|
By:
Ah Banks, I am glad you have appeared. Are you a lawyer? I see you say:
As the legislation is still comparatively new I doubt this has been tested in court yet. ButDidn't the legislation leave the key definition unchanged? |
|
By:
Banks.
20 Apr 11 12:49 Joined: 02 Dec 10 | Alex why ask for professionally qualified lawyers to comment? Feck knows everything! Now you are being silly. |
|
By:
Cheating was a new offence that was created along with the new Act hence the lack of case law in this area.
Previously, depending on circumstances, I suppose you could have prosecuted under other legislation such as the Fraud Act however the fact that bets were not recoverable by law would have been a major sticking point. This has now been removed by s335 and will no doubt be tested over the coming years. There is a big difference between unfair bets and a cheating conviction. I think that prosecutions for Cheating will be very difficult to bring home in court. It would likely be an easy charge to defend in all but the most extreme circumstances. It is also worth considering what the punishments would be. Conspiracy to defraud would attract far harsher sanctions than Cheating for example. |
|
By:
Are you a lawyer banks? If you are then it would be good to see some sensible comment bought to this subject.
What precedent do we have for cheating, aside from obvious ones? |
|
By:
I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that the concept of cheating has been there for eons but now there is a penalty for it.
So the penalty for cheating is what? And the precedents we can look at to define it are? |
|
By:
The maximum penalty for a Cheating conviction under s42 of the Gambling Act is 2 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
I presume that any betting related conviction is also quite likely to involve voiding of bets therefore the level of fine may well be dependant on whether the ill gotten gains are recovered too. |
|
By:
Don't be silly Banks. On the "wrinkled balance(1)" you know more than he does.
(1) Notation required. |
|
By:
The threat of 2 of years in jail should shake em up. Maybe I won't need to hire the heavys to extract cash.
|
|
By:
It is high profile too. This, I suspect could be the first case for this new legislation banks. I now rate my chance of getting cash back higher than I did before.
Rock on betfair integrity. |
|
By:
If, as you claim, it gives carte blanche to anyone who knows the result to take advantage of anyone who doesn't then on what basis are these x-factor bets cancelled? Insider trading? If that's the case, would the bets have been legal if virgin media set aside a room for x members of the public and allowed them access to the same data? What value of x would make it legal? Must the possibility exist for anyone betting ir on an event to attend i.e. x must be greater than the number of people betting? If that's the case would that not bar ir on many events where the bet placement delay is less than the feed delay?
You didn't answer this Banks. The answer you did give makes it sound like s9 is nothing more than a get out to justify the GC not doing their job. It's as if the x-factor bets were fair if betfair chose to do nothing but unfair if they were prepared to do the work for the GC. I'm sure if betfair chose to do nothing and an individual had approached the GC regarding Virgin employees betting they would've received a brush off similar to the one I received regarding the tote's duplicity. |
|
By:
In the X Factor case if Virgin Media had a publically available website with the latest voting figures on them (unrealistic I know) then any bets placed by Virgin Media staff would have been fine
What if there was an x second delay in them posting those figures? What value of x would make the virgin employees bets acceptable? |
|
By:
The answer you did give makes it sound like s9 is nothing more than a get out to justify the GC not doing their job. It's as if the x-factor bets were fair if betfair chose to do nothing but unfair if they were prepared to do the work for the GC.
Feck you seem a little confused here. It was the GC not BF who carried out the investigation. |
|
By:
What if there was an x second delay in them posting those figures? What value of x would make the virgin employees bets acceptable?
I guess it would hinge on whether there was any advantage being made by individuals using the info before it was in the public domain. If a Virgin Media employee was tasked with updating the website and placed his own bets before putting the numbers on the website then that would no doubt be considered insider dealing. To equate this to IR horse racing is misleading. Anyone could go to a racecourse and watch the action live. Every feed has some degree of delay albeit I accept a small delay on a screen is preferable to being in the stands watching it live. Nevertheless nobody is getting horse racing IR info quicker than that is available to everyone ie being at the track. The key is whether people have information that is not in the public domain. If you choose not to get hold of the available info that is your problem. |
|
By:
Feck you seem a little confused here. It was the GC not BF who carried out the investigation.
