Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/01/consumers-money-offer-personal-details-betting-accounts-gambling
Show More
You would need to be desperate, unfortunately some people are desperate.
The going rate for a 356 account a few years was 500
Aidan Bond from Whitstable is behind this compamy
lots of desperate people in the UK, rioting is out, so what's left? Sell your identity for £100. Makes you wonder, much for your arse?
The company running this claim it is legal - and doubtless they have taken advice to that effect - but I struggle to see how this does not fall within Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Betting firms make take punters "borrowing" their family and friends' details to open duplicate accounts as a hazard of the business, but a company doing this on an industrial scale is surely a different matter?
I will be interested to see how this plays out.
Betting firms make take punters "borrowing" their family and friends' details to open duplicate accounts as a hazard of the business, but a company doing this on an industrial scale is surely a different matter?
I will be interested to see how this plays out.
The company running this claim it is legal - and doubtless they have taken advice to that effect - but I struggle to see how this does not fall within Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Betting firms make take punters "borrowing" their family and friends' details to open duplicate accounts as a hazard of the business, but a company doing this on an industrial scale is surely a different matter?
I will be interested to see how this plays out.
Betting firms make take punters "borrowing" their family and friends' details to open duplicate accounts as a hazard of the business, but a company doing this on an industrial scale is surely a different matter?
I will be interested to see how this plays out.
This is hardly a surprise. With bookies screening accounts, limiting winners, and affordability checking anyone spending over £150, what did the GC etc expect?
Similar in nature?
Man jailed for five years after opening more than 1,000 fraudulent betting accounts
A man who borrowed the identities of other people to open fraudulent online betting accounts has been jailed for five years.
Jon Howard, 40, was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit fraud against bet365 and Santander bank, but was cleared of money laundering when a four-week trial concluded in March.
Reacting to his subsequent sentencing at Basildon Crown Court, police described the investigation to unpick Howard's criminal activities as "lengthy and complex".
Howard maintained his innocence but the court heard how his activity dated back to 2008 and that he had opened more than 1,000 accounts in the names of others by the time his house was searched by police in February 2019.
The prosecution laid out details of how people willingly gave Howard access to their details which he then used to impersonate them in opening accounts with bet365, availing himself of new customer bonuses. Following an investigation led by Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, the prosecution alleged that he had profited to the tune of £236,000.
"Betting online in someone else’s name is against the terms of use," said detective sergeant Mike Monkton. “The whole enterprise was dishonest and designed to deceive the gambling company.
“When we were notified in 2018, we embarked upon a lengthy and complex investigation that took some time to unravel. When we executed a warrant at Jon Howard’s address in February 2019, it was obvious that this was set up to look like any other legal business.
"Hours were spent trawling through paperwork in different names, receipts for luxury items, bank books and 177 sim cards that were seized from the address. Substantial sums of money were involved.”
Co-defendant Daniel Gorman was also cleared of money laundering but was jailed for 16 months with 12 months suspended for conspiracy to commit fraud.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/man-jailed-for-five-years-after-opening-more-than-1000-fraudulent-betting-accounts-aBJQO0R5aawz/
Man jailed for five years after opening more than 1,000 fraudulent betting accounts
A man who borrowed the identities of other people to open fraudulent online betting accounts has been jailed for five years.
Jon Howard, 40, was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit fraud against bet365 and Santander bank, but was cleared of money laundering when a four-week trial concluded in March.
Reacting to his subsequent sentencing at Basildon Crown Court, police described the investigation to unpick Howard's criminal activities as "lengthy and complex".
Howard maintained his innocence but the court heard how his activity dated back to 2008 and that he had opened more than 1,000 accounts in the names of others by the time his house was searched by police in February 2019.
The prosecution laid out details of how people willingly gave Howard access to their details which he then used to impersonate them in opening accounts with bet365, availing himself of new customer bonuses. Following an investigation led by Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, the prosecution alleged that he had profited to the tune of £236,000.
"Betting online in someone else’s name is against the terms of use," said detective sergeant Mike Monkton. “The whole enterprise was dishonest and designed to deceive the gambling company.
“When we were notified in 2018, we embarked upon a lengthy and complex investigation that took some time to unravel. When we executed a warrant at Jon Howard’s address in February 2019, it was obvious that this was set up to look like any other legal business.
"Hours were spent trawling through paperwork in different names, receipts for luxury items, bank books and 177 sim cards that were seized from the address. Substantial sums of money were involved.”
Co-defendant Daniel Gorman was also cleared of money laundering but was jailed for 16 months with 12 months suspended for conspiracy to commit fraud.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/man-jailed-for-five-years-after-opening-more-than-1000-fraudulent-betting-accounts-aBJQO0R5aawz/
Why is this illegal.
