all british casino review and experience to date

[Sasukdcf]

Dearest CM

I can only go on personal experience, which to date hasn’t been great....

I don’t know what goes into accreditation status etc, but I joined this casino on the strength of your reputation and the fact it was voted for highly.....

As I have said before, I feel that the communication channels are poor, it would appear Jan has tried to assist although getting hold of him and getting anywhere has proved difficult....

No one has given me any clue as to why this is a difficult one and I would be happy to submit ALL the info I have supplied to them to yourself in the hope you could see why I am frustrated....

Having been fully verified at many places and now having these issues at the one place that’s asked me to do it just as I am trying to withdraw all mounts up to a bitter experience.

Jan appears to have spent more time arguing with “ trolls “ than getting to the job in hand from what I can tell...

I speak to chat and they tell me to go away until the 24 hours expire

I come back after this and get told they are busy.... is that really how an accredited casino should behave.

And all through this it’s still not be made clear why they are holding onto my funds...

If level of play is an issue we could discuss a limit if necessary... the fact I can still deposit cannot mean sow has flagged anything that bad ( not that there is anything to flag ) and it’s sucked out any perceived enjoyment from the whole experience.

 

[thr0b]

Things to remember, which (one of which Jan has already said) - Jan is a rep, but he's not available 24/7, they're working remotely, and presumably with fewer staff than usual due to Covid.

The whole purpose of AML/SOW is to be sure everything is legit. They literally cannot give you reasons why it may be proving difficult. This would be tipping off, and subject to personal enforcement.

I have absolutely no doubt that so long as your funds are legit, you will be paid, and paid speedily once the review is complete.

 

[The Dude]

Accepting deposits while the player is undergoing a serious SOW, with withdrawals locked, is scummy af.
Jan has sided with Casumo in a few important SOW-questions (ref. ask Louis thread) so you might have a though one.
I hope everything get solved, OP! Good luck!

Edit: countdown to @colinsunderland comes to defend L&L

You do not know all of the details about this issue, so to say something is scummy as fuck, then you are not only making a one-sided claim, you are breaching our posting rules (1.1 - flaming). And since you are making brash claims to issues that you are ignorant to - it is becoming an agenda for you (specifically the L&L casino brands). You are apparently stalking Jan - this will not be tolerated. Please read posting rule 1.11. And you are slipping into trollism which is covered in rule 1.14 - and since you have been warned about this before 1.18.
Forum Rules

Please refer to these rules on a regular basis - follow them and we won't have any problems. Thank you.

 

[Sasukdcf]

I do get that, but on the flip side I have shit to do as well and being asked to provide war and peace has taken an inordinate amount of time and I have never had to provide anywhere near this level of data before and that either suggests that they are going a bit far or all other casinos have it wrong!

Added to that the glib approach that I feel Jan has taken doesn’t add to the “ experience “ and it has been noted by others that he is acting a little “ cocky “ at times...


Currently I have nearly £5k owed to me and to be blunt it really doesn’t feel like they are exactly “ pulling out the stops “ to get it resolved... and as previously noted the fact I can still deposit is an additional poke in the eye !!

 

[Halvor]

I do get that, but on the flip side I have shit to do as well and being asked to provide war and peace has taken an inordinate amount of time and I have never had to provide anywhere near this level of data before and that either suggests that they are going a bit far or all other casinos have it wrong!

Added to that the glib approach that I feel Jan has taken doesn’t add to the “ experience “ and it has been noted by others that he is acting a little “ cocky “ at times...


Currently I have nearly £5k owed to me and to be blunt it really doesn’t feel like they are exactly “ pulling out the stops “ to get it resolved... and as previously noted the fact I can still deposit is an additional poke in the eye !!

Although I understand you are frustrated at having to wait. Please understand that Jan's sole responsibility is NOT to reply to private messages and posts on CM. He do not work directly with AML nor is he a support agent.

He can't magically decide to approve a SOW nor can he decide to ignore it and order a pay out, and depend on other departments in his company.

Giving 1 hour updates on the case on CM also does not get it solved quicker, in my eyes that if anything makes it seem to me like you try to use your membership on the forum to somewhat hold them hostage and force their hand.

In the other thread you also mentioned having run a customer service company for 23 years, and therefore you should understand it does NOT help to pester them. With that level of experience I'm sure you agree that a first line agent can not solve all cases, and if anything contacting them "frequently" distracts them from their tasks and at worst will make the case take longer.

 

[thr0b]

Added to that the glib approach that I feel Jan has taken doesn’t add to the “ experience “ and it has been noted by others that he is acting a little “ cocky “ at times...