Using the data bf provided them. My point stands, if bf hadn't contacted them and an individual approached them they would get nowhere. |
|
By:
Not sure I get your point there.
That is like saying that the police only get a conviction using statements from witnesses. |
|
By:
I guess it would hinge on whether there was any advantage being made by individuals using the info before it was in the public domain. If a Virgin Media employee was tasked with updating the website and placed his own bets before putting the numbers on the website then that would no doubt be considered insider dealing.
When courses had a ban on mobiles and the only ones with wifi were in the press room or working with racetech why didn't the GC step in to stop it? To equate this to IR horse racing is misleading. Anyone could go to a racecourse and watch the action live. Every feed has some degree of delay albeit I accept a small delay on a screen is preferable to being in the stands watching it live. Nevertheless nobody is getting horse racing IR info quicker than that is available to everyone ie being at the track. See above. Also, as I already said not everyone can go to the racecourse and every course has a capacity crowd anyway particularly for their wi-fi rooms. The key is whether people have information that is not in the public domain. If you choose not to get hold of the available info that is your problem. Not everyone needs the fastest pictures to cheat. Is a lack of honest liquidity a good enough reason to have an interface that encourages cheat based liquidity? Why don't they introduce an interface that would allow the offer taker to cancel their bet during the countdown? Is it because it would reduce cheat based liquidity? Why is there a 1 second bet placement delay on horse racing when it only hands the course players an even bigger advantage? |
|
By:
That is like saying that the police only get a conviction using statements from witnesses.
No, more like I was saying the police only bother investigating if the complainent is mega-rich, is bunging them to do so and has done the groundwork for them. |
|
By:
When courses had a ban on mobiles and the only ones with wifi were in the press room or working with racetech why didn't the GC step in to stop it?
No idea. How long ago was it? The ban on mobiles probably predates them. Also, as I already said not everyone can go to the racecourse You seem not to understand the concept of insider trading. The information is in the public domain regardless of whether you can be bothered to get it. Why don't they introduce an interface that would allow the offer taker to cancel their bet during the countdown? Is it because it would reduce cheat based liquidity? Why not ask BF? |
|
By:
No, more like I was saying the police only bother investigating if the complainent is mega-rich, is bunging them to do so and has done the groundwork for them.
You really are clueless. Have you any idea how the GC is funded? |
|
By:
No idea. How long ago was it? The ban on mobiles probably predates them.
It doesn't. You seem not to understand the concept of insider trading. The information is in the public domain regardless of whether you can be bothered to get it. You seem to be under the impression that if one person outwith the circle can get it then it's in the public domain. Why not ask BF? Why don't you at the GC? You really are clueless. Have you any idea how the GC is funded? You're the sort of @rsehole that thinks bankers are honest people. |
|
By:
No idea. How long ago was it? The ban on mobiles probably predates them.
It doesn't. Out of interest when was it? I can't remember it even been mentioned at a track for years. Could be wrong though and just ignored it as it was never really enforced. You seem to be under the impression that if one person outwith the circle can get it then it's in the public domain. Not what I said. Why not ask BF? Why don't you at the GC? Don't understand that. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically mean they are connected with GC. In fact you couldn't be much wider of the mark with that ascertation. Almost as accurate as the bloke who claimed I was an MP! You're the sort of @rsehole that thinks bankers are honest people. If all else fails resort to abuse. I am afraid you come across a bit of a sad, pathetic individual with a limited intellect who is unable to construct and defend reasoned arguments. I actually feel a bit sorry for you. Only a bit mind. |
|
By:
I am afraid you come across a bit of a sad, pathetic individual with a limited intellect who is unable to construct and defend reasoned arguments. I actually feel a bit sorry for you. Only a bit mind.
I'm not surprised people thought you were an MP. You spend most of your time trying to sound intelligent without ever answering a question. Give it up Banks. You're not even remotely capable. |
|
By:
Feck I am going to go 1.01 that you have a bigger chip on your shoulder than anyone else on here. In fact I would rather be a backer than a layer at that price on all known evidence.
