There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 96 comments are related to the topic:
Epping man jailed over gambling fraud against Bet 365
Epping man jailed over gambling fraud against Bet 365
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 96
|
By:
longbridge.. thats the most idiotic post. Completely different scenario. If they didnt do their checks beforehand on the account holders etc, its their bad. Cant believe they were able to get it into a court room tbh
|
|
By:
Thanks for the feedback - I will still beg to differ.
It would not matter if my imaginary jeweller left his shop unlocked for the afternoon while he went to the pub - his insurers might cavil at paying out, but I still have no defence in court if I walk away with the Rolex in my pocket. |
|
By:
Perhaps a better analogy would be buying a Rolex for £5,000 from a jeweller, then being convicted for fraud when the jeweller notices that he could have got £6,000 for it on eBay.
(Or, to put it in language B365 would understand: This bloke kept finding ways of getting 3/1 about things which ended up 3.5 on Betfair, so they called in the police.) |
|
By:
Nonetheless, to my mind it is a wake-up call to those who think that opening multiple accounts in different names is harmless bookie-baiting - a criminal conviction would blight most of our lives, I think?
|
|
By:
Pretty decent analogy above, but the point remains that 356 should have picked up on the accounts at point of registration and certainly before deposits were accepted etc.If the guy had lost all deposits, they would not have taken any action, yet the guys actions were the same. Are they saying an action is only fraudulant if a loss is suffered to a party? Surely either the action is fraudulant or not, regardless of the outcome..
|
|
By:
Longbridge.. maybe if bookies actually were bookies then they would not have such people finding ways of circumnavigating their restrictions etc?
|
|
By:
Do we know whether he kept betting on all these accounts or if he left them dormant after picking up the free bet/s ? Latter would have been a red flag.
|
|
By:
I am not sure that is quite the point here - even if bookies took every bet without restriction, there is still an incentive to take multiple sign-up bonuses, which is what (as I read it) happened here?
|
|
By:
Seems a grey area to me, could a customer who saw 3/1 offered about a horse but then be told its actually only 9/4 for proper money take said bookie to court for defrauding them by advertising a false price?
|
|
By:
Now where's the switch you realise this is a criminal case and they don't happen because one party decides to take the other to court.
|
|
By:
If they start going back through Historic Accounts , I'm probably looking at 6 months
 |
|
By:
I know people who have had Dozens of accounts with them , Paying 200 to People to open the Account , Be a couple on here and the Dog forum have probably had in the Region of 50 over the years
|
|
By:
The 200 Sign up left them open to this happening
|
|
By:
Shrewd_dude, indeed i do realise. which makes it all the more unfathomable that based on what has been written that the CPS believed any sort of fraud had occurred. Unless there was a 'victim' in this case to report the activity, how did it even come about?
|
|
By:
There is more info at
https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2023/april/man-jailed-after-betting-fraud/ for anyone who hasn't seen it. Some points: The court had heard how people willingly gave their details over to Howard, who then impersonated them to access Bet365 services Not clear what the relationship was here - if they knew what was to happen with the details and received some payment, I can't see how he could have been accused of "impersonating" them. As we all know, some sort of ID would have been required, so it is difficult to see how this was obtained from unwilling participants. He, therefore, collected bonuses to which he would never otherwise have been entitled. But the people "impersonated" would have been entitled to bonuses and in addition substantial wagering is required to release the bonuses. His legal team should have grilled 365 about what they expect to happen to new customers and what they describe as a good customer. Betting online in someone else’s name is against the terms of use So f-cking what - if I contact the police when a bookie doesn't pay out, that's what they'll say to me. They might direct me to the small claims court but they will never open a criminal case. The bank charges I assume are related to him using ID's to open accounts, but no loss is mentioned, so very much a technical offence. |
|
By:
Shrewd_dude, indeed i do realise. which makes it all the more unfathomable that based on what has been written that the CPS believed any sort of fraud had occurred. Unless there was a 'victim' in this case to report the activity, how did it even come about?
Not only did the CPS think that but a jury did after 4 weeks of trial as well. I'm not sure how you would come to the conclusion that making a false pretence for gain wouldn't be potentialy fraudulent. |
|
By:
Because the people who have actually made the false representation to 356 are those who allowed their details to be used. They are the account holder according to the t&c,s...
|
|
By:
well he got 5 years so u can't be right Dave. If it's him speaking on the phone (or placing bets online ) but the account holder is someone else what else is it but impersonating ? Doesn't matter they knew about it.
|
|
By:
Because the people who have actually made the false representation to 356 are those who allowed their details to be used. They are the account holder according to the t&c,s...
