SERIOUS problem with Hill's; account closed and money confiscated

**mycon** · 07-07-11, 10:35 AM

Possibly you got a deposit bonus you used for the wager?

**KEdge2k** · 07-07-11, 10:55 AM

Hey what a surprise, more casino issues, who would have thought.

**chachi** · 07-07-11, 01:16 PM

A book like William Hill would not take this step lightly under any circumstances ...

Definitely more to this than 10 lines of typing in post 1

**BET THE HOOK** · 07-07-11, 03:16 PM

Has to be more to this.

**Maniac** · 07-07-11, 03:17 PM

Definately seems to be more to this story than meets the eye - as someone mentioned, Hills would be unlikely to make such a drastic decision unless they were convinced that they had enough evidence to back it up.

It would definately raise a few eyebrows for anyone to just suddenly make a large deposit, stick the whole lot on 1 selection and attempt to withdraw almost immediately after the bet winning - thats pretty much "Potential Fraud 101"

**Hareeba!** · 07-07-11, 04:24 PM

has the stench of money laundering all over it

**Gimcrack** · 07-07-11, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Maniac

Definately seems to be more to this story than meets the eye - as someone mentioned, Hills would be unlikely to make such a drastic decision unless they were convinced that they had enough evidence to back it up.

It would definately raise a few eyebrows for anyone to just suddenly make a large deposit, stick the whole lot on 1 selection and attempt to withdraw almost immediately after the bet winning - thats pretty much "Potential Fraud 101"

There isn't much more to this and I am sorry to disappont. I have been doing this for a few weeks now without problem. Hill's keep sending me an offer which gives me a 20% refund on any losses. What I do is place a bet on an even money shot. If I win, my profit is 100%. If I lose, my loss is 80%. As I have a slightly worse chance than 50/50 of winning at 100% vs 80% it is a good value bet. I could easily go on a losing run week in, week out; or I could go on a winning run. Or I could win some weeks and lose others, and this is how it has been. I won last weekend and have now found my account blocked.

I don't see what I have done which is wrong, if that is indeed the view that Hill's are taking. And if it is, why won't they inform me what they have a problem with?

This was a bet which came good and was paid out. Then the withdrawal was not paid and the account was blocked. I see no justification for this. That is the only problem I can see that the bookmaker might have; the fact that my bet won.

Originally posted by Hareeba!

has the stench of money laundering all over it

I don't know if it has or hasn't got the "stench"; but if there is any money laundering, it is not coming from me.

I am a bit disappointed with the responses on this forum in that people seem to think there is more to this than has been stated. If there is, then it is not from my end.

My question itself has not received any response; how do I make Hill's pay me my funds?

**yahoonino** · 07-07-11, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Maniac

Definately seems to be more to this story than meets the eye - as someone mentioned, Hills would be unlikely to make such a drastic decision unless they were convinced that they had enough evidence to back it up.

It would definately raise a few eyebrows for anyone to just suddenly make a large deposit, stick the whole lot on 1 selection and attempt to withdraw almost immediately after the bet winning - thats pretty much "Potential Fraud 101"

what is wrong with that ?????

you win big and you withdraw,,,that it call gambling

**Hareeba!** · 07-07-11, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Gimcrack

My question itself has not received any response; how do I make Hill's pay me my funds?

you could file a complaint with SBR, or with IBAS, or take legal action

have you carefully read and complied with all the terms and conditions relating to their offer ?

were you betting on red whilst your mate was betting on black ?

**Gimcrack** · 07-07-11, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

you could file a complaint with SBR, or with IBAS, or take legal action

Thank you for this. I feel like I should do all three.

But, please; tell me if I am being naive here and also if you feel I am being treated totally unreasonably.

Hill's have most recently said that my account will remain closed and that they will not repoen it.

They have also said they are unable to discuss the factoirs that led to the suspension of my account with me as it is their standard security procedure. I still do not know what these are. Can they really do this?

I have the winnings in the account plus the funds/stake I deposited in order to place the bet. This amounts to over £2000. How can they deny me access to what is my money?

What makes me cry most is when they say that they are here to assist me in any way they can. They shouldn't treat a girl like this!

**SBR Lou** · 07-07-11, 05:42 PM

Hi Gimcrack,

You can submit these details via sportsbook complaint form.

