Betway Backed by Maltese Court in $32K Winnings Dispute

A Maltese court has ruled in favor of Betway after a player attempted to claim EUR 30,279 ($32,600) in winnings, despite using his cousin’s payment account and being linked to other self-excluded accounts.

Court Backs Betway in Dispute

The Civil Court First Hall dismissed the claim brought by Reegan Tharmalingam, who opened an account under the username ReeganR in May 2021 and deposited funds using a Neteller account registered in his cousin, Sansigithan Ravichandran’s name. The case revolved around whether Betway was justified in withholding winnings obtained through breaches of its terms and conditions, which require players to use payment methods registered in their own name and prohibit multiple account registrations.

Betway’s fraud team lead, Carla Tarrin Paulse, testified that the ReeganR account was linked to three other accounts, including Reegan1982 and ut1627, both of which had been self-excluded in April 2021. She explained that the account shared the same mobile number, bank details, and password identifiers.

The court heard that Tharmalingam initially withdrew EUR 3,124 ($3,360) without issue on May 17, 2021, but subsequent withdrawal requests totaling EUR 30,000 ($32,300) triggered a risk review. During cross-examination, the player admitted he had never read Betway’s terms and conditions, though he had clicked the accept button when opening his account.

Eventually, the court concluded that the operator acted within its rights in confiscating the disputed winnings, while refunding EUR 18,721 ($20,100) in deposits as a gesture of goodwill.

The Judge Comments On the Case

In a ruling delivered on November 6, Judge Giovanni Grixti stated that the plaintiff’s conduct, admitted by Tharmalingam himself, clearly violated the terms and conditions binding all players of the defendant company Betway. The judge also dismissed arguments suggesting that Betway should have detected the breaches earlier, noting that the fact that the behavior was not immediately identified was understandable given the large number of players who register and occasionally engage in irregular activity. Judge Grixti further emphasized that this did not alter any of the contractual obligations between the parties.

Finally, the court highlighted that self-exclusion measures are designed to promote player protection and responsible gambling. This affirms that operators are fully justified in enforcing terms that prevent individuals from bypassing these safeguards.