Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Court case in Essex has gambling industry under scrutiny again as punter says: ‘It was only when I won that they did any checks’
Talking Horses: third-party betting case raises familiar questions
Court case in Essex has gambling industry under scrutiny again as punter says: ‘It was only when I won that they did any checks’
Greg Wood
Greg Wood
@Greg_Wood_
Wed 19 Jul 2023 08.00 BST
In the never-ending struggle between punters and bookmakers, no one can be in any doubt that the bookies will always have the upper hand and the growth of online gambling over the past 20 years has only exaggerated the imbalance of power.
Backers who turn a profit on their betting can expect to have their accounts closed or restricted to betting in pennies as a matter of routine. Even a few losing bets that beat the starting price can be enough to get an account flagged as potentially “unprofitable”.
And when all else fails, there may well be something in the extensive terms and conditions (T&Cs) that 99% of punters sign up to without reading that will come to the bookie’s aid.
The gambling business, in other words, generally holds all the aces, with another up their sleeve just in case, but until quite recently, the worst that a punter could expect for a breach of the T&Cs was account closure, with any balance (including their initial stake) retained by the bookmaker. That, however, may no longer be the case.
David (not his real name) is a former Bet365 customer and his breach of the T&Cs was “third-party betting”. He used the bank details of around a dozen friends, acquaintances and family members – with their knowledge – to sign up for accounts with Bet365 and take advantage of the bonuses and offers that all firms dangle – for new customers only – as carrots to keep their client lists growing.
Third-party betting is a breach of the T&Cs of all online gambling firms. It is also an extremely common practice, not least because shrewd punters, the actual or potential winners whose bets eat into the bookies’ profit margin, often cannot get a bet accepted any other way. Other punters simply look to bank the “free” bonus, or use free bets to lock in profits elsewhere via the practice known as “matched betting”.
David recently went on trial in Essex, charged with “fraud by false representation against an online betting company ‘bet365’ and thereafter laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)”. After the judge in the case made it plain that he would face a two-year prison term if found guilty at the conclusion of a full trial, he changed his plea to guilty, receiving a sentence of 23 months in prison, suspended for two years, with 180 hours of unpaid work, and a confiscation order for nearly £270,000 – the total amount withdrawn from the 15 accounts which he operated. He also, of course, now has a criminal record.
Unlike the winning punters that firms such as Bet365 are so keen to avoid, however, David was, overall, a long-term loser with the firm. By his own admission, he was also in the grip of a gambling addiction when the accounts were in operation, and insists that the £270,000 withdrawn from Bet365 represents an overall loss of about £70,000 during his time betting with the firm.
“I’d always had gambling issues and it turned into an illness,” he says. “I was managing friends and family accounts, which goes on literally all over the place and I wasn’t as heavily into it as a lot of people. The total bonus value I took over six years was about £3,000, but I was also down £70,000 on sports betting and stuff. Every single account was down.
“Sometimes I was depositing 20 times a day, but there were never any checks [on whether he might have a gambling problem]. If what I did was a crime, I think that Bet365 was aiding and abetting me.”
David also believes that Bet365’s security systems could have used internet cookies and the IP address of his computer – a known practice employed by gambling firms – to link the 15 accounts to a single individual, but kept taking deposits while the accounts continued to lose.
Then, however, he hit a run of luck and the balance on one account rose to nearly £30,000.
“It was only when I won that they did any checks,” he says. “They let me keep depositing and losing with linked accounts until it wasn’t in their favour. They locked the account and I wasn’t letting it go and it all escalated from there.”
David took a decision that, in hindsight, he deeply regrets. “That was my biggest win in gambling and I knew that I was down so much over the years,” he says. “I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t just pay and close the account and so I lodged a civil claim for the money in the county court.” The account was in the name of an acquaintance, and when they did not appear at the hearing, the case was thrown out, with an order of costs against the “claimant” of more than £100,000.
David is considering whether to take civil action against Bet365 for what he sees as its possible negligence in his case and could enlist the help of Andrew Montague, the solicitor who successfully helped the late Barney Curley to retrieve his winnings from a major coup a decade ago, in pursuing it. Montague also represented Megan McCann, a 20-year-old student claimed winnings of around £1m from Bet365 in 2016 in a case that was subsequently settled out of court.
