The news has something to make you smile, but it was certainly not the reaction of this Beziers player. The facts took place 3 years ago in a casino in Béziers in the south of USA. A relatively used player of this type of establishment earns around 15,000 euros by playing, and then nothing for the next 3 years. The story could stop there but alas for the player, the family allowance fund seems not to hear it by this ear. The CAF is now calling for reimbursement of a debt rose to two thirds of the pocketed gains 3 years ago.
The circumstances that lead to the dispute
The genesis of history and cold shower for this player several years after the facts begins in 2016. Indeed, between 2016 and 2018 the main interested party admits having played regularly at casino, and have notably earned more than 14,000 euros. Until then, nothing that deserves that we linger there beyond it, except that during the same period, the person also received the RSA (active solidarity income) on the part of the CAF. It was during an unexpected control and a priori made in a completely random manner that the agents of the family allowance fund noted the existence of these gains. Having brought the facts before the courts, the administrative court of Montpellier (Hérault) asks him, now to reimburse three years of RSA services according to them paid. The total of the sums collected would amount to 10,670 euros, a sum to which is added a fine of 1,219 euros, for a total of 11,889 euros.
Best Casinos - September 2022
The accused defends herself
When you read the facts, things may seem obvious at first glance. This is no more and less fraud like CAF knows thousands of them on a daily basis, the person receiving other non-declared income in addition to the RSA. But the Real money gains perceived at the casino Are they legally considered to be income, and therefore taxable? This is where all the ambiguity is and it is on this point that the accused's lawyer to try to support. Before the court, the lawyer and his client pleaded that all the declarations due to the CAF had been completed properly in time. If on the declarations in question there is no mention of the gains won in the casino it seems that on all the administrative documents and the pages of the CAF sites, there is no mention of an obligation to declare this type of gain, nor that they were considered income. What after verification is correct, the obligation to declare gains related to the game does not officially appear on the official CAF documents.
A legal vacuum but a conviction
The administrative court, although in the obligation to admit that the legal vagueness indeed exists concerning the Casino's legal status, did not take it into account when making his verdict. Justice considers that on the principle the accused showed bad faith insofar as the perceived gains allowed her to support her needs and that in this case she had no need to perceive the RSA. Thus, if the law does not formally reveal the accused, on the principle, it was considered that it is a deliberate and dishonest omission. It is therefore a substantial sum that the main concerned is forced to pay (with undoubtedly a staggering in time). A case that should serve as a warning for players in similar cases who are therefore invited to be vigilant and especially transparency in the event of doubt.