Frankey wrote on 17.12.2024 at 03:01:
Why? Nobody is obliged to write here if you get mail from a lawyer.
Most users here would write that with certainty, I am one of them,
even if there weren't really many postings.
I'm also with the big direct bank, I don't know if it matters,
the fact that I still have a home loan in place.
You might not be so quick to cancel....
Yes you don't know how they proceed, but I could imagine that they have some kind of AI system, and if the AI recognizes something from the last years e.g. from the year 2022 then they become active and forward it to the public prosecutor, if that should be the case there will be something to come for some people in the next few years, the statute of limitations is 5 years. I have the feeling that it could still affect me too, I'm not concerned about the amount because it was only tiny amounts in 2022. maybe a maximum of €500, I'm more afraid that my account will be terminated. I'm completely satisfied with the Sparkasse, I have an online banking account there, and of course I don't want to lose it.
Good point with Ki, it is now quite possible to recognize that. I am now beginning to doubt my former opinion that the advantages of Ki will outweigh the disadvantages of Ki.
1. Wasn't it always said that there is a kind of transitional regulation and that the whole thing can be considered a "gray zone" until the gambling license is fully launched? When did the full gambling license come into effect, does anyone know off the top of their head?
2. Those who have received the letters so far. Were they the ones who were contacted due to bank transfers or were they the ones who used other payment service providers?
RebellYell wrote on 17.12.2024 at 16:32: Times 2 questions about it
1. Wasn't it always said that there is some kind of transitional arrangement and that the whole thing can be considered a "gray zone" until the gambling license is fully launched? Since when does the full gambling license apply, does anyone know off the top of their head?
2. Those who have received the letters so far. Were they those who were contacted due to bank transfers or those who have been dealing with other payment service providers?
So if I remember correctly, many providers started to adapt their offer before it came into force, introducing the 5-second rule etc., presumably just to get a license (after years of doing what you want, of course 😄).
I don't know that there was a transitional period after the official start of regulation, but I can't rule it out either.
Otherwise, at least here in the forum, as far as I've noticed correctly, it's actually all been reports from normal banks. At least I haven't heard of any reports from paysafe, Skrill or similar.
Skitch22 wrote on December 16th, 2024 at 10:19 pm:
Yes you don't know how they proceed, but I could imagine that they have some kind of AI system, and if the AI recognizes something from the last years e.g. from the year 2022 then they become active and forward it to the public prosecutor, if that should be the case there will be something to come for some people in the next few years, the statute of limitations is 5 years. I have the feeling that it could still affect me too, I'm not concerned about the amount because it was only tiny amounts in 2022. maybe a maximum of €500, I'm more afraid that my account will be terminated. I'm completely satisfied with the Sparkasse, I have an online banking account there, and of course I don't want to lose it.
AI applications have recently been made available to the general public on a large scale, but simple comparisons of transaction numbers etc. with any lists have of course been easy for much longer.
I don't think it was possible to disguise a direct payout from a casino to a current account either 10 years ago or today.
You could certainly screen the accounts to see if the use of wallets etc. is conspicuous. But since the bank is not involved in illegal gambling when a payment is received from a wallet, it should not be of much legal interest. Unless, of course, it would be via Lastschrift as with PayPal, for example, but that only works with licensed casinos, e.g. Paypal.
As always, it is of course interesting for the bank to collect information about the customer and could have a negative impact...
Stromberg wrote on 17.12.2024 at 17:58:
So if I remember correctly, before it came into force, many providers started to adapt their offer, introduce 5-second rules, etc., probably just to get a license (after years of doing what you want, of course 😄).
I don't know that there was a transitional period after the official start of regulation, but I can't rule it out either.
Otherwise, at least here in the forum, as far as I've noticed correctly, it's actually all been reports from normal banks. At least I haven't heard of any reports from paysafe, Skrill or similar.
Thanks for your answers!
I think I once read about the transition period. But I'm not quite sure about that anymore.
Stromberg wrote on 17.12.2024 at 17:58:
Otherwise, at least here in the forum, as far as I've noticed everything correctly, it's actually all been reports from normal banks. At least I haven't heard of any reports from paysafe, Skrill or the like.
Unfortunately, I have always paid out via my bank account. However, the money was always transferred by service providers such as inpay or Trustly, which are based in gb or other foreign countries. A casino name does not appear on the bank statement. Is there any experience of how this is tracked, what exactly is behind it? After all, these companies also process various other payments from various eCommerce stories... Have any of you ever received mail about this?
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
Most users here would write that with certainty, I am one of them,
even if there weren't really many postings.
I'm also with the big direct bank, I don't know if it matters,
the fact that I still have a home loan in place.
You might not be so quick to cancel....
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
Good point with Ki, it is now quite possible to recognize that. I am now beginning to doubt my former opinion that the advantages of Ki will outweigh the disadvantages of Ki.
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
1. Wasn't it always said that there is a kind of transitional regulation and that the whole thing can be considered a "gray zone" until the gambling license is fully launched? When did the full gambling license come into effect, does anyone know off the top of their head?
2. Those who have received the letters so far. Were they the ones who were contacted due to bank transfers or were they the ones who used other payment service providers?
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Liked this post: RebellYell, Saphira
So if I remember correctly, many providers started to adapt their offer before it came into force, introducing the 5-second rule etc., presumably just to get a license (after years of doing what you want, of course 😄).
I don't know that there was a transitional period after the official start of regulation, but I can't rule it out either.
Otherwise, at least here in the forum, as far as I've noticed correctly, it's actually all been reports from normal banks. At least I haven't heard of any reports from paysafe, Skrill or similar.
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
AI applications have recently been made available to the general public on a large scale, but simple comparisons of transaction numbers etc. with any lists have of course been easy for much longer.
I don't think it was possible to disguise a direct payout from a casino to a current account either 10 years ago or today.
You could certainly screen the accounts to see if the use of wallets etc. is conspicuous. But since the bank is not involved in illegal gambling when a payment is received from a wallet, it should not be of much legal interest. Unless, of course, it would be via Lastschrift as with PayPal, for example, but that only works with licensed casinos, e.g. Paypal.
As always, it is of course interesting for the bank to collect information about the customer and could have a negative impact...
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
Thanks for your answers!
I think I once read about the transition period. But I'm not quite sure about that anymore.
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Nobody has liked this post so far
Unfortunately, I have always paid out via my bank account. However, the money was always transferred by service providers such as inpay or Trustly, which are based in gb or other foreign countries. A casino name does not appear on the bank statement. Is there any experience of how this is tracked, what exactly is behind it? After all, these companies also process various other payments from various eCommerce stories... Have any of you ever received mail about this?
This post has been translated automatically
Charge of unauthorized gambling ( 285 StGB)
Liked this post: Tobsen
The whole thing took less than 6 weeks from file inspection to conclusion and the proceedings were discontinued.
No conditions, no fine 🎉
Now I can sleep peacefully and I'll tell you "never again casino"
This post has been translated automatically