Interwetten - won't refund deposit

[malleeboy]

There are numerous complaints about casinos forcing unwanted withdrawal methods on players. The casino here is blaming EXTERNAL regulations, if it down to merely the whim of management, they are STILL LYING by trying to blame "laws" for what is merely the whim of management.
Most casinos insist on paying back to the method of deposit. In this case, Moneybookers. There is no question here that being able to refund back to Moneybookers is something that ALL casinos can do if they have a merchant account there to accept the deposits. The hidden agenda is that they are not willling to disclose why they REALLY can't refund to Moneybookers, but the recent Playtech/Neteller issue has given the game away. Casinos were using every trick they could think of to resist paying out to Neteller, in order to hise the fact that they had not been verified by Neteller, and thus were not allowed to add fresh funds to their merchant accounts. This meant that they could ONLY pay back to Neteller what they had collectively received in deposits. These casinos, were, in effect, "money laundering" their way out of the crisis by using the funds that Neteller would not accept to pay players by other methods where they were able to get the funds accepted for transit - this was usually payment by cheque.

Their reasoning of "security" is also bogus, "security" is best served by refunding back to the method of deposit. Refunding to a different bank account, one that the player has given them, is less secure, and would also be an excellent way to defraud someone's Moneybookers account and get the money out by another method before Moneybookers could be alerted and act. The casino would then leave itself wide open to a "chargeback" from Moneybookers, but would no longer have the funds, and neither would Moneybookers, they would be in a bank account.
For security purposes, it is the document check that verifies the player, and most casinos will hold up any withdrawal until they are happy with the player's details.

Until there is an online ombudsman, situations like this will continue to happen. Until then we are just spitting into the wind. Thanks be to casinomeister that we have some form (sort) of approach to resolving matters from rogue casino and poker rooms.

[vinylweatherman]

There is another way out for this complainant, and it is something other players have done BECAUSE they don't trust casinos with their bank details.
This involves opening an account at a different bank, with said account ONLY being used for online gaming. With this approach, the player's main bank account is safeguarded from any leakage of sensitive information from the casinos. The player would only use the account to move money around between casinos, eWallets, and, of course, to accept bank wires. Said player would ensure that funds that were not earmarked for immediate use were transferred to their main bank account, out of reach of any risk posed by leakage of the bank details.
If the worst happend, the player could close the compromised account without all the inconvenience that would result should it be their main account that became compromised.

The OP should open a new bank account to receive this $160 back, and then keep this account for the possibility this may happen again. The $160 should be removed as soon as it turns up, and the account left empty till it is needed again. The ID that didn't satisfy the casino should be enough to satisfy a bank.
The casino itself has already done itself more than $160 worth of damage because they seem to be "up to something", and refuse to explain by giving a straight forward reason for this odd demand.

I believe myself that they are lying, it is not "certain circumstances", but "EVERY TIME". The won't be honest about this, as it would lose them customers who would know that they had no chance whatsoever to avoid giving out their bank details for their first withdrawal. It is also likely that once they have the details, they will insist on paying ALL withdrawals by this method.

Now, if only they could accept my cashback credit cards and record the transaction as "merchandise" rather than "gambling". I would be only too pleased to take advanatage of their insistence I have my card deposits "laundered" to me as interest free cash advances, while I pocket 1% or more of the amount as cashback on the card.

This brings back memories of 2004 and 2005, when this very thing was possible with cashback and loyalty point VISA cards
I was gutted when Barclaycard scrapped Nectar points on all my gambling, follwed by Shell VISA stopping gambling from counting towards free petrol.
There may still be ways to do this, but many casinos have scuppered this by suddenly finding that, after all, "VISA Regulations" do NOT stop then from refunding back to my cashback cards

[erp1]

This is a case of a casino that can do what it likes, because they cannot be held to account however badly they behave. Are they based in Kahnawake by any chance?

Interwetten holds a class 1 and class 2 license from Malta. As such they are one of the rather few operators that must follow rules from a genuine regulation body.

Opposite casinoes that are licensed and "regulated" somewhere in Latin America or Kahnawake they can't just do what they like.

[vinylweatherman]

Interwetten holds a class 1 and class 2 license from Malta. As such they are one of the rather few operators that must follow rules from a genuine regulation body.

Opposite casinoes that are licensed and "regulated" somewhere in Latin America or Kahnawake they can't just do what they like.

That does at least give the OP another complaint option. It should be based on the undesirability of being forced to divulge personal bank details, with the attendant risk, when the OP specifically chose to use an eWallet in order to keep his bank details private from the internet.

There was a similar ID issue a while back, where a US player was told to send his social security card details. He objected due to the risk of these details falling into the wrong hands, and complained to eCogra, who ruled that the casino had to use an alternative form of ID for checking the player's validity.

Further, if anything DID happen after bank details were passed to an operator licenced by Malta, there would be a good chance of an investigation of the casino's security procedures, which would have to prove it wasn't them that caused the breach. EU companies have to adhere to strict rules as to how they handle personal information, and this is probably why this casino believes it has a right to request this info, and to expect the player to trust them with it.

[Komodo]

Same complaint

Its a matter of money too. Cashing out to MB is free.
Cashing out to a bank account with different currency, then transfer it back to MB is a lot of extra work and costs money.
Also Im pretty sure Interwetten has it written in the TC that the player must cash out the same way as he/she deposited, which they religiously dont follow.

That does not change the fact that the terms and conditions state that bank transfer may be the only method available in certain circumstances, and the player agreed to abide by these terms when they signed up.

Certain circumstances??? We are talking about every player who has made a deposit via MB!

[vinylweatherman]

Same complaint

Its a matter of money too. Cashing out to MB is free.
Cashing out to a bank account with different currency, then transfer it back to MB is a lot of extra work and costs money.
Also Im pretty sure Interwetten has it written in the TC that the player must cash out the same way as he/she deposited, which they religiously dont follow.



Certain circumstances??? We are talking about every player who has made a deposit via MB!

This is the big problem. They are using a term that is supposed to be an EXCEPTION to the general rule, and turning it into the general rule. With contradictory terms, it does not matter how well the player reads and understands them, they still have no idea where they stand. They are CLEARLY trying to play down the issue, as if they stated CLEARLY that ALL players would get their first withdrawal by bank wire, they would get some players who would decide not to deposit there BECAUSE they were not happy with supplying bank details.
This thread is important as it clarifies that what they mean by "certain circumstances" actually means "every player's first withdrawal". This means that EVERY player has to give their bank details. The cost is also a factor, as an eWallet account can be in the currency the player mostly uses online, probably the US Dollar or Euro, but a bank wire will always be to an account in the home currency, and will be costly where that home currency is not a choice at the casino.

There seems to be an implied suggestion of some kind of "cover up" here with regard to Moneybookers. It seems to imply that the casino believe there to be a SERIOUS security issue with Moneybookers, and they simply don't trust them to have vetted their customers properly. For them to explain "certain circumstances" would mean admitting to this issue, which is why they have to hide behind "management decision". There is the possibilty that the same issue exists with Neteller. The only option is for players to ask whether their first withdrawal will be back to the deposit method, or bank wire, given an intended method for their deposits. They could then make an informed choice as to what deposit method to use, and even whether to deposit at all.

I have seen quite a few issues along these lines, and I am convinced that there IS some kind of issue with this pair of eWallets that we are not being told about. There are a few other casinos that impose harsher terms on players who use Neteller and Moneybookers, but not for any of the other deposit methods - this, to me, makes it CLEAR that there is an issue with them.