The 3rd party operators featured on this page are featured on a non-commercial basis with no commission arrangements in place. 21+. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

HomeForumGeneral Gambling DiscussionQuestion about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code

Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 795)

3,663,229 views 19,876 replies |
2 years ago
A little warning here for the CG Community: Casino Guru is an open platform where everyone is free to share their thoughts and opinions. We believe in free speech and try to be as non-restrictive as possible. That said, please remember: just because something is posted on the forum doesn’t mean Casino Guru agrees with it or endorses it in any way. We’re really happy to see players engaging in conversations, debating respectfully, and having fun doing so! That’s why we created this platform. However, we’ve noticed a growing trend – not just here, but across other platforms too – where some players, after losing money fairly in a casino, look for ways to get those funds back through their bank or payment provider, often by filing chargebacks or making false claims. We’d like to warn you: this behaviour is not only unfair – it’s also very risky! We’ve already seen and heard stories (here and elsewhere) of people who got into serious trouble trying to go down this route – including closed casino accounts across multiple platforms, closed bank accounts, debts, and even lawsuits (attempted fraud). Attempting fraud or misrepresenting the truth to a bank or provider is never a good idea and could have lasting consequences. So here’s our friendly appeal to all Casino Guru community members: Stand up against unfair and dishonest casinos. Use our Complaints Resolution Center if you need help – you don’t have to fight alone. But please don’t try to get back money you’ve fairly lost. It’s simply not worth the risk. Thanks for being part of our community – and have a great day!
1...794 795 796...1,091
Add post
6 months ago

I had a successful chargeback for Webmosac through Monzo a while back, going down the goods not received route. Was only about £100 though

6 months ago

Ah nice one, thanks for confirming.

Yeah I've got circa 50 transactions with this merchant, given how much of a ballache Monzo are I'm going to try and phone up and get someone specifically lined up to process them as a batch for me. They'll probably tell me to fuck off but will see how it goes 😂

achmeddoener deleted the post
6 months ago

I’ve been following this thread for a long time. What are the possible consequences of a chargeback when the goods (or service) weren’t delivered? A friend of mine actually got almost all his money back. Isn’t it kind of careless from the casinos to still allow Mastercard deposits like that? I’m also wondering the same thing when it comes to Bwin – they’re being forced to pay millions for offering gambling services in countries where it’s illegal, yet they keep doing it!

6 months ago
6 months ago

I’ve been following this thread for a long time. What are the possible consequences of a chargeback when the goods (or service) weren’t delivered? A friend of mine actually got almost all his money back. Isn’t it kind of careless from the casinos to still allow Mastercard deposits like that? I’m also wondering the same thing when it comes to Bwin – they’re being forced to pay millions for offering gambling services in countries where it’s illegal, yet they keep doing it!

6 months ago

Its not careless - it is direct fraud. They manage to get so many players from big markets like the UK/EU and the majority will not end in chargebacks so they continue. Until Mastercard/VISA remove the services and stop the casinos themselves being able to use these methods then it's going to continue.

6 months ago

Because that is how Mastercard set their terms for chargebacks, annoyingly.


I have had this problem with my bank. I disputed a load of transactions as goods not received, but the bank came bank to me and said that they had investigated the transactions and decided they were gambling payments. In order to do this, they must either track the transactions from us > 3rd party merchant > casino or as I supect to be the case, they are checking in on this thread, trustpilot and sharing data.


Which, if that is the case, means they are more than capable of blocking the transactions or recouping our money by charging back as good not received.


However, Mastercard are quite clear that transactions for gambling are not eligble for chargebacks unless the money doesn't arrive in your account.



6 months ago

This is where Mastercard have to be clear and kind of are in their T&Cs - gambling is only legible under code 7995. Pretty sure they have stated this as well at one point. There is a definite misinterpretation by these ebanks on this one.

M.414
6 months ago

You could have saved yourself the trouble

Automatic translation:
Anonymized912
6 months ago

From what I've seen, the bank knows this, but they can't prove that it's for gambling payments.


At first, Revolut rejected my disputes because they came from gambling platforms. After a lot of insistence, they gave me the MCCs and none of them were for gambling. Then the version changed to say that the card platform was not based solely on the MCC.


They have now reopened the dispute and are analyzing it.

I think the best option is to say that you wanted to make a payment to a casino but that another merchant charged you and you don't know who it is and that you haven't received anything from them.


