DaVinci's Gold requesting notarized docs

[lauriejim]

pacers and bb, you know i think the world of both of you and i hate to see two such fine people going at each other, you both have great points and i respect what both of you have posted, i just hate to see you two smart forum friends trading barbs with one another, your both above that, atleast to me anyways...........laurie

[Kenny Lingus]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

This question - that seems to feed off of the pessimism that many players have - is a legitimate one, but it's easily answered.

I'm not sure if I'm just not getting it, or whatever, but I still feel that no one has provided a convincing answer to this question:

Why are docs needed for a casino to process a withdrawl, but are unnecessary for accepting a deposit?

Originally Posted by bellerock

Hi All,

The demand for ID verification is growing all the time. Most reputable casinos in reputable jurisdictions are required to adhere to specific anti money laundering codes and with the release of the latest directive the requirement for verification is only going to grow.

So a cashout is a possible money laundering situation, but a deposit is not? It seems to me that there is far, far, more potential for multiple deposits to be used to launder drug or terrorist money than for a relatively small cashout to be used as such. And, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that any arguement for government compliance would apply to both deposits and cashouts equally, not only when a lucky player wants to actually posess some of his/her winnings.

Originally Posted by thisisvegas

Once again if you don't like these policies then don't play. I don't get why players have to try to trample on Rival casinos as if they exposed a big flaw, I don't see other managers on here fielding these questions when they have different software but the exact same policies.

First of all, John, I haven't seen anyone "picking" on Rival casinos in this thread; it has really been a discussion about any applicable casino or software. It was, however, Da Vinci's Gold that asked for the notarized docs that spurred the creation of this thread in the first place, and that is how Rival was brought into this.

More disturbing to me is your admonishment that "if you don't like these policies then don't play". John, this is a forum where players discuss issues that are important to them, including casino policies that are perceived as unfair. I don't see the need to get so heavy handed. I personally don't understand the need for documentation at all, let alone notarized docs.

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

Casinos have argued that asking for documents up front would deter players, and send them to other operators who would allow instant play. This argument, however, does NOT excuse letting a player play for weeks, maybe even YEARS, before asking for documents. As chuchu59 says, there is no reason not to request documents once the casino has received a deposit from a player, and they are playing. If they are unable to satisfy the casino, then they can be ejected before they have made more than a couple of deposits (which should be returned), rather than after a long history of believing they would be paid if they won, only to find they never could have been.

Yes, yes, yes!!! I couldn't agree more. If all this fraud, money laundering, and government directive stuff is as important as the casinos would like us all to believe, then why not have any necessary documentation cleared before a player deposits more than, say, $300.00 or so?

The answer, it seems to me, is one that is totally self-serving for the casino operators. Quite simply, they would stand to lose money if this practice were to be implemented. In other words, if the casinos benefit from an attempt at fraud because the depositor lost their deposit, so be it; but try and cashout and all sorts of documentation is required in the name of fraud prevention.

Originally Posted by bellerock

The EU directive requires that Customer Due Diligence needs to carried out after certain triggers have been activated:
Article 8
1. Customer Due Diligence measures shall compromise:
a) Identifying the customer and verifying the customer's identity on the basis of documents, data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source;
It goes on to list a few other identity requirements.
It further indicates in Section 3, Article 13 that Enhanced Due Diligence needs to be carried out when additional triggers are hit;
2. Where the customer has not been physically present for identification purposes, Member States shall require those institutions and persons to take specific and adequate measures to compensate for the higher risk, for example by applying one or more of the following measure:
a) ensuring the customer's identity is established by additional documents, data or information;
b) supplementary measures to verify or certify the documents supplied, or requiring confirmatory certification by a credit or financial institution etc.

Again, please don't consider a request for documents as a stalling tactic or as an accusation, in most cases it is part of an operators regulatory and legal obligation.

I don't see where this directive applies only to cashout requests; it certainly should apply to deposits as well, no?

Originally Posted by pacers31

The rule should be, if you take my deposit without any ID request, give me my withdrawl without any ID request. It couldn't be any simpler or fairer than that.

Well said. The casino operators should not get away with having it both ways.

