I know you aren't answering but I really think you should comment on this. You won't be getting another penny from me until I know I won't be getting asked for this type of thing, and how you aren't breaching the GDPR by doing so?
It's answered already, they follow strick regulations set by license providers and EU laws and directives.. It would be great outcome from any casino (quite many hear have been questioned about SOW processes when someone have started thread here) just in general without giving any exact information about their practices, would just explain and show what parts of these AML regulations in EU level and as well regulators who have provided their guidelines what to follow (without exact step by step procedures, that's why we see very interesting practices in place), for sure trying to explain why something very extended (like 3rd party id from some transfer to players bank account, just to name one) checks need to be done and point which part and which from these many regulations is reason to different actions casino have decided to take.
We have very many exact similar comments about retulations, legislations, EU money launderin directives etc... These are all public documents, i've been reading all them applicable for casino operators and really don't agree for some demands what we have seen. Opening it step by step would be very welcome and for sure would stop any arguing in this topic if there would be one casino clearly openly point where they decisions are based. Now we only have this same jargon about these mystical legislations and directives which are forcing casinos request 3rd party ID:s etc... Would be honestly very interesting to understand what is making certain transaction to be such a high risk categorized that instead of reporting suspicious transaction to authorities like probably should be done in case of suspicious transactions which is triggering heavy AML investigations (what asking 3rd party id for sure can be counted) is handled like this by asking these documents and also tipping suspected person that he/she is suspected which probably is not right to do, tipping suspect person about investigations seems to be not right thing to do when reading these AML guide lines from different sources.
Would really take my hat off if any casino would open what exact part where every document request is based, then it would be much easier to understand or judge if that certain part of directive or what so ever, actually is meant to be that extended in some scenario. These requests and assessments probably should be risk based, many casinos have already stated that they do these checks in certain life time threshold which is not required, like in this topic OP is under MGA license and they in many many places are referring everything to be risk based and only borderline is made for basic KYC request to be completed and even that can be counted in 180 days rolling period instead of life time.
Hope we one day can see and even more hopefully, understand where these mystical magic laws and legislations are coming from as we can't find them in AML directives, no any guide lines from gaming regulators etc... For sure processes are passing audits like mentioned in this topic because these are so extrem extended, for casinos point of view would be more interested to study and challenge these auditors that what really must be done and when to learn, instead of only making own judgements about these regulations and directives which quite clearly seem to be bit something else what these are meant to be.
Already from this forum we have seen so many threads about these extended SOW checks, laws and regulations really are not telling that only in CM here are so many suspicious persons who need to be investigated. Would also be interesting to know, how many players have been reported to by MLRO doing SAR to authorities, if somebody is not cooperating with decent requests when they have some suspicious activity in their account, for sure that should be reported or is it ok to let somebody keep doing illegal activities as long they don't do it with us? Seeing crime but not reporting it could maybe also counted as failing in AML monitoring (like also tipping about suspect that he/she is under investigation). These just disappear somewhere when suspected players is not cooperating, which is strongly suggesting that casinos don't believe themselves that their requests are made in right places where real suspicions are standing, starting from tipping suspect who's not cooperating and then not reporting suspect to authorities.
Would be great to have any casino just open to which legislations they very extended demands, let's say for single transaction from private person like in this thread are based. Is OP somehow counted as high risk, he's coming from very low risk country, using very low risk payment methods, his stats suggested that his deposits are wagered, loop is closed when ever it's requested (exceptionally in this thread casino asked to withdraw to other method). Can by drinks for any legal team who would like to educate us as we here in this forum seem not to be educated enough to understand same lawas same way even been trying many years and license providers haven't demand certain activities spoken in this thread and in others but have advised for exact question with all information what is necessary and what is not. Casino legal teams have some great wisdom to read these laws what many other who are working in finances, money laundering etc... don't. Probably that's why they wanna keep that secrect and not willing to educate others how to comply, there shouldn't be secrets as these are all public documents or actually it seems there is as nobody can't explain these actions.
