Pregunta sobre sitios web de juegos de apuestas con licencia de Curazao que utilizan un código de categoría de comerciante incorrecto (página 1.221)

That was deliberate and therefore fraud. You knew exactly what you were doing. The bank can't see into the future and know that the transactions they're supposed to process have the wrong MCC for you, but you knew it. Therefore, I hope you don't get a single cent back.

You're old enough, so don't blame the bank for your mistake. You authorized the payment, and the bank processed it. You got what you wanted!

Das war vorsätzlich und somit Betrug. Du wusstest, genau was du tust. Die Bank kann nicht hellsehen, dass die Transaktionen die sie abwickeln sollen für dich eine Falschen MCC haben, du wusstest es jedoch. Dementsprechend hoffe ich, dass du keinen einzigen Cent zurückbekommst.

Du bist alt genug, und dementsprechend mach die Bank für dein versagen nicht verantwortlich. Du autorisierst die Zahlung die Bank verarbeitet. Du hast das bekommen was du wolltest!

250+ transactions made to random overseas merchants should have been flagged by the bank. In the UK, the banks have a duty of care as do our licensed casinos.

Yep I'm an adult. An adult with a gambling addiction who picked this particular bank as they have a strict gambling block. I am responsible for depositing but unfortunately for an addiction once it takes hold its not as easy as saying right I'll stop playing. I'm glad you dont understand that as its an awful place to be.

No idea why you count this as fraud as I told them exactly what I'd done. Didn't raise any chargebacks so you're talking nonsense.

Your use of the term "relapse" completely undermines your argument. A relapse isn't a technical glitch on the bank's part, but a conscious decision against your own intentions. Someone who actively clicks "Confirm" 250 times (!) in their app isn't acting helplessly, but with full intent.

But since you're so insistent on the bank's duty of care, I have a very simple question for you – and that's exactly the question the ombudsman will ask you:

If you specifically chose this bank because it 'strictly blocks' gambling: Why didn't you contact the bank immediately after your very first successful deposit to point out the loophole in the system?

If you didn't report it, you didn't want any protection at all. You wanted to exploit the loophole in System 249 more times. That's called 'bad faith'.

If you claim you couldn't report it because you were 'trapped', then you are admitting that you consciously recognized the transactions as gambling – while the bank only saw a fake code (MCC).

So you were fully aware of the situation; the bank was blinded by the casino's fraud. You didn't use the system as a shield, but as a scapegoat in case you lost.

To be clear: You actively confirmed a contract 250 times and used a service. Now that the money's gone, the bank should foot the bill. Save yourself the postage for the ombudsman. Anyone who identifies a security vulnerability and relentlessly exploits it for €15,000 has forfeited any right to 'due diligence'. You got what you ordered. Take responsibility for it.

Dass du von einem ‚Rückfall‘ sprichst, entlarvt dein gesamtes Argument. Ein Rückfall ist kein technisches Versehen der Bank, sondern eine bewusste Entscheidung gegen deine eigenen Vorsätze. Wer 250 Mal (!) aktiv in seiner App auf ‚Bestätigen‘ drückt, handelt nicht hilflos, sondern mit voller Absicht.

Aber da du ja so auf die Sorgfaltspflicht der Bank pochst, habe ich eine ganz einfache Frage an dich – und das ist auch genau die Frage, die dir der Ombudsmann stellen wird:

Wenn du diese Bank explizit deshalb gewählt hast, weil sie Glücksspiel so ‚streng sperrt‘: Warum hast du die Bank nicht sofort nach der allerersten erfolgreichen Einzahlung kontaktiert, um sie auf die Lücke im System hinzuweisen?

Wenn du es nicht gemeldet hast, wolltest du gar keinen Schutz. Du wolltest die Lücke im System 249 weitere Male ausnutzen. Das nennt man ‚Bösgläubigkeit‘.

Wenn du behauptest, du konntest es nicht melden, weil du ‚gefangen‘ warst, dann gibst du zu, dass du die Transaktionen bei vollem Bewusstsein als Glücksspiel erkannt hast – während die Bank nur einen gefälschten Code (MCC) sah.

Du hattest also den vollen Durchblick, die Bank war durch den Betrug des Casinos blind. Du hast das System nicht als Schutzschild gesucht, sondern als Sündenbock für den Fall, dass du verlierst.

Klartext: Du hast 250 Mal aktiv einen Vertrag bestätigt und eine Dienstleistung konsumiert. Jetzt, wo das Geld weg ist, soll die Bank die Zeche zahlen. Spar dir das Porto für den Ombudsmann. Wer eine Sicherheitslücke erkennt und sie 15.000 € lang gnadenlos melkt, hat jeglichen Anspruch auf ‚Sorgfalt‘ verwirkt. Du hast bekommen, was du bestellt hast. Steh dafür gerade."

He's trying to get under your skin, ignore him.

Hij probeert op je huid te zitten, negeer hem.

Do I have to contact the merchants directly if chargeback and refund are rejected

I'm not provoking anyone, I'm speaking the truth.

If she pressed "confirm" 250 times, she could have become suspicious after the 10th or 20th time that a gambling ban might not be in effect... She merrily continued, milking the "grey loophole".

Ich provoziere nicht, ich spreche die Wahrheit aus.