**Horatio** · 07-07-11, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

were you betting on red whilst your mate was betting on black ?

I am sure Gimcrack wasn't doing that, though I confess I don't know.

My question is; what bearing would that have on the matter?

If a punter places a bet which wins, they must be paid out. A bet is a contract between the punter and the bookmaker and, if the bet wins, it is enforceable in law. Any other bets on the event, be it a horse race, football match, casino game or whatever, do not affect the bet which our punter has placed. It makes no odds if other bets were placed by the punter's wife, sister, friend, enemy or Uncle Tom Cobbley. Each bet is a separate contract.

Gimcrack, my advice would be to take legal action against William Hill in the small claims court. The law which governs their business is that of England and Wales. You need to give them the chance to resolve the matter before going to court so you should first write to them outlining the circumstances. If the facts are as you have stated, then it seems that they have not paid out when they should have and, if so, they have no defence in law to what is a clear breach in contract. They may think they have, and there may be something in their temrs and conditions on which they will try and rely, but my belief is they will be unsuccessful.

They may also be guilty of theft by witholding money from you as this is an appropriation.

**Hareeba!** · 07-07-11, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Horatio

I am sure Gimcrack wasn't doing that, though I confess I don't know.

My question is; what bearing would that have on the matter?

that would depend on the detailed terms and conditions which often contain exclusions against acting in concert / against the spirit of the promo. / collusion etc

**Optional** · 07-07-11, 06:14 PM

If William Hill thought they could take my money without explanation, I would be on to the regulator and my local member's doorstep screaming they should be delicensed as loud as I could.

**** just asking for my money to be returned.

I know it's a tough spot trying to deal with real fraud, but that doesn't excuse them to act above the law and what's reasonable.

You'd think the UK is as unregulated as CR if the OPs story is close to correct.

**Maniac** · 07-07-11, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Horatio

I am sure Gimcrack wasn't doing that, though I confess I don't know.

My question is; what bearing would that have on the matter?

If a punter places a bet which wins, they must be paid out. A bet is a contract between the punter and the bookmaker and, if the bet wins, it is enforceable in law. Any other bets on the event, be it a horse race, football match, casino game or whatever, do not affect the bet which our punter has placed. It makes no odds if other bets were placed by the punter's wife, sister, friend, enemy or Uncle Tom Cobbley. Each bet is a separate contract.

Gimcrack, my advice would be to take legal action against William Hill in the small claims court. The law which governs their business is that of England and Wales. You need to give them the chance to resolve the matter before going to court so you should first write to them outlining the circumstances. If the facts are as you have stated, then it seems that they have not paid out when they should have and, if so, they have no defence in law to what is a clear breach in contract. They may think they have, and there may be something in their temrs and conditions on which they will try and rely, but my belief is they will be unsuccessful.

They may also be guilty of theft by witholding money from you as this is an appropriation.

Because with something like this where 2 people are betting opposite sides to an event, then this is prime money laundering/chip dumping tactics, for example:

Player A deposits and bets on Team A (or Odd)
Player B deposits and bets on Team B (or Even on same spin)

Now assuming the 2 are working in conjunction, then one will win and the other will lose (gets slightly more chance of losing in Roulette with the chance of a 0 landing).

Now assuming these guys were trying to launder money then they would have been successful as they would be able to gamble like this for many events/spins with only a minimal risk between them (juice or possibility of 0 on roulette), and when they cash out then the money is effectively "clean" as is paid to them by the casino.

Bets are not considered "seperate contracts" as Horatio says above if the book has clear evidence of collusion like 2 people betting opposite sides of an event, or chip dumping in poker etc.

Now I am not saying that that is what you were doing, and if there is a bonus involved then it may be that you were in breech of bonus rules which is the reason for the closing, but there are very strict guidelines set out by the regulators that books are forced to follow regarding any posssible type of money laundering, and this scenario I mentioned would clearly fall right smack into the middle of them (IF that was indeed what happened here, and I am only speculating !)

**Optional** · 07-07-11, 06:20 PM

Does the regulator suggest the books just hold funds without explanation too?

**Maniac** · 07-07-11, 07:09 PM

I agree that the book should give a proper explanation to the customer in situations like this - it sounds like they have pointed this particular customer towards the fraud/collusion rules on the site, and if they have enough evidence to suspect this then the customer should know exactly what it is he has done to break those rules!

Having said that, a full and proper explanation should still be offered to the customer just to clarify matters and save any possible confusion.

**acw** · 07-07-11, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Gimcrack

But, please; tell me if I am being naive here and also if you feel I am being treated totally unreasonably.

At least I am not naive. I got the same promotion in my email many times and thought every time: Can someone please give me a reason why I should not repsond to it! You gave it.

It is sad to see how British bookmaking has dropped to the low-life style of Caribbean books!
And now I am hearing of Chinese books offering 30% on deposits, pfffff.

**Monte** · 07-07-11, 11:59 PM

Let's see what SBR finds out, what really pisses me off is that they think they have the right to confiscate money and close accounts without explaining what *exactly* happened. If it is true, of course. Even if he did attempt to cheat in some way, the book must explain the action.
In a normal world of course, not in this bullshit gambling industry with shit books like WH that are raited high cos they buy the ratings.

**AribaAriba** · 07-08-11, 12:15 AM

dude just play in real casino lol u'll get unlimited drinks too

**Horatio** · 07-08-11, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Maniac

Bets are not considered "seperate contracts" as Horatio says above if the book has clear evidence of collusion like 2 people betting opposite sides of an event, or chip dumping in poker etc.

I beg to differ, Maniac.

Every bet is a separate contract, just as every purchase is a separate contract. If A bets with B, and C also bets with B, these contracts are quite separate.

A bookmaker might try and link contracts together, and think that he can do so, but the law takes a very different view regardless of what it says it the bookmaker's terms and conditions, and there is not a court in the land that would hold differently. This is a fundamental principle of contract law.

At the end of the day, when a punter makes an offer to a bookmaker, the bookmaker has the choice of whether or not to accept that offer. Once accepted, the contract is made and a bookmaker cannot unilaterally rescind the contract. If, having take a bet from A, our bookmaker did not wish to take a bet from C, D, or any other letter of the alphabet, he is within his rights to do so. But once he has taken those bets, he has no defence for failing to pay out on the successful ones. He of course collects on the losing bets.

**chachi** · 07-08-11, 10:41 AM

am guessing the account has been linked to bonus abusers

i.e. that account is always logged in with two others and all three simultaneously bet max-bonus wager of red + black + green

horatio - you are wrong, bets can be cancelled, I can think of a handful of legitimate reasons which would be upheld, underaged person for one, money laundering for another, and fraud or collusion as a third as it would violate their T&Cs.

**dikefale** · 07-08-11, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

you could file a complaint with SBR, or with IBAS, or take legal action

have you carefully read and complied with all the terms and conditions relating to their offer ?

were you betting on red whilst your mate was betting on black ?

Very interesting point,but even if they have done that,bookie cant do anything about if they ddnt bet from same pc or ip or maybe account registered to same address.

**chachi** · 07-08-11, 11:07 AM

dikefale - see my edit ... fraud or collusion or such is a violation of T&Cs of any book

**Horatio** · 07-08-11, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by chachi

horatio - you are wrong, bets can be cancelled, I can think of a handful of legitimate reasons which would be upheld, underaged person for one, money laundering for another, and fraud or collusion as a third as it would violate their T&Cs.

Well, if the person is under age then the bet is not a viable contract in the first place as minors can only make contracts for "essentials"; a bet is certainly not one of those. Such a bet is void in law.

Money laundering I know nothing about.

Violation of there terms and conditions? I have had this argument countless times with people on other forums. I have defeated more than one bookmaker over this by taking legal action and have advised many others who have been able to do the same.

People seem to think that because something is in a bookmaker's terms and conditions it can be enforced against the punter. This is only the case if the term or condition in question is in accordance with contract law and is not an unfair term. very often this is not the case. A typical example is where a bookmaker says in his terms and conditions that he can cancel bets if x, y or z happens. In almost all cases the bookmaker is trying to reserve or create a right when he does not enjoy that right under contract law. He cannot succeed in this, though he will try to do so and refer the unwary punter to this who may well think the term or condition is binding. This was certainly the situation in the cases in which I have been involved. The bookmaker thought he could cancel bets when he could not!

