The deposit comes back, and rarely anything else

A finding about funding is not a finding about conduct - it is the operator applying the rule it published and the resolution its terms describe. Its parts are worth taking separately because they answer different questions: what happens while it is worked out, what happens to the money already staked, and what happens to the balance those stakes built.

Open the partner account Start with what the funding clause says

crClear: the money is the player’s owndrDisguised: borrowed, under another labeldrCredit proper: owed from the day it moves

Direct answerWhere a deposit is found to have been funded by credit or by money belonging to somebody else, the usual resolution unwinds the funding: the amount deposited is returned, and anything built on it - winnings, a bonus whose conditions were met by that play, a balance that has grown - is removed. The account is normally restricted or closed rather than left running. What is not replaced is the interest the reader paid, which belongs to the lender and is not part of the resolution at all.

1: the check2: the return3: the removal4: the record

The four parts, in order

part 1

the check Funding is examined, not the play. The question asked is where the money came from and whose it was. A card reported as credit, a wallet whose funding cannot be evidenced, an instrument in another person’s name and an outstanding amount on a facility are the four triggers, and they are all questions about the source rather than about the betting.

part 2

the return The deposit goes back. The money that should not have been accepted is returned to the source it came from - not to a different account, and not net of anything, because the operator’s position is that it was never entitled to be paid with it.

part 3

the removal What the deposit built does not. Winnings on stakes funded by it are normally voided, and a bonus whose wagering was met by that play goes with them under the offer’s own conditions rather than as a penalty. The resolution is deliberately narrower than confiscation and wider than a refund.

part 4

the record The account carries it. The finding sits on the record, normally ends the relationship, and can affect what the operator or a group of operators will offer later. The register of a closing account is a separate question from the money and is covered by the restriction desk.

Worked example - unwinding a credit-funded position (illustrative) Account funded over 5 months by one card classified as a credit instrument. Deposits made: 1,200.00 Withdrawals taken: 0.00 Balance at the point of the finding: 2,860.00 Step 1: nothing moves while the funding is examined. Step 2: the 1,200.00 of deposits is returned to the source. Step 3: the balance that the deposits built - 2,860.00 - 1,200.00 = 1,660.00 - is removed, because it is the outcome of stakes the operator should not have accepted. Returned to the reader: 1,200.00, which is 1,200.00 / 2,860.00 = 42.0% of the balance at the finding, with 58.0% (the growth) not payable. Not in the arithmetic at all: the interest the reader paid on the borrowing, which continues to be owed to the lender and which no part of this resolution touches. The structure generalises even though the figures do not: a funding resolution returns the money that should never have arrived and keeps nothing that was built on top of it - and the deposit is what comes back, because the deposit is the only part of the position that was ever the reader’s own.

What is genuinely unusual about this resolution

The interest is not recoverable. It is owed to the lender, the operator is not a party to that debt, and no resolution of the account can return it. On the arithmetic above the reader is out the borrowing cost on 1,200.00 for five months, on top of the 1,660.00 the resolution removes.
The deposits are returned rather than forfeited. A reader braced for total loss is usually braced for more than happens, which is the same finding the series’ one-account desk reached about a different rule.
The account ends, and the debt does not. A closed gambling account changes nothing about a card balance, an overdraft or a facility charge, all of which continue on their own clock.
The finding is about the money, not the person. A reader who funded an account honestly and can evidence it is in a different position from one who cannot, and evidence of the funding transfer is what separates the two.

Why the sequence is worth knowing before it happens

Because one of the four parts is under the reader’s control and it is the first one. Evidence that a wallet was funded from a current account, that an overdraft was already drawn before the deposit, or that an instrument is a debit card misclassified by a payment provider is worth most at the moment the funding question is asked and worth nothing after the resolution has been applied. The rest of the sequence is mechanical.

The honest framing. None of the four parts is a punishment, and none of it is discretionary in the ordinary case: the operator is applying a clause it published and a prohibition its licence imposes on it. What a reader can do something about is the funding itself, before it is examined, and the evidence that shows where the money came from if it ever is. This page explains the arithmetic so that the question, where it is asked, is answered about the funding rather than about the balance.