- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Location
- Belfast (Northern Ireland)
Got an email asking for revertification as part if their new procedures with a clear shot of my income. I honestly haven't a problem with docs but I'm uncomfortable with this request.
Got an email asking for revertification as part if their new procedures with a clear shot of my income. I honestly haven't a problem with docs but I'm uncomfortable with this request.
Unfortunately these are new requirements for all operators in the EU +UK. I have posted about this change last year.
If you spend over a certain amount, the casino need to do an EDD on you. Its new AML requirements from EU's 4th directive that came into force this summer.
Proof of income is actually a UKGC requirement once players pass certain thresholds (AFAIK this threshold can vary depending on the casino).
I've seen a few posts about this on CM, but it genuinely is a player protection mechanism. I don't speak for other casinos, but perhaps some other operators are sending out the requests before any thresholds are reached just to have to document on file, in case it's needed in the future?
An example of why this requirement is in place is here:You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
"As a result of the crime, the customer was sentenced to 16 months in prison for theft and false
accounting.
Our investigation found no evidence that 888 engaged with the customer to ascertain if they had
any problem gambling issues or to confirm their source of income."
Had this customer been asked for source of income at any stage, it would have been clear they were spending much more than they could afford. The account would have been closed long ago, the customer would have been referred to GamCare or similar, and the issue with the stolen funds from the employer could have been avoided.
While it might seem intrusive when players receive this request (and I completely understand that it IS intrusive), it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players. The vast majority of the time, everything is fine with source of income documents. However, every now and then this process helps to identify a player that needs someone to step in and help them.
Rachel.
just tell them you're a drug dealer and can't declare your income
It's not just UK. It's also EU now.
This is the thread MrWild talked about. https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...private-financial-information-about-me.76980/ I could see that I asked the same questions there. Good I can start to blame my age for not remembering everything
It seems like BML group is doing this more often though. I've heard several being forced by Neteller and Skrill lately too, and it doesn't matter if the person is in the UK or EU.
Proof of income is actually a UKGC requirement once players pass certain thresholds (AFAIK this threshold can vary depending on the casino).
I've seen a few posts about this on CM, but it genuinely is a player protection mechanism. I don't speak for other casinos, but perhaps some other operators are sending out the requests before any thresholds are reached just to have to document on file, in case it's needed in the future?
An example of why this requirement is in place is here:You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
"As a result of the crime, the customer was sentenced to 16 months in prison for theft and false
accounting.
Our investigation found no evidence that 888 engaged with the customer to ascertain if they had
any problem gambling issues or to confirm their source of income."
Had this customer been asked for source of income at any stage, it would have been clear they were spending much more than they could afford. The account would have been closed long ago, the customer would have been referred to GamCare or similar, and the issue with the stolen funds from the employer could have been avoided.
While it might seem intrusive when players receive this request (and I completely understand that it IS intrusive), it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players. The vast majority of the time, everything is fine with source of income documents. However, every now and then this process helps to identify a player that needs someone to step in and help them.
Rachel.
I would understand if I were a high roller but I'm pretty low.
It may be that Betsafe was one of my first casinos and as you say, I've reached that threshold.
I trust what you are saying so I may rethink what I'm going to do.
As much as I appreciate, understand and believe the various points made in this thread, to an extent / in certain cases I still do not agree and think its bloody cheeky.
Its all about how this rule / requirement is originally written and later understood and governed correctly.
Scenario A) A player deposits 3-4 times £50 - £100 per week, player has been a member a couple of years and deposit frequency has slightly, although not majorly steadily increased over this period.
Scenario B) A player has been a member just 3-4 months and tends to make 4-5, £500+ deposits per month.
Scenario C) A player deposits £25 - £50 once a week or thereabouts, has been a member over 12 months and also has periods where no deposits at all are made for 3-4 week breaks at a time.
With (A) and (B) I'd agree with this rule, with (C) I would not
My take / opinion only but also I feel a sensible and more realistic take
Did you get those examples from somewhere or made them up?
Did you get those examples from somewhere or made them up?
I made them up.
I do strongly feel though that they are realistic examples and should be considered seriously by the 'powers that be'
My points in previous post, together with Goatwack's "time served player" point I feel could make an acceptable rule and even turn what seems like a negative into a positive.
As I say it is all about how it is implemented, governed, etc, something tells me however that this will not be done well
People play higher than 20p?
I've heard the stories but didn't believe them. No one can afford that!
As much as I appreciate, understand and believe the various points made in this thread, to an extent / in certain cases I still do not agree and think its bloody cheeky.