[Hareeba!]

That letter, saying they need to sell assets to raise funds to pay customers amounts to an admission that player funds have been misappropriated.

Regardless of whether there is a legislative requirement for UK bookies to hold player funds in a segregated account, there is a common law obligation to hold funds to be applied only for the purpose for which they are advanced, i.e. in this context, to cover any bets the player may wish to make. Not to spend them on rent, wages etc. or winnings by other players.

It also makes a mockery of the supposed statement by the auditors that there were sufficient funds available to pay all players.

[MLZ3211]

Re Krashman. I issued against them and received the email but would not think its because of that.

Re Shari. Do you know if any legal firm would take the case on say with a 20% take of all monies recovered or even better pro bono?

[Hareeba!]

Re Krashman. I issued against them and received the email but would not think its because of that.

Re Shari. Do you know if any legal firm would take the case on say with a 20% take of all monies recovered or even better pro bono?

Legal action against a company is pointless if there are insufficient funds to pay a judgement debt.

As to taking action against the directors/proprietors that would need to await the outcome of any regulatory action and findings holding them culpable. Then again it would be pointless unless they have sufficient resources to pay.

[chachi]

and correct me if I'm wrong Hareeba, but AFAIR there is no prioritisation of claims per se in UK insolvency law, so having a judgement dated earlier than others or one dated ahead of any final involuntary winding up/liquidisation order would mean nothing

[Hareeba!]

and correct me if I'm wrong Hareeba, but AFAIR there is no prioritisation of claims per se in UK insolvency law, so having a judgement dated earlier than others or one dated ahead of any final involuntary winding up/liquidisation order would mean nothing

Sorry mate but I really have no idea about that. Probably a moot point in this case anyway.

[JayZ]

and correct me if I'm wrong Hareeba, but AFAIR there is no prioritisation of claims per se in UK insolvency law, so having a judgement dated earlier than others or one dated ahead of any final involuntary winding up/liquidisation order would mean nothing

There is no prioritisation within individual classes of creditors, providing a claim is made in time. Some get paid off first, and near the top of the list are the liquidator fees, followed by employee's unpaid salaries to a limit. Bottom of the pile are the shareholders. Players of a bookmaker would be amongst the unsecured creditors, above shareholders and debt interest.

[GuybrushT]

No posts in 4 days. Everyone is giving up?

[Hareeba!]

No posts in 4 days. Everyone is giving up?

Despite what Lord has said, the only realistic chance for players to get paid is following official action which holds the directors personally liable. That's no certainty but not that much of a longshot either based on the stories posted in this forum. But nobody's going to get paid for a very long time as legal processes just don't happen that quickly. And then you've got to hope that they have personal resources which the administrators can get their hands on.

Don't give up. But don't hold your breath either as you're going to need a lot of patience and everything to work out.

[GuybrushT]

Despite what Lord has said, the only realistic chance for players to get paid is following official action which holds the directors personally liable. That's no certainty but not that much of a longshot either based on the stories posted in this forum. But nobody's going to get paid for a very long time as legal processes just don't happen that quickly. And then you've got to hope that they have personal resources which the administrators can get their hands on.

Don't give up. But don't hold your breath either as you're going to need a lot of patience and everything to work out.

But I don't get the story. They NEVER said they are bankrupt, that they don't have the money to pay us. From the start they are telling they have the money and that we will be paid (maybe is true maybe not). So you cannot sue them on the fact they don't want to pay (because they never said). It looks that they can send a mail "you will be paid when we resolve our technical issues, just be patient" for the next 50 years, and they will be untouchable, because they are assuring us we will be paid. It doesn't make sense.

[BorisHankyPanky]

Received by email today from the Gambling Commission muppets:

Dear Mr Boris

I’m writing further to your request for an internal review, below.

Whilst the Commission aim’s to complete all internal reviews within 20 working days, I am writing to inform you that the internal review is still ongoing at this time and that a final decision has not yet been reached.

