Online betting agency Neds has refused to pay out nearly $47,000 in winnings to a customer, alleging the individual was secretly placing bets on behalf of a notorious problem gambler who is banned from Crown Casino. The legal dispute centers on accusations of suspicious bank transfers and unusual betting patterns.
Punter David Kendrick took Neds to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking the withheld winnings of $46,699. Court documents indicate that Neds' decision to withhold the funds was based on the suspicion that Kendrick was acting as a proxy for Ahmed Hasna, an individual banned from Crown Casino due to problem gambling.
Entain Group, the parent company of Neds, presented evidence to the tribunal suggesting that Kendrick's deposits were unusual and potentially indicative of a third party's involvement. The company's counsel, Thomas Kerrigan, stated that Kendrick's initial deposit of $38,800 was refunded in February 2024. Neds argued that allowing such transactions would violate their terms and conditions, which prohibit customers from betting on behalf of others, particularly individuals who are excluded from other gambling venues.
The case highlights the increasing scrutiny on betting agencies to monitor accounts for potential breaches of terms and conditions, especially concerning the facilitation of gambling for individuals who have self-excluded or been banned from other establishments.
