SBR was dead wrong on this one

[TOW]

A few months ago a player contacted SBR reporting an alleged slow pay from Royal Sports. SBR has since then sided with the player regularly reporting his case on his website. I will summarize his case.

Player funds his account with credit card deposits;
Places bet circumventing limits;
BEFORE the event goes off the board Royal informs him that he has circumvented house limits and therefore only one bet per event will be honored ;
The player wins;
Royal makes a first payment (of his winnings);
Given that Royal has learned that the player has charged back with several books (currently 5 known and verified ones) Royal decides to credit back his cards for the whole amount initially deposited;
The player claims having never received any money back;
SBR supports the player in spite of Royal providing evidence.

SBR has leveraged on its own credibility to sustain this case. However, in the last 40 days some significant developments have taken place.

The player has shopped around fro legal assistance on no cure basis in Curacao. Royal has received, at the end of March, notification and payment request for an amount that was made up of deposits/payment made/illegitimate winnings deriving from cancelled bets from two lawyers. We will now call them Lawyer A) and Lawyer B). Lawyer B) ( surprise surprise ! ) turns out to be the same lawyer assisting the minority shareholders.

The notified party informed, on March 29th, both lawyers that no information could be disclosed as the player can be represented by one legal party only, therefore inviting the two law firms to discuss amongst them and then inform the notified party accordingly.

Surprisingly enough both law firms simply ignore the request; hence the notified party ignored their follow ups due to the above mentioned unlawful situation.

Here are the new elements to this complex story:

Royal had paid (no more doubts) in spite of the Player and SBR calumnies:

On April 20th Lawyer A) sends a new payment request to the notified party, this time for an amount related to the voided bets only. It is then clear that, in spite of what sustained for months by the player and SBR, Royal had indeed 1) Paid his legitimate winnings 2) credited back his cards deposits.

On April 22nd the notified party is served legal papers from Lawyer B) who attempts to jeopardize the ongoing liquidation by placing liens. Remarkably enough Lawyer B) (important to underline that we are speaking about the same lawyer also representing Curaworld’s minority shareholder) claims the full amount the player initially claimed (hence including paid winnings and amounts sent back to his credit cards).

The notified party’s Attorneys immediately contact both Lawyer A) and Lawyer B) renewing the request to have them notify which lawyer is the legal representative of the player.

Yesterday afternoon Lawyer A) confirms to the notified party Attorney of being the only legal representative of the player.

With this important piece of info now clear to all parties, but with a lawsuit in place by Lawyer B) (whose legal advices have been posted in the past on Sir’s site) the notified party is left with the duty to file charges against Lawyer B) for Misrepresentation, fraud attempt, unlawful harassment, defamation. Damages compensation will be required as well.

The fact that Lawyer B) also represents the minority shareholder adds further questions to the real motivation behind his unlawful actions.

Given this new scenario, and taking into consideration that upon documents provided by Lawyer A) , being the players legal representative, that confine the claim to amounts related to bets cancelled PRIOR of the event going off the board it is my honest opinion that SBR owes a sincere and public apology to Royal Sports on this very issue, given that SBR has contributed to publicly sustain the reasons brought forward by a scammer assisted by a shady Lawyer ( Lawyer B )hence causing a serious damage to the Operation.


Roberto
TOW

[This message was edited by TOW on April 23, 2004 at 08:54 AM.]

 

[Buzzsaw]

To the contrary, I believe SBR has been right on.

On numerous occasions and even this past week SBR has said this case should go to mediation.

Royal broke new offshore policy by not paying a player because he had a chargeback at another book. Other books pay a player who has had no problems with their book and if they find out he is black listed they pay him and boot him.

SBR has no problem with books protecting themselves but we are uncomfortable with a preemptive strike against a player that both sides admit never charged back at Royal.

Royal needs to show irrefutable cause to supercede the "you book the bet, you pay the bet" rule.

 

[TOW]

John,

Allow me to disagree. Royal has taken the following steps :

a) Immediately pay the player his legitimate winnings via bank wire ;

b) Refund his credit card for the full amount the player had posted up with Royal.

I think its deceiving to say that Royal didn't pay the player because of his known charge back history with other 5 Sportsbooks ( 3 of them on TOW's no risk book section ).

Royal seemingly decided not to pay double bets placed by circumventing limits. Those bets were cancelled prior to the event going off the board.

I still believe Royal well deserves your apology, given the above mentioned circumstances, on this specific issue.

I would if I had come to the same wrong conclusions you initially came too.

Roberto
TOW

[This message was edited by TOW on April 23, 2004 at 12:20 PM.]

 

[Buzzsaw]

So if you feel Royal was irrefutably in the right, why not agree to mediation?

 

[TOW]

John , have no idea. You should ask Kevin. When the case took place we talked about it over the phone, that was November last year.

Since I left in early December Kevin has maintained the same initial position I took. I know for a fact that he had provided you full documentation of the case ( I was asked by Kevin to proofread it since the whole issue had taken place when I was at the helm ).

I'm also aware that a common friend of us has filled you in with additional info.

If you had asked me when I was there I would have had no problem in accepting your mediation. the case is so black and white that there shouldn't be the need of one, but again I would have not say no.

