Originally Posted by
Lou
In December, a former BetPhoenix associate came across this player's account and closed it down. The player’s account was a post-up account with a balance of $2,659, with no problems on his deposits or bets.
The BetPhoenix associate believed that the player was bearding for a third-party with a $3,000 debt. He no longer works with BetPhoenix, and could not conclusively prove that the player was making bets for the third-party at BetPhoenix.
Three dispute points:
1. The player deposited funds with BetPhoenix.
2. The player denied placing bets at BetPhoenix on behalf of the debtor (though he admitted doing this at one other book).
3. BetPhoenix has offered no conclusive evidence that the post-up player wagered at BetPhoenix on behalf of the third-party debtor.
It is not reasonable to enforce a guilty by association penalty. As BetPhoenix notes, the player does not hide his past dealings with the player. He denies however making bets for him at BetPhoenix, and requests to see evidence in support of that accusation.
Since this player's deposit and bets were accepted by BetPhoenix, it is ultimately BetPhoenix—not a former associate—that is solely responsible for the frozen player balance.