Bet365 has been approached for comment.
Talking Horses: third-party betting case raises familiar questions
Court case in Essex has gambling industry under scrutiny again as punter says: ‘It was only when I won that they did any checks’
Greg Wood
Greg Wood
@Greg_Wood_
Wed 19 Jul 2023 08.00 BST
In the never-ending struggle between punters and bookmakers, no one can be in any doubt that the bookies will always have the upper hand and the growth of online gambling over the past 20 years has only exaggerated the imbalance of power.
Backers who turn a profit on their betting can expect to have their accounts closed or restricted to betting in pennies as a matter of routine. Even a few losing bets that beat the starting price can be enough to get an account flagged as potentially “unprofitable”.
And when all else fails, there may well be something in the extensive terms and conditions (T&Cs) that 99% of punters sign up to without reading that will come to the bookie’s aid.
The gambling business, in other words, generally holds all the aces, with another up their sleeve just in case, but until quite recently, the worst that a punter could expect for a breach of the T&Cs was account closure, with any balance (including their initial stake) retained by the bookmaker. That, however, may no longer be the case.
David (not his real name) is a former Bet365 customer and his breach of the T&Cs was “third-party betting”. He used the bank details of around a dozen friends, acquaintances and family members – with their knowledge – to sign up for accounts with Bet365 and take advantage of the bonuses and offers that all firms dangle – for new customers only – as carrots to keep their client lists growing.
Third-party betting is a breach of the T&Cs of all online gambling firms. It is also an extremely common practice, not least because shrewd punters, the actual or potential winners whose bets eat into the bookies’ profit margin, often cannot get a bet accepted any other way. Other punters simply look to bank the “free” bonus, or use free bets to lock in profits elsewhere via the practice known as “matched betting”.
David recently went on trial in Essex, charged with “fraud by false representation against an online betting company ‘bet365’ and thereafter laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)”. After the judge in the case made it plain that he would face a two-year prison term if found guilty at the conclusion of a full trial, he changed his plea to guilty, receiving a sentence of 23 months in prison, suspended for two years, with 180 hours of unpaid work, and a confiscation order for nearly £270,000 – the total amount withdrawn from the 15 accounts which he operated. He also, of course, now has a criminal record.
Unlike the winning punters that firms such as Bet365 are so keen to avoid, however, David was, overall, a long-term loser with the firm. By his own admission, he was also in the grip of a gambling addiction when the accounts were in operation, and insists that the £270,000 withdrawn from Bet365 represents an overall loss of about £70,000 during his time betting with the firm.
“I’d always had gambling issues and it turned into an illness,” he says. “I was managing friends and family accounts, which goes on literally all over the place and I wasn’t as heavily into it as a lot of people. The total bonus value I took over six years was about £3,000, but I was also down £70,000 on sports betting and stuff. Every single account was down.
“Sometimes I was depositing 20 times a day, but there were never any checks [on whether he might have a gambling problem]. If what I did was a crime, I think that Bet365 was aiding and abetting me.”
David also believes that Bet365’s security systems could have used internet cookies and the IP address of his computer – a known practice employed by gambling firms – to link the 15 accounts to a single individual, but kept taking deposits while the accounts continued to lose.
Then, however, he hit a run of luck and the balance on one account rose to nearly £30,000.
“It was only when I won that they did any checks,” he says. “They let me keep depositing and losing with linked accounts until it wasn’t in their favour. They locked the account and I wasn’t letting it go and it all escalated from there.”
David took a decision that, in hindsight, he deeply regrets. “That was my biggest win in gambling and I knew that I was down so much over the years,” he says. “I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t just pay and close the account and so I lodged a civil claim for the money in the county court.” The account was in the name of an acquaintance, and when they did not appear at the hearing, the case was thrown out, with an order of costs against the “claimant” of more than £100,000.
