Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (side 1.221)

Det var bevidst og derfor bedrageri. Du vidste præcis, hvad du gjorde. Banken kan ikke se ind i fremtiden og vide, at de transaktioner, de skal behandle, har den forkerte MCC-kode for dig, men du vidste det. Derfor håber jeg, at du ikke får en eneste øre tilbage.

Du er gammel nok, så giv ikke banken skylden for din fejl. Du godkendte betalingen, og banken behandlede den. Du fik, hvad du ønskede!

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.

Din brug af udtrykket "tilbagefald" underminerer fuldstændig dit argument. Et tilbagefald er ikke en teknisk fejl fra bankens side, men en bevidst beslutning mod dine egne intentioner. En person, der aktivt klikker på "Bekræft" 250 gange (!) i sin app, handler ikke hjælpeløst, men med fuld intention.

Men siden du insisterer så hårdt på bankens omsorgspligt, har jeg et meget simpelt spørgsmål til dig – og det er præcis det spørgsmål, ombudsmanden vil stille dig:

Hvis du specifikt valgte denne bank, fordi den 'strengt blokerer' for hasardspil: Hvorfor kontaktede du ikke banken umiddelbart efter din allerførste vellykkede indbetaling for at påpege smuthullet i systemet?

Hvis du ikke anmeldte det, ønskede du slet ingen beskyttelse. Du ville udnytte smuthullet i System 249 flere gange. Det kaldes 'ond tro'.

Hvis du påstår, at du ikke kunne anmelde det, fordi du var "fanget", så indrømmer du, at du bevidst genkendte transaktionerne som hasardspil – mens banken kun så en falsk kode (MCC).

Så du var fuldt ud klar over situationen; banken var blindet af casinoets svindel. Du brugte ikke systemet som et skjold, men som en syndebuk, hvis du tabte.

For at være klar: Du har aktivt bekræftet en kontrakt 250 gange og brugt en tjeneste. Nu hvor pengene er væk, bør banken betale regningen. Spar dig selv portoen til ombudsmanden. Enhver, der identificerer en sikkerhedssårbarhed og ubarmhjertigt udnytter den for 15.000 euro, har mistet enhver ret til 'due diligence'. Du fik, hvad du bestilte. Tag ansvar for det.

Han prøver at komme ind under huden på dig, ignorere ham.

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

Jeg provokerer ikke nogen, jeg taler sandt.

Hvis hun havde trykket på "bekræft" 250 gange, kunne hun være blevet mistænksom efter 10. eller 20. gang om, at et spilleforbud måske ikke var gældende... Hun fortsatte lystigt og malkede det "grå smuthul".

No that is what you call: gambling addiction.

Nej, det kaldes at unddrage sig ansvar. Hvis du kalder det ludomani, indrømmer du, at du var klar over dit problem. En afhængighed er en sygdom, men det er ikke en licens til at bryde kontrakter og derefter få banken til at betale for det.

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.

Kald mig Satan, men 250 klik lyver ikke. En person, der malker et smuthul for €15.000, er ikke et offer, de er en fast kunde. Kalder du også ombudsmanden Satan, hvis han fortæller dig præcis det samme til sidst? Held og lykke med mægleren.

Which casino do you work for? Prick

Det er sødt, at logik lyder som casinoreklame for dig. Du behøver ikke en arbejdsgiver i branchen for at forstå, at 250 manuelle bekræftelser er ren ondskab. Din ty til fornærmelser viser kun, at din realitetssans er lige så udtømt som forfatterens bankkonto.

Bliv ved med at drømme om dine retningslinjer, mens den virkelige verden bestemmer baseret på rigtige underskrifter og godkendelser. Enhver, der malker et smuthul i systemet for €15.000 og derefter fremstiller sig selv som et offer, har simpelthen mistet enhver ret til sympati. Enhver, der ikke kan stave "personligt ansvar", forveksler tydeligvis sund fornuft med betalt reklame.

Jeg ønsker dig fortsat succes i din eventyrverden.

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?