Whilst the guidelines for an internal review allow up to 40 working days, we do not expect the review to take this long. The review should be concluded by the end of this week (21 March) but I will write to you again if there is any further delay. Once complete, the decision maker will write to you directly with the outcome.

Please accept my apologies for the delay.

Kind regards

Andrew Turton
Information Manager

[Hareeba!]

But I don't get the story. They NEVER said they are bankrupt, that they don't have the money to pay us. From the start they are telling they have the money and that we will be paid (maybe is true maybe not). So you cannot sue them on the fact they don't want to pay (because they never said). It looks that they can send a mail "you will be paid when we resolve our technical issues, just be patient" for the next 50 years, and they will be untouchable, because they are assuring us we will be paid. It doesn't make sense.

I suggest you re-read what you've been told. They say they are now trying to sell assets to raise funds to pay you. Clearly that means they don't have the money. And surely nobody's fool enough to pay for a business which now has such a bad name?

What you need to hope for is that the authorities find they have committed fraud. Then if they do have sufficient personal assets you may get something.

[hlorenz81]

I suggest you re-read what you've been told. They say they are now trying to sell assets to raise funds to pay you. Clearly that means they don't have the money. And surely nobody's fool enough to pay for a business which now has such a bad name?

What you need to hope for is that the authorities find they have committed fraud. Then if they do have sufficient personal assets you may get something.

I understand Guybrush... the thing is that I got a email from the GC early november saying that AUDITORS PROVIDED PROUF THAT CANBET HAD ENOUGH FOUNDS TO COVER THE BALANCE OF ALL CLIENTS. This was in november, it was already late to get paid. So, officially GC told me they had money. If this is not true... someone will pay for that!

I keep hopes on shari... i know things are running behind the sceenes... and here it is better not to say too much. Lets keep hopes alive... ready to do whatever it takes to get the money or put them all in jail and throw the keys.

[Hareeba!]

I understand Guybrush... the thing is that I got a email from the GC early november saying that AUDITORS PROVIDED PROUF THAT CANBET HAD ENOUGH FOUNDS TO COVER THE BALANCE OF ALL CLIENTS. This was in november, it was already late to get paid. So, officially GC told me they had money. If this is not true... someone will pay for that!.

Yes, good point. Anybody who deposited funds on the strength of that assurance would appear to have a good prima facie case for compensation from the auditors and/or the GC.

[GuybrushT]

I understand Guybrush... the thing is that I got a email from the GC early november saying that AUDITORS PROVIDED PROUF THAT CANBET HAD ENOUGH FOUNDS TO COVER THE BALANCE OF ALL CLIENTS. This was in november, it was already late to get paid. So, officially GC told me they had money. If this is not true... someone will pay for that!

Exactly. In that case the only possible reasons of that GC reported are:
1. They had the money, but decided not to pay canbet users with that money - INTENTIONAL FRAUD
2. They gave false reports to GC to make them believe they had some UNEXISTING money - INTENTIONAL FRAUD
3. They've bribed the auditors to make them report they had the money, even if they've seen they do not - INTENTIONAL FRAUD


And top of all, offering 100% reload bonus offers when they already struggled to pay withdrawal requests is a clear proof of fraud.

[eddie701]

Exactly. In that case the only possible reasons of that GC reported are:
1. They had the money, but decided not to pay canbet users with that money - INTENTIONAL FRAUD
2. They gave false reports to GC to make them believe they had some UNEXISTING money - INTENTIONAL FRAUD
3. They've bribed the auditors to make them report they had the money, even if they've seen they do not - INTENTIONAL FRAUD


And top of all, offering 100% reload bonus offers when they already struggled to pay withdrawal requests is a clear proof of fraud.

No one on here believes (3. They've bribed the auditors )
Even to suggest that is foolish. Any more talk like that could hinder progress with any investigation.
Suggesting rubbish like this could get this site closed down.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (trading as PwC) is a multinational professional services firm headquartered in London, United Kingdom.^[2] It is the world's second largest professional services firm measured by 2013 revenues, and is one of the Big Four auditors, along with Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY) and KPMG.