The concept of collusion is one such situation for, as I have stated previously, a bet between A and B is a separate contract from a bet between B an C and if a bookmaker tries to treat it as otherwise he is going to come unstuck.

As for fraud, from what I have read across a number of books what they might class as fraud and what the criminal law classes as fraud are two very different things; and the bookmaker will find this out when he tried to rely on this in law.

Gimcrack; if you wish to send me a PM I will respond to you and give you some advice.

**chachi** · 07-08-11, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Horatio

Well, if the person is under age then the bet is not a viable contract in the first place as minors can only make contracts for "essentials"; a bet is certainly not one of those. Such a bet is void in law.

Of course, but your exact wording was "At the end of the day, when a punter makes an offer to a bookmaker, the bookmaker has the choice of whether or not to accept that offer. Once accepted, the contract is made and a bookmaker cannot unilaterally rescind the contract" which doesn't leave a door open for such.

On the last bit, if T&Cs state you are not allowed to collude with others, and a book can prove that "every time a 20% roulette loss offer was on, these same three members always came on simultaneously and always played red green black never overlapping each other on the one game and one game only, and then ceased further play" ... good luck with a regulator

Lesser circumstantial evidence than that has caused many abusers/gnome armies problems with ewallets and bonuses and multiple attempts.

**Horatio** · 07-08-11, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by chachi

Of course, but your exact wording was "At the end of the day, when a punter makes an offer to a bookmaker, the bookmaker has the choice of whether or not to accept that offer. Once accepted, the contract is made and a bookmaker cannot unilaterally rescind the contract" which doesn't leave a door open for such.

In the case of a minor it is not a valid offer and not a valid contract, therefore the bet is not cancelled by the bookmaker but declared void in law. That is not the same as the bookmaker cancelling a bet. We can leave this one, though, as we clearly agree that such a bet is invalid.

Originally posted by chachi

On the last bit, if T&Cs state you are not allowed to collude with others, and a book can prove that "every time a 20% roulette loss offer was on, these same three members always came on simultaneously and always played red green black never overlapping each other on the one game and one game only, and then ceased further play" ... good luck with a regulator

Lesser circumstantial evidence than that has caused many abusers/gnome armies problems with ewallets and bonuses and multiple attempts.

Well, if you can refer me to a court case where that or anything similar was held by the court as grounds for declaring the contract void, I will be very interested to learn of this. How a Regulator might handle this I cannot say, but I know the line a court would take.

When a bookmaker does not pay up on a winning bet, which seems to be the effect of what Gimcrack is saying has happened to her, then the bookmaker is immediately in breach of contract. Only a court can find a breach of contract; a Regulator or independent body such as IBAS does not have the power to make a finding of breach of contract and award damages (the remedy for breach) against the bookmaker. This is why I would advise using the County Court as opposed to a Regulator; the authority of a court cannot be usurped in such matters.

In one case in which I was involved where a bookmaker tried to void bets, the Regulator supported a bookmaker's position on facts where, in law, the bookmaker had no position. The case went to court but it was not necessary for this to go to a hearing, for as soon as the bookmaker's legal department received the claim form they realised the legal position and paid out accordingly; not just to the claimant but to everyone else to whom the bookmaker had refused to pay out. Because the bookmaker had voided all bets, he was unable to get back the monies he returned to those who placed losing bets and had to pay out to all who placed winning bets. It must have cost him a fortune and I dare say heads rolled because of it.

In the red/green/black scenario you have suggested above, presumably a bookmaker is going to win bets from two sides but lose to one? As I stated earlier, on every event there will be some winning bets and some losing ones. If the bookmaker collects from losing punters but doesn't pay out to the winners, this is as clear a breach of contract as there could be and there is no way a court would conclude otherwise, despite what the bookmaker may think or despite what he tries to put in his terms and conditions to make this possible. Any such term would be struck out as unfair, for it clearly is unfair in law. And it is contract law that matters here!

**Gimcrack** · 07-08-11, 04:31 PM

Thank you for your contributions Horatio. I have sent you a PM.

**elvch01** · 07-08-11, 05:37 PM

First post on here as I hear about this from someone who I was telling my problem to and who had seen it.

