Hi,
I simply stated that what you posted was not what was said to you. Your original post was written as to paint the casino in a bad light, however after I chatted with the agent, they say that they were wishing you all the best (hence the smiley face), after you made it clear that you wanted to be verified upfront and we had explained that we can't. I.e. we could not be of service to you if that was your final decision. The agent did not have to end with "Good Bye" as that closes the door on any follow-up you might have had.
Insisting on been verified upfront when it is not something we do, is either something you can accept or refuse. You chose to refuse it and asked for your account to be closed. There was nothing else to say or that we could do after that, unless you're prepared to verify now and sign for deposits later?
For what it is worth: If I had to ask you to send in verification documents, the length of time for your withdrawal to be processed would only be affected by how long you took to send those documents in. I.e. we're pretty quick when it comes to cashouts - any delay is not on our end. I hope you will get to experience this for yourself, should you change your mind.
Apologies if you feel you did not get treated properly and also that we could not fully verify you upfront.
Regards,
Dieter
Perhaps it's worth considering WHY players sometimes want to be verified up front. There have been cases where players have been asked to supply impossible to obtain documentation once they cash out, and so naturally some players want to make certain that their documentation is good enough before they even deposit. A total lack of flexibility sometimes means players have to walk away from a perfectly legitimate win in the eyes of the casino purely because their government doesn't supply it's citizens with documents the casino is prepared to accept. These players then have to chase around looking for the closest alternatives that the casino will accept, often at great expense and sometimes having to involve notaries or solicitors. The industry only has itself to blame for this.
This "sign for deposits" idea is 99% BS anyway. There is no requirement for this in a cardholder not present transaction, and it does not give a casino any additional protection unless they are going to take a player to court over something, which isn't going to happen with any US facing brand.
As more and more tales of players getting shafted at the documentation stage surface, the demand for up front verification will increase. Players who have already suffered the springing of documentation "traps" often state that in future they will get verified up front, and as far as ID is concerned, this shouldn't be a problem.
Playtech have a notorious trap of "Please get these documents notarised and then post them to our office in the Philippines". Most players would prefer to know this up front so that they can choose to walk away.
As for finding a casino that will verify what it can up front, there are plenty. They probably realise that the law and their licensing conditions are broken as soon as they accept a bet from a player who is faking who they are or using "dirty" money, and the more bets they accept from such a player, the deeper in the hole they get themselves.
Many use an up front electronic check, but when this fails some will lock the account mid way through the first session and ask for documents. This is even MORE annoying for players than being asked to verify up front.
Maybe it would be worth adding whether accredited casinos are prepared to verify documents up front on request as a way to help players who have unusual personal circumstances which leave them vulnerable to documentation problems.