uwackme Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 (edited) Anyone know if gambling debt is a legally collectable debt?Im in Massachusetts. A freind used a credit card years ago for an online gambling site, it was "coded" as gambling by the banking/credit card system at the time, so they KNEW and allowed the transaction. Since then they have changed the regulations to NOT allow credit card use for online gambling (Mastercard/Visa/and most major banks) though DEBIT card use is still alowed.Im curious if the portion of any debt involved in this is a legally collectable debt.________Matiz Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadynRed Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Of COURSE its legally collectible, why wouldn't it be ?? He incurred the debt before the regulations changed, he's stuck with it, just like any other debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wert Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Ditto... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divemedic Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 One other question- would gambling deb be covered by FDCPA? Is it for personal or household use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwackme Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 (edited) Thats what Im trying to figure out. Example, in the state of Connecticut it is not a legally collectible debt, neither is it in California. In fact, the California case of a women (I need to find the news clipping) racking up $100K in online gambling debt on her Visa card, and California court finding her not-responsible for the debt is what triggered Visa and Mastercard and all the major banks to institute a BLOCK on credit card use with online gambling sites.Any thoughts? Information?________Lexus Cup Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ec61975 Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I just found out about this restriction last night when I tried to put money into my online account that I had just set up. My Mastercard didn't work, but my Bank Visa (not Debit) worked.I called the first card screaming saying how the hell did a card with plenty of room get declined for a small $50.00 purchase. The told me about thier "restricition".I understand thier reasoning for putting the restriction on thier cards. But I feel that it is just an online purchase, like any other purchase. I don't think that they should be able to restrict where you spend your money/credit line. The reason the credit card company gave me was "We (Credit Card companies) do not feel that it is in the best interest of the consumer."I think one restriction leads to another and next it will be not for purchases for Tabacco, or alchohol (they are bad for your health), not for gasoline purchases (Bad for the Enviroment), etc.Course that is just my opinion. I know some will not agree with me, but I hate being told how and when I can spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo67 Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 I just found out about this restriction last night when I tried to put money into my online account that I had just set up. My Mastercard didn't work, but my Bank Visa (not Debit) worked.I called the first card screaming saying how the hell did a card with plenty of room get declined for a small $50.00 purchase. The told me about thier "restricition".I understand thier reasoning for putting the restriction on thier cards. But I feel that it is just an online purchase, like any other purchase. I don't think that they should be able to restrict where you spend your money/credit line. The reason the credit card company gave me was "We (Credit Card companies) do not feel that it is in the best interest of the consumer."I think one restriction leads to another and next it will be not for purchases for Tabacco, or alchohol (they are bad for your health), not for gasoline purchases (Bad for the Enviroment), etc.Course that is just my opinion. I know some will not agree with me, but I hate being told how and when I can spend money.It's already happened. MasterCard no longer will process online tobacco orders. The company I used to order from can't take MC any longer. I found this restriction after emailing them directly about the site, thinking there was an error.I'm in the process of trying to find a Visa I like the terms of so I can continue to order my cigaretes online at $9.90 a carton instead of $34 -45 per carton. I know I know, I shouldn't smoke... but the reality of it is, smoke or choke someone ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdouglaslee Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Harrah's Casino got sued for violating the FDCPA. They were using a name other than their own. I don't think they will make the same mistake twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwackme Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) An update. After consulting with the Mass State Gov, the law librarian tracked down the statutes. The debt is only collectable if it was collectable legally in the place it was incurred.Defining case was a NJ Atlantic City casino suing a Mass citizen over a debt. Debt was legal and collectable in NJ, so... bingo.So funny thing is, the online casino is in CostaRica, and it IS ILLEGAL to gamble in CostaRica.... except one casino they have on Indian land. So the Debt is not legally collectable in CostaRica.... and therefore in Mass USA.There is also a clause in the law about public decency, aka a PIMP cant collect for a welched on fee, if you get my meaning Sometimes the law crack's me up.