Bookmaking giant Neds withheld almost $47,000 in winnings after suspecting a ‘bowler account’ was being used to place bets on behalf of notorious Melbourne problem gambler Ahmed Hasna.
Punter David Kendrick took Neds to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Monday, seeking a rehearing in a bid to recover $46,699 in withheld winnings.
Neds, contesting the application under its parent company Entain Group Pty Ltd, claims the bets were placed illegally because Kendrick was acting as a ‘bowler’ for Hasna.
A bowler is someone who places bets on behalf of banned punters or professional betting teams blacklisted by online bookies.
Entain Group, which also owns UK gambling giant Ladbrokes, further accused Kendrick of borrowing gambling money from loan sharks – another practice banned by bookmakers.
Kendrick, who gave brief answers during the hearing, has already had $38,800 in deposits refunded but is pursuing the winnings.
Kendrick argued he should be granted a rehearing because he was unaware a directions hearing for his claim had taken place and was struck out in February last year.
Kendrick, who first lodged legal action against Neds in March 2024, claimed he missed the hearing due to changing his email and mobile number and not receiving notification that the matter was pending.
Punter David Kendrick took Neds to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Monday for a rehearing application in an attempt to get $46,699 in withheld winnings
Neds withheld the winnings because it suspected Kendrick was gambling on behalf of problem gambler Ahmed Hasna, who is also banned from Crown Casino. (A shot from a Ned’s TV advert is pictured)
The dispute began after Neds investigated Kendrick’s betting activity and found that $46,699 in winning bets were placed in breach of its terms and conditions.
It’s understood Kendrick’s original claim was related to ‘identification issues’, and he spoke with a former Neds investigator, ‘Mitch’, before launching legal action.
‘I wasn’t happy at the time,’ Kendrick told the tribunal.
Entain Group counsel Thomas Kerrigan, told the tribunal that Kendrick’s $38,800 deposit was refunded in February 2024.
‘The money being withheld, to which Mr Kendrick has no legal entitlement according to our arguments, is the $46,699 in winnings,’ Mr Kerrigan told the tribunal.
The tribunal heard that the $46,699 comprised ‘winning bets placed in breach of our [Neds] terms and conditions,’ and that Kendrick ‘has suffered no financial loss.’
‘To be clear, Mr Kendrick has plainly breached the terms and conditions, resulting in third-party funding,’ Mr Kerrigan said.
‘He’s admitted certain things in conversations with our former employee [Mitch], which, I believe, directly address the issue of prejudice…’
Ahmed Hasna is one of Melbourne’s most notorious problem gamblers and is also banned by Crown Casino. (The casino is pictured)
Entain Group counsel Thomas Kerrigan (pictured) told the tribunal that Kendrick’s $38,800 deposit was refunded in February 2024
VCAT Senior Member Kim Knights remarked that she initially assumed Kendrick’s payout was withheld due to identification issues, but realised he had actually acted as a ‘front for someone else’.
‘We have account statements provided by Mr Kendrick, in which he attempted to redact transactions – money in and out – using a black Texta,’ Mr Kerrigan said.
‘But he hasn’t done it properly; you can see straight through the black Texta, and within those account statements…
‘There’s an individual named Ahmed Hasna, who was previously a Neds customer and was restricted from wagering on our platforms.’
‘He was transferring money straight into Mr Kendrick’s account of $5000… and then that same day, or a few days later, that said money would flow into his wagering account in the same amount which is a very common thing that we see in our industry, which is just resulting in bowling accounts.
‘This resulted in those bets being deemed illegitimate, which explains why we refunded all of Mr Kendrick’s deposits – because the wagers themselves were not valid.
‘That’s the appropriate way to deal with illegitimate bets: we simply net the account out at zero. Anything retained beyond that, Mr Kendrick considers profit, but that money is not owed to him because it was obtained through illegitimate means.’
Mr Kerrigan told the tribunal he could provide further evidence of Kendrick’s betting history if required.
‘The way Mr Kendrick was betting mirrored the activity of the previous restricted customer [Hasna], and both were placing wagers on very niche markets,’ he said.
‘It’s not disputed that this account was being bowled, and Mr Kendrick is essentially trying to obtain funds that do not belong to him.’
Mr Kerrigan also said Kendrick admitted during a phone call with Mitch that he ‘borrowed money from loan sharks to fund his wagering account’.
Kendrick was given the chance to respond but declined.
‘No, nup,’ Kendrick said.
The hearing took an unexpected turn when Kendrick’s phone was left on speaker and he could be heard speaking with another man.
‘They say you admitted to using a loan shark,’ Kendrick said.
‘Never did,’ the other man replied.
‘They reckon they’ve got a record of it,’ Kendrick said.
‘OK, good – open it up, have a rehearing… what’s a loan shark?’ the other man asked.
‘Someone you borrow money from,’ Kendrick explained.
‘So what, is it illegal?’ the man asked.
‘Apparently it’s against the terms and conditions,’ Kendrick replied.
‘What, to borrow money to bet? Every gambler borrows money to bet… I’ll get the lawyers involved, see what they say,’ the man said.
Senior Member Kim Knights denied Kendrick’s application for a rehearing.
Hasna is one of Melbourne’s most notorious problem gamblers and is also banned by Crown Casino.
Bowler accounts are outlawed by online bookmakers; using an alias to place bets on someone else’s behalf is a breach of their terms and conditions.
However, placing a bet for someone else is not illegal, nor is borrowing money to gamble.
Professional gamblers or betting teams banned by bookmakers pay bowlers cash in advance, and sometimes a percentage of winnings, so they can use their accounts and identification.
Bowler accounts are typically deployed by professional punters and teams, some of whom use mathematics and algorithms to exploit online betting markets.
Betting giants are continually on the lookout for bowler accounts, which can be exposed by suspicious betting activity – such as the alleged case involving Kendrick and Neds.
