Punter strikes out as doctored bank statements sink $12,615 claim

A customer who submitted falsified bank statements in support of a withdrawal request breached wagering terms, entitling bookmaker Picklebet to close the account and retain the disputed funds, the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission has found.

The dispute arose after the complainant, Mr Y, sought to withdraw $12,500 from his betting account with Puntaa Pty Ltd, trading as Picklebet, in December 2024.

During routine verification checks, the operator identified irregularities in bank statements provided by the customer to support the withdrawal request.

The Commission heard that the names of depositors on those statements had been deliberately altered before the documents were submitted to the bookmaker.

In his submission, Mr Y admitted that he changed the depositor’s names to ensure the true identity would be hidden. 

After the discrepancies were raised, the customer provided further statements with certain names redacted.

Picklebet raised further concerns to which the Complainant subsequently provided original, unaltered versions of the original and unaltered documents.

However, the regulator determined that the initial act of falsification constituted a serious breach of Picklebet’s terms and conditions regardless of the subsequent provision of genuine records.

Under clause 5.7 of the operator’s wagering rules, Picklebet may suspend or terminate an account and retain funds if it reasonably suspects that documentation has been falsified.

The Commission accepted that the bookmaker was entitled to rely on that provision when closing the account and declining the withdrawal.

In its written reasons, the regulator said the complainant had admitted to altering the statements to conceal the true identity of the depositors.

The Commission found that this conduct undermined the integrity of the verification process and breached the contractual framework governing the account.

As a consequence of that breach, it found the disputed balance of $12,615.26 was not payable to the complainant.

The matter was determined with the Commission assessing written submissions and supporting material from both parties.

The regulator further found that Picklebet had complied with its licensing and regulatory obligations in handling the account review and subsequent complaint

In another recent decision, the NTRWC ruled that online bookmaker Bet365 acted lawfully and in compliance with its licence conditions, relevant legislation and responsible gambling codes in its dealings with a complainant identified as Mr H.

Mr H had argued that Bet365 improperly allowed him to open a second wagering account in July 2018 after he had self‑excluded from an earlier account in 2017 and sought a refund of nearly $75,000 in losses.

But the Commission found no evidence the operator advised him to open a new account or otherwise breached its obligations.

From a separate hearing, Entain, trading as Bookmaker.com, was found to have acted in compliance in its dealings with complainant Mr L.

Mr L’s complaint alleged that Bookmaker.com offered an inducement to open an account, failed to identify and intervene in red‑flag gambling behaviour and did not make reasonable enquiries about his gambling conduct.

The regulator also accepted evidence that Bookmaker.com monitored and communicated responsible‑gambling messages to Mr L following significant wins and that his wagering pattern did not meet the threshold for intervention under the applicable Code.

Consequently, the Commission ruled all bets placed by Mr L were lawful and that no monies should be returned to him.