Laugh, I got my money from Bayton and 888 2020 without any problems, after procedures. So I don't care what they do with your money. In any case, these difficulties do not exist in Germany. π€£π€£π€£π€£πππ. At least until now
What benefit does the interest have for players? The interest rate is 4% per year, and inflation alone was 8% last year.
Yes, but I got everything back. I think it was pretty average. THE highlight of the whole thing is not to make the same mistake again afterwards, but now it doesn't matter whether the player knows about the illegality or not, according to the Munich Higher Regional Court, in the decision, among other things. Other higher courts have also decided this way, but it is not understandable to me. It's like a free ticket for addicts to live without consequences.
In your case, 4% would be the maximum interest rate. This will also be applied then
Furthermore, it must be explained where funds were transferred shortly before insolvency, so that it can be ruled out that funds were embezzled, which would then be a punishable delay in insolvency due to the withdrawal of the funds from the operator. Even the parent company and the managing director can then be prosecuted. European insolvency law.
You should really get smart about these things. Ttztz. Now please annoy others with your half-truths.
Okay, I didn't know that. I'm no longer that intense about the matter π€£
In my case there is a complete judgment of the Higher Regional Court without the possibility of an appeal and the judgment states that 4% interest is required from the day the lawsuit is filed.
Check out the videos from the G&L law firm. It is explained there in part 2
You have the least idea and half-knowledge in this forum, and if you then have to sue the managing director, all the instances start all over again and in the end you can't enforce anything again... so it doesn't do you any good at all, even if he has to state it he receives 2 million a month as a managing director and there is nothing left of the money because it was all spent on prostitutes. Unfortunately, you don't have any of it either.
"It's like a free ticket for addicts to have to live without consequences" ( having to doesn't really make sense, you probably meant: being able to! )."
Well, it's not quite that simple. After all, they then have to file a lawsuit first, because the providers do not pay voluntarily (as I already wrote, they defend themselves with claws and teeth), and the path through two instances can take years, as long as there is no Federal Court of Justice - at least in Germany - judgment gives. Even then: "In court and on the high seas you are in Godβs hands," because a judge is not bound by the decisions of the "higher courts," not even by a BGH ruling. But he will take it into account because the OLG rulings - in Germany, thank God - are more clearly in favor of the players than in almost any other area of law! The reason is simple: a judge is also evaluated based on how "appealable" his judgments are. So if he constantly or only too often announces judgments that are overturned on appeal, he can put his career on the line!
And as far as the "free ticket" is concerned: causality is the magic word! It was not the player with the free ticket who appeared and looked for the "gambling move" that offered him risk-free gambling, but rather the "gambling provider who offered the "gambling move" and set it in motion . And now comes the crucial point: Despite the knowledge that this is forbidden in the German federal states (with the exception of Schleswig-Holstein). The gambling operator knew about his violation of the ban (the law, the legal norm). He accepted it with approval because he "hoped to get away with it", in other words: his greed for money drove him to it and still drives him today. The OLG Munich - now also other OLGs - have therefore rightly argued that (in essence) "... this lawless, forbidden activity can only be stopped if the player's protection needs are to be valued higher than any knowledge of his own unlawful act".
So he was only able to play because this illegal offer from the gambling establishment existed; if it hadn't existed, he wouldn't have been able to play and therefore suffer losses!
"criminal delay in insolvency"
That's correct, it's called "mass shortening"...
An application made too late due to "excess indebtedness" also constitutes a criminal offence!
But I would recommend not drifting too far into "corporate obligations" because
If you are interested: You can read the dissertation by Marek Wede LL.B, "The obligation to assume losses in GmbH contractual groups - Necessity and justification of an analogy of Section 302 AktG in GmbH law -", just google it...
Basically, it's really just a matter of the fact that many people here believe that the gambling providers are protecting themselves from the company's payment through " insolvency" and/or "liquidation " (although these two "legal terms" are already significantly different legal forms of "dissolution") to shirk or evade the demands made.
