|
What BelleRock has described is a "certified copy" of a document. These are what can be supplied by "swearers of oaths" here in the UK, and more expensively, by solicitors. Banks where you hold an account may even do this.
It is also possible for persons "of standing in the community" to perform this action, as is the case for the photo used for a passport or drivers licence application. A "certified copy" only shoes that the document provided has been truthfully copied from the original, and sometimes that in addition the presenter has been present at the time. The copy has a seal attached to it that proves that an independent person of standing has made the copy, rather than some "fraudster" having knocked it up in Photoshop. Without the seal, a certified copy loses it's status. A copy of a certified copy also loses much of it's status, since it is an UNCERTIFIED image (JPEG, GIF etc) of a CERTIFIED copy, of an ORIGINAL document.
The quoted regulation does NOT require the PLAYER to provide documents at all, rather it prefers that verification is INDEPENDENT of the player. It is not the PLAYER that should be providing anything other than the details requested, and the institution should then be verifying these independently through agencies such as the electoral roll or credit reference agencies. Getting the player involved should come as a last resort, such as when they have recently moved house, changed name, or are too poor to have even been allowed credit (and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to play anyway). This will be because credit agencies only record credit records, and someone who has never had credit will have no record.
Financial companies are obliged to tell customers if they have been denied a service due to an adverse rating by one of these data agencies, such that the customer can excersise their right under data protection laws to see the offending data, and have it corrected if it is wrong. Casinos BREAK this law when they void winnings for "fraud" based on "indicators" (data) without telling the player which data agencies they have used, and give the player the opportunity to see & seek to have bad data corrected.
Casinos seem only too happy to implement the money laundering and ID verification rules, but seem unwilling to allow players to excersise their rights under data protection laws. Casinos licenced here in the UK are subject to BOTH sets of rules. If it is ProcCyber who have cried "fraud" from "Risk Sentinel", players should send them £10 and demand a copy of all the personal data held on them, as this often holds sway over any number of "documents", certified, notarised, or even handed over in person.
We should ask BelleRock, Where on the website is this concise guide to what might be needed to comply with a request for "notarised copies" offered to players? The same question needs to be asked of many other operators too.
|