I too have had my account closed and my funds confiscated by William Hill after winning money last weekend. I regularly received a number of bonus offers in my account for the Live Casino, Casino, Vegas and slots, I accepted all bonuses which were awarded to me, in some cases I got some of my money back when I lost but if I won I didn’t receive anything extra.

William Hill has said that my account has been suspended because they suspect I have been involved in bonus abuse. If accepting bonus offers which are sent to me personally by email or in my message box can be regarded as abuse then I am guilty as charged as that is all I have done.

I have written a formal letter of complaint to William Hill and have informed the Regulatory Body of this. My position is that unless my funds are returned to me I will take action to recover them. I do not see how William Hill can keep money I have won by proper means. If anyone else has had this happen to them as it has to the OP from what I have read then I would urge them to do the same as I have. William Hill cannot be allowed to get away with this so go for it.

**Horatio** · 07-09-11, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by elvch01

I too have had my account closed and my funds confiscated by William Hill after winning money last weekend.

I do not see how William Hill can keep money I have won by proper means. If anyone else has had this happen to them as it has to the OP from what I have read then I would urge them to do the same as I have. William Hill cannot be allowed to get away with this so go for it.

If this is what William Hill are doing, then it is theft as they are appropriating your property.

I am guessing here that they probably have something in their terms and conditions which purports to allow them to do this? If so, they cannot rely on it. Nobody can put a term in which says, in effect, that what amounts to theft under criminal law is actually not theft because we are inserting a term which says we can do it; or if they do, they cannot possibly rely on it! Nobody can legalise theft! Nobody can change the criminal law to suit their own purposes and there is not a court in the land will permit them to do so. I would refer this matter to the relevant authorities on the grounds that you are a victim of crime; and that is not a flippant suggestion!

**horja1** · 07-09-11, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by dikefale

Very interesting point,but even if they have done that,bookie cant do anything about if they ddnt bet from same pc or ip or maybe account registered to same address.

what if one bets black and the other bets red for a certain no of times, same amounts?

**Horatio** · 07-09-11, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by horja1

what if one bets black and the other bets red for a certain no of times, same amounts?

I don't see what action a bookmaker could take in this situation which is within the law. He will collect on the losing bets and pay out on the winning bets. If there is a refund bonus payable to the losing player, the bookmaker must pay it. He cannot refuse to do this if he made this offer to the player which the player accepted.

The bookmaker is entitled to close the account and/or not make any further offers of bonuses to the player, of course. But if a bonus is due and has been earned then it must be paid. There is a contract there. The same applies to a bet which won. There is a contract there and the winning bet must be paid and the punter must be able to take his winnings out, subject to any conditions regarding wagering requirements.

I would stress this point again; just because something is in the terms and conditions it does not mean that it can be enforced against the punter if it is contrary to contract law.

**Maniac** · 07-09-11, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Horatio

I would stress this point again; just because something is in the terms and conditions it does not mean that it can be enforced against the punter if it is contrary to contract law.

So if it is in the terms and conditions - and the punter agrees to abide by those terms and conditions, and then breaks them willingly - wouldnt that be a breach of contract law and therefore the punter would have no case ?

**Horatio** · 07-09-11, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Maniac

So if it is in the terms and conditions - and the punter agrees to abide by those terms and conditions, and then breaks them willingly - wouldnt that be a breach of contract law and therefore the punter would have no case ?

In most cases, yes it would and no he wouldn't.

However, the terms in the contract must not be unfair terms and must not contradict the fundamental principles of contract law. If a term is such, even though seemingly accepted by the punter, it is not enforceable against him. A typical example of such a term which could not be relied upon is where the bookmaker tries to reserve a right which he does not enjoy under contract law. He cannot just create rights to suit himself to the detriment of the punter, and he certainly cannot try to legalise something which is contrary to criminal law.

If a bookmaker does not pay out on a winning bet, it is he and not the punter who is in breach of contract. All the punter need show is that the bookmaker accepted his bet and didn't honour it. Proving that could not be simpler.

It is worth bearing in mind that under the doctrine of privity of contract, the only people involved in the contract are the parties to it. So, in a contract between A and B, only A and B are involved in this; C is not. Similarly, in a contract between B and C, only B and C are involved in this; A is not. The terms of contract 1, whatever they may be, have no bearing on contract 2 and vice versa, even if these terms are identical. The two contracts are quite separate.