Currently I have nearly £5k owed to me and to be blunt it really doesn’t feel like they are exactly “ pulling out the stops “ to get it resolved... and as previously noted the fact I can still deposit is an additional poke in the eye !!

I'd also point out that (AFAIK), English isn't Jan's first language - I tend to assume anyone with English as a second language will occasionally lapse into phrases that seem glib etc without that being the intention. It's just a quirk of thinking in one language and typing in another. My rudimentary German would also come across as glib.

And the most important thing - you're not their only customer. They may have had hundreds of these requests to process just yesterday.

 

[Lobo]

You do not know all of the details about this issue, so to say something is scummy as fuck, then you are not only making a one-sided claim, you are breaching our posting rules (1.1 - flaming). And since you are making brash claims to issues that you are ignorant to - it is becoming an agenda for you (specifically the L&L casino brands). You are apparently stalking Jan - this will not be tolerated. Please read posting rule 1.11. And you are slipping into trollism which is covered in rule 1.14 - and since you have been warned about this before 1.18.
Forum Rules

Please refer to these rules on a regular basis - follow them and we won't have any problems. Thank you.

Common... how am I stalking Jan? How many of my posts has been targeting Jan? No more than 3, but they tend to blow up.
Jan is very active at this forum and make many posts daily (which is very good for a rep, so props to him for that). When being so active as Jan and he being kinda free spoken, and post in every single thread that is being made, there will be times he will meet criticism (especially when he run casinoes at a low RTP).
Regarding this case I for sure dont know the whole story. All I know is that L&L still gladly accepts deposits when a serious and stalling SOW is going on, which I find scummy af. Nothing personally at all against Jan. I would have said exactly what I said no matter what casino OP played at.
I do have some experience regarding SoW's....

 

[geordiecolin]

I do get that, but on the flip side I have shit to do as well and being asked to provide war and peace has taken an inordinate amount of time and I have never had to provide anywhere near this level of data before and that either suggests that they are going a bit far or all other casinos have it wrong!

Added to that the glib approach that I feel Jan has taken doesn’t add to the “ experience “ and it has been noted by others that he is acting a little “ cocky “ at times...


Currently I have nearly £5k owed to me and to be blunt it really doesn’t feel like they are exactly “ pulling out the stops “ to get it resolved... and as previously noted the fact I can still deposit is an additional poke in the eye !!

I can understand your frustration over this issue and I am sure that you will get it resolved,but.

1 You are lucky that you have Jan in here to deal with it and your situation is not one of Jan's making.

2 As has been mentioned,Jan is very much tied in what he is able to state in this thread or to you personally until those that do what they need to do have completed their investigations.

3. This situation is not of any casinos making,but is enforced on them to comply with while having to interpret the vague rules enforced on them by the UKGC.

4 For me as a regular poster/member in CM it feels slightly disheartening for me to read an occasional contributor call for the removal of accreditation status of a casino that has given us so many reasons to visit this site on a daily basis.

5 Trolling (Not the OP) Reps whenever the chance arrives is not something that is in the best interests of either us members or Casinomeister so please stop doing it.

Jan does not deserve to be called out in this site and has kept with us despite his extra workload during very difficult times.
I'm sure this issue will be resolved in as quick a time as possible because L&L are no clip joint with a Mickey Mouse license.

 

[Sasukdcf]

That’s a fair comment and that’s why a forum like this is good because to get feedback like that gives me more inclination to calm down when it comes from a player rather than the dark side lol !!!

As I have said before I say as I find... irrespective of accreditation status etc good or bad... and I try to be fair.... initially my post was still fairly positive and praised the good things on ABC it’s only the way I feel I have been treated that has caused a de-escalation in positivity,

 

[Slottery]

Things to remember, which (one of which Jan has already said) - Jan is a rep, but he's not available 24/7, they're working remotely, and presumably with fewer staff than usual due to Covid.

The whole purpose of AML/SOW is to be sure everything is legit. They literally cannot give you reasons why it may be proving difficult. This would be tipping off, and subject to personal enforcement.

I have absolutely no doubt that so long as your funds are legit, you will be paid, and paid speedily once the review is complete.

Not willing to join to discussion much more, i think it's been done few times already, just bolded one is one key part for players getting frustrated. Casino just simply can share details about their ongoing verification process or person who does it, is making what descriped in quoted bolded part of text. Just to add, it's not only against AML regulations to tip off customer who is going through process, but you also are not allowed to disclose anything to your colleagues in other departments, so technically if rep would have all the details of people SOW process, there would be something done wrong.

