Ok then if you're well aware of that, do you see that's where we're stumbling on? Those on one side can basically equate minors to banned = you are not allowed there, your business isn't wanted, go elsewhere.
Those kids weren't refunded their losses. In the cases where the AC casinos were fined, some of those kids were nailed after 2 bets. No money back.
And what else do you want us to look at besides the face value of this case? People are supposed to be worried if you're banned from a book, sneak back in and then they tell you they'll give you back your deposits + that one withdrawal you already had and we're supposed to be upset? I'd consider all of that a bonus. You (and I) would/should know the risks we're taking by trying to get back into a book where they've booted us. Everything should fall on our side even though we're the ones who made our way back in? In what world does that work in or should it? If it was Cory's mum playing, she provides all the evidence, etc... she should get paid 100%. If she refuses to provide what's asked of her - and I don't care what Cory says, I've had to provide more than she was asked for to Moneybookers with almost no cash in there - then she can't realistically expect much. But if it's determined that Cory did indeed control that account, why the hell should he profit from it? Solely - and this is 100% the truth - because it's you I keep trying to see where you're coming from but I truly don't get how you back this as it stands right now.