David is considering whether to take civil action against Bet365 for what he sees as its possible negligence in his case and could enlist the help of Andrew Montague, the solicitor who successfully helped the late Barney Curley to retrieve his winnings from a major coup a decade ago, in pursuing it. Montague also represented Megan McCann, a 20-year-old student claimed winnings of around £1m from Bet365 in 2016 in a case that was subsequently settled out of court.
Bet365 has been approached for comment.
Show More
Jockey's need putters on as the cannot back horses in their own name, I am sure they will keep doing what they have always done
Footballers cannot bet on football, need somebody
to get their yellow card bets placed.
Surely anybody that is restricted has 3rd party
accounts.
Opening so many that it's bleeding obvious is plain daft
and a waste of a good few years resources.
to get their yellow card bets placed.
Surely anybody that is restricted has 3rd party
accounts.
Opening so many that it's bleeding obvious is plain daft
and a waste of a good few years resources.
If bookmakers never took bets from 3rd party accounts, they'd lose at least 50% of there custom imho.
I want to know how Coates is on over 1 million a DAY. Its not from your average 5ers and 10ers and 50p Yankees. The shrewdies can't get a score on so where is all this money coming from?
365 is online meaning less overheads and easier to manage. Also, founders and privately owned enterprises would know the business inside-out, and no shareholder to placate.
But for the nature of the business she deserves every penny. She's also civic and social minded locally.
But for the nature of the business she deserves every penny. She's also civic and social minded locally.
slickster19 Jul 23 14:17Joined: 29 May 02 | Topic/replies: 5,757 | Blogger: slickster's blog
I want to know how Coates is on over 1 million a DAY.
Wheels & Reels - played 24/7, 365 days a year, anywhere and everywhere.
I want to know how Coates is on over 1 million a DAY.
Wheels & Reels - played 24/7, 365 days a year, anywhere and everywhere.
slickster 19 Jul 23 14:17
I want to know how Coates is on over 1 million a DAY. Its not from your average 5ers and 10ers and 50p Yankees. The shrewdies can't get a score on so where is all this money coming from?
---------
FAR EAST All those mad Asian gamblers ... B et 365 even have Racecourses named after them in Australia - as do Ladblokes.
bet365 Echuca
bet365 Bairnsdale
bet365 Geelong
Ladbrokes Park Hillside = Sandown (in real money)
- and just how is the Gambling Commission going to check on those elusive Far East gamblers - cleaning up d... money
I want to know how Coates is on over 1 million a DAY. Its not from your average 5ers and 10ers and 50p Yankees. The shrewdies can't get a score on so where is all this money coming from?
---------
FAR EAST All those mad Asian gamblers ... B et 365 even have Racecourses named after them in Australia - as do Ladblokes.
bet365 Echuca
bet365 Bairnsdale
bet365 Geelong
Ladbrokes Park Hillside = Sandown (in real money)
- and just how is the Gambling Commission going to check on those elusive Far East gamblers - cleaning up d... money
confiscation order for nearly £270,000 – the total amount withdrawn from the 15 accounts which he operated.
surely that cannot be from free offer bets?
surely that cannot be from free offer bets?
£3.65 must be a money laundering operation,the amounts bet for them to make those profits,they must never have a lucky streak or they,d be wiped out in hrs/days
Must have huge turnover!
270k in bonuses, lol, sounds like a huge family
and friends or he's landed a few punts.
270k in bonuses, lol, sounds like a huge family
and friends or he's landed a few punts.
impossible123 • July 19, 2023 8:54 AM BST
I hope the new White Paper on gambling addresses this sharp practice and bias of bookies
The white paper was published months ago and contains utterly nothing of use to punters.
I hope the new White Paper on gambling addresses this sharp practice and bias of bookies
The white paper was published months ago and contains utterly nothing of use to punters.
Seems like another very ignorant judge on the bench here.
That escaped me. I hope the Gambling Commission will be given more power very soon (alluded to by government white paper) to deal with this regular repetition of t&c transgression by bookies.
I hope the Gambling Commission will suspend a bookie's license to trade for a period of time (not merely a fine) to show intent and gravitas of their flagrant and regular transgression. I'd also like the government to cull a few of the online bookies esp those not domiciled here.