You are one of lifes great victims. Thankfully I have got a bit more about me and will make sure I never end up in such a state. It must be very depressing. |
|
By:
If all else fails resort to abuse. I would suspect you're the sh1te under my shoes in practically every department Banks.
|
|
By:
seething about this too....betfair are a financial intermediary ie they take cash in and repackage it to provide to others. i can see my 20 bet has been matched by 5 amounts, but i don't know who they are.
What difference does it make if the person who laid your back was a fraudster, you made the bet you wanted and if it lost it would have anyway. now we have a refund lottery simply because you were fortunate to have been laid off by scum (And that applies to ANYONE who works for Virgin Media....) and how can 3 people who placed bets totaling 16K be significant when peter webb is out there claimimg that “I've also been providing a lot of the liquidity for X Factor - people would be horrified about how much of that market was me." - a £6Mn rolling market ! What if your bet had won, would you gladly give your winnings back to betfair six months later... not a feking chance. is it that unlikely? i bet loads of us are out there throwing around 5k in some of these markets, all it takes is to chance across the wrong market for betfair to stitch you up. as others say... horeseracing is ropey and the italian leagues are a rats nest of bent games ATM. How long till juicy odds movements or market rumors get YOU locked up by BETFAIR and THEY THROW AWAY THE KEY. [>o] |
|
By:
If all else fails resort to abuse. I would suspect you're the sh1te under my shoes in practically every department Banks.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
By:
is it that unlikely? i bet loads of us are out there throwing around 5k in some of these markets, all it takes is to chance across the wrong market for betfair to stitch you up.
How will BF stitch you up? |
|
By:
Allegedly betfair identified 3 individuals laying 5k each as sufficiently suspicious activity to inform the gambling commission.
what if an 'innocent' does this on a ropey market (Say one of the recent italian games where the draw has been on evens at some books before kickoff because the godfather has his kneecapping bat out). If the gc decides you bet on a market that a reasonable punter might have seen as suspicious simply because the trade to be made was good, they might hit YOU for 5K. |
|
By:
these guys were sacked from Virgin Media aardvark. A normal punter would have been found to be clean
|
|
By:
No chance of an innocent party being caught up in something like this. I imagine the accounts were identified due to something like them being late money at apparently poor value prices which always won.
Even then there needs to be a link between this and inside info ie they were employees of Virgin Media. Merely having a good strike rate even at poor odds would never be enough. There must be proof that you have done something wrong or are linked to someone who has and knew what they were doing. The only way this type of thing will affect regular users is that you may get an occassional refund if you unwittingly end up on the wrong side of such bets. |
|
By:
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
By:
QED
|
|
By:
QED
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
By:
Good PR for betfair but the thin edge of a very big cheating wedge that is, in the main, sanctioned by betfair and their pet poodle the GC.
|
|
By:
As someone who specialises in the markets where the fraud occurred it was not apparent at all. fwiw the bets were not at poor value prices as the majority of evictees over the period actually drifted in the betting and I think from memory over the period of the fraud the fave was evicted on only 2 occasions.
I imagine they were suspicious because they were new accounts or existing accounts with massively increased stakes. |
|
By:
Good PR for betfair but the thin edge of a very big cheating wedge that is, in the main, sanctioned by betfair and their pet poodle the GC.
Once again your ignorance surfaces. BF are regulated by the GRA not GC. Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant. |
|
By:
I imagine they were suspicious because they were new accounts or existing accounts with massively increased stakes.
Quite possibly. There are plenty of signs that would arouse suspicion. Quite often people who get such info aren't seasoned punters so have no idea how to disguise their activity. |
|
By:
Once again your ignorance surfaces. BF are regulated by the GRA not GC. Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant.
They only recently moved their base to Gibraltar clown. |
|
By:
Feck you really are a tiresome old fool.
|
|
By:
Are we to take it that insider trading is now fine provided at least one member of the public is invited into the board room? Or does it have to be x members of the public? If the company charge each of them £yK does that comply with "the information being in the public domain" and "if you choose not to get hold of the available info that is your problem"?
Of course the GC don't regulate the financial parasites (unfortunately for said parasites) but this analogous insanity illustrates the route the GC have taken (or been 'guided' down). I'd love to sit in on a GC 'think' tank trying to put values to x and y. |