Interesting case: Bet365

HawkWing said:
That's fine. But I disagree. It shouldnt matter whether you win or lose. Its a glaring anomaly in the KYC measures that you can launder as much money you want (in theory) until you want to withdraw. Whether the bets are winners or losers should be irrelevant. The rationale why KYC measures arent in place when you first register dont stand much scrutiny. I dont mind bookmakers protecting themselves and can choose whatever KYC measures they wish to put in place. The idea that bookmakers are happy to accept bets as long as they lose is not, in my view, done in any good faith.

If I nephew got hold of my credit card and laptop and made some wildly inappropriate bets (out of character with my standard) and lost 25K Im sure that bet365 (rightly) would dismiss my claims for the money to be returned. If bet365's KYC measures are inadequate, they should amend them.
Click to expand...

You think you can bet tens of thousands even losing and not be asked to KYC? You've no idea how strict it is. PP got a massive fine two years ago over allowing money laundering. They have no choice now but to follow the laws.
 
As for your second point, you're wrong. Your credit card company would refund the money.
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
As for your second point, you're wrong. Your credit card company would refund the money.
Click to expand...

That is good to know. I personally wouldn't have thought so, as would think that it would be very easily open to abuse, and not quite subject to the same protections with other CC purchases.

Why is impossible for bookmakers to do KYC at the opening of an account?
 
HawkWing said:
That is good to know. I personally wouldn't have thought so, as would think that it would be very easily open to abuse, and not quite subject to the same protections with other CC purchases.

Why is impossible for bookmakers to do KYC at the opening of an account?
Click to expand...

It isn't impossible, but would be extremely bad business. Imagine someone at the football sees an ad for Rooney to score the next goal 25-1 for new customers, thinks, oh I'll pop on my phone and stick a tenner on that. Opens an account, gets told to upload a driving license, utility bill and a photo of his payment card before he can deposit. Even assuming he happens to carry them with him, he will think, **** that, back to ladcrookes where he already has an account, or just forget about it completely.
However make someone do it before they withdraw and the hassle they have to go through will be done as they will want their money.

The other thing to bear in mind, it can't possibly be money laundering until a withdrawal is attempted. Wouldn't be very good money launderers if you gave someone say £100k of your drug money and they lost it all on the 9.00 at Ascot would they ;)

Personally I think you should get a big pop up when you open the account saying you may have to supply ID if you can't be electronically verified, and it say if its not done within 14 days then the account will be blocked. Also make it clear no withdrawal can be done until the verification is complete.

You think this is bad though, self exclusion and its problems around different bookies/casinos under the same gaming license are much worse. At least you get paid once you pass KYC checks!
 
dvds2000 said:
It isn't impossible, but would be extremely bad business. Imagine someone at the football sees an ad for Rooney to score the next goal 25-1 for new customers, thinks, oh I'll pop on my phone and stick a tenner on that. Opens an account, gets told to upload a driving license, utility bill and a photo of his payment card before he can deposit. Even assuming he happens to carry them with him, he will think, **** that, back to ladcrookes where he already has an account, or just forget about it completely.
However make someone do it before they withdraw and the hassle they have to go through will be done as they will want their money.

The other thing to bear in mind, it can't possibly be money laundering until a withdrawal is attempted. Wouldn't be very good money launderers if you gave someone say £100k of your drug money and they lost it all on the 9.00 at Ascot would they ;)

Personally I think you should get a big pop up when you open the account saying you may have to supply ID if you can't be electronically verified, and it say if its not done within 14 days then the account will be blocked. Also make it clear no withdrawal can be done until the verification is complete.

You think this is bad though, self exclusion and its problems around different bookies/casinos under the same gaming license are much worse. At least you get paid once you pass KYC checks!
Click to expand...

That is all very rational re KYC measures and makes good business sense for any casual punter, but I believe it doesn't address issues like this. It certainly leaves them open to challenge in the courts. The notification message is a far better idea than the current practice.

While it might be stupid money laundering process to lose hand over fist to bookies, I don't get the defence that bookies are ok accepting laundered money as long as its losing. Might be one of many deliberately losing accounts as part of a bigger money laundering operation (conceivably, and I'm playing devils advocate here). Notification message sorts that out but again might turn off the casual punter.
The 'the rules are the rules' defence that was mentioned earlier being in the bookies favour strikes me as being unfortunate as this group (arrogant, greedy cheats or not) played by those rules. Guess that the bookies have it covered and will get confirmation in the court case.
 
HawkWing said:
That is all very rational re KYC measures and makes good business sense for any casual punter, but I believe it doesn't address issues like this. It certainly leaves them open to challenge in the courts. The notification message is a far better idea than the current practice.

While it might be stupid money laundering process to lose hand over fist to bookies, I don't get the defence that bookies are ok accepting laundered money as long as its losing. Might be one of many deliberately losing accounts as part of a bigger money laundering operation (conceivably, and I'm playing devils advocate here). Notification message sorts that out but again might turn off the casual punter.
The 'the rules are the rules' defence that was mentioned earlier being in the bookies favour strikes me as being unfortunate as this group (arrogant, greedy cheats or not) played by those rules. Guess that the bookies have it covered and will get confirmation in the court case.
Click to expand...

Why are we goimg around in circles about KYC on this dispute? This is a betting syndicate versus Bet365 through a 19yo proxy. The syndicate should have known the dangers so they deserve zero sympathy whatsoever.
 
