Unlucky Casino Player Unlocks EU Money Back Hack

In any court of law, one of the most powerful tools imaginable is a case that sets precedent.

If you’re not a legal shenanigans nerd like us, this means that once a court has ruled on a specific case, that ruling becomes a strong argument for why other judges should rule the same way in future cases with similar circumstances.

Or, to borrow from our childhoods, the first time mom decided there would be no apple tart and custard before dinner, it meant never getting dessert first ever again. Not even when we tried to convince dad to overrule her.

And a recent ruling by an Austrian court may just have set a very uncomfortable precedent for online casinos and sportsbooks that operate or are incorporated in Ireland or other parts of the European Union (EU).

TQ Takes Mr Green to Court

While most gamblers take our lumps when casino RTP and RNG work against us, an Austrian player referred to as TQ decided he didn’t want to let the errant operator keep the €62,878 he had deposited with them and lost.

Gambling is not a guaranteed income, and players know that when they play slots, baccarat, or any other games of chance, there is a good chance they will lose over time. That is, after all, why the house has an edge, to generate revenue so it can stay afloat.

TQ, on the other hand, decided that since he played at a real money casino that was not specifically licensed in his country, he was owed all his money back. And interestingly enough, the local courts agreed with him.

Doing Nothing is Not a Solution

Rather than address the issue and perhaps seek out mediation, the operator decided to do nothing. They ignored the court ruling, turned a deaf ear to the protestations of the aggrieved, and went about their business.

Here comes the rub. The plaintiff was not letting his money get away that easily and escalated the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which has the power to enforce cross-border legal actions in EU member states.

The action required of the ECJ in this instance was not to rule of the legality or illegality of the casino and player agreement, which had been established by the Austrian court under its gambling framework.

Instead, they asked for the ECJ to approve a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO).

What is a European Account Preservation Order?

The official European e-Justice website defines an EAPO as follows:

“The European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) lets a court in one EU country freeze funds in the bank account of a debtor in another EU country.”

Explaining that:

“The procedure may be used in cross-border cases only, whereby the court carrying out the procedure or the country of domicile of the creditor must be in a different Member State than the one in which the debtor's account is maintained.”

In terms of the validity of the action, EAPOs are considered a common legal tool for ensuring businesses and individuals in the EU are not bilked of what they are owed, whether as part of a business deal or, in this case, a court decision.

The Scope and Requirements of an EAPO:

Based on the fact that this measure is used to stop debtors cutting and running, the scope is fairly basic, ensuring that the claim against the casino falls well within its parameters.

• The “Surprise Effect”: Debtors are usually not warned before the order is issued. This helps prevent them from moving or withdrawing funds.
• No Prior Judgment Needed: You can apply for an EAPO before or after receiving a final court judgment.
• Bank Account Information: If you know the debtor has money in an EU country but do not know the exact bank account, the court can help obtain this information.
• Required Evidence: You must provide evidence showing your claim is likely to succeed and that there is a risk the funds could be moved.

The only current limitation on this type of action is that it does not apply to any accounts held in Denmark. While the site legally operates in Denmark, it has accounts and holdings throughout the EU, which could be attached.

Dotting the i’s and Crossing the t’s

While TQ has certainly caused a buzz in the world of offshore gambling, whether he will be paid is still not certain.

The ECJ agrees that the filing has merits and that national courts can use EU mechanisms like EAPOs to claim funds, but only in specific cases. What qualifies as "specific" is still under discussion.

Be sure to check back regularly for updates on this interesting case. While you’re waiting, why not take a look at our approved online casinos? Depending on how the luck of the Irish swings, hopefully your gambling story is about the jackpot win that didn't get away.