When is a fraudster not a fraudster?

Casinos often require various security documents from players in order to process a cashout - proof of age, identification and address, evidence that the credit / debit card is genuine and not either stolen or faked, and a signed affidavit that the player agrees not to dispute the credit card charge.

If a player supplies a fake document to the casino, is he entitled to his winnings in the event that the document did not show contravention of rules at the particular casino in question? Or is the supplying of ANY fake document, breaching the casino terms and conditions and evidence of clear fraud, practised if not at this casino then certainly elsewhere, sufficient for the casino to justifiably confiscate the playerâ??s winning?

This matter was discussed at Casinomeister recently: the player deposited, won and withdrew; he was then asked to supply proof of age. The document he supplied was a fake - he'd created it, by his own admission, for the purposes of playing underage at a previous casino that had a minimum age of twenty-one - an age he had not yet reached. However, the minimum age at this subsequent casino was eighteen, and the player was not contravening their terms by playing there - he had supplied the fake document by mistake, intending as he had been to supply his genuine proof of age.

Since he didn't break any rules at this casino, other than "accidently" supplying a fake document and thus also providing evidence of previous fraud against other casinos, should he be paid?

Read the full discussion at Casinomeister.

<< Back To Online Casino News

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 |