I hope the Gambling Commission will suspend a bookie's license to trade for a period of time (not merely a fine) to show intent and gravitas of their flagrant and regular transgression. I'd also like the government to cull a few of the online bookies esp those not domiciled here.
To call the OP evidence of laundering money is a total embarrassment.
Laundering refers to either the illegal activity to make money, the avoidance of relevant taxes or the funding of illicit activity.
The example is non of those. It’s not illegal to gamble, it’s not illegal to gift money (as long as it’s declared and subject to Inheritance Tax) and if there was evidence of financing drugs or terrorism then they would be the charges that trumped the rest of this circus.
Laundering refers to either the illegal activity to make money, the avoidance of relevant taxes or the funding of illicit activity.
The example is non of those. It’s not illegal to gamble, it’s not illegal to gift money (as long as it’s declared and subject to Inheritance Tax) and if there was evidence of financing drugs or terrorism then they would be the charges that trumped the rest of this circus.
95% of bookies are absolute scum, 365 is one of them. Guy wins 270k and loses 340k, they want the 270k back. The judge should just chuckle at their greed and throw out the case.
dusty - who called the OP evidence of money laundering?
None of things you list are illegal - but fraud by false representation is, and that was what he was convicted of.
None of things you list are illegal - but fraud by false representation is, and that was what he was convicted of.
@ longbridge
from OP “fraud by false representation against an online betting company ‘bet365’ and thereafter laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)”.
@ dusty
Years ago the crime of money laundering was expanded from being about just hiding the source of criminal funds and legitimising them, to include doing virtually anything with criminal funds. So anyone charged with fraud will quite often get money laundering added on.
from OP “fraud by false representation against an online betting company ‘bet365’ and thereafter laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)”.
@ dusty
Years ago the crime of money laundering was expanded from being about just hiding the source of criminal funds and legitimising them, to include doing virtually anything with criminal funds. So anyone charged with fraud will quite often get money laundering added on.
Thanks dave, somehow my eye skipped over that.
And yes, that's money laundering - the apparent payment from Bet365 was to Joe Bloggs but the money was diverted to "David". And the conviction for fraud means those moneys are the proceeds of crime, so this is money laundering as always understood - taking the proceeds of crime and attempting to disguise their final destination.
And yes, that's money laundering - the apparent payment from Bet365 was to Joe Bloggs but the money was diverted to "David". And the conviction for fraud means those moneys are the proceeds of crime, so this is money laundering as always understood - taking the proceeds of crime and attempting to disguise their final destination.
"David also believes that Bet365’s security systems could have used internet cookies and the IP address of his computer – a known practice employed by gambling firms – to link the 15 accounts to a single individual, but kept taking deposits while the accounts continued to lose".
Not the brightest in not using a VPN ?
Not the brightest in not using a VPN ?
If he was bright he wouldn't have tried to sue them in someone else's name and brought this all down on his head.
I hear that Dave, but how can 365 determine fraud when money can be given to whoever, and as frequently as one chooses?
If "David" had genuinely given Joe Bloggs a hundred pounds to go betting with, and Joe had in a fit of gratitude given his winnings back to "David" then just maybe he could claim dusty's scenario. It would be an interesting line to have tried in court.
But he didn't. It was David's computer, David's IP address, David placing the bets. He was pretending to be Joe to get new customer benefits, and that's fraud. And 365 did not determine it was fraud - the Court did.
But he didn't. It was David's computer, David's IP address, David placing the bets. He was pretending to be Joe to get new customer benefits, and that's fraud. And 365 did not determine it was fraud - the Court did.
howard • July 20, 2023 10:42 AM BST
"David also believes that Bet365’s security systems could have used internet cookies and the IP address of his computer – a known practice employed by gambling firms – to link the 15 accounts to a single individual, but kept taking deposits while the accounts continued to lose".
Not the brightest in not using a VPN ?
Think you are missing the point and 365 block many vpns
btw I think that it's a disgrace that criminal courts are getting involved in this. It is clearly a civil matter.
"David also believes that Bet365’s security systems could have used internet cookies and the IP address of his computer – a known practice employed by gambling firms – to link the 15 accounts to a single individual, but kept taking deposits while the accounts continued to lose".
Not the brightest in not using a VPN ?
Think you are missing the point and 365 block many vpns
btw I think that it's a disgrace that criminal courts are getting involved in this. It is clearly a civil matter.
longbridge, I think this is a different case to the small claims guy, who pled not guilty.
I really think that 365 have pulled some political strings and plod are prosecuting these cases when they would have had nothing to do with them in the past.
I really think that 365 have pulled some political strings and plod are prosecuting these cases when they would have had nothing to do with them in the past.
dave - I thought the article suggested...
"David took a decision that, in hindsight, he deeply regrets. “That was my biggest win in gambling and I knew that I was down so much over the years,” he says. “I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t just pay and close the account and so I lodged a civil claim for the money in the county court.” The account was in the name of an acquaintance, and when they did not appear at the hearing, the case was thrown out, with an order of costs against the “claimant” of more than £100,000."
... that the civil case against 365 was what woke them up to what was going on and initiated the chain of events which led to prosecution?
"I really think that 365 have pulled some political strings and plod are prosecuting these cases when they would have had nothing to do with them in the past."
Maybe - but B365 have now established the legal precedent that operating betting accounts in someone else's name to get around restrictions / gain extra bonuses can be prosecuted in th criminal courts as fraud and/or money laundering, which gives bookies generally a big club to wave - if you operate such an account, and they catch on and freeze your money, any attempt to get your money back can be countered by a threadt to take you to criminal court if you persist. A few of those in the papers and people will start to think twice.
"David took a decision that, in hindsight, he deeply regrets. “That was my biggest win in gambling and I knew that I was down so much over the years,” he says. “I couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t just pay and close the account and so I lodged a civil claim for the money in the county court.” The account was in the name of an acquaintance, and when they did not appear at the hearing, the case was thrown out, with an order of costs against the “claimant” of more than £100,000."
... that the civil case against 365 was what woke them up to what was going on and initiated the chain of events which led to prosecution?
"I really think that 365 have pulled some political strings and plod are prosecuting these cases when they would have had nothing to do with them in the past."
Maybe - but B365 have now established the legal precedent that operating betting accounts in someone else's name to get around restrictions / gain extra bonuses can be prosecuted in th criminal courts as fraud and/or money laundering, which gives bookies generally a big club to wave - if you operate such an account, and they catch on and freeze your money, any attempt to get your money back can be countered by a threadt to take you to criminal court if you persist. A few of those in the papers and people will start to think twice.
He has basically been done for winning - if he had just carried on losing, like he was supposed to, he would have been ok!
They didn't give a t0ss what name(s) or how many names he was using, just so long as he kept losing.
They didn't give a t0ss what name(s) or how many names he was using, just so long as he kept losing.
my bad - so that is two people who did that.
The other case involved a lengthy police investigation and presumably this one did as well. Given stretched police resources, I can't see that being green lighted unless someone has decided that Denise's taxes are important.
The other case involved a lengthy police investigation and presumably this one did as well. Given stretched police resources, I can't see that being green lighted unless someone has decided that Denise's taxes are important.
I don't know how VPNs are identified/blocked but they definitely are by some!
"btw I think that it's a disgrace that criminal courts are getting involved in this. It is clearly a civil matter."
Why would it be a civil matter? B365 haven't lost any money. No one else has either. In fact B365 won £70k.
The civil case would reverse the roles of plaintiff and defendant.
Kind of ironic
Why would it be a civil matter? B365 haven't lost any money. No one else has either. In fact B365 won £70k.
The civil case would reverse the roles of plaintiff and defendant.
Kind of ironic
which is ofc where it all started and where it might end!
howard • July 20, 2023 12:44 PM BST
" 365 block many vpns" How do they do that ?
They have a list of the IP addresses used by vpn providers. Iplayer has this as well.
" 365 block many vpns" How do they do that ?
They have a list of the IP addresses used by vpn providers. Iplayer has this as well.
