STRANGE CASINO TERMS ?

[poser]

Hi,

this term, I found in Casino King (I think its in all of this groups t+cs):

6.5.4 You are aware of and agree that the casino can hold a payment of your withdrawal if your account has been inactive and no wagering has been made in the same calendar month. This condition also applies to winnings of progressive jackpots. This condition is not in conjunction with any other clause of the terms and conditions.



I asked the Live Chat:

First she said it means that I have to wager my bon us 30 times (?).
As I asked again, saying I cannot belive this, she said: "It's just a standart clause, and that my purchase (!) can be held, when I was inactive"

??? BIG ??? IN MY EYES


BTW: In the german version, it really says "Payment" not "Withdrawal" (in german of cos..)

[Nifty29]

What a load of shite!!

In other words, if you win something and your PC blows up, it takes you a few weeks to get back online, and then you try to withdraw you cant because you havent wagered in that month etc. Yeah its a long shot situation, but its still stupid.

[happygobrokey]

i'm guessing that there is a weekly/monthly cap on payouts. if you win say 100 grand, and they pay 5k/week, that's 20 weeks or 5 months to get paid fully. they want to be able to stop paying if you don't play. if you hit a big win, just make sure to leave a bit in the account and play one hand per month. also i'd suggest to cashout near the start of a month, so that they don't wait until a new month to begin the process and use it against you that the month carried over and you quit playing, so now they needn't pay.

i agree it's quite a lame term, it may be their way of trying to stop hit-and-run bonus players, but i would guess those players are not going to be getting paid in instalments anyway. i think i've also heard of places that will seize your balance if your account is inactive for 90-180 days or whatever, figuring you've abandoned the money. it all sucks.

[SlotsWizard]

It sounds like an anti-money-laundering term to me.

Suppose that John Doe steals a credit card or bank details, and deposits $1,000 to Casino XXX. A month later, he withdraws the $1,000 without playing, or maybe playing a few hands of blackjack and breaking even. That would be a little suspicious.

Okay, I am 2.99 sheets to the wind right now (yay me! - I don't drink very often), but this rule seems fine to me. Probably because there's no way that I would deposit and let it sit there for a long long time. I think most other gamblers are the same way - they would want to play right after depositing, hence the reason for the deposit in the first place. If a casino sees someone deposit and just let it sit there for a long time (days, weeks, months) without ever playing, that could and probably should raise a red flag.

It's always possible that the player could have taken ill right after depositing... but how often does that happen? A simple investigation/judgement call should resolve it.

[happygobrokey]

if the casino confiscates dirty money intended to have been laundered, doesn't the casino become an accessory to the crime from which the money was derived? i'm sure they don't give the money or the player's personal details up to the feds, rather they're happy to pocket the ill-gotten funds and keep quiet. scoundrels.

[KasinoKing]

It is a very unusual term for sure - and one I don't recall seeing before.

But it does only say we can hold your payment and not we will hold it or we can confiscate it.

I reckon SlotWizard's post hits the nail on the head!

[SlotMonster]

6.5.4 You are aware of and agree that the casino can hold a payment of your withdrawal if your account has been inactive and no wagering has been made in the same calendar month. This condition also applies to winnings of progressive jackpots. This condition is not in conjunction with any other clause of the terms and conditions.

What on earth did they mean???