I think we should all just back away slowly.

Skrill comply with the original version Regulations 2000 and as Regulations 2000 do not breach any other actual law, opposed to your own slaves example, it is o.k..

It was repealed in June 2014 by the Consumer Contracts Regulations. Based on this info, Skrill misleading state on their website that they comply with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, while they must comply with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

Skrill Ltd. complies with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000

in February 2016! LOL

Maybe. People like that reach the point quickly where nobody else cares. If he put money on some sketch site (likely due to some too good to be true bonus) then he learned a potential lesson on doing some research in advance, and if that site (which I do not think he has mentioned) is already rogue in casinomeister he should encourage Skrill to drop support for it like they did with Lock Poker well before that cesspool shut down.

To me this still feels like a degen who gambled, lost, and is trying to angleshoot his money back, but I also admit that I do not care at this point as he posts like a broken record that will never stop playing the same song until everyone leaves him alone (and even then he will probably bump his old posts or anything with a hint of Skrill in the topic).


A week later he would be complaining about his bank not returning the retainer fee he paid the lawyer...

Is the ToS the Original Poster posted even the correct ToS? I can't find them online and I see an entirely different set of ToS on the Skrill website. Maybe because I am looking from a different country?



And again:

1. This whole issue of Skrill's ToS saying they can reverse transactions that that violate their ToS and in a different section of the ToS and in an e-mail also saying that payments are irreversible after being sent and whether this is a contradiction or not stuff doesn't even matter. Even if Skrill can reverse the transaction, the Original Poster already agreed that they are not obligated to do so. If the Original Poster wants to keep arguing that they can do it, fine, but it doesn't matter because they wouldn't even if they could. We can assume that they can do it (which I think is what most of us think anyway), but they still do not have to do it and they will not do it. Arguing over whether a party can do something when they obviously would not do it anyway is kind of pointless.

2. Also:


But (1) and (2) are wrong. The receiver did not breach any of the ToS that you posted. The transferor breached the ToS you posted and then the transferor informed Skrill that the transferor breached the ToS.

Also, as discussed above, even if Skrill believes that the transferor breached the ToS, they do not have to reverse the transaction. It is one of several remedies that they have at their disposal. They can exercise one, all, any number between one and all or none of such remedies at their discretion.

See:


From: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=15






I can easily see this as the probably low level support person you got being confused and responding as though you were requesting the transaction being reversed and, therefore, telling you that you cannot reverse a payment once you send it and they cannot reverse the transaction at your request.

Skrill support is probably used to customers asking Skrill to reverse payments because they want their money back for whatever reason and whatever they make up.

Skrill support is probably not used to a customer informing Skrill that such customer violated Skrill's ToS by making a certain payment and that pursuant to Skrill's ToS Skrill has the right to reverse such payment, which would have the effect of giving the customer who violated the ToS his money back, and would Skrill please do that so that the party who is in breach of contract can have his money back.

Your correspondence with Skrill may also have not been clear. I don't know. I don't believe that you ever posted what was actually sent to Skrill.


The correct response from Skrill, if they properly understood what you were saying, would have been along the lines of:

"No, we will not exercise our right to reverse this payment."


Whether you get the response you got that you cannot reverse the paymentor or you get the response that they will not reverse the payment, either way there is 0 chance the payment is getting reversed.


It would give people perverse incentives if Skrill would reverse payments like this. If this was how it worked, anyone could make a payment to an illegal gambling site and gamble and try to win and either lose or win and withdraw everything and then tell Skrill that by the way I made this payment to an illegal gambling site so please reverse the payment and give it back to me. Obviously, it just can't work this way. No company would ever allow this to happen. Skrill will never reverse this payment and give you back the money on the basis that you violated the ToS. I don't know how to say this clearer and I think it should be super obvious that when you are the one who breach a contract, you are probably not the one who will benefit from any remedy that is exercised.