I just enquired with Kevin. You've NEVER approached him either in this respect. However you did post several times about this issue, seemingly without balancing your sources of information.

Then again, you know my position and I've told you how I would act. You are obviously free to act the way you feel, however , the way this issue has evolved, I would most definitely, if I were you, apologize.

Roberto
TOW

 

[Buzzsaw]

It's never too late to do the right thing. I would dissqualify myself but I think we could assemble a three person panel agreeable to both player and book.

Roberto, you type a lot but this case is simple;

Does the book have the right to withhold winnings from a player because the player has a history of chargebacks, not with Royal, but with other books?

Yes or No?

We could pick a panel right now. How about Halifax, Reno and Philo?

 

[TOW]

John,

Problem here is that you seem not to understand that the Book has never withheld payments from this player as you have been wrongly reporting for months now.

I had initiated the cc return in November. This was done very quick. The player has indeed experienced problems with his cc company and his bank, but these primarily due to his past eccessive charge back ratio.

The player has had trouble to get his money back because of his bank and his cc co. because of his past wrong doings, not because of Royal.

And my opinion to your question, which doesn't apply to this specific case is NO, a Book should not withheld funds because a player has had wrong doings with other books. The book should simply return his money and boot him. As Royal did.

Roberto
TOW

 

[TheGeneral+]

If I file Bankruptcy on my Bank One credit card and not my MBNA card, then MBNA don't care as long as they get theirs. I do not see that any book can use the past problems of a player with other books as a reason to keep his monies. In this case, was the CC credited back and all the players winnings given to him?

 

[Buzzsaw]

General,

The books defense is/will be "IF he had lost he would of charged back".

And that's a legitimate arguement imo. Securebuxx proved to us that we need to allow some leeway for the books to protect themselves.

 

[TheGeneral+]

I'm not much of an IF guy on these matters. I like to deal with things as they actually happen, not trying to predict what will/may happen. Maybe I'm to optimistic at times.

With that being said, I would pay the player every dime he was owed and then utilize my right to close his account if I wished.

 

[TOW]

Pete,

The player had his ( legit ) wins paid via wire and his posted up funds returned to his credit card.

The player had posted some double bets circumventing the store limits. Those bets were cancelled PRIOR to the event going off the board and money returned to his account.

These are the facts concerning this specific case.

On the general side of the problem I see John's concern and share it. Even if it doesn't apply to this case it represents a very interesting argument, worth being discussed, given its multiple angles of interpretation.

Roberto
TOW

 

[TheGeneral+]

Thanks Roberto. If that is indeed the case, I cannot see a major problem here.

The book has a right to refuse business for any or no reason whatsoever I believe, particularly if they have evidence from other shops proving him/her being a scammer.

Pay and boot

 

[Buzzsaw]

The player WAS not paid. Royal claimed he was. Actually Royal admitted to not paying him and that’s how this started. He tried for months just to get his deposit back.

Somewhere along the highway Royal started claiming they paid the guy. Royal, months after this was a no-pay, turned it into a 'he said-she said' claiming they paid him. If anyone buys that then please note I’m still trying to sell some beautiful ocean front property in Arizona.

But let's have the mediators figure that out too.

I'm perfectly fine having both parties going to binding mediation with a panel agreed upon by both book and player.

 

[Buzzsaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm perfectly fine having both parties going to binding mediation with a panel agreed upon by both book and player <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doesn't get any more FAIR than that. You talked to Kevin daily...ask him.

 

[RIOSHILL]

All books would serve themselves well to pool information regarding chargeback scammers. Hopefully someday soon this will be the rule instead of the exception.

 

[Buzzsaw]

This is a close case. I'd make the prevailing party a "Pick'em".

Let's break this down a little:
If a player has 2 or more charge backs I think the books should develop a policy that would include confiscating at least some of the players winnings.

I would like to see the panel to conclude:
That all legitimate claims by other books who had charge backs be satisfied first.

Royal pay the player half of what is left.

That's a fair settlement for players that have a chargeback history.

 

[TheGeneral+]

A compromise is often a good way to settle disputes, but I would not be happy with half here. Pay the balance and move on. That is the respectable way to do business. If this guy did no harm to Royal, the half is not a fair option.

 

[Buzzsaw]

General,
That's a snap decission but I want to challenge you to think hard about this.

The book contends, if the player lost that he would have charged back. In this case, since there is history of chargebacks, I buy the books arguement.

If you buy the arguement, which I do, that the player would have likely charged back then you need a solution that provides some relieve to the book and also punishes the player.

 

[TheGeneral+]

That's fair Buzz and I will ponder this in my sleep if necessary, but let me ask as we go. In what way did this player harm Royal Sports? How do we know this player would chargeback?

Innocent until proven guilty is a great concept to use. If I rob 10 banks that does not mean I am going to rob the 11th when I walk in. Please understand, I am just speaking out loud and have no ill will for you or Roberto, quite the contrary.

A solution is needed so that the book does not take a single wager until they have done all the precautionary measures in advance. Once the booking starts, then we have wagers to grade. If winners, then we must pay to keep the best integrity possible for all in the booking business.

We all agree there is a good topic here that needs discussed.

 

[ethan]

Charge back fraud is illegal. What happened to the books he did this to? For how much? Whatever he gets from Royal Should go to them.