Pretty much only communication until done is request to information (as long there are any questions, they need answers, otherwise if you close your eye about someting you think is not really relevant and overall everything looks ok, it's also subject to personal enforcement and something you just never do) and advise your information is worked on, you will be contacted once done or if there's need for more information.

Feels like bad service, but it's not. Taking week or two, nothing weird if there's anything need to be checked with MLRO or there is need for more information as provided didn't cover everything 100%.

Fully agree that online casinos shouldn't be threated this level financial institutions or what so ever, but current regulations they are obligated to follow are really strict.

If anyone have interest and willing to take a look some basic level AML trainings provided to online casinos, there are many available (cost money of course), these examples are really basic which all staff should have gone through (not these ones specifically but have proof that relevant training is passed, and to do it once a year...)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Nobody enjoy this current situation but it is what it is. You might have some very little thing showing up in your bank statements which need clarification. It's not really clear how easily regulators (not only them as breaking against AML/CTF regulations is also crime, so casino or particular people might get punished from failures as well) like to take action to small failures, only seen big ones which are really obvious and got big penalties, but if you follow all these regulations like they are written and don't take any flexibilities like you shouldn't, you do end up ask loads of information sometimes. Fact that there are no much of any smaller penalties in UKGC or other regulators page published, doesn't mean they don't exist, also their investigations can take really long time (not speaking about weeks).

You also end up to send these to MLRO to review if these are ok to release any funds to player, MLRO might ask consent to release funds from authorities to be safe side. That whole process should never reach players eyes or ears and support people or rep shouldn't be aware that it's reported.

No any casino have right to confiscate any money due to AML concerns, that's thing to authorities todo if there is need for that, so wouldn't be worried not to get paid. Of course it's frustrating but helping player out and let something be without explanation as everything over all looks good, at least is 100% against regulations.

 

[stringerbell]

I have been reading this thread with interest, and felt obliged to register to query certain aspects of the regulations.

I understand the need for the gambling commission to be a little vague with the guidelines. It is case by case. They can't say "Any total deposits exceeding £4k must be subject to enhanced due diligence" Otherwise criminals, and even genuine players would go up to the limit and then stop or play elsewhere.

What I don't understand and don't think is fair is the whole thing seems to be a win-win for the casino:

1) Player is allowed to deposit say £3k, loses, maybe or maybe not receives an email asking for source of funds. Either way, the money has been lost and the casino probably doesn't really care where the money came from, and there is no chance they would ever refund the deposits.

2) Player is allowed to deposit say £3k, builds a balance of £10k, withdraws. Suddenly the money is held hostage due to these enhanced checks, despite the deposit being the same, and, more importantly, the deposit and gameplay having been already accepted.

To me there is a fair and simple solution - regulate at the point of deposit. If L+L think OP deposited too much then either:
1) The deposit(s) themselves should have been blocked
2) If 1) Is not possible due to what I have previously stated about avoiding specific AML deposit limits, gameplay should be immediately blocked until the player has proved the source of the money. If the player either fails this process or chooses not to do it, the casino can simply refund the deposit and everyone walks away happy-ish.

Any casino who accepts deposits and gameplay and only creates hurdles after a win in fact seems to me to be in breach of the Gambling Commission rules stated here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

" A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal if the licensee could have reasonably requested that information earlier. "

I am curious what the protocol here is - if OP decides enough is enough and doesn't send any more documents, and L+L do not accept the existing documents, do they keep all funds, refund the deposits, or refund the whole balance (and close the account whichever scenario I assume)? Is there any precedent on this?

There is a similar comment in the self-exclusion guidelines here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Once you have made a self-exclusion agreement, the gambling company must close your account and return any money in your account to you. It must also remove your name and details from any marketing databases it uses.

I wonder if OP can simply request a self exclusion in this case?

I would be interested to hear Jan's or any other rep's thoughts on some of these points. I have tried to raise what I feel are fair points and am not looking to bash on any casinos or reps.

 

[Sasukdcf]

Thank you for that massively informative post

On reflection with all the comments that have been made, I will sit patiently and see what happens... and publicly I would like to apologise to Jan if I have been a tad harsh...

I will however keep you all posted

Thank you again all

 

[Slottery]

Thank you for that massively informative post

On reflection with all the comments that have been made, I will sit patiently and see what happens... and publicly I would like to apologise to Jan if I have been a tad harsh...

I will however keep you all posted

Thank you again all

I really feel and understand frustration which this cause to many casino players with no real reason, it is bit awkward situation to average person like me and probably most of us to prove ourselves to not guilty which is bit upside down.

