Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 816)

It takes a lot of common sense and careful thinking. I get that it’s not easy, but you need to stay one step ahead and anticipate the questions before they’re even asked. That’s a big part of presenting your case clearly and structuring your claim the right way. Like I always say, it’s not straightforward and that’s exactly why so many people don’t succeed.

Weeks a go. Didn’t mention gambling said no goods received and are you linked to Trndbm.

Maybe you just ordered trenbolone

Some banks will also assist if you ask a question up front of I have just gone through my transactions could you tell me what description/goods these sell.

Barclaycard on the app and statements have a business description, Chase don’t but on live chat will always tell you.

Dont commit to anything just enquire up front, then come back on here and ask for advice if you are stuck.

Digital goods? Then you say it was codes for gaming, get a steam account (free) screenshot showing nothing received into it, make up an email address, link a website to the merchants even if not 100% correct.

An example I can give I had multiple showing as Terragamine, Terragaminx , CRSH digital games.

Now terraverse sound like the above, so I used their details to substantiate a claim.

This is why we have to play them at their own game.

Do vouchers codes for items such as spa weekends. Glamspot who came up on mine linked and Chase said it was a Spa in Cardiff

Guys here is the contact of TRNDBM

ttrendbram Gmail.com

I recommend that the double t at the beginning is correct.

I confirm that it is connected to glamspot, I have sent several emails but they do not respond, I hope it can be useful for the complaint

Just a note: It is a procedure we are forced to use to keep the forum free from spam. As I'm sure all people here can confirm, relevant posts are always approved. 🙂

Appreciate the understanding. Believe me, we are constantly asked to censor this thread, but it has nothing to do with general post reviews, and more importantly, we have never left anything hidden. The truth is that being the largest international gambling forum, the amount of spams we are daily receiving is beyond our capabilities; hence comes this feature. 🙁

The fact your being approached by these criminals to censor this forum speaks for itself.

Got my Refund from Swipez…

To be fair the solicitor does a duty of care/ethics practice to advise of the best route and as you have already complained to the bank the next step/cost effective measure is to go direct to FOS.

Push fraud/app is fairly new the code that certain banks sign up to but bear in mind it’s not a legal right. I will search the FOS database later and if anything comes up I am more than happy to share on here but do consider non of this is precedent and you need to focus on the handling of Revolut rather than the practice of the scammer. That is what FOS will look at leave it with me for a day and I will update you on here

If only every scam company was the same…..

Starting point is DRN - 4994103

Read through it, make notes on how it relates to yours, remember you are not focussed on Visa/Mastercard rules this is about APP fraud. Remember most cases are not going to be the same as gambling but you need to focus on the parts that are similar, illegal activities/scam you were targeted with excessive emails/adverts on websites/text messages. You can always save the case, attach it to AI and ask a series of questions such as use this document to cross reference a complaint to FOS focusing on law and how it relates to a illegal casino etc. ( I will see if I can assist via copilot/chatgpt but please also look into yourself).

Look to work in the following:

Unregulated online casinos that target UK customers without a licence from the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) are committing a criminal offence under UK law—and so are those who facilitate their operations (like advertisers, payment processors, or affiliates). It is not merely frowned upon; it is illegal.

• 1. Operating Without a Licence – Illegal – see attached the call recording from UKGC

Under the Gambling Act 2005, it is a criminal offence to provide remote gambling services to people in the UK without a licence from the UK Gambling Commission. Specifically:

• Section 33(1): "A person commits an offence if he provides facilities for gambling… unless he is authorised by a licence."

This applies even if the operator is based overseas but markets or makes services available to UK residents.

• 2. Marketing or Promoting Illegal Gambling – Also Illegal – I have emails spamming me with marketing.

Section 330 and 331 of the Gambling Act prohibit advertising unlawful gambling. This includes affiliates, influencers, or anyone promoting these sites in the UK.

• 3. Facilitating Transactions to Illegal Gambling Sites – Serious Compliance Risk

Firms subject to AML regulations (e.g. payment processors, banks) risk violating the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 if they knowingly facilitate payments related to unlicensed gambling, which could be considered criminal property.

Remember like this case - Had Revolut intervened appropriately as I think they should have would you had lost this money/could they had done more to recover the funds? I think you said they stated they would assist?

I can’t cover everything on the forum but hopefully this assists you and others. I will try and add my Barclays complaint to here to help, there does have to be a degree of self learning and effort to have a chance but again I don’t mind helping anyone but as per someone’s message earlier today/last night it is frustrating when others (not you) either don’t say thanks, want to put in the work themselves or previously accuse myself of lying/repeatedly ignore the advice (again MA to you but does need to be said).

Maybe this will assist others - can always cross reference to Mastercard, I have multiple attachments and other emails going into more detail should anyone want it. Mine may now get approved via Barclays but if not I reckon FOS will side with me.

Dear Mr Venkatakrishnan,

I trust all is well.

It saddens me that I must email you again and your team to discuss the mismanagement of several credit card disputes I have ongoing, this is an edited version of the email sent two weeks ago, as a previous complaint has now been upheld on the poor management of that complaint and I was told to log a new complaint should disputes reject the disputed amounts.

I have attached various documents to raise a new complaint for the 10 rejected disputes please note Catherine stated that as of yesterday 18th June these were being looked into focussing on 12.7 of the VISA code and not a section 75. I called disputes today to discuss and these were in fact rejected for section 75 on Monday 17th, please note it appears no one in disputes actually reads all the information so again I need complaints to actually discuss with them and understand that it can be raised under 12.7 (see all evidence ) as a chargeback DO NOT FOCUS ON SECTION 75 WE ALL AGREE THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT PROCESS, BUT A CHARGEBACK UNDER 12.7 CAN BE RAISED. Actual screenshots of Visa show it can under chargeback.

Dispute amounts and companies for ease:

• £206.63 fint

• £206.72 lyv

• £206.72 data

• £206.72 Zyph

• £103.36 Digikey 

• £154.97 clmt 

• £51.66 clmt

• £103.31 clmt

• £95.32 Digikey 

• £95.32 Digikey 

    •    During my ongoing disputes for chargeback I have been given multiple incorrect information. Monday 2nd June I was informed that all disputes had been rejected as they relate to gambling, this is despite me providing information up front that it was a company that bypassed any gambling blocks and therefore falls rightly for chargeback under 12.7 of the VISA terms (Attached), the 12.7 code states that chargeback can be processed if the INCORRECT MCC code has been used in this instance illegal gambling sites have processed payments via a different merchant to bypass the block and break the law, Visa terms also state for any company offering gambling services 7995 code should be used and they should be licenced none of these companies are hence the 12.7 can be raised.

Please note FOS and VISA do not exclude gambling for reasons below:

Under VISA 12.7 to support the chargeback the issuer would need to explain why the payment would have been blocked, Barclaycard has an automatic block along with the Gambling Act that credit cards cannot be used for Gambling therefore this would be successful as they are illegally bypassing the blocks, I have attached a call recording and email from the UKGC that states the companies are not licensed, therefore I would expect the 10 to be raised without delay. I have also managed to obtain information from the illegal casino showing they use payment processors see below about this being illegal. 

This is a new complaint as the 10 have now been rejected despite Catherine stating they were being looked at yesterday 18th but they were rejected on the 17th

I have discussed terms that may not be correct for example the basis is 12.7 (correct), although it could be deemed a scam based on the companies are acting illegally, I would not expect to be penalised for my terminology as this is not my expertise. What I would expect is fair treatment and the chargeback raising, I have listed below the reasons:

• If the correct MCC codes were used the bank would block either via Visa Risk Management tool or via internal tool – THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGEBACK TO BE RAISED

• No 3ds on many of the transactions - So how can you keep saying I authorised payments?

• These should not have allowed to be processed if they had of used the correct MCC 7995. I appreciate this is gambling related but see notes around scam/visa codes and the support others can give, however banks do have a duty of care to protect the consumer, I understand that you could not block them automatically, however the chargeback would be successful considering the following. The payment processors are in breach of the following visa rules 12.7. I have also reached out directly to all merchants when I can find the details and the illegal casino website to request a refund directly, no responses as they are acting illegally.

• I have also had similar complaint last year circa 12th September to October 12th whereby complaints agreed to 12.7 so what has changed now? Noting I have not hidden my vulnerability, although on a call it was said that I was vulnerable then the next thing it wasn’t on file, so I had to explain again.

Email 2/2

Unregulated online casinos that target UK customers without a licence from the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) are committing a criminal offence under UK law—and so are those who facilitate their operations (like advertisers, payment processors, or affiliates). It is not merely frowned upon; it is illegal.

• 1. Operating Without a Licence – Illegal – see attached the call recording from UKGC

Under the Gambling Act 2005, it is a criminal offence to provide remote gambling services to people in the UK without a licence from the UK Gambling Commission. Specifically:

• Section 33(1): "A person commits an offence if he provides facilities for gambling… unless he is authorised by a licence."

This applies even if the operator is based overseas but markets or makes services available to UK residents.

• 2. Marketing or Promoting Illegal Gambling – Also Illegal – I have emails spamming me with marketing.

Section 330 and 331 of the Gambling Act prohibit advertising unlawful gambling. This includes affiliates, influencers, or anyone promoting these sites in the UK.

• 3. Facilitating Transactions to Illegal Gambling Sites – Serious Compliance Risk

Firms subject to AML regulations (e.g. payment processors, banks) risk violating the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 if they knowingly facilitate payments related to unlicensed gambling, which could be considered criminal property.

Relevant information 

Quote from Visa within media articles, however, lauded the impact of its Integrity Risk Programme, which is a set of guidelines and requirements for its partnered payment acquirers to connect to its network. 

The card issuing giant stated: "Visa is committed to maintaining the integrity of our payment system. We do not tolerate the use of our network and products for illegal activity, and we are vigilant in our efforts to deter illegal activity on our network.

"The Visa Integrity Risk Programme establishes a set of ecosystem controls, requirements and capabilities that seek to deter, detect and remediate noncompliant transactions across our network"

• https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/09/mastercard-and-visa-linked-to-gambling-sites-accused-of-scamming-uk-customers#:~:text=Mastercard%20and%20Visa%20are%20processing,previous%20pledge%20to%20do%20so.

• https://www.pymnts.com/credit-cards/2025/mastercard-visa-pledge-vigilance-following-gambling-investigation/

• https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/public-and-players/guide/gambling-using-a-credit-card

• https://www.ukbookmakers.org.uk/2025/03/uk-gambling-commission-pledges-to-probe-links-between-visa-mastercard-and-illegal-betting/

FOS cases that are relevant

• DRN 4443965 – The rules explain disputes can be initiated under that condition if the authorisation request contained an incorrect MCC. Subject to certification that, and an explanation of why, the authorisation request would have been declined if valid data had been provided. There is nothing in the rules restricting such a claim being raised against a merchant providing gambling services. To defend such a claim, the acquirer would need to show why the dispute was invalid - such as showing the authorisation didn’t contain invalid data.

• DRN 4400536 - The visa chargeback rules / specifically dispute condition "12.7 invalid data" - allow for chargebacks in relation to transactions where authorisation has been obtained using invalid or incorrect data. In cases where an unlicensed gambling business has taken payment using the incorrect MCC on a visa credit or debit card that has the gambling MCC block applied to it - this code applies for the chargeback.

DRN-3077317 - although not directly linked to my circumstances please see screenshot that if items are miscoded then Visa and FOS would expect a chargeback, no exclusions for Gambling this should be coded 7995 but has not been - Lloyds not raising made them liable circa £20k 

DRN-4516953 - Focuses on scam casinos so non licensed, same as mine - Revolut liable circa £170,000.