A player who had signed up at Bella Vegas
casino (powered by Microgaming software) did so while
being under age for the gambling law in her vicinity,
yet still being old enough to meet the age minimum shown
on the casino web page (turns out the that is the casino's
required minimum age to play, but not the only age
requirement that must be met in order to play and expect
to get paid). The casino's stance is that they cannot be
expected to keep up on all the laws in all the places in
the world and therefore it is the player's
responsibility to be sure they are legal to play at the
casino in their location.
She was 18 at the time and living in
the state of Nevada where she isn't considered old enough
to gamble legally. However the casino accepted her and in
fact paid her for 2 or 3 withdrawals she had made previous to the
time she got caught.
It was not until she had won a nice
jackpot and tried to cash-out an amount exceeding $10,000,
(this being the magic amount and I'll elaborate on this
further in next paragraph) that the casino took
notice of her age and replied to her that because she was
underage they were not paying her except the amount she
had deposited (which I grant you is better than nothing
and IMHO after giving it a lot of thought: more of an
effort than I suspect a lot of places would have done).
What is disturbing to me is the fact
that they observed the laws where the player is located,
in this case it was Nevada where in fact there is little
grey area that it is illegal to gamble
online in that state (Nevada and two other states have
their own laws passed against online gambling). In many if not most states this is
still up for legal debate and very much a grey area.
However not so in Nevada. My concern is the begging
question: if the girl had been 22, but the casino
saw she lived in Nevada where they know its illegal to
gamble online: would they have paid her?
To the time of this writing I have not
been able to get a definitive reply other than the casino
falls back on its T&Cs which basically state they don't
have to pay if you're participating in an illegal manner.
What you must take away from all of
this is the fact that any time there is a transaction of
more than $10,000 to someone in the states, it alerts the
feds automatically to investigate for possible money
laundering.
Because the casinos are of mind that
they can operate without drawing undue attention from
Uncle Sam as long as they are not accepting underage
players, they double check all their bases before
letting go that large of a sum because they know the
matter will be investigated in detail by Uncle Sam.
That was when it was discovered this
player was underage. The casino fell all over itself to
avoid a public scandal which is why it cheerfully refunded
the player's deposits (all of them) despite the fact the
player had cashed out multiple times in the past (which
she got to keep).
What my understanding of all this is
that if you win a large amount that it is a lot wiser to
withdraw the money in small amounts over a period of time
rather than have that lump sum show up all at once and
risk the "twice-over" by federal and possibly state
investigators, not too mention the casino itself becoming
a possible hurdle to overcome (if you are living in an
area they know to be illegal to gamble online they may
choose not to pay you).
So it seems the best way to make the
transaction painless for all parties involved and
hopefully uneventful as possible is to just not be so
greedy that you have to get all the money out at one
time. Instead it should only be a matter of an extra few
days to split up your withdrawals to under the radar and
allow one time to go through before the next comes in.