But you are absolutely right when you say: That is not the case!
And to ensure that this doesn't happen, everyone has a lawyer who will prevent this!
I understand all the macho behavior, but trust the lawyer. He promises 100% that he will get the money. Stay calm! One gets it in 1 year and the next in 3 years!
what is it about? This forum is actually supposed to serve positive facts and everyone comes and complains.
Yes, it's tedious and you don't know how long it will last, but there are also positive things and we'll keep that in mind!!!!!
or which side are you on?!???
Good morning! You're absolutely right there too. But unfortunately that's what the OLGs ruled. I just wanted to say that you haven't done the player any favors by believing that it doesn't matter now whether he knows it or not. And 90% of the time the Olgs no longer allow appeals or revisions. In connection with the increase to 10,000 euros, even after a creditworthiness inquiry, the player could think, I, great, nothing has changed from before 21. Because a court will also find out whether the player has already had a trial before and got his money back and then at the latest knows about the machinations of these criminal gangs. That's all I wanted to say.
So you have to go to the e-truck.
Greetings from Bremen
That's clear to me, I've had a small business for 30 years. Nevertheless, you can't just get away with the crime if you can't explain in a meaningful way why the mass was shortened. Back then I simply had a long time in the truck between my driving times.
Good morning! That's exactly how it is. I've been trying to explain what's good about the legal situation all the time, lol. So I would always blindly trust my lawyer. The legal situation is clear whether they are playing for time or not. The only strange thing is that my lawyer would have to encourage me to take further action and sue. Back then I only found out by chance that online gambling was banned. Then I googled it in the evening, out of boredom, and read that in June, July 2019, AdvoFin filed a class action lawsuit with you in Austria. Then I pricked up my ears and immediately contacted the support from Jackpot City and Mr Green/888. Of course they just laughed. That encouraged me even more to take action against them, even though I could have done without the out-of-court letters back then. But I also got these funds back at the time. It was all just beginning, with the lawsuits, here in Germany. You were already much, much further along.
As far as I'm concerned, Malta can also leave the EU. ππ. So have a nice day. I hope you're not too snowed in.
Best regards.
Yes, that annoys me too!
I always think to myself that maybe there will be positive news, but then I just read the same rubbish or pointless speculation and sick pessimism.
The most positive thing in itself is that European jurisprudence through the ECJ has been, without exception, positive in recent years. Sometimes it can just take a while. Here in Germany, a plaintiff has sued Schufa before the Hesse Administrative Court because of the score and what arises in connection with the GDPR. Previously, the BGH had always ruled in favor of Schufa. The administrative court then appealed to the ECJ and asked for clarification. For so long, everything that was dealt with the issue was suspended in court, as is now the case in Malta, to await the verdict of the ECJ. Everyone knows the Schufa ruling against Schufa, including the storage period.
Apparently not even the litigation financiers believe that it's so easy to get money back from insolvent or liquidated casinos because the ones I know have removed these casinos from their financing offer. Maybe it's different in Germany than in Austria - I have no idea - but here the liability of the parent company is by no means a clear matter. Avoiding claims through insolvency is common practice in countless industries...
There is no difference - we are EU, what is possible in Germany also applies to us.
That's exactly how it is. You are much further along in the jurisprudence than we are in Germany. But across the EU, the issue with Section 56 of freedom of services and the states themselves deciding how to fill it out and how to treat it, with possible protection for players and monopolies, has been since 2009. Since 2009, Malta has known that they are acting in violation of EU law. Our BGH ruled in 1962 that online gambling was illegal, for player protection. π
Free professional educational courses for online casino employees aimed at industry best practices, improving player experience, and fair approach to gambling.
An initiative we launched with the goal to create a global self-exclusion system, which will allow vulnerable players to block their access to all online gambling opportunities.
