. Probably lose a lot of business that way, but hey, that's called erring on the side of caution.

Unmanageable? You were able to find the law for Switzerland in two minutes. Let's say that it takes an average of twenty minutes, per jurisdiction, for the sake of argument: With that, if we call it 400 jurisdictions, that's going to take about 8,000 minutes, which is 133.33 man hours, or a few weeks of full-time work.

Also, Google translate.

Or, here's an idea: Don't unlawfully operate an online casino in a foreign country!

Of course, they are going to operate, and that's fine, but I think the onus should be squarely on the casino to have an up-to-date and accurate list of countries they may not operate in. It's really not that hard to do. You mention that Switzerland had a public vote to this effect; are you going to tell me that iNetBet, in four and a half years, could not have determined this?

You could just have one person in compliance (or some other department) do an annual check. Make it every January. I seriously doubt you would miss it every year for three years.

Anyway, the next paragraph after that is some straight bull. What I expect is for iNetBet to do the same tactic in other countries, provided they see the country as insignificant enough to their operations and they get out of paying a big enough jackpot. This isn't about the law. Never was. It was about iNetBet trying to figure a way to wriggle out of paying fourteen thousand dollars.

Here's an article having to do with times that the casino actually is not the party in the wrong, which this is not one of.

Of course, I'm burying the lead, the most interesting part of the article is tips for how to do online casino multi-accounting and get away with it for longer:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/sometimes-the-online-casino-is-wronged/

Quote: utanfu2

Hello

Where can I publish in this forum about an online casino that won't pay me $14,000
link to original post

What is your goal here? Have you given up collecting and are just hoping to damage the casino's reputation for revenge? Or are you trying to pressure the intermediary and casino to get a better settlement offer? Something else? This is a serious question because the advice and help you might get will depend on your strategic goals.

I believe you made several tactical errors that lead you to this situation. First, I would definitely have played a small amount every day for a while before cashing out. Your pattern of play reeks of AP bonus hustling. Your first withdrawal will always get extra scrutiny. The casinos have huge problems with credential stuffing and identity theft. They need to verify your identity very carefully to make sure they are not sending the money to a scammer/hacker. After you make several small withdrawals, you will get less scrutiny. If $500 is withdrawn from your account and you have not complained even though you are playing every day, then the casino will assume you got the money. After a few withdrawals that go through smoothly, they might have cleared a larger withdrawal with barely a glance. Instead, you got a risk manager looking at your account and seeing a pattern that did not look like a normal customer. They invoked the nuclear option because they felt they could get away with it and pocket some padding for their W/L statement and year-end bonus. If you had played 25 spins of Starburst or Bonanza every day, you might have passed as a player.

I learned by experience and my own mistakes that resulted in blowback. I now try to make a first withdrawal that is small in relation to my balance. I wait at least a month for my first withdrawal and I give them many days of play before I withdraw. I only withdraw on days that I have played. If there is only one day a week when I have a +EV play, then I only withdraw once a week at most on that day.

I may be too cautious. I have very large balances at my luckiest properties (interest free loans to the casino that I hope will eventually be repaid). On the other hand, I have only been permanently barred from one property. I was max betting a slot machine on a signup bonus. I won a bonus round and got a very rare bonus retrigger. They looked at this pattern of play and said 'no mas'. They asked me to confirm my deposit method and they cashed me out for five figures. They also banned me at a sister site. This was before I even made a single withdrawal request.

Impatience and greed have harmed many players and can also harm the AP community at large.

EV = (probability of not having your $14,300 stolen) * $14,300 - (cost of cover play before making a withdrawal) - (carry costs of your balance sitting in a non-interest-bearing account)

Hint: the second two terms are not large compared to the first.

Quote: Mission146

(Quotes will be clipped to respond directly to certain sections of the previous post)

Great post, BillHasRetired! There are a few things I should like to respond to:

The first thing that you want to do is make sure that you have an understanding of the Swiss law. I'm citing a source, so it's possible that this is wrong, but according to:

https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-gambling-law-review/switzerland

Quote:

The Gaming Act stipulates different sanctions for different offences. (snip)
Players who make use of unlicensed games are not punishable. However, in particular players who use illegal land-based offers run a certain risk that their stakes and winnings will be confiscated in criminal proceedings against the operator.

With that, it would appear that the player playing at that casino, similar to several U.S. states, is either not violating the law at all, or is, but is not subject to any sort of punishment.
link to original post

Thanks for the compliment--I really appreciate it. I don't want to drag this out, but I do want to comment on your comments.