No it isn't. The person making the false pretence is the person making the false pretence that he is x when he isn't x. |
|
By:
Be interesting if they ever explored the days of 'master' accounts on here...
|
|
By:
Shrewd.. What if it was the person named on the account logging on and phoning up etc, but just following instructions from person x? Its a minefield that bookies have invited on themselves it seems.
|
|
By:
That might be the case, but no loss is suffered as a result of the alleged impersonation, as those allegedly impersonated were entitled to the bonuses.
|
|
By:
3 6 5 thought they had "given 30k" to say 150 people ( 150 x £200 ) They gave it all to Jon Howard.
|
|
By:
You don't know what the arrangement was between Howard and the names. But in any case the names were entitled to the bonuses which had to be staked by real cash before release. There was no loss to 365.
|
|
By:
The bottom line is this person was greedy. If he had done it with 10 people would this case have come up ? I guess NO.
|
|
By:
They should have been forced to admit that they offer a sign up bonus because they want to ensnare compulsive gamblers and not being able to do that is what enraged them.
|
|
By:
Dave we don't know but it's likely many of these people were not interested in betting. What if he had got 2 million people to do this ? No loss to 3 6 5 ?
|
|
By:
Loads of Accounts Bought by people , They left themselves open to it , with the free 200 ,I'e Ill give u 200 to open an account for me ,Mind you the Accounts were used for betting , Not defrauding the Company , Peoples accounts closed when Losing FFS , Just betting the wrong selection in the Eyes of 365 , Ur spot on Dave , 5 years
insane IMO , People Defrauding the DWP for More money would not get this amount of time .. |
|
By:
Switch I suppose that would come down to the circumstances which presumably was the purpose of the 4 week trial for the jurors to determine.
Bizzare that Dave thinks fraud's not committed if the person being impersonated would have been entitled to the gain anyway. One to remember the next time anyone is thinking about committing mortgage, loan, passport or benefit fraud etc. etc. |
|
By:
One to remember the next time anyone is thinking about committing mortgage, loan, passport or benefit fraud etc. etc.
Shrewd Most people committing such Frauds will not be worried about the LAW , imo |
|
By:
Shrewd_dude 24 Apr 23 14:14
Not only did the CPS think that but a jury did after 4 weeks of trial as well. It was a crown court case so presumably there was a jury, but interestingly the police report makes no reference to a jury. |
|
By:
George the article you posted states:
Jon Howard had always denied the charges but was convicted at the conclusion of a four-week trial ending on Tuesday, March 14 when he was remanded in custody until sentencing. |
|
By:
Exactly, convicted by who?
As I said, crown court cases usually have juries, but that report doesn't say "found guilty by a jury". I'm not saying he wasn't but the report doesn't make that clear. |
|
By:
howard • April 24, 2023 2:33 PM BST
Dave we don't know but it's likely many of these people were not interested in betting. What if he had got 2 million people to do this ? No loss to 3 6 5 The bonus iirc is deposit matching and has to be 4x staked. This wasn't a matter of simply free money. As I said, those whose IDs were used would have been entitled to a bonus, even a million of them, so I can't see how 365 lost out, other than them not getting some gambling addicts. So effectively the police are protecting 365's right to ruin lives. |
|
By:
This report makes reference to a jury, and mentions another case involving bet365
The incident is the second time this year bet365 has found itself the target of fraudsters, with the first instance being a case of sporting integrity, Scottish lower league striker Kane Hester was accused of an intentional booking. The Elgin City player was allegedly involved in a plot alongside three friends to deliberately receive a card in a game against Hiberianian, after placing bets on this to happen via bet365’s website. https://sbcnews.co.uk/sportsbook/2023/04/24/bet365-236k-fraud-plot/ |
|
By:
And the first words of the gambling act are
preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime, So where is the enforcement action against 365, for clearly being associated with crime? |
|
By:
Just to clarify:
Elgin City striker Kane Hester cleared of defrauding Bet365 after jury returns 'Not proven' verdict https://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/elgin-city-striker-kane-hester-cleared-of-defrauding-bet365-306391/ |
|
By:
We can safely say Dave wouldn't make a successful online bookie. You may want a million more accounts but you don't want them run by a shrewdie. You know random new accounts will lose. Nothing wrong with that. It's business.
|
|
By:
They deserve all they get , there restriction business over the years have led to most of the Multi Accounts I am aware of , And they must have known what was going on
|
|
By:
They knew Howard , Would let the new Accounts play for a few Weeks then restrict again , and Round and round it went ,The Friends and Family Accounts
|