IMHO there is difference between multi accounts and fraud accounts, and they should be handled different.
If somebody signs up an account for a friend, and uses it for betting is a different case from if someone signs up with his "poker nick" as his name (as it was in a similar case not long ago) to get a referral and a first deposit bonus from a betting office.
In the first case, the multi account is backed by an existing person, who (hopefully) allowed the real bettor to use his identity.. If he cannot be connected to another person with 100% evidence, it is a valid account, it doesn't matter who gives the tips (friend, tout, a holy person, a coin flip, etc...).
The bookie must honor all bonuses and winnings if there is no 100% evidence.
If there is, they should cancel all bonus, all winnings from bonuses, but pay out the 2/3-rd of the remaining balance. The bets were made by a valid legal entity, so his bets must be honored, still he should be punished by losing all money which he wasn't entitled to, and 1/3 of his winnings from deposited money.
This how bookies are incented to get multi-accounters as fast as they can, because if they win, they still win, only the 2/3 of the normal winnings, but still a bookie can lose a lot this way too if they cannot exclude a "winner" earlier.
In the second case, the account's holder is banned from an office, or already has an existing account.
He opens another account by fouling the signup system, and the account is only backed by a non-existing person (the poker nick) - so nobody, no legal entity. If somebody opens a second account for himself, the handling of the case should be this one too, as he no longer counts as a valid legal entity with this bookmaker....
The best solution is IMHO, to pay back the HALF of the LAST deposited ammount (-any "real" handling fees) to the depositor, and confiscate all winnings from both deposits and bonuses.
The bookie won't get a full "free ride", they only win the half of players deposit, they have to refund half of the deposit.
The fraudster deserves to lose half his money and all winnings, as he tried to make a fraud (and there wasn't any legal entity behind the account!), but why only half? Because if a bookie didn't ban his account prior his withdrawal request, the bookie is somewhat responsible too.
If a bookie notices the multi account before a withdrawal request, than all money can be confiscated.
If the bettor would made a lot of deposits, and would only won from the last one, to only give back the half of his last deposit would be a good solution to punish him for trying to fraud a bookie.
And what about players, who just lose with a fraud account? They would have lost anyways - yes, unfortunately it's something like a free ride for a bookie -, so the half deposit back is only valid for winning players, who'd get caught during the withdrawal process...but the fact that the bookie is responsible for not excluding him earlier, must cost the bookie half of his winnings from the player - the half of the deposited money.
This solution would incent the bookies to close fraud accounts as fast as they can, because they would get all the money from the fraud attempt, not only half of it.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but better than:
1, Confiscating all the money, bonus and winnings (bookie takes no responsibility for their error, and gets a free ride at all cases),
2, Giving back all the deposited money (free ride for fraudsters)
+
An interesting story which is connected to this topic:
Short version: Rich guy lost a lot money at William Hill, self-exluded himself after contacted the support, and closed his account.
A little later, he wanted to bet again, opened another account, lost a lot money again, than sued William Hill to give him back his money, as the bookie didn't prevent him from signing up.
He lost in the court.
If somebody signs up an account for a friend, and uses it for betting is a different case from if someone signs up with his "poker nick" as his name (as it was in a similar case not long ago) to get a referral and a first deposit bonus from a betting office.
In the first case, the multi account is backed by an existing person, who (hopefully) allowed the real bettor to use his identity.. If he cannot be connected to another person with 100% evidence, it is a valid account, it doesn't matter who gives the tips (friend, tout, a holy person, a coin flip, etc...).
The bookie must honor all bonuses and winnings if there is no 100% evidence.
If there is, they should cancel all bonus, all winnings from bonuses, but pay out the 2/3-rd of the remaining balance. The bets were made by a valid legal entity, so his bets must be honored, still he should be punished by losing all money which he wasn't entitled to, and 1/3 of his winnings from deposited money.
This how bookies are incented to get multi-accounters as fast as they can, because if they win, they still win, only the 2/3 of the normal winnings, but still a bookie can lose a lot this way too if they cannot exclude a "winner" earlier.
In the second case, the account's holder is banned from an office, or already has an existing account.
He opens another account by fouling the signup system, and the account is only backed by a non-existing person (the poker nick) - so nobody, no legal entity. If somebody opens a second account for himself, the handling of the case should be this one too, as he no longer counts as a valid legal entity with this bookmaker....
The best solution is IMHO, to pay back the HALF of the LAST deposited ammount (-any "real" handling fees) to the depositor, and confiscate all winnings from both deposits and bonuses.
The bookie won't get a full "free ride", they only win the half of players deposit, they have to refund half of the deposit.
The fraudster deserves to lose half his money and all winnings, as he tried to make a fraud (and there wasn't any legal entity behind the account!), but why only half? Because if a bookie didn't ban his account prior his withdrawal request, the bookie is somewhat responsible too.
If a bookie notices the multi account before a withdrawal request, than all money can be confiscated.
If the bettor would made a lot of deposits, and would only won from the last one, to only give back the half of his last deposit would be a good solution to punish him for trying to fraud a bookie.
And what about players, who just lose with a fraud account? They would have lost anyways - yes, unfortunately it's something like a free ride for a bookie -, so the half deposit back is only valid for winning players, who'd get caught during the withdrawal process...but the fact that the bookie is responsible for not excluding him earlier, must cost the bookie half of his winnings from the player - the half of the deposited money.
This solution would incent the bookies to close fraud accounts as fast as they can, because they would get all the money from the fraud attempt, not only half of it.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but better than:
1, Confiscating all the money, bonus and winnings (bookie takes no responsibility for their error, and gets a free ride at all cases),
2, Giving back all the deposited money (free ride for fraudsters)
+
An interesting story which is connected to this topic:
Short version: Rich guy lost a lot money at William Hill, self-exluded himself after contacted the support, and closed his account.
A little later, he wanted to bet again, opened another account, lost a lot money again, than sued William Hill to give him back his money, as the bookie didn't prevent him from signing up.
He lost in the court.