[GuybrushT]

No one on here believes (3. They've bribed the auditors )
Even to suggest that is foolish. Any more talk like that could hinder progress with any investigation.
Suggesting rubbish like this could get this site closed down.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (trading as PwC) is a multinational professional services firm headquartered in London, United Kingdom.^[2] It is the world's second largest professional services firm measured by 2013 revenues, and is one of the Big Four auditors, along with Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY) and KPMG.

Of course I don't believe in option 3. I've just mentioned the possible options, but 1 or 2 are much more realistic. And of course there are surely more options that haven't come on my mind.

[chachi]

Ladies & gents ... auditors only review and sign off on accounts and details as provided by the firm they are auditing and vetting, and any such audit report contains all the disclaimers in the world about this.

If one provides an auditor with fictitious bank statements, billables, receivables, customer balances, and such ... well, you know where I'm going.

[GuybrushT]

Ladies & gents ... auditors only review and sign off on accounts and details as provided by the firm they are auditing and vetting, and any such audit report contains all the disclaimers in the world about this.

If one provides an auditor with fictitious bank statements, billables, receivables, customer balances, and such ... well, you know where I'm going.

So point 2 of my previous post is the most probable thing that happened.

[hlorenz81]

So point 2 of my previous post is the most probable thing that happened.

In that case.. there is jail for someone... But honestly auditors CANNOT provide fake reports, should be all verified, so maybe they were correct. I guess there was money in november.... as clients were still getting paid, most probable... they did let it disapper in the last 2 months of the year, fully aware of what the company was going to face in the coming future....

[GuybrushT]

In that case.. there is jail for someone... But honestly auditors CANNOT provide fake reports, should be all verified, so maybe they were correct. I guess there was money in november.... as clients were still getting paid, most probable... they did let it disapper in the last 2 months of the year, fully aware of what the company was going to face in the coming future....

"let it disapper" milions and milions in only 2 months...it sounds also a fraud.

[profitcsinalo]

Please add me to the list:

My Account Number: 1163124
Owed 601 EUR
Country: Hungary

[MiloRambaldi]

Ladies & gents ... auditors only review and sign off on accounts and details as provided by the firm they are auditing and vetting, and any such audit report contains all the disclaimers in the world about this.

If one provides an auditor with fictitious bank statements, billables, receivables, customer balances, and such ... well, you know where I'm going.

Good point. I've heard from people who work at these companies that the audit reports are BS.

[turola]

Hello,

also wanted to add my name to the list

I had 2030.90 US$ in Canbet.

[chachi]

Ladies & gents ... auditors only review and sign off on accounts and details as provided by the firm they are auditing and vetting, and any such audit report contains all the disclaimers in the world about this.

If one provides an auditor with fictitious bank statements, billables, receivables, customer balances, and such ... well, you know where I'm going.

Good point. I've heard from people who work at these companies that the audit reports are BS.

< cough > Enron < / cough >

[hippytrader]

First post,
Shari is awesome.
I have/had $3966.99 AUD with cantbet.
Cheers!

[hristo1971]

I am just wondering if anyone has any clue where the money can be? We are talking of millions evaporated (20 according some estimation). They can lose a lot because of that bonus dysfunction, but not that much. White and Lord can spend a lot, but not that much. Seems to be the biggest scam ever done, a genuine piece of art, comparing to which common scams like Mobibet seem to be a lousy skinny flea.