Reddit used to use a "shadowban" feature, mods can ban someone but to them it seems like they're still posting. Could be an idea for this guy, pocketducks, timstone etc

False. Skrill state in paragraph 9.4. that transactions are final and irreversible and state in paragraph 11.2. and 11.6. that they reserve the right to reverse a transaction if they believe that someone breached their ToS and answer to a request to reverse transactions that transactions are final and irreversible based on paragraph 9.4. matter very well, because these are contradictory and misleading statements = willful deception. And if a contract partner make willful deceptions, then you usually can step back from the contract and demand compensation for damages suffered.

It matters also very well whether a payment processor offer the possibility to reverse transactions to fraudulent receivers or not:

a) If it is stated that transfers are final and irreversible(like Bitcoins), then the sender knows that there is no possibility to get money back thru the processor and he will be more cautions when sending money to Skrill merchant accounts:

- He will send in general lower amounts = less revenue for Skrill.

- He will more often decide to not send money to a merchant, if he is not sure whether the merchant is reputable or not = less revenue for Skrill.

b) If it is stated that transfers are reversible by the processor if the receiver breached the ToS, then the sender knows that there is a chance to get the money back thru the processor:

- He will send in general higher amounts = more revenue for Skrill.

- He will more often decide to send money to a merchant, while he is not sure whether the merchant is reputable or not = more revenue for Skrill.

- The reason why Ebay, PayPal and other processors offer to reverse a transaction if the receiver is fraudulent, is to give the sender the feeling of security and animate him to send higher amounts and more often = more revenue for the processor.


I do not argue that they can do it. I argue that paragraph 11.2. and 11.6. are a willful deception if transactions are final and irreversible like stated in paragraph 9.4. and in their response.

I have no idea how you know that they would not reverse transactions if they could?


See below.


The key paragraph in relation to this issue is:

1) In neither of the cases I am aware of, did the sender send the money purposefully to an illegal operation, while the receiver purposefully took the money for his illegal operation, i.e. misappropriation of player funds or house poker bots. Therefore, it is the receiver who breached paragraph 11.4. and not the sender.

2) But let us assume that the sender purposefully sent money to an illegal operation and this would presume that it is common knowledge that the receiver is an illegal operation.

a) The criminal laws usually say that you are not entitled to keep money you received for an illegal operation. Therefore, the receiver is anyway obliged to give it back, independently of what Skrill's ToS say.

b) Both breached the ToS and I have no idea based on which grounds Skrill could decide to let the money at the receiver account, especially as the criminal laws usually demand the opposite and criminal laws stand above ToS.


The response is from the legal department and not from a low level support person.


I posted the request to Skrill to reverse transactions and I posted their response that Skrill cannot be reasonably expected to reverse the said payments claimant are now disputing, because transactions are final and irreversible based on paragraph 9.4.. This should be clear enough to see that there are contradictory statements.[/QUOTE]


I doubt that the legal department was not able to properly understand, but you are right, if the paragraphs 11.2. and 11.6. would be valid from their point of view, they would have responded something like this or "We need further info/proof to assess if the receiver breached our ToS". They would have responded in relation to the possibility to reverse transactions, which they did not.


It would give people perverse incentives if Skrill state that it is strictly forbidden to use your Skrill Account for any illegal purposes and that they reserve the right to reverse such transactions and that they report such transactions to the relevant law enforcement agency and/or claim damages from you, while it is publicly known that they do not execute this statement.

OP,

You appear to be saying that you your client used Skrill to transfer money to a company or individual only to later discover that the company or individual was running an illegal gambling operation.

Specifically which illegal gambling operation are you referring to?

Player Protection:

I am on my phone and skimmed your last post and have neither the time nor the inclination to further read your post and post a more detailed response, so the following will have to suffice:

1. You are mostly wrong; and

2. Skrill is never going to return this money to you and they are not in the wrong for choosing such action (inaction).



P.S.

In the above "purposes" does not mean "done purposefully".

The constellation sender breach ToS and receiver not, is only possible if the sender is not allowed to send money to gambling operations due to local legislation and the receiver do not breach criminal laws. But in the cases I speak about, your suggested constellation "sender breached ToS and receiver not" is not possible. It is either the receiver breached the ToS and the sender not(if he is not aware that the receiver breach the ToS) or the receiver breach the ToS and the sender(if he is aware that the receiver breach the ToS).

Consumer Rights Act 2015

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaces three big pieces of consumer legislation - the Sale of Goods Act, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Supply of Goods and Services Act.


Unfair Contract Terms

Your rights under the Consumer Rights Act make it easier to challenge hidden fees and charges.

Now the key terms of a contract, including price, may be assessed for fairness unless they are both prominent

and transparent.

This is an improvement for consumers because previously such terms were exempt from a fairness test if they

were written in plain language.

Terms may be deemed unfair if:

- they are contrary to the requirements of good faith - meaning they must be designed, negotiated and

entered into with the consumer in a fair and open way

- they cause a significant imbalance between the rights of the retailer and consumer to the detriment of the

consumer.


If you think a contract term is unfair, you should complain to the trader.

If the trader doesn't agree, we recommend you seek legal advice before breaking the terms of the contract.

As a last resort you could take the trader to court and the court will decide whether a term is unfair.

If the court decides that a term is unfair you may be able to ignore the term or even cancel your contract

without having to pay a cancellation fee.

So, you entered a contract, then broke the contract, and are now claiming the contract is unfair*? That's the exact opposite of what you just posted says you should have done.


*P.S. It isn't

OP,

You say the receiver breached criminal laws. Which crimes have they been convicted of in relation to illegal gambling?

1) In neither of the cases I am aware of, did the sender send the money purposefully to an illegal operation, while the receiver purposefully took the money for his illegal operation, i.e. misappropriation of player funds or house poker bots. Therefore, it is the receiver who breached paragraph 11.4. and not the sender.

which site was this? Also which country is "your client" from?

Can you quote the passage where I said that "I have a client"?

Do you ask from which countries the senders are to figure out if they have sent from jurisdictions where this is not allowed due to local legislation and therefore breached Skrill's ToS?

You want to explain me that making a payment to a person or entity who offers illegal gambling services is a breach of Skrill's ToS, but receiving a payment for a person or entity who offers illegal gambling services is not a breach?

ok, let's change "client" to "claimant you advised."

I asked where the claimant is based as it might offer a clue as to which laws have allegedly been broken. It'd be much easier if you'd just name the company involved and specify exactly which laws they broke!

Yes, it is the correct ToS, but the "en-us" version:
https://www.skrill.com/en-us/footer/...ms-conditions/

is different than the "en" version:
https://www.skrill.com/en/footer/terms-conditions/

You think I am not able to assess if a sender breached laws and have to ask again, even though I explained several times that the sender did not breach Skrill's ToS and therefore suggesting that he did not breach local legislation?

Furthermore, Skrill say that they always comply with the law and the local legislation in the countries where it operates. But if you have proof that Skrill process transfers contrary to local legislation, I would appreciate if you could forward it to me.


I treat info and proof I receive as confident as possible and publicise only info which is necessary to explain the situation.

The merchant accounts who breached Skrill's ToS committed the criminal offenses of misappropriation of player deposits and fraud.

So you're declaring that the recipient "ran an illegal gambling operation with house bots" or something, and using this as grounds for having all your deposits refunded? Good luck with that! I'm out of here; this thread is silly.

If you can quote where I declared this, I will give you US $10,000.-

You never even declared what site this took place on, not that anyone really cares at this point other than the amusement had by watching you continue to refuse to say the site. Perhaps in all the commotion you forgot which site you deposited on...

Anyway, as someone who finds the human mind interesting, even oddly wired ones such as yours, I am mildly curious if this thread has been cathartic to you in some way. Nobody would bet that you will ever get even a penny from your Skrill obsession, nor does anyone else think you are entitled to anything, but that reaction has zero impact on zealots, as this thread (and your Skrill crazy in other threads) demonstrate.

Do you at least feel better after screaming your manifesto over and over? If so that is fine - and allow me to help - can you say again what Skrill did wrong? Also, what are your thoughts on 9/11?

All the best.

via Skrill?