Bookmakers and general Money Laundering on the Dark Web

Should relegated not mean you play one division down the following season, not three as the case is here? And surely should be based on you scoring less points in the league than your rivals. Rangers didn’t incur say a points deduction of 30pts, culminating in a relegation to division one. Clearly they were liquidated and then ‘demoted’ to division three (or rather ‘accepted’ into division three) but there are all sorts of articles and blogs from the time referencing how Rangers were ‘relegated’, including a blog on Coral’s own website!

Mr. Kinloch as Corals are so plainly trying to get across (as though it is some sort of crime) is not your average mug punter and is pretty sharp and has experience in betting matters. He went five miles out of his way into a shop where they didn’t know he was sharp to place his bet. That’s not a crime but he obviously knew to go into a shop he wasn’t known in, there would have been alarm bells ringing in other shops that this chap was placing such a bet. My own feeling is he hoped Corals would stump up a settlement figure for him to fuck off and avoid the embarrassment of a court case. Probably if they offered him £10k to go away i bet he’d have taken their arm off. He didn’t bother appealing to any of the various betting arbitration dispute services, but rather went straight for the juggler of the court room with his case, knowing it would cause embarrassment and was his best chance of a settlement. They were no doubt seething at the cheek of him so are taking him on and they will probably win, but they look so incredibly bad out of it. Even the line of questioning their counsel is taking with witnesses is embarrassing.

It depends. If you are Frank Murphy, relegation means that you change the structure of the entire competition to suit your own personal agenda.

Judge deliberating in Kinloch v Coral. Not looking good for the pensioner Mr. Kinloch.

Is it a crime that this guy isn’t a ‘mug’ FFS? Of course he’s “self serving”, any punter is. You want to take money off the bookie, that’s how the game works.

He’s smart we’re dumb seems to be the defence.

2 Likes

is he confusing himself here?
are exiled and expelled the same thing?
are you expelled from the SPL by finishing last also?

What happened the season rangers fc expired?

Was the quota of relegated teams sent to div 1 with the peoperly promoted teams plus one brought up?

Or did rangers fc make up one of the relegation places as per the quota for the premier dvision?

What is definition of a professional gambler? Surely all gamblers try to make a profit?

Now you mention it I can’t remember. :eek:

I think there was 1 down and 2 up but I’m not certain either. But they changed all the rules around that time as part of the situation so I’d say timelines are complicated.

Who ever went into court that wasn’t self serving? Sure corals are self fucking serving too the dim cunts

I’m sure there is a revenue definition
I was under impression gambling winnings were taxable if proven to be main source of income?

Doesn’t appear they do. The opposite in fact it seems from this

##The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade.

The case of Graham v Green [1925] 9TC309 concerned a man whose sole means of livelihood came from betting on horses at starting prices. Rowlatt J says at pages 313 and 314:

‘Now we come to betting, pure and simple… the man who bets with the bookmaker, and that is this case. These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money, at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organise his effort in the same way as a bookmaker organises his. I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays today and he plays tomorrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man … is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting. The subject is involved in great difficulty of language, which I think represents great difficulty of thought. There is no tax on a habit. I do not think ”habitual” or even “systematic” fully describes what is essential in the phrase “trade, adventure, profession or vocation”.’

This shows that having expertise or being systematic (‘studying form’) is not enough to create a trade of being a ‘professional gambler’.##

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim22017

3 Likes

Interesting. Maybe I’m mixing it up with spread betting/day trading the markets

If you make money from shares that’s taxable which to me is insane if you’re ‘part-time’. Say you’re a postman and you won 5k on fortuitous trade positions in a year, why should they tax that over the barman who won 5k on backing horses for example? To me making money on shares would be far harder but then @Julio_Geordio would say its easier make money on the shares, I presume. You could say both are equally hard to make money on so why tax one but not the other?

If the postman made 5 k on spread betting the shares it’s tax free though which is what a lot of fellas would do…I. e. Instead of buying a share you bet it will go up or down

Tax free shares trading minus the paperwork of actual ownership. Shenanigans.

The court case is really interesting stuff.

They weren’t relegated they were demoted.
I didn’t steal from the man, I robbed him. There’s a HUGE difference.
All the tiptoeing that Coral are doing is hilarious.
The Coral lawyer explaining the origin of the word was relegation in my view only backs the case that they need to pay out. “Someone was exiled”. Sound, Rangers were exiled from the SPL, pay up!

Is there a screenshot anywhere of the actual betslip?

It’s an awful pity he didn’t word his bet differently. Would probably have shortened the odds a bit but so be it.
Hindsight and all that. What would have been the best wording without drawing too much attention to Rangers going broke. “Rangers to not finish in the top 8 of SPL” would be crafty. If you were to say “not play in the SPL the following year” then you’d probably tip your hand a little too much around the financial implications.

Rangers to win division 3 the next year would have been the bet if you knew what was going to happen :grin:

The Coral Lawyer seems to be making a bollix of this, he’s tying himself in knots

That really would have been a clusterfuck. Probably would have ended the same way.

Coral: You bet on the old Rangers to win D3, this is the new Rangers. The old Rangers no longer exist. The new Rangers won D3. It’s totally different.

Result: You lose.