Agree DO, Great to see intelligent people field each others arguments respectfully. So far I am voting Luke, but still waiting a killer punch from Slim.

Carry on.
 
an capall said:
Agree DO, Great to see intelligent people field each others arguments respectfully. So far I am voting Luke, but still waiting a killer punch from Slim.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I have the killer punch, don't worry. The person behind this bet once had the fortune of calling me a friend and having me bailing him out with €1k to go to Vegas one year.
 
an capall said:
Conor McGregor?
Click to expand...

A bigger **** than that.

I would just like to emphasise that this is not a "poor punter" versus "big bookmaker" case. This is a case of someone with absolute arrogance and no regard for the consequences of his actions, someone so corrupt with greed and who's only social conscience is that others acknowledge how brilliant he is. He deserves no pity, he clicked the bet button, innocence played no part in this "punters" bet. His contempt for the stupidity of bookmakers and punters alike brought him to this day when he would prove his brilliance. He's smarter than us all, but the betting media wants our pity against the "bad bookmakers". Don't give it.
 
Last edited:
Colin Phillips said:
DO, I googled KYC and I believe it is 'know your customer'.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Colin. I ended up googling it myself just before I went to bed.

Something in my dim and distant memory recalls one firm asking me for a lot of stuff when I tried to open an account with them but I was uncomfortable with it all so decided not to bother.

I have 15 online accounts some of which won't take bets, others of which restrict me - in the case of PP after one bet - and others with which I've pretty much decided not to bet as they seem to move the goalposts every time I try to put a bet on so there's really on a handful I use on a regular basis.

As I said earlier, I've withdrawn literally thousands across these accounts over the years but I do tend to let them build up a bit before doing so. I might get a message saying it will take a few days for the withdrawal to be processed but I don't recall ever being asked for ID.
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
A bigger **** than that.

I would just like to emphasise that this is not a "poor punter" versus "big bookmaker" case. This is a case of someone with absolute arrogance and no regard for the consequences of his actions, someone so corrupt with greed and who's only social conscience is that others acknowledge how brilliant he is. He deserves no pity, he clicked the bet button, innocence played no part in this "punters" bet. His contempt for the stupidity of bookmakers and punters alike brought him to this day when he would prove his brilliance. He's smarter than us all, but the betting media wants our pity against the "bad bookmakers". Don't give it.
Click to expand...

Is it EC1??

:lol:
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
Why are we goimg around in circles about KYC on this dispute? This is a betting syndicate versus Bet365 through a 19yo proxy. The syndicate should have known the dangers so they deserve zero sympathy whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the reason why Im asking the question behind KYC, is that even though I accept everything you say regarding the betting syndicate and the mastermind behind it and their motivations as true, it doesn't mean that on the evidence of this case, that they shouldn't get paid. I'd guess they would have known the dangers and have gone for it anyway and could have expected this to end in court. The rules bet365 have put up to protect themselves may have been inadequate. (One simple way of protecting themselves (better KYC) might have turned away casual punters who were inspired by Ray Winstone on an ad to have a bet at half time in a football match.) That was their call and strikes me as bookies wanting it both ways. The courts will decide. From what you say, the punter winning in this case would not be something to celebrate.
 
Bookmakers can ask for proof of source of funds too, although rare, it does happen, which is to do with money laundering regs.
If you can't provide the proof they are entitled to keep deposits until you do. If they did that in this case then I very much doubt the case will get far. I have a feeling there's quite a bit we havent heard with the selective info given by the student not being close to a fair representation of whats gone on.
 
Exactly. I seriously hope for the girls sake that they're not paying her to perjure herself in court.
 
Unless they have been extremely careful and basically created a false trail, it should be pretty straightforward to prove that the stake wasn't from her own funds. Once that's done, the Terms & Conditions have been broken and they don't get paid.
 
BennyB said:
Unless they have been extremely careful and basically created a false trail, it should be pretty straightforward to prove that the stake wasn't from her own funds. Once that's done, the Terms & Conditions have been broken and they don't get paid.
Click to expand...

When you think about it this way they basically have no choice but to fight the legality of the actual terms. Obviously she had the £25k lodged in her account for a third party.
 
BennyB said:
Unless they have been extremely careful and basically created a false trail, it should be pretty straightforward to prove that the stake wasn't from her own funds. Once that's done, the Terms & Conditions have been broken and they don't get paid.
Click to expand...


You are presuming that the court will find the terms and conditions to be fair-the courts can set aside terms and conditions.Was it one of the bookmakers in the Curley case that wanted the ability to void bets if they were part of an organized coup.
 
LUKE said:
You are presuming that the court will find the terms and conditions to be fair-the courts can set aside terms and conditions.Was it one of the bookmakers in the Curley case that wanted the ability to void bets if they were part of an organized coup.
Click to expand...

I'm not presuming anything. I've no idea how the court will see the case. However I do have a problem if the people behind this get a young girl to perjure herself in court. There only option is to take on the legality of the terms and conditions.
 
That was to Benny.Just thinking about third party money -I know of at least 2 publicans with Paddy Power accounts that are purely for customer use-the whole third party void bet concept is nonsense.
 
LUKE said:
That was to Benny.Just thinking about third party money -I know of at least 2 publicans with Paddy Power accounts that are purely for customer use-the whole third party void bet concept is nonsense.
Click to expand...

But that's not really the same as using a 19yo as a proxy to deposit £25k. If she had to show means could she not be charged with money laundering?
 
Back
Top