________No2 vaporizer Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghacorp Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 The debt may not be legally collectable for whatever reason, however would still be legally owed to the lender. Lenders argue they cannot supervise what people purchase or police how they spend their money. Cynthia Haynes of Marin CA racked up huge losses over a period of time fully conscious of her actions then basically stung her credit card issuer claiming they never should have authorized her cash advances because gambling over the Internet is unlawful. (She didn't mention what she would have done had she won!) Online casinos are legal in Costa Rica however per US regulations financial institutions are not supposed to lend money to US residents to gamble over there. Maybe you can duke it out in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 One other question- would gambling deb be covered by FDCPA? Is it for personal or household use?The debt was incurred on the credit card, not the act of gambling. He paid for a service so this is a consumer transaction covered by the FDCPA. The personal use was the entertainment value of the gambling activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ec61975 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Of course, this also poses the question.If it is not legally collectable, and the Credit card company manages to get thier money back from the Casino. Then I assume that you would owe the online Casino. Since the Online casinos arn't operated in the US, would they be bound by the FCDPA, etc.and if the amount was high enough, would you end up dealing with the guido collection agency, where collection practices involve fingers or kneecaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 The on-line casinos themselves are illegal in most States by virtue of the fact that they are unlicensed.The problem is, as you said, that the money is going off-shore where it is virtually unrecoverable. The credit card company isn't going to let that one off easily because they would have to eat the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwackme Posted March 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 (edited) The credit card company/bank approved the transaction CLEARLY coded as gambling.... not MILK. They knowingly colluded with the debtor in an illegal act in the hopes of making money off the transaction. Remember THEY ALSO have the merchant accounts on the business end and get 2-4% off the top of the transactions on the back end (with online gaming in the $10's of billions worldwide now), so TheIndustry has vested interests in allowing those transactions to be processed. Once the Cynthia Haynes case broke badly for them, the tune changed in a hurry.Mind you most online sites have switched over to using "front" companies and codes for general purchases. But that wasnt the case back then when my buddy made his transactions. Certainly transactions through a front would not be something a creditor would have any responsibility for.So there is some partial responsibility on the creditor's shoulders for actions pre-Cynthia Haynes.There is some interesting info on site called "Gaming Law Review" but the cost of accessing it is way too high for me to look into it, its a lawyer resource site.Things have changed even more since Congress just extended the WIRE ACT to include online gambling over the internet, which seriously raises the legal threat to anyone engaged in such activities.________Honda Cbr1000Rr Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownAndOut Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 the states attorney in fort myers florida disagrees with most of you here.he recovered over $5000 in money I lost online playing crackjack.chit is so rigged and its illegal to solicit any usa citizen to gamble online.credit union had money back in my account in 3 business days and it was a fricken debit card I had used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownAndOut Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 this was in 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwackme Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 (edited) My buddy went to court, the JDB/CA that brought suit didnt have any paperwork or info and case was dismissed. So he never got to argue the whole gamblingdebt/collectible issue I had him get his credit report, and interestingly it lists this CapOne item with a "Date Opened" in 1999 and then a "Balance Date" or Jan 2005?Is this "balance date" a reaging of the debt illegally? He hasn't paid or agreed or diddlysquat to anything with anyone over this.Or does the credit report simply not list the default date.... which for him should be in 2000?Needless to say I think the DV letter and knowledge from here definitely got the wolf of his back, for that I thank you, and he thanks you all.Come to think of it, time to review my CR again ________Maverick Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted April 9, 2005 Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 I hope none of the casinos have Dolphin Muscle. Anyone see Shark Tales? Discussion, IMHO, is as funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwackme Posted April 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 (edited) I didnt know it was funny.... whats funny about it?I have my own pet peeve about the whole internet gambling thing, frankly the ccard companies were in cahoots for years before the Cynthia Haines case changed thier tune. They provide the merchent acct's used by the offshore operations to make it all tick, and they get 3-4% off the top for doing so, then they also get the high% interest from the dummies who use the CCard to gamble with.The whole RICO thing hasn't worked because noone has closed the loop on the elements of conspiracy, but the elements are there, and the merchant account is the key to closing the loop. Jail would do the fkr's good....maybe. prolly not, they'd just come out worse than ever.Course Congress could just legalize it and that would be that with that. Vegas! would be thrilled. Those fools faught hard to illegalize? online gambling thinking it was a trheat to there bottomline. Now they realize they are missing out on TENS of BILLIONS$ and want in.... but thier little pet troll Sen Kyl wont let them..... be careful what you wish for is all I can say.Meantime, collecting gambling debt (IE: even debt on a CCard from BEFORE the Haines case, where the "gambling" transaction code became BLOCKED) is not gonna happen, it is NOT a legally collectable debt, period.....minus some rare exceptions, like a marker at a NV or AC casino.Now gambling debt run up on CCards with NON-GAMBLING transaction codes would be legally collectible, since the CCard didnt KNOW it was for gambling and thereby APPROVE of the gambling nature of the "loan"...ie: not gonna be legally collectible.Like buying gold coins with a CCard and selling them to pay for bets, you're on the hook all the way for that, but buying into an online casino with a "gambling" transaction code invoves the CCard company overtly APPROVING a loan of $$'s for gambling purposes, end of story, best of luck collecting it. Wont happen any longer as the "gambling" transaction code is blocked now.I still dont see anything funny....please enlighten me.________Cb400 Edited February 23, 2011 by uwackme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts