What happened then for losing 10k on unibet?can u elaborate on this?

I think this is EXACTLY the mistake that was made: the player's purse wasn't part of their ASSETS. So, the liquidators had zero right to do that. It wasn't TUSK's money. TUSK's assets was the rake from play, NOT the players' funds. I think people should look to sue whoever did THIS action...so it may be a bank or the liquidators.

Don't go after microgaming...go after who actually TOOK the players' money and used it to cover Tusk's liabilities.

I spent 14 years as a Banker and I believe you will find these are the true facts about segregated and trust accounts and why the Bank was entitled to them.

Unfortunately the players purse does form a part of Tusk's assets even though they were in a 'segregated' account, the Bank was within its rights to use the players purse to pay off the company overdraft.

In addition, Australian law is similar to Canadian law, as such even if the players purse was held in a 'pooled trust' account the Bank could still have used to players purse to pay off comapny debt.

'Pooled Trust' accounts are only safe if they are required by Statute, ie Real Estate and Lawyer's Trust accounts.

To be exempt from the Bank using their 'right of offset' each player would have to have a seperate account,...Tusk Investments (In Trust) for John Q Player,..etc etc.

In addition even if the players purse had been held 'in trust' the Liquidators and the Government can still utilise 'trust funds' to pay taxes and liquidation fees.

I feel there was something far more sinister happening here.

I am awaiting a reply from one of the skin owners regarding some numbers, but I believe the Tusk liquidation was planned from sometime in 2006 and Tusk's intentions all along was to steal the player's purse.

I think you made my point for me...banks shouldn't hold other people's money as the holder's assets. It's not like the players are buying stocks or bonds in the company...it's much more like a bank deposit. Aren't the depositor's first in line to get THEIR OWN MONEY back?

No, again a deposit you make at a Bank becomes a liability the Bank owes.

You rank as an 'unsecured' creditor in the event of a Bank failure.

Almost every network has skins. So, from what you are saying, people should only play at FTP or Pokerstars, cause they are independand sites.
Skins are just doors who lead into the same room. If i go through an official door that is advertised to lead into that room, i do not expect to fall down an empty elevator shaft and break my leg...

Noone knew about this Tusk business.
All the players thought that Microgaming handles the money.

Right...but not an 'asset.' It seems that the Tusk case treated them as assets...right?

The books must balance so a deposit ie the cc or ewallet deposit shows as cash on the financial statement, an asset of the compnay as cash is always an asset.

The fact that you made the deposit means that the company now has a liability to you on their books.

So if the company goes into liquidation, the cash is an asset of the company and the liability to you the depositor makes you an 'unsecured' creditor of the company.

You'd be surprised, players like Durrrr made most of their fortunes on Prima/Microgaming, that said, there were far more reputable sites on Microgaming back then however.

MODS

PLEASE STICKY THIS IN NVG. THIS SHOULD HAVE PARITY WITH THE UB SCANDAL.

ladbrokes is the biggest or one of the bigest sportbooks in europe...i think ur safea ton

This is nonsense (talking about Ladbrokes, I have no opinion on unibet).

Ladbrokes is probably the safest site out there regardless of what network they are using.

They are Britains biggest sportsbook and the largest retail bookmaker in the world and have been around since the 1800s or thereabouts.

Anyone not trusting Ladbrokes can certainly not trust any other gambling-companies out there either and should probably give up Internet gambling.

Your site can be the safest in the world, but that won't stop you from being worried if they willingly associate with crooks. I would at the very least express my concern to the owners.

All very interesting, but it will not lead to a cent more being recovered to the players.

Tusk is history. Microgaming is not. Microgaming is highly active, and it is to Microgaming that players need to be looking for the necessary assistance here.

Thanks for making this post skier.