Wenn sie 250 Mal auf bestätigen drückt, hätte sie nach dem 10 oder 20. Mal stutzig werden können, dass ggf. eine Glücksspielsperre nicht greift... Schön munter weitergemacht, und die "Graue Lücke" Gemolken.

No that is what you call: gambling addiction.

No, that's called shirking responsibility. If you call it gambling addiction, you're admitting you were aware of your problem. An addiction is an illness, but it's not a license to break contracts and then make the bank pay for it.

Nein, das nennt man die Verantwortung von sich wegschieben. Wenn du es Spielsucht nennst, gibst du zu, dass dir dein Problem bekannt war. Eine Sucht ist eine Krankheit, aber kein Freifahrtschein, um Verträge zu brechen und hinterher die Bank dafür bezahlen zu lassen.

Bore off satan

I’ve complained to my MBNA credit card, essentially I’ve got a 15k limit, I’ve complained to them 12 month ago saying I was struggling with an addition, they did nothing!!

it happened again so I’ve asked them to consider their actions as a responsible lender.

I complained to Virgin Money, they chargedback £7k for me, gave me £500 compensation and closed my account to prevent any further harm. they quoted all the responsible lender stuff at me, including the FCA VULNERABLE CUSTOMER GUIDANCE.

I’ve gone back to MBNA and explained that they knew I was an addict, have had previous issues and they continue to allow these dodgy transactions in their thousands!

I’ve not gone down the chargeback route or anything, just said they’ve allowed excessive transactions to be processed from someone who is a known gambling addict. The ombudsman is reviewing so I think they have to do something

You are a Turd Mate

This probably only applies to credit cards and not debit. But have a look at the below

FCA guidance on vulnerable customers (FG21/1) requires firms to recognise gambling‑related harm as a clear vulnerability, meaning they must proactively identify indicators such as escalating gambling spend, reliance on credit, financial instability, or impaired decision‑making, and then understand how these factors affect the customer’s resilience and risk of harm. Firms are expected to ensure staff are trained to spot and respond to gambling‑linked vulnerability, adapt communications to be clear and non‑exploitative, and take practical, tailored actions such as restricting credit, offering forbearance, or signposting support. They must also monitor outcomes and review whether their interventions are effective, with research such as the Bristol/GambleAware work reinforcing the need for product design and account monitoring that actively reduces gambling‑related harm.

Call me Satan, but 250 clicks don't lie. Someone who milks a loophole for €15,000 isn't a victim, they're a regular customer. Do you also call the ombudsman Satan if he tells you the exact same thing in the end? Good luck with the mediator.

Nenn mich Satan, aber 250 Klicks lügen nicht. Wer eine Lücke 15.000 Euro lang melkt, ist kein Opfer, sondern Stammkunde. Nennst du den Ombudsmann eigentlich auch Satan, wenn er dir am Ende genau das Gleiche sagt? Viel Erfolg beim Schlichter.

Which casino do you work for? Prick

It's cute that logic sounds like casino advertising to you. You don't need an employer in the industry to understand that 250 manual confirmations are pure malice. Your resorting to insults only demonstrates that your sense of reality is as depleted as the author's bank balance.

Keep dreaming about your guidelines while the real world decides based on real signatures and approvals. Anyone who milks a system loophole for €15,000 and then portrays themselves as a victim has simply forfeited any right to sympathy. Anyone who can't spell "personal responsibility" clearly mistakes common sense for paid advertising.

Wishing you continued success in your fairytale world.

Süß, dass Logik für euch direkt nach Casino-Werbung klingt. Man braucht keinen Arbeitgeber in der Branche, um zu verstehen, dass 250 manuelle Bestätigungen purer Vorsatz sind. Dass ihr jetzt beleidigend werdet, zeigt eigentlich nur, dass euer Realitätssinn genauso erschöpft ist wie der Kontostand des Beitragsverfassers.

Träumt ruhig weiter von euren Leitlinien, während die echte Welt nach echten Unterschriften und Freigaben entscheidet. Wer eine Systemlücke 15.000 Euro lang melkt und sich dann als Opfer verkauft, hat einfach jedes Recht auf Mitleid verspielt. Wer Eigenverantwortung nicht buchstabieren kann, hält gesunden Menschenverstand eben für bezahlte Werbung.

Viel Erfolg noch in eurer Märchenwelt.

You’re lecturing about "personal responsibility" like it’s some profound insight, yet you conveniently ignore the one detail that blows your whole argument apart: no legitimate system on earth requires 250 manual confirmations unless it’s deliberately engineered to squeeze every last drop out of someone who’s already compromised. That isn’t discipline, that isn’t policy, and it sure as hell isn’t ethics — it’s exploitation dressed up as procedure.

And the irony of you preaching about "reality" is almost funny. The only fairytale here is the one where a company can green‑light hundreds of approvals, take the money, ignore every red flag, and then suddenly pretend to be the guardian of moral order when the consequences land. That’s not responsibility — that’s cowardice hiding behind paperwork.

So keep waving your buzzwords around like they mean something. The rest of us can see exactly what happened, and no amount of condescension is going to rewrite the facts.

I got £150 but i class that as siding with the bank there all in on it together its a joke

Have a day of mate 🥱🥱

was the 7k chargeback successful

Yes it was, I was fully honest with Virgin Money, they were really good with the whole thing……the chargebacks were DSOL PAY….

So on what basis did they approve the chargebacks?