Gambler blames bank after racking up R2.6 million debt in six day online casino spree

A gambler who racked up R2.6 million in debt following an online gambling spree over six days, exceeding his authorised R150 000 credit limit with Investec Bank due to an internal system error on behalf of the bank, will now have to face the music.

Investec Bank now wants its money back, but the gambler, only identified as VZ (respondent), is unable to repay his debt. He instead accused the bank of “reckless credit” practices by allowing him to access so much credit while he cannot afford it.

The bank turned to the Western Cape High Court, where it applied for VZ’s provisional sequestration. It held that the man is insolvent and the only way the bank can get its money back is by placing his estate under sequestration.

According to the bank, the man owes it slightly more than R2.6 million, together with interest calculated at a prime rate of 11% per annum calculated daily from March last year, to date of final payment.

The respondent earlier successfully applied for a Private Bank Account (PBA) with Investec with a credit limit of R150,000, subject to terms and conditions. In February last year, Investec implemented a change into its internal system.

This deployment disabled the balance-check function for tokenised transactions. It allowed transactions to be processed through a token rather than directly using card details.As a result, on the evening of February 5 last year, Investec made an error of successfully processing all its client tokenised transactions regardless of whether the client has a sufficient balance or has a limit on their account.

Upon realising this error, the respondent took advantage of the situation by making multiple online betting transactions on Hollywood platforms over the next six days, totaling slightly more than R2.6 million. Each time a transaction was processed, Investec sent SMA notifications to the respondent alerting him of the transactions.

A few days later, Investec instructed its attorneys to place the respondent in default and demand immediate payment of the full outstanding balance into his PBA, in order to bring the facility within its approved credit limit of R150,000.

The respondent did not dispute the debt; instead, he informed Investec’s attorneys that he was unable to comply with the demanded payment. He requested Investec to allow him to pay a portion of his debt and settle it by April 2028.

Investec rejected both proposals and subsequently turned to court to have him sequestrated. In opposing the application, the respondent raised a defense under the National Credit Act (NCA), contending that the dispute concerns a credit agreement and that Investec failed to comply with the provisions of the NCA governing such credit agreements. He denied that he had committed acts of insolvency and argued that Investec unlawfully extended credit beyond the agreed limit.

The court noted that the R2.6 million comprises a R150,000 authorised credit limit alongside roughly R2.4 million in unauthorised charges. As such, Investec has established the necessary legal standing to institute these proceedings.

Even if the court were to accept that the respondent is not liable for the disputed amount of R2.6 million, he remains liable for the authorised credit limit of R150,000. His argument that this amount of R150,000 is not yet due under the credit agreement is untenable in law, the court stated.

It found that his own earlier proposals to repay the R2.6 million by 2028 constituted his indebtedness and his inability to pay now. Regarding his reliance on reckless lending on the part of the bank, the court stated this was inconsistent with his acknowledgement that his credit limit was R150,000 and that there was no agreement in place extending his credit. He was subsequently placed under provisional sequestration.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za