[Rikki]

THe GCs internal review has overturned the previous decision and they have agreed to release some communication:

Email dated 19 November 2013
I am a legal practitioner in Melbourne, engaged by Interactive Gaming and Sports Pty Ltd (iGAS) and its subsidiary company Canbet Sports Bookmakers UK Ltd. On the instructions of the Directors, [redacted], I attended a meeting today at their offices.
This was a meeting to which senior management of [redacted] had been asked to attend.
[redacted]is the IT company which licenses and provides the software for the Canbet website, in particular the financial transaction software associated with the system.
The IT consultant whom has performed the work on behalf of [redacted] over the past 12 years was also in attendance via teleconference.
The outcome of the meeting was that the IT consultant is yet to identify the full reason behind the problems that have plagued the Canbet system which is incorrectly triggering promotional payouts.
As a matter of urgency, [redacted]have dedicated as many resources as required throughout this week. I have advised [redacted] and [redacted] to require the collaborating IT consultants to record their conclusions on paper.
Once the cause of the glitch is ascertained, the next step will be to fix it. This will subsequently take place, also as a matter of urgency.
In the meantime, I am instructed that Canbet have suspended all promotional activity since the beginning of November until this glitch is remedied; no new bonus promotions are active.
I can say that the iGAS management of Canbet are doing what they can and need to to remedy their site’s problem(s), to restore punter confidence and thence to revert to Canbet’s previous operation as a regular betting site which will resume immediate payouts once the bonus glitch aspect is overcome.
I am happy to provide a further update once additional information is available.



24 January, 2014
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
We act as Auditors for Interactive Gaming & Sports Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries ("the Group").
As part of this role we perform a limited review of the company's quarterly financial reports for the shareholders, which include a statement of financial position, a statement of financial performance and a statement of cash flows. We last reviewed the company's financial reports as at 30 September 2013, and at that date we concluded that there was no reason to believe that the financial position of the Group was other than as presented in the financial reports, which showed net assets in excess of A$2million.
We have since been provided with management reports up to 8 January 2014 and have no reason to believe that the Group's financial position has changed materially since our last review.
Yours faithfully

There is also a very similar email dated 22nd Novemeber which is in image format so I cannot paste its contents, but it is almost entirely word for word as the 24th Jan email above

[simply]

So we just need still to believe that was a technical error? After all I am not sure what to think. Canbet site is totally down in last 10 days, maybe they really do some updates or they disappeared, who knows?

[Hareeba!]

"We have since been provided with management reports up to 8 January 2014 and have no reason to believe that the Group's financial position has changed materially since our last review."

Seriously?
So that's what auditing has come down to in this age?
They are relying purely on management reports which (presumably) have been produced by a system which management itself has said is full of faults?
They have (presumably) paid no heed whatever to all the forum and media information and made no enquiries of their own to form an independent conclusion on the matter?

[Krashman]

...

[JayZ]

The 'new' info here is the quality of information provided by the auditors to the GC, which they subsequently relayed on their website to indicate solvency. It is clear now that the one referred to in December was based on nothing newer in terms of financial information than a 'limited review' that was reported on up to the end of September. The auditors 'had no reason' to think the situation had changed, yet the other released info is about a meeting with redacted parties about 'incorrectly triggered bonus amounts' some days earlier.

[mojobullfrog]

Here's the link to their explanation of the review:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ween_the_gc_an

[eddie701]

THe GCs internal review has overturned the previous decision and they have agreed to release some communication:

Pathetic. The whole thing is pathetic. The management lied all the ways through this. The Auditors done a report on what Canbet told them. And the Gambling Commission just believed it all. No proper investigation by any party involved. It sounds like that Canbet management defrauded its customers by lying to its auditors(looks like the auditors didnt do a proper check).
Theres fraud written all over this.
Why is the English not doing anything about this. Its an English company.

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

More like, we will bury our heads in the sand, we shall not ask for our rights, we shall hide in the fields and in the streets, we will run for the hills, we shall just lay down and take it up the ass.

[lacza93]

Hello, add me to the list please.
Account id:1162293 owned 970€
I am from Hungary.
Thank you

[Krashman]

Why is the English not doing anything about this. Its an English company.

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

More like, we will bury our heads in the sand, we shall not ask for our rights, we shall hide in the fields and in the streets, we will run for the hills, we shall just lay down and take it up the ass.

Well it's not a German owned company.

And, this isn't WWIII.

It's only money.