Legally they have to initiate the chargeback because the merchant does not have the MCC for the game no matter what they say

Automatic translation:
DavidBentley
6 months ago

Good luck mate. They really are absolutely horrendous to deal with. Not sure if maybe it’s worth disputing one transaction from the merchant first, getting that accepted, and then using that as a precedent to get the rest accepted all at once? Wish id gone about it that way tbh.


What evidence are you going to give them?

M.414
6 months ago

Have you got information of these companies??

6 months ago

I've a situation with ....bet.com based in caracao, where I requested receipts and transaction statement for 2024. I was directed to their payment agent(AML tech solutions). They provided a transaction that had minimal bets in December amounting to e10. The payment agent said that was all my transactions in 2024. I deposited over €25k in 2024 and have provided my revolut statements to them. No response from payments agent or gambling company. The gambling company only give access to the last 30 days transactions in your account, which seems crazy. Revolut have refused to provide MMC either for any of the 40+ transactions. What is the best course of action?

6 months ago

Anyone had any dealings with Bilucky, or have any contact details for them or their payment processors?

6 months ago

I've a situation with ....bet.com based in caracao, where I requested receipts and transaction statement for 2024. I was directed to their payment agent(AML tech solutions). They provided a transaction that had minimal bets in December amounting to e10. The payment agent said that was all my transactions in 2024. I deposited over €25k in 2024 and have provided my revolut statements to them. No response from payments agent or gambling company. The gambling company only give access to the last 30 days transactions in your account, which seems crazy. Revolut have refused to provide MMC either for any of the 40+ transactions. What is the best course of action?

6 months ago

Put more pressure on Revolut, in Spain they are required by law to provide the MCC, it took me a while but in the end they told me.


Use ChatGPT to write the texts and focus them on the legal sense. In the end, they will end up telling you the MCC.

Automatic translation:
Anonymized912
6 months ago

Yeah, the convo I had with Starling was that because they had determined the final destination of the funds was intended as gambling, then the mcc code is irrelevant and the rule still applies.

6 months ago

Yeah, the convo I had with Starling was that because they had determined the final destination of the funds was intended as gambling, then the mcc code is irrelevant and the rule still applies.

6 months ago

Doesn't matter a jot mate - Mastercard rules dictate what is and isn't gambling and it's their network. By not allowing the disputes banks are actively involved in the laundering of money for criminal organisations.

Edited
player0990
6 months ago

Can you give me your email address? I'm also from Spain. Let's see if we can help each other out. Thanks.

Automatic translation:
Anonymized912
6 months ago

I think it's more the bank that refuses to initiate a chargeback than Mastercard.


The bank tries to avoid the chargeback by saying that it is due to gambling, and I'm sure many of us have said that the main idea was to deposit in a casino or similar.


But according to the law, the charges are from normal businesses, so by putting a lot of pressure or reporting, I'm sure they would have to initiate a chargeback.

Automatic translation:
pyne88
6 months ago

send me an email

6 months ago

I think it's more the bank that refuses to initiate a chargeback than Mastercard.


The bank tries to avoid the chargeback by saying that it is due to gambling, and I'm sure many of us have said that the main idea was to deposit in a casino or similar.


But according to the law, the charges are from normal businesses, so by putting a lot of pressure or reporting, I'm sure they would have to initiate a chargeback.

Automatic translation:
6 months ago

Hi buddy,

You're absolutely right—banks often block chargebacks, claiming it's gambling. But the truth is this: these aren't real gambling sites; they're fraudulent platforms that lure people in and then block accounts or refuse to pay out winnings. That's not gambling—that's fraud.


The legal argument is sound. The merchants processing the payments aren't even coded as gambling sites, and no goods or services were received. This fits perfectly as a case of deception or non-delivery, which are valid grounds for chargebacks under Visa and Mastercard rules.


I've already built a strong case with evidence. If you're doing the same, we can connect and share information. You can write to me securely at I'm happy to help in any way I can.


Automatic translation:
6 months ago

You could have saved yourself the trouble

Automatic translation:
6 months ago

the trouble of what exactly?

1...794 795 796...1,091
Go to pageof 1,091 pages

Add post

flash-message-reviews
User reviews – Write own casino reviews and share your experience
Trustpilot_flash_alt
What’s your opinion on Casino Guru? Share your feedback
PP Forum Xmas Competition flash 2025
Share your winnings from Pragmatic Play slots — we’re giving away prizes worth $3,000!

Follow us on social media – Daily posts, no deposit bonuses, new slots, and more

Subscribe to our newsletter for no deposit bonuses, free tournaments, new slots, and more.