If you ask a mate to open an account in his name,and he knows he’s being a proxy.cos you’re restricted.as long as the account holder is aware of it,how can it be illegal.
You are placing bets in his name.what happens to any profits after that is no concern of the bookie.
Would a shop phone the police if you went and bought a half price pair of jeans with your mates bank card.
I accept it’s not 100% moral,but surely it can’t be illegal,or a police matter.
Different story if you’ve got 100s of accounts ,maybe.
But if the 100s of people are aware,where’s the crime.
Massive moral and legal dilemma.
Bookie refuses bets off you because they don’t want your business,so you ask mate to legally place bets on your behalf.
Why is punter breaking the law,but bookie isn’t.
I think this should be a bookie monitoring system,but surely being sent to prison is harsh,where’s the crime.
People can do many things,collect benefits,power of attorney,etc etc on people’s behalf,as long as the person is ok with that,there’s no problem.
The bookies have done well to get this to be made illegal,
I decent barrister,would have a field day defending this,even if it’s 100s of accounts,as long as the 100s of account holders are aware.
If you ask a mate to open an account in his name,and he knows he’s being a proxy.cos you’re restricted.as long as the account holder is aware of it,how can it be illegal.
You are placing bets in his name.what happens to any profits after that is no concern of the bookie.
Would a shop phone the police if you went and bought a half price pair of jeans with your mates bank card.
I accept it’s not 100% moral,but surely it can’t be illegal,or a police matter.
Different story if you’ve got 100s of accounts ,maybe.
But if the 100s of people are aware,where’s the crime.
Massive moral and legal dilemma.
Bookie refuses bets off you because they don’t want your business,so you ask mate to legally place bets on your behalf.
Why is punter breaking the law,but bookie isn’t.
I think this should be a bookie monitoring system,but surely being sent to prison is harsh,where’s the crime.
People can do many things,collect benefits,power of attorney,etc etc on people’s behalf,as long as the person is ok with that,there’s no problem.
The bookies have done well to get this to be made illegal,
I decent barrister,would have a field day defending this,even if it’s 100s of accounts,as long as the 100s of account holders are aware.
It's what that 18 year old Irish female did back in 2017 or thereabouts when she won about a million pound and she took 364 to court when they refused to pay out because she had placed the bets on behalf of a 3rd party.
Her court action ended up being dropped.
It's like taking out car insurance or a loan in someone elses name. You might be alright flying under the radar but don't expect a court to find for you for breach of contract when the company tells you to get stuffed.
Her court action ended up being dropped.
It's like taking out car insurance or a loan in someone elses name. You might be alright flying under the radar but don't expect a court to find for you for breach of contract when the company tells you to get stuffed.
Don’t remember that case,but Barney Curley won,when his relatives landed their bets.betfred.
It’s nothing like car insurance in someone else’s name.
It’s like your mate taking out car insurance in his name,and naming you has a named driver.totally legal.
The 3rd party issue is,does the account holder know,
It’s no business of the bookie.
If I phone my mate in Tescos and tell him to get me 2 for 1 crisps on offer,using his bank card and Tesco club card points,it’s no business of Tescos.
It’s nothing like car insurance in someone else’s name.
It’s like your mate taking out car insurance in his name,and naming you has a named driver.totally legal.
The 3rd party issue is,does the account holder know,
It’s no business of the bookie.
If I phone my mate in Tescos and tell him to get me 2 for 1 crisps on offer,using his bank card and Tesco club card points,it’s no business of Tescos.
It wouldn’t affect me,cos I don’t do it,but I d be confident of winning the case ,even defending myself,I just don’t see how it account holder knows,how it’s illegal.
There’s no fraud,your mate is placing the bets in his name,you’re just pressing the buttons.
So basically.
If anyone backs price wise selections ,they could be arrested,placing bets on his horses ,
Or shouting to your mate at the track,bang me 50 on the fav,I’m just getting a p$ss,where’s the difference.
Anyone can act as proxy as long as the account holder is happy with that.
Now,maybe bookies can block this on a business rule.but as a criminal issue,can’t be right.
So basically.
If anyone backs price wise selections ,they could be arrested,placing bets on his horses ,
Or shouting to your mate at the track,bang me 50 on the fav,I’m just getting a p$ss,where’s the difference.
Anyone can act as proxy as long as the account holder is happy with that.
Now,maybe bookies can block this on a business rule.but as a criminal issue,can’t be right.
It is like taking car insurance out in someones name.
If you take car insurance out in someone elses name saying they are the named driver to avoid a higher premium or you being refused insurance your insurer will be unlikely to pay out if you make a claim.