Don't saying that all casinos are perfect or good in these processes, but without details it's hard to make comments for particular issues. But providing information about ongoing "investigation" really is big no no, all staff have in these courses read this part where you can get max 5 year prison sentence in UK. Tipping off in some bigger AML or other criminal activities can cause that suspected party disappear with loads of funds and cover all possible traces when getting in to that is at least much harder (nothing what would probably a of us, except same rules what they need to follow).

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Really hope you get everything sorted soons as possible, i honestly believe it's casinos interest as well to get it done but taking short cuts anywhere is in name of law big nono.

 

[Sasukdcf]

Yes I suppose from my point of view tho I can see absolutely nothing that points to anythjng other than a player who runs his own business and plays slots !!!

 

[thr0b]

The other thing is there is no money-laundering issue until a withdrawal is attempted. Up until that point, any deposits are just payments; no goods have been received, only a service supplied. The withdrawal stage is where potentially dirty money becomes clean - it's trackable and provably legit.

And fraudsters do not care how much they lose. They can play Odd/even on Roulette repeatedly. The loss doesn't matter as it wasn't their money - the win, even of half the stake is the cleaned money.

 

[shadow123]

Would be good if the actions to be taken when a casino believes SOW or AML investigations are required were clearly laid out by the UKGC.each casino seems to have its own ideas of what should happen.
The things which are causing problems are casinos refusing to process withdrawals but allowing reversals
and allowing deposits during investigations
I honestly believe both these actions cannot be reasonably justified.
If we had standard procedures that must be followed it would go a long way towards a more tolerant
relationship between players and casinos during investigations as we would know what to expect.

 

[Mr Wild]

I think L&L is currently quite cautious of what they are doing, they probably have UKGC checking in on them since their recent problems in Sweden

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

With UKGC breathing down your neck, each document need to be perfect. Unfortunately customers gets to suffer. Reading the LCCP of what UKGC want you to do is one thing, but in practice they want you to do quite more. Its a difficult situation for everyone involved.

But you as customer also have rights, you can refuse to do the SOW check. Then they either report you to NCA and NCA have 5 days to decide to freeze your funds or not. After that the company have no further rights to hold on to your funds and they need to pay it out.

 

[thr0b]

But you as customer also have rights, you can refuse to do the SOW check. Then they either report you to NCA and NCA have 5 days to decide to freeze your funds or not. After that the company have no further rights to hold on to your funds and they need to pay it out.

That's quite an interesting point. Has anyone tried that?

 

[colinsunderland]

I think L&L is currently quite cautious of what they are doing, they probably have UKGC checking in on them since their recent problems in Sweden

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

With UKGC breathing down your neck, each document need to be perfect. Unfortunately customers gets to suffer. Reading the LCCP of what UKGC want you to do is one thing, but in practice they want you to do quite more. Its a difficult situation for everyone involved.

But you as customer also have rights, you can refuse to do the SOW check. Then they either report you to NCA and NCA have 5 days to decide to freeze your funds or not. After that the company have no further rights to hold on to your funds and they need to pay it out.

Casumo tell customers if you don't go through the process they won't pay you, full stop.

 

[Borgie]

Casumo tell customers if you don't go through the process they won't pay you, full stop.

Yes that's true and it seems nobody will make them pay you. Its disgusting as large amounts of money can be held by casinos this way.

 

[Mr Wild]

Casumo tell customers if you don't go through the process they won't pay you, full stop.

Well, I would then contact UKGC and make sure UKGC takes on my case and then things would be bad for Casumo. Or you simple take them to court which is quite easy in UK to my understanding.

 

[Kroffe]

Well, I would then contact UKGC and make sure UKGC takes on my case and then things would be bad for Casumo. Or you simple take them to court which is quite easy in UK to my understanding.

Going to court can become real expensive.
And its not always big sums of money held hostage, so the risk may not be worth it.

 

[Mr Wild]

Going to court can become real expensive.
And its not always big sums of money held hostage, so the risk may not be worth it.

There are a lot of things that can be done if court feels to far away. One thing is PAB here. However, the operator have no right by law to take your funds. So if they decide to breach the law, they should be rouged.

One thing to remember, if the casino have strong suspicious of fraud. Then they could hold on to funds.

 

[Kroffe]

There are a lot of things that can be done if court feels to far away. One thing is PAB here. However, the operator have no right by law to take your funds. So if they decide to breach the law, they should be rouged.

One thing to remember, if the casino have strong suspicious of fraud. Then they could hold on to funds.

Would be fun to see some statistics on how many of the sow/aml checks turns out to actually be anything shady.
Feels like it shouldnt be up to the casino to hold these investigations, since they have an incentive to make unreasonable demands so they can keep the money.

Either ukgc needs to put out clear guidelines to follow, or it should be performed by a third party that has nothing to gain by making the process as hard as possible.

 

[Slottery]

Of course no casino advise you to self-exclude, close your account or refuse to provide documents and we will pay your balance within 24 hours. They are expected to request that information they are missing, that's also one of the few occasions when casino is allowed to contact self-excluded players.

You can't really as a casino operator start to assist people with ways how they can get their money without need to comply with AML requests, but of course, any casino don't keep funds after player stop complying with requests but asking authorities (from relevant jurisdiction) consent to release these funds to player and then act based on what authorities want to happen with these funds.

I can't imagine any example where the casino could keep funds which are under AML investigation or can't see any incentive for operator to make it hard as possible to comply as end result that they can keep funds once player gives up just don't happen (some casinos licensed somewhere far away or totally unlicensed have their own categories in everything and nothing stated previously not include them).

 

[Kroffe]

But most of these checks seems to be to establish source of wealth, to show that they can afford to gamble at the levels they are doing.
I dont see how holding withdrawals hostage and still allowing deposits while doing that makes any sense.

And what happens with the withdrawal if the casino decides the player is spending more money than he can afford?
Where is that level even? How big % of ones income can be spent on gambling before its too much?
Im not allowed to spend 100% of my money gambling if i want to?
If i want to live on porridge and spend the rest of my money highrolling on starburst, that should be nobodys business but my own imo.

 

[Halvor]

But most of these checks seems to be to establish source of wealth, to show that they can afford to gamble at the levels they are doing.
I dont see how holding withdrawals hostage and still allowing deposits while doing that makes any sense.

And what happens if it's determined to be money laundering, but they already paid it out?

 

[Kroffe]

And what happens if it's determined to be money laundering, but they already paid it out?

But the usual sow checks and aml checks are different things no?
For an sow check to help a player in any way, it needs to be done before deposits are accepted no?

If money laundering is suspected of course they cant pay out withdrawals, but i doubt all the cases we are seeing are ones where money laundering is being suspected.
Most seem to be just to establish the players can afford to gamble at the level they are doing.
Allowing deposits while holding withdrawals hostage in that situation makes no sense.

 

[Halvor]

But the usual sow checks and aml checks are different things no?
For an sow check to help a player in any way, it needs to be done before deposits are accepted no?

If money laundering is suspected of course they cant pay out withdrawals, but i doubt all the cases we are seeing are ones where money laundering is being suspected.
Most seem to be just to establish the players can afford to gamble at the level they are doing.
Allowing deposits while holding withdrawals hostage in that situation makes no sense.

They support each other.

2.500 Euro salary and 10.000 deposits are sure to raise some red flags, right?

I can guarantee you the casinos would be better off financially without having to spend time and money on this as well, but it's required.

I really get people's frustrations but I think most casinos are doing the best they can. Especially solid outfits like L&L.

 

[Slottery]

But the usual sow checks and aml checks are different things no?
For an sow check to help a player in any way, it needs to be done before deposits are accepted no?

If money laundering is suspected of course they cant pay out withdrawals, but i doubt all the cases we are seeing are ones where money laundering is being suspected.
Most seem to be just to establish the players can afford to gamble at the level they are doing.
Allowing deposits while holding withdrawals hostage in that situation makes no sense.

SOW is categorized AML request (of course casinos can help themselves and players to use it to recognize RG issues, SOW is something you can request almost anytime you feel, based on almost anything and all should go through it sooner or later so can do it very early if you feel it for any reason). It can be triggered for big spending which raise questions if this bear really have this much money without taking some from employer or just gambling whole family savings.

That's affordability check to see you are playing in level your income can support your deposits, if it ends up that you used stolen funds, it's criminal action which casinos are expected to see and stop (you can see UKGC page violations to AML where players didn't actually launder any money but were just addicted and stole everything possible and gambled hundreds thousands).

That's one nice twist which gambling industry has, you can have people using criminal money without any means to launder part of it to be legal but use it to play more and more, if you withdraw there and there, you deposit it back.

It's quite complicated all in all together like we see from many examples what's happening to players and how casinos have to look proofs that all players are not criminals. Paying withdrawals middle of your verification is quite big no no, some who want to be "smart" and player friendly, do trigger that SOW just AFTER approving withdrawal instead of before, if your player not represent really high AML risk, there's usually not much to be scared in doing that but it is against AML basic principles to pay anything when it's time for verification.

 

[Kroffe]

They support each other.

2.500 Euro salary and 10.000 deposits are sure to raise some red flags, right?

I can guarantee you the casinos would be better off financially without having to spend time and money on this as well, but it's required.

I really get people's frustrations but I think most casinos are doing the best they can. Especially solid outfits like L&L.

Yeah, im not thinking casinos are taking the piss.
They do what they have to do to keep their backs free of blame.
If anyones to blame i guess its the vague regulation.
Still, some casinos seem to go way overboard with the sow-checks, and how they are being performed.

Casumo comes to mind with their request for id&bankstatements from third partys.
Like how the hell am i going to convince the dude who bought a phone or something from me to supply that to me so i can give it to casumo.
Just makes the sow-process more or less impossible to complete.

That everything is so hush-hush, and no clear guidelines seem to exist just makes everything even more complicated.
And every casino seem to invent their own interpetation of what is needed from their side.

 

[Halvor]

That everything is so hush-hush, and no clear guidelines seem to exist just makes everything even more complicated.
And every casino seem to invent their own interpetation of what is needed from their side.

This is for the same reason why we as an industry won't give bonus abusers a guidebook to abuse

 

[Sasukdcf]

It’s just all a bit sordid...

I now have £5250 tied up in there ( I won today with the remaining funds ) and it sorta feels like blackmail to get at it... I need to divulge all my personal data etc etc

I know it isn’t like that but feels a bit that way


I did have contact from jan saying they are going to request one more document ( proof of how my PayPal is funded ) however the PayPal statement shows this already ( from business account ) and not actually had the request for it or the response...

Tomorrow will be day 6

 

[Slottery]

This is for the same reason why we as an industry won't give bonus abusers a guidebook to abuse

Feeling many are well educated and could give some lessons to operators in that Loads of new slots released all the time, some of them give you quite good chance with your bonus money attached... Then just spotting it after punch of people started to all play some new neverheard slot with max bonus bets

But there's not really anything criminal in bonus abuse, you max breach casinos terms and conds and get banned, in these there are some risks to break some real laws. Regulators already are so kind that they provide mandatory KYC threshold limit to all, so publishing that clear guidelines would be same time guideline how to prevent to get in SOW.

3rd party problems are problematical, but let's take imagination example, @Kroffe gets every month 128 000 USD transfer to his account from bank in some restricted high risk jurisdiction like Nigeria and other regular transfers or one big-time transfer from Panama and bear himself just play some little 0.09€ DOAII waiting for wildline, not spending much or anything and only transfer quite remarkable amounts to Switzerland which is not restricted high risk country. Could you let it just be when @Kroffe tells that it was some poker we played online in private tabel or i borrowed some money to my Nigerian friend long time ago and he's now paying back little by little?

So yes, you have situations when you need to ask questions about 3rd party, even @Kroffe deposits are really small that his super high income cover them 4 times, you still really can't close your eyes from that moneyflow with no explanations.

This whole subject is complicated, we have spoken about this here some years now, it's not that black and white like KYC we have at least learnt and all our situations are different, there are no two identical players, really similar in same category but all you have to review as themselves and see if provided documents answer to all your questions AND don't raise new ones.

Can't advise any easy way out of SOW or know for sure that some place wouldn't ask it or let it go through easily (as these are not black and white guidelines, you can also end up to fail your SOW in other place and verified another, maybe because your transaction history is never exact similar or just one person spotted something what other didn't), only thing i would mind SOW wise is to play in reputable casinos who you can have trust that they will pay you. If it takes bit long, it sucks but as we are now in this thread, i would choose my few thousands to stuck in SOW at L&L instead of any Curacao brand, yet haven't seen cases where this casino have in the end made unfair confiscating of winnings and also pointed fact, we are in Europe and have some laws, here on casino can put your money to it's own pocket for AML reasons (even they advise they can't pay you without but like stated earlier, they can't either really assist you to prevent SOW by closing account, self-excluding etc...).

 

[Halvor]

It’s just all a bit sordid...

I now have £5250 tied up in there ( I won today with the remaining funds ) and it sorta feels like blackmail to get at it... I need to divulge all my personal data etc etc

I know it isn’t like that but feels a bit that way


I did have contact from jan saying they are going to request one more document ( proof of how my PayPal is funded ) however the PayPal statement shows this already ( from business account ) and not actually had the request for it or the response...

Tomorrow will be day 6

Again I understand that it's frustrating. But please also understand that putting their accreditation into question and to use of the forum as a battering ram towards them seems a bit nasty.

I've not been a casino representative here for years, but the pressure really do not help or speed anything up.

It's just a few hours since you voiced your intentions to be patient.

 

[Halvor]

Feeling many are well educated and could give some lessons to operators in that Loads of new slots released all the time, some of them give you quite good chance with your bonus money attached...

Not my games

 

[Kroffe]

This is for the same reason why we as an industry won't give bonus abusers a guidebook to abuse

I already know how to abuse.
Get lucky and win using a bonus, like magic, all of a sudden you are a bonus-abuser.

 

[Kroffe]

Feeling many are well educated and could give some lessons to operators in that Loads of new slots released all the time, some of them give you quite good chance with your bonus money attached... Then just spotting it after punch of people started to all play some new neverheard slot with max bonus bets

But there's not really anything criminal in bonus abuse, you max breach casinos terms and conds and get banned, in these there are some risks to break some real laws. Regulators already are so kind that they provide mandatory KYC threshold limit to all, so publishing that clear guidelines would be same time guideline how to prevent to get in SOW.

3rd party problems are problematical, but let's take imagination example, @Kroffe gets every month 128 000 USD transfer to his account from bank in some restricted high risk jurisdiction like Nigeria and other regular transfers or one big-time transfer from Panama and bear himself just play some little 0.09€ DOAII waiting for wildline, not spending much or anything and only transfer quite remarkable amounts to Switzerland which is not restricted high risk country. Could you let it just be when @Kroffe tells that it was some poker we played online in private tabel or i borrowed some money to my Nigerian friend long time ago and he's now paying back little by little?

So yes, you have situations when you need to ask questions about 3rd party, even @Kroffe deposits are really small that his super high income cover them 4 times, you still really can't close your eyes from that moneyflow with no explanations.

This whole subject is complicated, we have spoken about this here some years now, it's not that black and white like KYC we have at least learnt and all our situations are different, there are no two identical players, really similar in same category but all you have to review as themselves and see if provided documents answer to all your questions AND don't raise new ones.

Can't advise any easy way out of SOW or know for sure that some place wouldn't ask it or let it go through easily (as these are not black and white guidelines, you can also end up to fail your SOW in other place and verified another, maybe because your transaction history is never exact similar or just one person spotted something what other didn't), only thing i would mind SOW wise is to play in reputable casinos who you can have trust that they will pay you. If it takes bit long, it sucks but as we are now in this thread, i would choose my few thousands to stuck in SOW at L&L instead of any Curacao brand, yet haven't seen cases where this casino have in the end made unfair confiscating of winnings and also pointed fact, we are in Europe and have some laws, here on casino can put your money to it's own pocket for AML reasons (even they advise they can't pay you without but like stated earlier, they can't either really assist you to prevent SOW by closing account, self-excluding etc...).

I dont have any money coming from Nigeria.
I do send some money to a prince over there each month, but that is only so he can afford to hire some lawyers so he can unlock his multi-million dollar inheritance.
Nothing shady.

 

[Halvor]

I dont have any money coming from Nigeria.
I do send some money to a prince over there each month, but that is only so he can afford to hire some lawyers so he can unlock his multi-million dollar inheritance.
Nothing shady.

Remember to invite us to the wedding, bear-princess!

 

[Slottery]

Not my games

Nope, but some providers not to mention any names, are not that making much testing in different scenarios than others, bonus abuse is not only minus side in that but start to be far off topic here, we can continue in one conspiracy ones

I already know how to abuse.
Get lucky and win using a bonus, like magic, all of a sudden you are a bonus-abuser.

True and there's not much any good casino will do for it, it's you being lucky and that's it. If you keep getting lucky to whole of your family from same address in same game with same welcome bonus, then some might be bit less understanding, get evil and confiscate some from family summer holiday funds. That's actually quite interesting how operators differ in what they tolerate and what not, but bit too far from this topic, but one thing in overall gambling experience as well, some do bonus ban you only because of one lucky spin, some tolerate much more, depending if you sometimes even play normally without bonuses

edit: For some reason this almost year old story got to my eye now, one more case where even all who works in igaming are not 100% honest people (or really badly misunderstood, depends who you ask), all who work in industry should AFAIK have clean police record but there are only people who got busted.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Dunno what this have to do with anything in this thread, but some exception to rule casinos ripping players off.

 

[Kroffe]

Remember to invite us to the wedding, bear-princess!

No, weddings are boring, and if i invite people ill just get invites to their wedding next time.
Its an endless loop of weddings.

Same thing with funerals.. Even tho it has fun in the name, its not a good description of what goes on during one.
You want me to come and have a bad time at your funeral? So you are coming to mine later then? No didnt think so...

 

[Kroffe]

Nope, but some providers not to mention any names, are not that making much testing in different scenarios than others, bonus abuse is not only minus side in that but start to be far off topic here, we can continue in one conspiracy ones



True and there's not much any good casino will do for it, it's you being lucky and that's it. If you keep getting lucky to whole of your family from same address in same game with same welcome bonus, then some might be bit less understanding, get evil and confiscate some from family summer holiday funds. That's actually quite interesting how operators differ in what they tolerate and what not, but bit too far from this topic, but one thing in overall gambling experience as well, some do bonus ban you only because of one lucky spin, some tolerate much more, depending if you sometimes even play normally without bonuses

edit: For some reason this almost year old story got to my eye now, one more case where even all who works in igaming are not 100% honest people (or really badly misunderstood, depends who you ask), all who work in industry should AFAIK have clean police record but there are only people who got busted.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Dunno what this have to do with anything in this thread, but some exception to rule casinos ripping players off.

True, some brands accept that people can get lucky, others not so much.
Ive only been bonus-banned by the white hat gaming group.
Used a bonus they sent me on my mail, and managed a cashout.

If you dont want me using bonuses, perhaps dont send me bonuses.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Again I understand that it's frustrating. But please also understand that putting their accreditation into question and to use of the forum as a battering ram towards them seems a bit nasty.

I've not been a casino representative here for years, but the pressure really do not help or speed anything up.

It's just a few hours since you voiced your intentions to be patient.

I'm sorry but you're trying to defend the indefensible.

People's withdrawals should not be held to ransom. Checks should be done on deposit and deposit only- otherwise the whole situation is 100% in favour of the casino.

If the casino is willing to accept the deposit in the first place, they should damn well be prepared to take the risk of paying out on it.

It's as black and white as that.

 

[Halvor]

I'm sorry but you're trying to defend the indefensible.

People's withdrawals should not be held to ransom. Checks should be done on deposit and deposit only- otherwise the whole situation is 100% in favour of the casino.

If the casino is willing to accept the deposit in the first place, they should damn well be prepared to take the risk of paying out on it.

It's as black and white as that.

Yeah, you would just love to provide a SOW on registration right? What exactly do you think this would lead to except most players going to offshore/unlicensed casinos? Think before you post.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Yeah, you would just love to provide a SOW on registration right? What exactly do you think this would lead to except most players going to offshore/unlicensed casinos? Think before you post.

I've thought about it...maybe you should think about it instead.

If a casino has concerns about a player's account then they should disable that account BEFORE the next deposit is made or at the point of the triggering deposit.

Why should it be WINNINGS that trigger suspicion??

There is absolutely no reason winnings should be held to ransom if there was no suspicion about the player account prior to the withdrawal.

I'd be quite happy seeing all casinos employing this tactic lose their accreditation.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Let's call a spade a spade here...

Casinos only pull this stunt on withdrawal because if they did it on deposit, the player would just go elsewhere and the casino would lose revenue.

That's ALL it boils down to and by trying to argue otherwise people look like prats.

 

[Halvor]

I've thought about it...maybe you should think about it instead.

If a casino has concerns about a player's account then they should disable that account BEFORE the next deposit is made or at the point of the triggering deposit.

Why should it be WINNINGS that trigger suspicion??

There is absolutely no reason winnings should be held to ransom if there was no suspicion about the player account prior to the withdrawal.

I'd be quite happy seeing all casinos employing this tactic lose their accreditation.

And most of us are happy with most players having at least some sort of protection. Offshore do not offer that.

If you want to nag about it then go for the ukgc, the casinos follow the rules.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

And most of us are happy with most players having at least some sort of protection. Offshore do not offer that.

If you want to nag about it then go for the ukgc, the casinos follow the rules.

Spin it as much as you want mate but the simple fact of the matter is that casinos are taking the rules and flipping them to benefit themselves.

There was a member on here the other day saying a casino he plays at disabled his deposits. This is the way it should be done. Not holding winnings over a barrel.

 

[Halvor]

There was a member on here the other day saying a casino he plays at disabled his deposits. This is the way it should be done. Not holding winnings over a barrel.

Good on them, and yet again not required by ukgc. Barking at the wrong tree.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Good on them, and yet again not required by ukgc. Barking at the wrong tree.

You really don't see the ethical side to this at all do you?

Bugger customer satisfaction and big up the revenue huh.

I agree though, the UKGC should make the rules clearer and stop all this nonsense. I suspect if they were to specify that these checks should be done on deposit, we'd see a lot of these brands pull out of the UK market...