Privacy settings

We use a number of cookies on our website. Some are essential, while others help us improve our portal for you.

Privacy settings

Here is an overview of all the cookies we use. You can choose to accept whole categories or view more information and select only certain cookies.

Essential (6)

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the website to function properly.

Statistics (3)

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.
If the statistics cookies are subsequently deselected, they will remain on the computer until the expiry date. However, they are neither updated nor evaluated.

Online Casinos in general: A lot of money gambled away, chargeback possible? (Page 13)

Topic created on 04th Jan. 2019 | Page: 13 of 39 | Answers: 388 | Views: 98,717
9****f

Zockertyp89 wrote on 02/07/2019 at 20:54: Something different about this for a change:

Couldn't PayPal charge those who do chargeback for illegal gambling?

Then we would be back to intent.

If I can credibly assure the court that I was sure, e.g. by the
that it is legal, the intent is missing, which is a prerequisite for a criminal act
for a criminal offense

Casinos and financial service providers also know this, and avoid such expensive
Procedures, with the high probability of losing
Probably until it stinks someone times, and a landmark decision would like.

This post has been translated automatically

Anonym
9c-3f wrote on February 07, 2019 at 9:11 pm

Then we would be back to intent.

If I can credibly assure the court that I was e.g. by
the advertising was sure that it is legal, the intent is missing, which, however, is a prerequisite
for a criminal offense

Casinos and financial service providers also know this, and avoid such expensive
Procedures, with the high probability of losing
Probably until it stinks someone times, and a landmark decision would like.

But ignorance does not protect against punishment?

So completely scot-free one would not get away surely. Whereby the banks would indicate themselves thereby yes.

This post has been translated automatically

9****f
In principle, only intentional conduct is punishable
If the law does not provide otherwise, only intentional conduct is punishable under Section 15 of the Criminal Code. In principle, intent is understood to mean the knowledge and intention of the commission of the offense. In this context, contingent intent is usually sufficient. The definition is as follows: The perpetrator must seriously consider the realization of the crime to be possible and accept it as acceptable.
This is given, for example, if someone recognizes in the case of bodily injury that he will injure a person and is more or less indifferent to it. He accepts it as a consequence, so to speak, and resigns himself to it. A stronger form of intent is direct intent. In this case, the perpetrator knows that another person will be injured. The strongest form is intent. Here, the perpetrator would purposefully aim at the injury of the respective person in case of bodily injury.

Protects sometimes already, of course not always


Intent is of course easy to establish in the case of theft. With online offers that even switch advertising, it is difficult.
Especially since no casino or financial service Provider wants to make trouble with the customers
The damage to their image would probably be greater in the end than the lawsuit they might win.

This post has been translated automatically

Anonym
9c-3f wrote on 07/02/2019 at 21:31: In principle, only intentional behavior is punishable
If the law does not order otherwise, only intentional commission is punishable under Section 15 of the Criminal Code. In principle, intent is understood to mean the knowledge and intention of the commission of the offense. In this context, contingent intent is usually sufficient. The definition is as follows: The perpetrator must seriously consider the realization of the crime to be possible and accept it as acceptable.
This is given, for example, if someone recognizes in the case of bodily injury that he will injure a person and is more or less indifferent to it. He accepts it as a consequence, so to speak, and resigns himself to it. A stronger form of intent is direct intent. In this case, the perpetrator knows that another person will be injured. The strongest form is intent. Here, the perpetrator would purposefully aim at the injury of the respective person in case of bodily injury.

Protects sometimes already, of course not always


Intent is of course easy to establish in the case of theft. With online offers that even switch advertising, it's difficult.
Especially since no casino or financial service Provider wants to make trouble with the customers
The damage to their image would probably be greater in the end than the lawsuit they might win.

Thanks

Then, however, none of the chargeback has made ever pay in a cent again, because this would be the intention fulfilled.

This post has been translated automatically

9****f
Right!

And then the exciting question would be whether someone would sue.
If it was a different financial services Provider, they would probably
probably wouldn't know about the other case.

As long as it doesn't go to court, it should theoretically always
work.

How the practice looks, no idea

This post has been translated automatically

J****d

Is it all so simple?

Credit card providers also want to have a reason for the cancellation or chargeback of transactions they have made themselves.

In order for the bank to accept this and take action, what should you write?

This post has been translated automatically

Dbac79
Elite

9c-3f wrote on 02/07/2019 at 8:38 pm
This is a very normal direct debit, that is

something completely different.

Who has seized then?
If you have charged back, your own bank will have to bear the costs
will be stuck with the costs. And they are in Germany, and you are the customer.
They have completely different possibilities, it is logical!



so PayPal has seized my account at the savings bank, then I had no power over the account only after money was received and paypal take the outstanding amount from the account, the garnishment was lifted and I could transfer again, withdraw money etc

This post has been translated automatically

9****f
Ok, then a lawyer would have been better. Directly filed an objection against the garnishment, and then see if PayPal follows through, and in principle reports itself, or if they then let it go.

This post has been translated automatically

Grottenolm
@Dbac79

Och you poor - make a chargeback and still continue to play - see your last posts here in the forum. You wonder or kotzt off that PayPal debits again. Of course they are trying to get your money. I assume that you have canceled your debits without taking further steps regarding a waiver
Probably you have not withdrawn the sepa mandate from PayPal?

Actually sad, nothing understood - and you are happy that you have paid out again 150,--. Troll Troll Troll

This post has been translated automatically

Anonym
First of all: I know this is not the right forum for this question but I just find 0 to it. Has anyone ever Wirholendeingeld.de also received his money? I can not find a positive experience on the net and Facebook I am not

This post has been translated automatically

Hot Topics7th May. 2024 at 07:38 am CEST

GambleJoe is aimed exclusively at user whose allowed to play legally with his current location in online casinos and does not violate the current law.
It is the responsibility of the user to inform himself about the current legal situation. Gambling is prohibited for children and adolescents under the age of 18.
GambleJoe is a registered trademark with the EUIPO of GJ International Ltd.

© 2012-2024 GambleJoe.com

Forgotten your password?

Create a new password here

  • 1. Fill in the 3 fields carefully and click on the green button
  • 2. Check your email inbox for a message from GambleJoe
  • 3. Click on the confirmation link in the email and your new password will be active immediately