CLYDEBANK29 • July 20, 2023 12:53 PM BST
Why would it be a civil matter?
If 365 feel they have lost money, they should go to civil court and get judgement. Instead they whined to the police that they had defrauded.
Why would it be a civil matter?
If 365 feel they have lost money, they should go to civil court and get judgement. Instead they whined to the police that they had defrauded.
If someone goes to the police stating that a bookie won't pay out because they say the ticket is already cashed, plod will tell you to f-ck off.
sure Dave but they didn't lose money. You need to have suffered loss of some sort for a civil case AFAIK
It may not have been Bet365 that prompted the criminal case, as there is clearly an angle that Bet365 knowingly or negligently, facilitated it.
The criminal case being bought by the state, as David lodged a civil case for money lost under someone else's name, rather than a nudge, nudge, wink, wink from Bet365. I'd make it the fave of the 2 possibilities myself
So you think someone has been convicted of "laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)" when there wasn't any fraud?
Anyway you are missing the entire point. If you or I go to the police claiming that a bookie has defrauded us, plod will say it's a civil matter and refuse to get involved.
There are stacks of people with multi-accounts, for a number of reasons, from forgetting the details upwards. Bookies entire raison d'etre is to get customers and take all their money. They do not merit this kind of protection from the state,
Anyway you are missing the entire point. If you or I go to the police claiming that a bookie has defrauded us, plod will say it's a civil matter and refuse to get involved.
There are stacks of people with multi-accounts, for a number of reasons, from forgetting the details upwards. Bookies entire raison d'etre is to get customers and take all their money. They do not merit this kind of protection from the state,
I'm saying Bet365 prolly haven't gone to the police. The case was likely bought independently by the state instead imo.
I don't think the prosecution was in the public's interest or the law fair for these circumstances, but that's a separate issue.
I don't think the prosecution was in the public's interest or the law fair for these circumstances, but that's a separate issue.
in the other case, 365 reported fraud to the police, the same is likely here.
if it was for 10 quid would the sentence have been the same?
David reported the fraud himself when he lodged a civil case under someone else's name.
The other case is different. The account holder lodged the civil action in her own name. Settled out of court we can probably assume she won.
In David's case Bet365 can be seen to act either knowingly or negligently imo in facilitating the money laundering crime and gained financially from it. There was plenty of evidence available to B365.
In Martha's case they hadn't any evidence, only suspicion and they lost substantially from the bet.
The other case is different. The account holder lodged the civil action in her own name. Settled out of court we can probably assume she won.
In David's case Bet365 can be seen to act either knowingly or negligently imo in facilitating the money laundering crime and gained financially from it. There was plenty of evidence available to B365.
In Martha's case they hadn't any evidence, only suspicion and they lost substantially from the bet.
dave
"when there wasn't any fraud?"
How do you come to that conclusion? A criminal court came to a different view, and it seems indisputable "David" had things of value from B365 (introductory offers, getting bets accepted when he would not otherwise) which he would not have had were he not to have pretended to be Joe Bloggs and not "David".
Taking money from a person or a company by pretending to be someone you are not is - aiui - pretty much the definition of fraud by false representation.
"when there wasn't any fraud?"
How do you come to that conclusion? A criminal court came to a different view, and it seems indisputable "David" had things of value from B365 (introductory offers, getting bets accepted when he would not otherwise) which he would not have had were he not to have pretended to be Joe Bloggs and not "David".
Taking money from a person or a company by pretending to be someone you are not is - aiui - pretty much the definition of fraud by false representation.
confiscation order for nearly £270,000
judge should've said your boss earns 4 times that every fkng day, give the man his money and stop being a bunch of greedy cnts ...
judge should've said your boss earns 4 times that every fkng day, give the man his money and stop being a bunch of greedy cnts ...
The judge wasn't being asked to make a decision on a civil case ("should B365 give David his money?") - that was the case David raised in civil court and then failed to have anyone show up for, bringing this world of pain down on his head.
The judge was being asked to make a decision on a point of law in a criminal case, whether David's behaviour constituted fraud.
The judge was being asked to make a decision on a point of law in a criminal case, whether David's behaviour constituted fraud.
The judge was being asked to make a decision on a point of law in a criminal case, whether David's behaviour constituted fraud.
the judge bullied "David" into pleading guilty threatening jail and then royally fckd him over with a criminal proceeds order (which could lead to jail if unsatisfied).
the judge bullied "David" into pleading guilty threatening jail and then royally fckd him over with a criminal proceeds order (which could lead to jail if unsatisfied).
His behaviour constituted fraud the minute he opened an account in anothers name with the intention of dishonestly appropriating the property of B365 with no intention to return it,simple law!! He or his friends were lucky they weren't also done for conspiracy as he appears to have put some of them in the picture before using the accounts with their agreement.
everyone who bets does so with the intention of appropriating the bookies property
Rich Ricci wanted to walk away from thousands of ante-post wagers. It is an absurdity to bring fraud into normal bookie/customer activity.
all he did was open accounts for a few friends cos they were unsure how to do it.
don't believe him, ask the friends.
don't believe him, ask the friends.
jon howard was found not quilty of money laundering and had 1000 of these accounts.
Money laundering is a completely separate issue Senyatta.
so if you were to make money using your friends/partners fantasy football team in their work league - you could get 2 yrs?
What Cagliari said about conspiracy - I had not thought of that and it is a very serious offence
Agree with Dave here. I think he should have pleaded not guilty.
Just as well you weren't advising him then Howard,he would be in prison!!
IMO if he had pleaded not guilty he would have been sent down, rather than copping a suspended sentence.
Would have got the case a lot more publicity though. Bringing this whole thing under the spotlight including the bookies.
he's going to prison anyway unless he can come up with £270,000 proceeds of crime that he never received.
Without knowing the specifics of the actual charges and the law I couldn't advise, but given the punishment I think there is definitely a case for a not guilty plea.
The proceeds of crime payback is a disgrace. There is also the issue that B365 have software in place to immediately detect bets placed on different accounts from the same IP. They surely must have known. They can therefore be argued to have been the actual beneficiaries of the crime. Every account was down!
Why is the judge a disgrace Dave? The guy broke the law,the judge advised him just the same as he would have done in any other case from gbh to rape etc,he is obliged to do this to give the defendant the opportunity to consider the consequences,most who know they are guilty or believe the evidence is solid will plead rather than the long odd on of a guilty verdict and a full sentence!! HTH
different accounts from the same IP
what happens if you invite 25 of your friends round to yours and they're all gambling with 365 using your router ?
what happens if you invite 25 of your friends round to yours and they're all gambling with 365 using your router ?
35 people in a pub all using the pubs wifi, all gambling with 365.
What about those trading rooms that used to exist?
All in the same premises.
It raises a quandary; if the users of those rooms also believe the exchanges are full of the house’s money, then doesn’t that create a problem?
All in the same premises.
It raises a quandary; if the users of those rooms also believe the exchanges are full of the house’s money, then doesn’t that create a problem?
the disgrace isn't the fact that he was found guilty of fraud by misrep, it's that he's got a confiscation order for £270k!
so he's down a few hundred k with bet365 and he has to pay back another 270k? which means bet365 will have doubled their profit from this guy? surely that can't be right?
I’m not convinced it was as described anyway.
I heard the other case had substantial added issues including paying funds into a business account to claim a mortgage on false information, it would surprise me if there was more to this case too.
I heard the other case had substantial added issues including paying funds into a business account to claim a mortgage on false information, it would surprise me if there was more to this case too.
@howard
"Would have got the case a lot more publicity though."
'David' is in a pretty poor place as it stands - why would he cop for up to two years in chokey to make a point? He is (by all appearances) and addict and an idiot, not a crusader.
"Would have got the case a lot more publicity though."
'David' is in a pretty poor place as it stands - why would he cop for up to two years in chokey to make a point? He is (by all appearances) and addict and an idiot, not a crusader.
CagliariG • July 21, 2023 3:14 PM BST
He was not found guilty Clydebank,he pleaded guilty!!
yeah because the disgrace of the judge bullied him to plead guilty to stay out of jail and then hit him with a PoC order which means he'll in all likelihood go to jail anyway.
