pre 3 meseci
Na kom PF u Austriji ste podneli Curacao? Imam i ja nekoliko
Automatski prevedeno:
Execution Pokerstars. Očigledno, plaćanje nije dobrovoljno (strana 93)
pre 3 meseci
Padronus, ali oni uzimaju samo velika kazina u kojima znaju da neće bankrotirati
Automatski prevedeno:
1
pre 3 meseci
Da li ste rekli da li će direktno tužiti ili samo čekaju da vide šta će se desiti?
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Mislim da sada preduzimaju mere protiv kazina jer sam morao da potpišem punomoćje i ugovor o finansiranju parnice
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Da li neko ima iskustva sa kripto kockarnicama kao što su Stake ili Roobet? Gubici preko 30k+...
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Za mene se radi o kripto kazinu, bolje da im se obratite
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 4 meseci
Pozdrav svima
Moj slučaj protiv EA Soni u vezi sa FIFA kutijama za plen je izgubljen u prvom stepenu.
Pozitivna stvar je što sam pronašao finansijera parnice koji preuzima slučajeve Curacao. Tužba je podneta u roku od 2 nedelje i za sada sam veoma zadovoljan. PF uzima 40% prihoda.
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
who please ? I need help for cases in Curaçao; thanks
pre 3 meseci
Sutra. Ali važi samo za Austriju!
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Dakle, provajder koji finansira proces se zove Tom Orov
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Hello, dear players!
while browsing Casino Guru News I literarily stumbled across an article titled "Austrian court orders player to reimburse an unlicensed gambling operator".
Do you know the ruling of the court? These articles are only available in English, so I was wondering if it would be okay if I posted the text here so that anyone can use the built-in auto translator.
This is an unexpected turn of events, in my opinion:
"The Austrian Supreme Court has come up with a surprise ruling that essentially allows an unnamed unlicensed gambling operator to seek and reclaim winnings paid out to an Austrian player in what must be one of the most peculiar such cases in Europe. There are a few caveats to observe, however, as reported by multiple industry sources.
Although similar cases have sprouted all over the place, with courts usually finding it appropriate for illegal operators to be on the hook and order them to repay winnings to players, the reverse has just happened in Austria.
Austrian courts side partially with unlicensed operator against player
The particular case covered by the Supreme Court concerns an unnamed operator that was based in Malta, offered gambling products to Austrian players, but did not have a license to do so.
A player who won €7,152.71 between May and July 2020 will now have to repay the operator, with the court acknowledging the operator’s complaint – that the market was illegal at the time when the player had gambled, and the winnings must be forfeited.
The player had deposited €22,000 and by July, they had amassed €29,100. Yet, the player will not be reimbursing the operator for the full €7,152.71 and will have to pay €626.60 to cover the operator’s legal fees instead.
The decision is surprising, not least because the operator in this case had acknowledged that it had operated without a license in the country, which makes it illegal.
This argument has held well in places such as the Netherlands, where before the new regulatory regime, unregulated operators were targeted with stiff penalties and the local regulator, the Kansspelautoriteit, has shown no relent in its pursuit of purported culprits.
But the Supreme Court has another goal in mind, as its decision seems to send a clear message to local players who may engage in offshore or unlicensed gambling, rather than sticking to the local monopoly.
Side with the player, and you invite the gambling addiction court to argue
In other words, the decision may serve as an example of what would happen to players personally if they were to engage in gambling that is not regulated by the country.
The court also explained that if players were the only ones asking back for their losses in the unregulated market, it would increase the risk of addiction as it would falsely instil the idea that gamblers can gamble without risk, and further argued that either of the two parties, that is to say, player or operator, can question the "contract," i.e. unregulated gambling, and seek their money back.
This is so because both parties had acted illegally, the court specified. The gambler has 14 days to comply with the order. Interestingly, in a previous case involving loot boxes, an Austrian court ordered Valve to repay €14,000 to a player who had spent the money on acquiring digital goods in Counter-Strike, a popular video game by the company."
Considering the primary subject matter of this thread, I believed you wished to talk about this relevant topic.
pre 3 meseci
Zdravo!
Mogu da razumem ovu presudu u potpunosti, jer ide u oba smera. Čim se gubici refundiraju, ilegalni operater ne mora da isplati nijedan dobitak, niti može da ga zahteva nazad, već samo dobitke koji su veći od depozita. Obojica su igrali nelegalno, tako da igrač nema pravo na svoj dobitak.
Automatski prevedeno:
1
pre 3 meseci
U ovom slučaju, traženi su samo depoziti bez prethodnog odbitka povlačenja.
