Yeti - Unfair confiscation of winnings

Hi jojodedejo - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Sadly, many gambling addicts do look to circumvent their exclusions by using their partner's details to reaccess gambling services. If you've used a payment method that had been associated with a self-excluded account, this payment method would be considered excluded as well. We would not contest payment under these circumstances.

All we can suggest is seeing what the Swedish regulator have to say.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

ThePOGG

I do understand that. But I used my BankID to verify my account before i started playing. That is the same ID as I use to do my taxes, log in to my bank and so on. There is no possible way that my partner would be able to access my gambling account. I would understand that if i the account was unverified but that is not the case here.

Hi there,

BankID does not prove that it was you actually playing and it would be far from inconceivable that your husband could have access to your BankID.

As I said previously, you will need to wait and see what the Swedish regulator have to say.

ThePOGG

The casino started with claiming the reason for the confiscation was that they would violate the Swedish gambling law if they paid out my winnings, I have got a written reply from SGA that that is NOT true. I have forwarded this to the casino.

BankID is regulated by Swedish law, as a legitimate identification method, so the argument that “it could have been my partner who gambled” is totally unfounded. SGA confirmed this.

(“Is a signature with BankID legally binding?

Yes. Identifying with BankID is the same as signing with your own physical signature. This means that there is no difference whatsoever with regard to the legal side. Without it, it is equally binding whether you sign a regular agreement or an electronic agreement.

There are four different laws in electronic signature and the latest is the Money Laundering Act which means that today BankID is a legal identification. The other laws around this are the Swedish Companies Act, the Signature Act and the Consumer Credit Act. All of these laws have paragraphs relating to e-signature. ")

The casino can’t go against the law in the country where they have their license and just decide something that suits them.

I haven’t violated any of the stated terms and conditions.

I asked the casino in chat and email if it was okay to use this card before I made a deposit.

The casino told me that they won’t reply to the facts I did present, nor the forwarded answer from the Swedish regulatory.

SGA tells me to contact the ARN or take this to court but the casino wants me to contact you.

I would like for you to take in consideration that the casino operates under a Swedish license and therefore the Swedish law will apply.

I update this complaint to take things in order, but knowing I have the statement from SGA, the words of a lawyer, and the Swedish law, I will not hesitate to take this further if needed.

I also have the signed document issued by the casino that approve the use of this particular card.

I would also want to know where it states that I can’t use the card if it’s been used before. The casino can’t assume one should just know this. I never got any information about this. If it would be a problem, this should have been stated on the credit card authorization document. Which it wasn’t.

My partner did not close her account due to gambling addiction.

Hi jojodedejo,

We are not the ADR for this operator for Swedish players. The Swedish regulator has it's own system. You should follow the advice provided to you by the regulator.

Thanks,

ThePOGG