He was not found guilty Clydebank,he pleaded guilty!!
yeah because the disgrace of the judge bullied him to plead guilty to stay out of jail and then hit him with a PoC order which means he'll in all likelihood go to jail anyway.
All sorts of scum getting no kind of sentence for violent crimes and this poor sod gets completely fckd over for a bit of a gambling caper.
No doubt tobymug was cheering on all those poor sods who ran post offices and were bullied into pleading guilty when they did nothing wrong.
No doubt tobymug was cheering on all those poor sods who ran post offices and were bullied into pleading guilty when they did nothing wrong.
You are a clueless moron Dave,name how many of the sub postmasters pleaded guilty before trial? A judge has no function in England other than to advise on points of law,even during a trial and then after to sentence.I suppose you have seen a judge banging a gavel in an English Court and bawling at people?
I'm pretty sure the identification is done via the Computer ID and not the IP. It's pretty easy to vary the IP but not change the device.
365 is the only site I've been unable to log into via VPN, even if I try a different country.
If for example I give somebody £400 cash and they let me spend £400 on a bank card in their name, it would be money laundering. I cannot prove the province of the original cash, and I am in fact deliberately disguising it. If you do that on a scale of tens of thousands of pounds and get caught, it's not going too end well.
365 is the only site I've been unable to log into via VPN, even if I try a different country.
If for example I give somebody £400 cash and they let me spend £400 on a bank card in their name, it would be money laundering. I cannot prove the province of the original cash, and I am in fact deliberately disguising it. If you do that on a scale of tens of thousands of pounds and get caught, it's not going too end well.
no vpn at 365. tried from the alps a few times, no can do.
tobymug hasn't even bothered to read the article
After the judge in the case made it plain that he would face a two-year prison term if found guilty at the conclusion of a full trial, he changed his plea to guilty
After the judge in the case made it plain that he would face a two-year prison term if found guilty at the conclusion of a full trial, he changed his plea to guilty
Are you really as thick as you seem Dave?
Already told you the judge was just fulfilling his obligation as he would in any other case!!!
Already told you the judge was just fulfilling his obligation as he would in any other case!!!
mate comes round to my house.
fancy a bet on a horse, mind if i log onto my 365 account with your laptop to place it ?
well .... you can. but i'll have to go to jail for 2 years and repay any money you win
fancy a bet on a horse, mind if i log onto my 365 account with your laptop to place it ?
well .... you can. but i'll have to go to jail for 2 years and repay any money you win
Tobymug you're a fantasist and liar. I and no one else in this thread is the slightest bit interested in what you say.
Never let facts get in the way of thickets lack of IQ as chompy would has said!!
How many times have you been banned from this forum? More than mfordy? (that's a big number)
Twice actually,both times dealing with thickets like you!! HTH
You can imagine the 365 representation will have likely made out they banned the guy for his own good, and I’d bet the judge/jury lapped it up.
When in reality politicians are not focussing on the real problem; one where bookies need to create books in order to gain a license and not subsidise the enterprise by dangling slots infront of idiots.
When in reality politicians are not focussing on the real problem; one where bookies need to create books in order to gain a license and not subsidise the enterprise by dangling slots infront of idiots.
There was no jury dusty, therefore no representation from the bookies in front of the judge!! HTH
CagliariG • July 21, 2023 5:04 PM BST
Twice actually,both times dealing with thickets like you!
Think it's a bit more than that - but good that you are admitting that you are a multi-accounter and thus as guilty as the character in the OP.
Twice actually,both times dealing with thickets like you!
Think it's a bit more than that - but good that you are admitting that you are a multi-accounter and thus as guilty as the character in the OP.
More to the point "David" entrered a guilty plea, so need for witnesses to be called.
I do have some sympathy for the idiot, but he did bring this on himself, as he admits.
I do have some sympathy for the idiot, but he did bring this on himself, as he admits.
That account does not exist you muppet as you yourself just noted!!
The term multi as you use it requires more than one at the same time,like yours!!!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539