Curley was over 40 years ago for gods sake. It's hardly the same as opening an account in your name, lieing when agreeing to the terms and conditions of that account then selling access to that account to someone else to use.
If you take car insurance out in someone elses name saying they are the named driver to avoid a higher premium or you being refused insurance your insurer will be unlikely to pay out if you make a claim.
Curley was over 40 years ago for gods sake. It's hardly the same as opening an account in your name, lieing when agreeing to the terms and conditions of that account then selling access to that account to someone else to use.
There’s 2 seperate issues.
1 is terms of business,which bookies have every right to block,fight back.
The other is criminal,phoning the police.
Your not taking insurance out in someone’s name,your taking insurance out in their name,they know,it’s not fraud,it’s a grey area.they know you are a named driver.
Not paying out if a crash,is different to prosecuting them.
Financial advisors ,may tell you to invest your pension in certain companies,it’s in your name,but they are deciding where the money goes.whats the difference,they make your trades,investments on your behalf.
As long as you inform the 100s of accounts before hand.
I.e
Today I’m putting 50 quid win on Liverpool on your account,and they are happy with this,legally ,you’re covered.
The fact that you keep the money and not them is irrelevant.
1 is terms of business,which bookies have every right to block,fight back.
The other is criminal,phoning the police.
Your not taking insurance out in someone’s name,your taking insurance out in their name,they know,it’s not fraud,it’s a grey area.they know you are a named driver.
Not paying out if a crash,is different to prosecuting them.
Financial advisors ,may tell you to invest your pension in certain companies,it’s in your name,but they are deciding where the money goes.whats the difference,they make your trades,investments on your behalf.
As long as you inform the 100s of accounts before hand.
I.e
Today I’m putting 50 quid win on Liverpool on your account,and they are happy with this,legally ,you’re covered.
The fact that you keep the money and not them is irrelevant.
Surely this works both ways. Back a loser in a shop, give the losing ticket to a mate who goes in the shop and asks for his money back as someone else placed the bet on his behalf which means it is void?
Never said anything about fraud or it being criminal referring to what the irish girl did and car insurance or a loan in those circumstances.
I said
You might be alright flying under the radar but don't expect a court to find for you for breach of contract when the company tells you to get stuffed.
Although regarding the article i.e buying someones personal details from them to use in financial transactions for your financial gain I'd agree with leif and Longridge that likely is fraud. Although the person buying these details is probably in a foreign jurisdiction and probably untraceable.
Although I suspect there is a lot more to these cases than simply setting up a betting accounts.
I suspect a lot of these people selling their details for 'betting accounts' are probably also having bank accounts set up in their name so scam callers can transfer Pensioners life saving in to it before it gets withdrawn or transferred in to a foreign bank account.
I doubt these people selling their details will get very far with the police saying I didn't think I was doing anything wrong I just let someone open an account in my name for some holiday money.
I said
You might be alright flying under the radar but don't expect a court to find for you for breach of contract when the company tells you to get stuffed.
Although regarding the article i.e buying someones personal details from them to use in financial transactions for your financial gain I'd agree with leif and Longridge that likely is fraud. Although the person buying these details is probably in a foreign jurisdiction and probably untraceable.
Although I suspect there is a lot more to these cases than simply setting up a betting accounts.
I suspect a lot of these people selling their details for 'betting accounts' are probably also having bank accounts set up in their name so scam callers can transfer Pensioners life saving in to it before it gets withdrawn or transferred in to a foreign bank account.
I doubt these people selling their details will get very far with the police saying I didn't think I was doing anything wrong I just let someone open an account in my name for some holiday money.
@comingupthehill
I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like fraud by misrepresentation (which I think is what leif's article describes).
Maybe the company's defence is as you suggest - that they are just helpfully pressing the buttons on Joe Bloggs's behalf, and Joe is kindly gifting them his winnings, but I'll be interested to see how the law views it - it's being done in plain sight so I can't imagine there will not be a legal challenge soon.
I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like fraud by misrepresentation (which I think is what leif's article describes).
Maybe the company's defence is as you suggest - that they are just helpfully pressing the buttons on Joe Bloggs's behalf, and Joe is kindly gifting them his winnings, but I'll be interested to see how the law views it - it's being done in plain sight so I can't imagine there will not be a legal challenge soon.
Makes me laugh. Big corporations have sophisticated Ai algorithms to detect multi accounts and aren't using it. My question is why not? I think I know why!!!!!!!!!!
They have advanced software that detects (clean accounts) But it's not being implemented
Will young Mr Campbell's clients be using this to leverage
a refund from the bookies because of 3rd party betting?
a refund from the bookies because of 3rd party betting?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539