Bet365 has been publicly shamed in UK newspaper that is national Guardian for allegedly withholding £54,000 ($72,000) of one customer’s funds. The bettor, whose identity is proven to but not revealed by the newspaper, claims that she has been denied duplicated withdrawal requests over a length of months and her only recourse is to take action that is legal.

Based on The Guardian, the bettor signed up for an account at Bet365 in mid-April, depositing £30,000 (£40,000) and promptly losing £23,000 ($30,600) on a few horseracing bets the next day. Bet365 emailed her within hours to inform her that her optimum stake had increased.

But the overnight she hit an upswing, spinning up the £7,000 she had left into £54,000. She was swiftly informed by the operator via email that her limit that is betting had decreased to £1 per bet, which Bet365 described as a ‘trading decision,’ claimed the Guardian. She was, nonetheless, told if she wished that she could wager much higher on casino games.

Nonplussed, the woman requested her money to be used in her debit card, an activity that Bet365’s terms and conditions stipulate should take between three and five days that are working.

Despite receiving notification that her identification was indeed fully verified, the customer has now been waiting over two months for her money.

What’s Going On?

Cases of online bookmakers restricting the accounts of players that fit that the mildew of being a ‘profitable’ professional sports bettor, are well-known, but without having any details about the woman’s identity it’s hard to figure out what’s going on here, or whether she is one.

Being a UK-licensed gambling site, Bet365 must abide by a robust set of regulations handed down by the UK Gambling Commission, which include fraud checks and anti-money-laundering measures, and these may take a while to iron out if the system has triggered an anomaly, which will seem to function as the case.

If she had merely been defined as an ‘unprofitable’ customer, through the bookmaker’s point of view, that could explain the restriction on stakes, but perhaps not the withdrawal hold-up.

The woman claims that her bank manager has assured her there is absolutely no concern about the foundation of her funds, which, would fundamentally rule out money-laundering or fraud.

Which renders match-fixing.

Guardian Tight-lipped

The fact that Bet365 refused to comment on the situation suggests that there’s more to this than meets the eye; because normally the public relations department would jump at the chance to chat to the Guardian and grab some publicity that is free the same time, and we’ve known a few.

Whether knowingly or perhaps not, the woman might have bet on races of that your outcomes happen flagged as suspicious. The Guardian assures us that there is ‘no dispute about the credibility of her winning bets,’ but we’re not too sure what’s left throw at her here. As well as the article’s refusal to write any details of the correspondence between the two parties, or go into much depth at all in regards to the full situation, doesn’t assist our plight.

The Guardian is broadly against the gambling industry in britain and rails in its article from the ‘verification’ procedures that may last withdrawal for customers. But doesn’t it recognize that the online gambling industry is certainly one regarding the most heavily regulated sectors in the UK? Would it prefer to own no verification procedures at all?

Without doubt the woman will get her money, if it she gets the all-clear, and in the meantime we should probably all simply flake out a little.