Hey guys
So this situation happened around 2 years ago, but recently I have become more frustrated at not being able to play online and a friend suggested posting on here.
So I am a predominantly a live player now but I had played On stars for around 4-5 years when I was banned.
Person a is my friend and is currently staying in my apartment in Macau.
Person b is unknown to me my friend asks if she can also stay, I agree.
Person b stays at our house for a time period of 7 days, she was previously staying at a different poker players house.
After she leaves I try log on to pokerstars, I am now banned.
From very various conversations with my person a and person b I come to the conclusion that she has logged on with my computer (not my stars account) created a new account and tried to transfer off $1000 from another account to her fresh account (I came to find out later it was the previous poker she was staying with in Macau).
I messaged stars and they said because it was conducted off my computer I am liable even though I never gave her the password to my computer or permission to use It.
I have the conversations on Facebook I had with person b where she admits to doing it.
I also am a well respected 10/20us+ live player.
I also know the stars security system well enough as a 5 year player to know that trying to cash $1000 off a brand new account after a brand new transfer would never work.
I can provide names if need be, also can have people come in here and vouch for my integrity.
Thanks guys

I have known OP for a few years now and have no doubt what he says is true, I expect this to be a common case where benefit of the doubt was not given for whatever reason and hope it can be resolved. He has a good reputation amongst high stake regulars and has for a while, this petty and not so smart scam isn't something he would do.. hopefully someone from stars can look into this!

What do you want us to do? Seems like they had cause to ban you.

Well sometimes a poster is fortunate to have someone from stars review their case after posting here, in matters like this sometimes e-mailing support doesn't help as much as it should. I understand that practically speaking they can't just do a huge investigation on everyone banned for scamming who claims innocence but wrongfully banning someone (I am not blaming stars) sucks

Ps sn is readytoship

Fwiw I've been staking OP for live cash for 1.5 years and never had a single issue. The scam that occurred is not consistent with what a high stakes reg would do. Surely something can be done to get him his account back.

What did Stars say when you emailed them the conversation where she admitted it?

I offered to send them the conversation, they did not seem interested, as it seemed like they had already made up their mind.

This seems harsh by stars imo.

Try sending them another email, ask for the case to be reviewed.

Is Stars saying you are liable to pay back the $1,000? The OP is a tad unclear, but if that is the issue then if this person admitted to the incident perhaps she will compensate them.

Does not help too much that this situation is over 2 years old in terms of getting it resolved, as these are likely much easier to fix around the time it happens.

Stars may have been a bit harsh here, though a copy of all the appropriate emails would help, and I do understand why they have to hold people responsible for what happens on their computer.

Sorry, the issue is not the $1000 as it never made it off the site and was refunded to the player it was taken from. I have emailed stars many times asking for a review and offer the I get an automated response of "this case has been closed" hence why I have come here to hopefully get the attention of a stars rep.

If you are a winning player, this seems like a good chance to ban you so you dont take any more money off the site

You must be super duper squeaky clean if you are a winning player these days

Of course sites will never admit that the perpetrator being a winning player influences their banning decisions...

I reckon they should have another look at this however, seems very harsh