With all due respect, Mission, since i am not a lawyer and am not dispensing legal advice, my understanding of the Swiss Gaming Act is almost irrelevant. I based my conclusion on the casino.org article, quoting an authority that the law passed in 2018 incorporated a ban on patronizing foreign online casinos. Now, whether that ban comes with sanctions on individuals is irrelevant. My logic chain goes: patronize FOCs? -> you are breaking Swiss Law -> the legal machinery of the Swiss state will not help you if the FOC bones you. You're also boned if Switzerland goes after the assets of the FOC that they can reach, and those assets happen to include your account. That's what the review implies by using the term "illegal" in the quote above--the customer is also at fault.

Quote: Mission146

(numbers added to match comments with responses below)
(1) In contrast, if iNetBet operators set foot in the country of Switzerland, in theory, they could be arrested and would end up doing prison time.

(2) With that, you have a player who is, quite probably, not actually violating the law and you have an operator who is committing an action subject to possible imprisonment, except they are out of the jurisdictional reach for arrest. Of the two, who should have a better understanding of the law to know what Switzerland may or may not do?

(3) Also, why should players be subject to knowing the law and not casinos? iNetBet DID know the law, in my opinion, and selectively pointed to the law in order to save themselves 14k in a country where they probably don't get a whole lot of business anymore. Do you REALLY think iNetBet cares about the fact that they were operating in Switzerland contrary to Swiss laws? Of course they don't. They operate in a lot of countries contrary to the laws of those countries.
link to original post

(!) No argument here. Again, IANAL.
(2) You said, in the first quote, "With that, it would appear that the player playing at that casino, similar to several U.S. states, is either not violating the law at all, or is, but is not subject to any sort of punishment." (bolding mine), then you conclude that the "player who is, quite probably, not actually violating the law". I am not sure how you got there. It is quite possible that the operator is violating the law, and the customer is also violating the law at the same time. One does not preclude the other. It is my contention that the customer is violating the law. I did not address whether the operator is also doing so, because it really doesn't matter to the customer. Why? Because when he violated the law, he lost the protections of the State.
(3) Customers must know the law because it's their money and their freedom that is possibly at stake, depending on the country and the prosecutors thereof. This does not absolve the operator of knowing the law. I agree that they must know it, but I show there are significant difficulties in keeping up with 400 jurisdictions.

You assert that iNetBet knew the law. I agree that at the time they refused to pay the 14k they did know the law. The question is, at what point did they know that the law had changed? I think it's a reasonable inference that they found out about the law change right after they had the correspondent verify his address, based on their behavior afterwards (editing the list of prohibited countries, etc). This does not absolve them of blame. They apparently did not maintain good compliance with those 400 jurisdictions, and it bit them in the butt. They were wrong.
------------------------
Most of the rest of your comments, Mission, I don't have a strong disagreement with. I do think that managing a list of 400 jurisdictions and their every-changing laws is a lot harder than you believe, but we'll just disagree there. I think the easiest track for an honorable FOC is to block everyone from joining/playing, then only allow people on when the FOC knows it can operate legally. But then, I have questioned the ethics of iNetBet, same as you have.

Yes, the onus is on the FOC to operate in accordance with all laws. But it is likewise the requirement of the would-be customer to follow the laws of their country. When I moved from one US state to another, I moved from a legal OC environment to one that where online gambling was strictly illegal. Hell, even possessing a pinball machine, even an antique or a non-operational one, is quite illegal. Good to know--now I'm not going to buy a pinball machine (something I've always wanted to own) There goes a bucket list item.

I know you didn't mean to insult my dad by labeling his sayings "straight bull". You really haven't won a damned thing until you get your money out of the casino, whether it's a brick & mortar operation or one that lives on the internet. I fail to see the bull in that.

So, TL;DR: I don't like the actions of iNetBet any more than you do. I agree that they should have done a better job on compliance, particularly once they get a new, possibly first, customer from a new country. They may or may not be evil: continuing to operate in blatant disregard to relevant laws. That is outside my skillset, as IANAL. But Hanlon's Razor is applicable here: "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity." It could very well be that they are running the Red Queen's Race just to remain afloat, and compliance with 400 FOC laws may well be far down on the list. We don't know. We may never know. As I also said earlier, they may be honorable, or not.

Thank you for reading my post, and commenting on it. May all your even numbers come the hard way.
link to original post