Originally Posted by bb28

Remember that little I agree button that you said yes to when you installed the software? Most casino's have a clause in their terms and conditions that advise you that you may be asked or you will be asked to provide documentation when you are cashing out.

.....Another example from 3Dice. "Before any winnings are paid out, 3DICE.COM reserves the right to require the user to provide information or documentation as to verify the user’s identity."

First of all, just because casinos put something in their T&Cs doesn't mean that it's fair or cannot be discussed.

Secondly, your quotation of 3dice's policy puts my point into the exact perspective to end this post. So, I'll ask one more time: Why does a casino only care about documentation when they are paying out funds? Isn't it a concern at all when they are receiving them?????????

[joeypbg]

Secondly, your quotation of 3dice's policy puts my point into the exact perspective to end this post. So, I'll ask one more time: Why does a casino only care about documentation when they are paying out funds? Isn't it a concern at all when they are receiving them?????????

The casino has no answer to this because you are absolutely right. If they want to ask for id for out , there should be id getting in. Then when everything is settled before game play, there should not be anymore questions when cashing out. It is like signing a one sided contract and the only way make it fair is to point out the deficiencies. This thread is pointing out the deficiencies and let's hope they do something about it.

If they don't there are other options out there.

[Casinomeister]

Please check your emotions at the door. Some members here are letting their emotions get the best of them - think like a Vulcan please

Originally Posted by Kenny Lingus

I'm not sure if I'm just not getting it, or whatever, but I still feel that no one has provided a convincing answer to this question:

Why are docs needed for a casino to process a withdrawl, but are unnecessary for accepting a deposit?

Sorry, I thought I answered this question in that post. The thing is, I've answered this question so often, I begin to use telepathy. We'll be adding it to the FAQ since there are a number of threads that rehash this issue at least three times a year, and the answer is always the same.

Answer: Online casinos do not ask for IDs when signing up because they will lose customers. Players will move on to a casino that does not require ID checks because players need to gamble "now".

Online casinos do not ask for IDs when signing up because they are not required to. Why should they voluntarily throw an obstacle in the way of a newly signing up customer?

Online casinos give the player the benefit of the doubt when the player says who they are is who they are. Maybe this is wrong, and there should be a regulated ID check at the door, but as long as one casino group doesn't do this - all of them with fall into the same pattern. Competition is fierce in this industry.

They ask for it when cashing out (once) for a number of reasons: licensing requirements, banking regulations, company SOP, suspect fraud, stalling for payments (rogue ) list goes on, etc.

One thing we are missing when debating this argument is that they are just as many types of casinos as there are players. It's difficult to compare one casino with another since they have differing business ethics, management, licensing, software, etc. etc. Sure, there are rogue entities that require players to provide IDs when checking out because they see their non-rogue brethren asking for this. It's a good way to stall - for a rogue. Perhaps it's a frustration for a non-rogue, but they can be assured that the player is probably legit.

Bottom line is, there's not much you can do about it. You and I can come up with all of the analogies under the sun to explain this thing, but online casinos are pretty much a new frontier and this makes it difficult to compare them to land based operations. Providing IDs at cashing out is something you have to accept. Not sure you want to provide this info? This is why I have been hammering into players' heads for years "Do your due diligence."

FWIW I've been playing online for nearly ten years. I can count the times I've had to provide ID on one maybe two hands.

[chuchu59]

If we were to make the industry go forward players will have to play the ball game and provide the requisite docs. When there is an industry-wide consensus that this needs to be done, there should be no fear of losing out to competitors No one knows for sure whether the casinos are stalling payment when players cash out. For one thing, with the USA out of bounds for a range of casinos, there may be cashflow problems for some of them and though not entirely rogue, this can be used as a tactic to enhance liquidity just like paying progressives in instalments. Frankly, if this is entirely related to fraud, I woundnt counter it at all but you never know the true motives behind.

I believe it is high time for casinos to review this policy of theirs. If they feel it is necessary, ask for the docs on signing up or within a reasonable time frame after the first deposits. We should have a system working and this should not be left in the hands of the casino operators who may or may not be rogue or even somewhere between.

[vinylweatherman]

According to the regulation posted by BelleRock, ALL players fall into the "not physically present" category, which required their ID to be verified at once. While this would lose the casino money, there is no "get out" in law for this stance, the requirement begins as soon as the player puts money in, although this is different from "at registration". Clearly, the answer would be this (or similar).

On making the FIRST deposit, the process triggers an Email to the player giving them notice that, if they were to request a cash in, they would be required to produce certain documents. The specific documents required from that player should be listed so that they could prepare them in advance. This at least allows the instant gratification element, but also lets the player see what documents they would be asked for. If the player believes they would not be able to supply these, they have the opportunity to discuss this with the casino, and hopefully soon enough for them not to lose out. If they know they can provide the documents, they could rest easier, and could even send them off in advance for approval while they continue to play.
If the player knows they can provide the listed documents, a further request to have them "notarised" would be an inconvenience, but not an insurmountable obstacle.
While the term quoted and agreed to by players does state that a request for documents could arise, there is no information as to what documents will be accepted. Most players have "documents", but have no idea whether they would be acceptable or not till it is too late. If the casino wants a photo ID, this should be specifically stated by adding to the term "at least one form of ID must include a photo of the holder, and be issued by a government recognised authority". This would inform players who have no photo documents that they would not be able to satisfy this request should it be asked of them, and that they perhaps should not play until they have contacted the casino to see if they would accept other documents (or got themselves a photo document), perhaps even having their non-photo documents notarised, where the notary would be able to have them "physically present" at the time.

Discussing the issue does have value, as it makes casinos aware of problems with this issue, even if they cannot, or are unwilling to, change their procedures.

While requests for notarised documents are infrequent, it was the same for ANY kind of document when I first began to play in 2004. In the future, what is rare now is likely to become common, and raising the issues now will at least help form future procedures, both for casinos and for players.

One problem with players making these documents available in advance is that most casinos don't like this, as they insist not only on documents, but VERY RECENT ONES, so preparing a notarised proof of address could be a waste of money, as in 3 months they will have to get another, and then 3 months later another still.

The industry will still lose players, not at sign-up because they can't play straight away, but because this expanding issue starts to scare away potential new players because they increasingly see this problem being aired.

The best thing players can do now is to prepare to be asked for the following:-

1x Government photo ID, usually drivers licence or passport.
1x separate proof of address, this has to show both the player's name as on the photo ID, as well as the address they live at. A utility bill or bank statement serves this purpose. This can be a problem for those that rent their accommodation, as the utility bills go to the occupant in charge of the property, which is not always going to be the player - such players need to arrange a bill or statement to be sent to them in their own name, but at the rented address.
These two documents are used to tie the name and address together, and against that registered at the casino.
Where cards are used for deposits, images of the cards will almost certainly be requested, and usually a deposit declaration form will need to be signed and sent.

This is the usual MINIMUM standard now, and does not indicate the player is suspected of anything.
Where requests go beyond this, then it is likely that the player has triggered the flags for an enhanced ID check, which may require notarisation of documents, or extra documents, such as a letter from a bank or other institution confirming the player really is a customer, and lives where they say they do (the casino may well contact the institution to confirm the letter is genuine, this is the same as having something "notarised" in terms of the level of security it represents).

Despite casinos being afraid of giving too much away, failure to address the issues will eventually get the media involved once a certain level of complaints is received. Here in the UK, consumer programmes like "Watchdog" investigate such issues and will make the companies accountable. Simply appearing on this programme is enough to seriously dent the credibility of the company, however a story is only featured when a certain level, or severity, of complaints is received, a couple of fraudsters trying it on will not get past the programme researchers, as if they air a bogus complaint, the BBC gets a slap on the wrist, and it's own credibility comes into question.
I believe that online gambling will soon feature on such programes, as it is already heavily promoted through TV adverts and program sponsorship, and most of the country should now be aware that "online casinos" exist, and are considered as an activity as legitimate as going to the local high street bookie.

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by Kenny Lingus

I'm not sure if I'm just not getting it, or whatever, but I still feel that no one has provided a convincing answer to this question:

Why are docs needed for a casino to process a withdrawl, but are unnecessary for accepting a deposit?



So a cashout is a possible money laundering situation, but a deposit is not? It seems to me that there is far, far, more potential for multiple deposits to be used to launder drug or terrorist money than for a relatively small cashout to be used as such. And, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that any arguement for government compliance would apply to both deposits and cashouts equally, not only when a lucky player wants to actually posess some of his/her winnings.



First of all, John, I haven't seen anyone "picking" on Rival casinos in this thread; it has really been a discussion about any applicable casino or software. It was, however, Da Vinci's Gold that asked for the notarized docs that spurred the creation of this thread in the first place, and that is how Rival was brought into this.

More disturbing to me is your admonishment that "if you don't like these policies then don't play". John, this is a forum where players discuss issues that are important to them, including casino policies that are perceived as unfair. I don't see the need to get so heavy handed. I personally don't understand the need for documentation at all, let alone notarized docs.



Yes, yes, yes!!! I couldn't agree more. If all this fraud, money laundering, and government directive stuff is as important as the casinos would like us all to believe, then why not have any necessary documentation cleared before a player deposits more than, say, $300.00 or so?

The answer, it seems to me, is one that is totally self-serving for the casino operators. Quite simply, they would stand to lose money if this practice were to be implemented. In other words, if the casinos benefit from an attempt at fraud because the depositor lost their deposit, so be it; but try and cashout and all sorts of documentation is required in the name of fraud prevention.



I don't see where this directive applies only to cashout requests; it certainly should apply to deposits as well, no?



Well said. The casino operators should not get away with having it both ways.



First of all, just because casinos put something in their T&Cs doesn't mean that it's fair or cannot be discussed.

Secondly, your quotation of 3dice's policy puts my point into the exact perspective to end this post. So, I'll ask one more time: Why does a casino only care about documentation when they are paying out funds? Isn't it a concern at all when they are receiving them?????????

Please quit trying to confuse the debate by throwing in facts. The whole wear 'em down and then possibly crush the player has a much better feel to it. As die hard online fans (versus BandM) I think we should all choose to believe the online casinos (and its' industry) , regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[pacers31]

I'm sorry but the idea that the casino will lose money if they don't ask for the info upfront is flawed in my opinion. To the contrary, I think it will make the player feel more at ease that their withdrawl will be executed without hassle since the docs are already in place. As pointed out above, allowing players to keep depositing and then hitting them with obstacles costs the casino money in loss of future deposits from disgruntled players over this issue.

Besides, they all talk a good game about responsible gaming. I'm sorry, but for me this is no sort of responsible at all. Companies that put their own bottom line over responsible growth will usually fizzle and die of their own stupidity. Perhaps every casino that requires these unreasonable requests is in line for roguedom. Part of being upfront is requesting these things UPFRONT!

And, for that matter, what does it matter where I live?? My govt. issued ID is more than enough since none of this really proves who I am anyway.

[pacers31]

Bryan, just to clarify, you're basically saying that your answer is that we are at the mercy of the casinos on this issue and we can like it or lump it? Unfortunately that does seem to be the situation. I don't know about you, but when the almighty casinos sell your emails for spam purposes, it justs seems stupid to give them more info to potentially sell.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by pacers31

Bryan, just to clarify, you're basically saying that your answer is that we are at the mercy of the casinos on this issue and we can like it or lump it? ...

No not totally. If you can present a good argument on how/what to change, many are receptive to this.

It's a bit like the "bonus" argument. I've preached for a long time that the whole bonusing concept is nothing but a Frankenstein's monster. It should never have happened. All bonuses have caused is player/casino fraud, confiscated winnings, bonus "abuse", etc., and one way to eliminate the bonus problem is to just not do it anymore. But which casino will take the first step? That's the problem - the industry is too competitive.

This whole ID check at the door sounds great, and I'm a supporter of this, but which casino is willing to be the first one to try this? That's the question. Is it practical? Is it needed? This is all debatable. And the operators need to be a part of this debate.

Originally Posted by pacers31

...I don't know about you, but when the almighty casinos sell your emails for spam purposes, it justs seems stupid to give them more info to potentially sell...

I don't think they would sell your ID - perhaps the unscrupulous ones would sell your email address/name/real address to spammers, but this doesn't happen too often. Nevertheless, whenever signing up at a casino use a unique email address: pacers31-prismcasino@hotmail.com for instance. That's how you catch these guys.