Zato ne razumem negodovanje iza toga - naravno da će vas kazino tužiti. Ovde se vodi gomila medijske propagande - niko normalan ili PF ne tuži samo za depozite (a da se prvo ne odbiju isplate)
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Zdravo!
U ovom slučaju, izgleda da je kazino zapravo tužio igrača. Presuda je objavljena krajem juna.
Iznenađen sam što još nismo pročitali ništa o ovome. Možda argument advokata okrivljenog nije bio dobar, zabrana učešća nikada nije pomenuta i to bi zaista trebalo da stupi na snagu jer je igrač namerno prevaren, sugerisana je legalnost igre i igrač nije mogao da zna da je nezakonita. . Ova presuda je definitivno izolovan slučaj i nema razloga za brigu. Kazina neće dolaziti jedno za drugim i tužiti za dobitke koji su isplaćeni.
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
@Radka
Kazino koji je tužio igrača je Bet365
Bet 365 ima ocenu 8.9 na vašoj veb stranici.
Bet365 je ponudio ilegalno kockanje, igrač je pobedio, a zatim ga je tužio Bet365. Kako se može opravdati ocena od 8,9 i kakav će uticaj to imati na rejting? Kazino je očigledno sumnjiv.
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Zdravo!
Mogu da razumem ovu presudu u potpunosti, jer ide u oba smera. Čim se gubici refundiraju, ilegalni operater ne mora da isplati nijedan dobitak, niti može da ga zahteva nazad, već samo dobitke koji su veći od depozita. Obojica su igrali nelegalno, tako da igrač nema pravo na svoj dobitak.
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
I figured out the same thing. As I saw in other comments on social media, "Two can play this game." 🙂. I'd say it fits.
pre 3 meseci
Ja imam drugačije mišljenje.
Kazina se pretvaraju da su legalna, ali onda tuže igrača koji je pobedio i tvrde da je ponuda bila nezakonita. Zauzvrat, međutim, oni ne plaćaju presude protiv njih. Misliš da je to pošteno, draga Radka? To je apsolutno mafijaško ponašanje i apsolutno sumnjivo!
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Hi there.
Feel free to use the reply button, please.
I believe the explanation is that we concentrate on fairness rather than applying solely the legal aspect as attorneys. Actually, this is quite the part many people from heavily regulated countries dislike the most.
Have you ever heard about the Fair Safety Codex 👈? That's literally it.
Just imagine what you call illegal, we liken to sort of a restricted countries. Our point of view focuses on a fair chance to play and not being punished later.
"It is not acceptable to let players gamble if a casino knows that they are from a restricted country and if the casino plans to refer to the rule about restricted countries whenever a player requests their first withdrawal. This is completely against the rules of fair play, as the casino is knowingly letting a player wager money without a chance to actually win something in return.
Many casinos claim that this is difficult or impossible to implement into their systems, but it is simply about comparing the player's country of residence with the list of restricted or allowed countries; therefore, we do not consider it to be that difficult on a technological level."
Naturally, I am aware that attorneys would take a different tack. I believe that this is the difference.
pre 3 meseci
Postoji samo jedna užasna razlika, a to je da gubici očigledno nadmašuju koristi i stoga se donosi više presuda u korist igrača, ali kazina sada takođe razmatraju isplatu čistih dobitaka nakon odbitka gubitaka. Ipak, kazina uglavnom krive samo sebe. Od 2009. godine, prva presuda Evropskog suda pravde da su njihove platforme nelegalne bez dozvole iz zemlje i potrošač ne mora da zna, niti u principu mora da sazna, da li dotična platforma ima licencu od odgovarajuću zemlju ili samo licencu EU.
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Ja imam drugačije mišljenje.
Kazina se pretvaraju da su legalna, ali onda tuže igrača koji je pobedio i tvrde da je ponuda bila nezakonita. Zauzvrat, međutim, oni ne plaćaju presude protiv njih. Misliš da je to pošteno, draga Radka? To je apsolutno mafijaško ponašanje i apsolutno sumnjivo!
Automatski prevedeno:
pre 3 meseci
Dear player!
I brought this matter here so you have something to discuss related to the topic. I'm not here to explain the verdict or vote for any involved party because I'm not familiar enough with the case.
Also, I am a bit hesitant to act like a law expert because I'm not.
Feel free to express your opinion on that. Just don't expect some sort of judgement from me.
pre 3 meseci
Neki ljudi se osećaju isprovociranim ovim.
Automatski prevedeno:
