UKGC handed small reminder for Casumo again (not a first time):
URL Not Found / Outdated
edit: accidentally posted bit too early.
There are some points which people could find interesting when wondering why something further than payslip or what ever document is required by casino operators, AML failures mentioned behind link, pasting here as well:
So it's not always just casinos joke or stalling or not willing to pay when they ask docs which feel really overwhelming and intrusive, UKGC gives operators quite strict guidelines in their AML, most of it and any detailed naturally not publically available to make them too easy to circumvent but in these ones you might see that some of these proofs from funds, information showing in bank statement etc... can be something what really is required by regulator.
Not to say that many times operators might ask nonsense things but like in these descriptions above, regulator was not really happy with minimal documentation without enough proof (often to proof transactions from two places, it's paid and received etc... therefore often only payslip or bank statement might not be sufficient).
URL Not Found / Outdated
edit: accidentally posted bit too early.
There are some points which people could find interesting when wondering why something further than payslip or what ever document is required by casino operators, AML failures mentioned behind link, pasting here as well:
Anti-money laundering failings included:
- Customers were allowed to deposit significant sums of money without sufficient AML checks being conducted.
- Source of Funds (SOF) checks were insufficient. Payslips and invoices presented as evidence of SOF were not corroborated with bank statements (or other evidence).
- Bank statements produced were not assessed appropriately. Examples include incomplete bank statements which only showed credits into the customer’s account. The balance figures on a customer’s bank statement had been redacted.
- Inadequate checks of documentation for authenticity.
- No assessment or limit of how much a customer should be allowed to spend based on known income, wealth or any other risk factors.
- Winnings from other gambling operators were accepted as SOF, without further investigation.
- Not ensuring that its policies, procedures and controls were implemented effectively, kept under review, revised appropriately to ensure that they remain effective and take into account any applicable learning or guidelines published by the Commission from time to time.
So it's not always just casinos joke or stalling or not willing to pay when they ask docs which feel really overwhelming and intrusive, UKGC gives operators quite strict guidelines in their AML, most of it and any detailed naturally not publically available to make them too easy to circumvent but in these ones you might see that some of these proofs from funds, information showing in bank statement etc... can be something what really is required by regulator.
Not to say that many times operators might ask nonsense things but like in these descriptions above, regulator was not really happy with minimal documentation without enough proof (often to proof transactions from two places, it's paid and received etc... therefore often only payslip or bank statement might not be sufficient).
Last edited: