Betsafe now at it.

[goatwack]

Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling. No concerns are raised when the player puts money into the casino....if hundreds of thousands were lost by that one player there'd be no sympathy or concern for their welfare or how the money was acquired. Yet come cashout time it's 'Because we try to identify problem gamblers'. Baloney

 

[TradaCasino]

Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling. No concerns are raised when the player puts money into the casino....if hundreds of thousands were lost by that one player there'd be no sympathy or concern for their welfare or how the money was acquired. Yet come cashout time it's 'Because we try to identify problem gamblers'. Baloney

I think your misunderstand the Source of Income check.

It is precisely because of your example that we do this. No player would be able to lose hundreds of thousands, ever, without a source of funds check. They would raise every red flag, and any casino worth their license would have cut this player off until they could determine the player is depositing within their means.

Source of Income is not requested at withdrawal time. It's requested when a player deposits enough to reach the minimum threshold set about by the EU and the UKGC.

 

[geordiecolin]

Done something similar to this before but I'm bored.....

In Order to play at Numb Nuts Casino we will need the following

1) Photo ID, Driving Licence and Passports not accepted, just to go that extra mile to help you out
2) Urine sample no older than 24 hours, this will be stored in Cryo after succesful verification and not used to fulfill staff fetishes.
3) Stool Sample to be cut to 2 x 2 cm and no diarrhea please, again no older than 24h
4) A full length naked photo, normal as can be and not in a state of arousal.
5) Sick sample, no carrots please.
6) Breath specimen - used to establish the smokers out there and thus reduced value as customers
7) A fresh blood sample, check your in good health, we don't want any of you depositing, charge-backing and then dropping dead on us now,,,
8) DNA sample, we have friends in high places and will stitch you up if you cross us...

I should just send them a used pair of my undercrackers then

 

[goatwack]

I think your misunderstand the Source of Income check.

It is precisely because of your example that we do this. No player would be able to lose hundreds of thousands, ever, without a source of funds check. They would raise every red flag, and any casino worth their license would have cut this player off until they could determine the player is depositing within their means.

Source of Income is not requested at withdrawal time. It's requested when a player deposits enough to reach the minimum threshold set about by the EU and the UKGC.

The EU and the UKGC. Now that's two things we'd be better off without :nod:

 

[Jono777]

I think your misunderstand the Source of Income check.

It is precisely because of your example that we do this. No player would be able to lose hundreds of thousands, ever, without a source of funds check. They would raise every red flag, and any casino worth their license would have cut this player off until they could determine the player is depositing within their means.

Source of Income is not requested at withdrawal time. It's requested when a player deposits enough to reach the minimum threshold set about by the EU and the UKGC.

Hi Rachel

Is this a 'rolling figure' IE: £xx,xxx.oo within xxxx weeks / months / years or a standing target IE: £xx,xxx.00 since the account was created please?

I can see both sides of the coin on this one but the example in blue would make more sense.

If its the Red part them I'm totally confused as this will even affect even the pitiful once a week low rollers like myself who have remained loyal for years upon years as they will eventually, even if it takes 10 years, hit this standing target.

As I type this I serious think it has to be the blue part as who's going to question 10 years of previous problem free history, surely not?

 

[TradaCasino]

Hi Rachel

Is this a 'rolling figure' IE: £xx,xxx.oo within xxxx weeks / months / years or a standing target IE: £xx,xxx.00 since the account was created please?

I can see both sides of the coin on this one but the example in blue would make more sense.

If its the Red part them I'm totally confused as this will even affect even the pitiful once a week low rollers like myself who have remained loyal for years upon years as they will eventually, even if it takes 10 years, hit this standing target.

As I type this I serious think it has to be the blue part as who's going to question 10 years of previous problem free history, surely not?

It's essentially the blue part, but that's not to say that your second example wouldn't warrant a check eventually depending on the style of play. Maybe it's a player who has never made a cashout after years of gambling, or they have, on occasion, won thousands from a deposit but lost it instead of cashing out. In those cases, straight deposit amounts don't tell the whole story.

There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy.

All these variables can be interpreted differently, but my opinion would be that if you ever receive a source of income request from an accredited casino, you are dealing with a responsible and compliant casino who are preempting a requirement instead of waiting until the last minute to request it.

Rachel.

 

[bebo67]

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.

Wow! I'd be running real quick! How dare them!

 

[bebo67]

just tell them you're a drug dealer and can't declare your income

You can if you live in Canada. lol. Seriously!

 

[goatwack]

'There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy'

'All these variables can be interpreted differently'

Says to me that UKGC regulations mean diddly squat as casinos can adapt them to suit their needs. As long as there is no defining, uniform rules in place that can't be skirted around the players will never have fair, full transparency as to casinos' methods, thus giving casinos free reign to ask for ever-more intrusive personal details. Not in agreement with this

 

[TradaCasino]

'There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy'

'All these variables can be interpreted differently'

Says to me that UKGC regulations mean diddly squat as casinos can adapt them to suit their needs. As long as there is no defining, uniform rules in place that can't be skirted around the players will never have fair, full transparency as to casinos' methods, thus giving casinos free reign to ask for ever-more intrusive personal details. Not in agreement with this

The UKGC regulations mean an awful lot, actually.

All of their policies have the player in mind. Without them, rogue casinos could make their own rules, open excluded accounts at will and exploit vulnerable players.

As I said, the 'source of income' check is not a requirement sprung upon players at the time of withdrawal. It's done when a player reaches certain predetermined thresholds. This is not about us having free reign. Why would any casino request source of income from a high roller and risk losing them as a result of this request? The answer is, to remain responsible and compliant. I would be more worried about establishments that don't enforce these requirements.

I'm just trying to offer an alternative perspective here. I want you to see that casinos (at least the accredited ones), don't do this to be purposefully intrusive.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

Rachel.

But the UKGC haven't actually gave any real figures to support what they say

The customer staked over £1.3million, including £55k stolen from their employer. During a 13 month period the customer placed a large number of bets, gambling on average 3-4 hours a day. The lack of interaction with the customer, given the frequency, duration and sums of money involved in the gambling, raised serious concerns about 888’s safeguarding of customers at-risk of gambling harm.

55k out of 1.3 million is nothing, its what, just over 4%? Plus it doesn't actually state what the deposits were, just the wagering that was done, whereas, presumably the 55k was deposits.

If 1.3 million was deposited over 13 months, would you really pick up on about a 4% higher than could afford rate? Obviously if his yearly salary was £25k and he deposited say 200k in 12 months there would be cause for concern.

But how do you look at things too?
My income changes month to month. Some months I can make £500, other months can be 5k+. Take June as an example, I made around £6k, but also won over £4k in cash at bookies. Also had (I think) about 5 withdrawals from casinos for £1k-2k.

But, if you had asked me for proof of income from say my August bank statement, there was under £1000 income, yet I deposited over £3k to casinos. Does that mean I would get banned as my income for that month was much lower than my deposits? How would that work, that could go on forever, I sold a house in 2013 which I still have some money left from, do I have to show all my bank statements going back to the house sale to prove where that cash came from? What about the money I used to buy that house, would I then have to prove how that was paid for, as if it was paid for with stolen money, the profits would be proceeds of crime, and therefore you would have to report that (assuming it gets reported).

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Also, as this is clearly money laundering related, if you aren't satisfied with the explanation, do you also report it to the police like the banks have to? If not, who regulates and checks what you are doing?

Sorry for the questions, I just genuinely don't understand how this will do any good at all. I can clean thousands of £'s every day if I had dodgy money, just using FOTB's in bookies, if I then pay that into my bank account theres no way your checks could show otherwise, so I just dont see what value they have.

EDIT: sorry that comes across a little harsh, when I say 'your' checks etc, it isn't aimed at you personally, but meaning the checks you have to do

Also, thank you for answering the thread (and my pm the other day) so quickly

 

[bebo67]

But the UKGC haven't actually gave any real figures to support what they say



55k out of 1.3 million is nothing, its what, just over 4%? Plus it doesn't actually state what the deposits were, just the wagering that was done, whereas, presumably the 55k was deposits.

If 1.3 million was deposited over 13 months, would you really pick up on about a 4% higher than could afford rate? Obviously if his yearly salary was £25k and he deposited say 200k in 12 months there would be cause for concern.

But how do you look at things too?
My income changes month to month. Some months I can make £500, other months can be 5k+. Take June as an example, I made around £6k, but also won over £4k in cash at bookies. Also had (I think) about 5 withdrawals from casinos for £1k-2k.

But, if you had asked me for proof of income from say my August bank statement, there was under £1000 income, yet I deposited over £3k to casinos. Does that mean I would get banned as my income for that month was much lower than my deposits? How would that work, that could go on forever, I sold a house in 2013 which I still have some money left from, do I have to show all my bank statements going back to the house sale to prove where that cash came from? What about the money I used to buy that house, would I then have to prove how that was paid for, as if it was paid for with stolen money, the profits would be proceeds of crime, and therefore you would have to report that (assuming it gets reported).

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Also, as this is clearly money laundering related, if you aren't satisfied with the explanation, do you also report it to the police like the banks have to? If not, who regulates and checks what you are doing?

Sorry for the questions, I just genuinely don't understand how this will do any good at all. I can clean thousands of £'s every day if I had dodgy money, just using FOTB's in bookies, if I then pay that into my bank account theres no way your checks could show otherwise, so I just dont see what value they have.

EDIT: sorry that comes across a little harsh, when I say 'your' checks etc, it isn't aimed at you personally, but meaning the checks you have to do

Also, thank you for answering the thread (and my pm the other day) so quickly

I agree 100% with what you say. My income bounces all over the place too. So what happens if someones income is through their own business? Own and operated by yourself? And is their a list of casinos that are regulated by this commission? And is this only enforced with people living in the UK, EU?

I should also add, looking at someones income really means nothing without looking at their expenditure and debt ratio. Someone could be making over 100k a year, but be in debt 3x's that, and someone with a small income could only have a small amount of bills. I think it's a " to serve you better", while covering a casinos butt, while being invasive.

 

[interlog]

So you cant deposit say 100k at one casino because say the treshold sits at 99k

But you can deposit 10 lots of 90k across 10 different casinos and spunk away 900k

Doesnt make sense to me

Yet more interference by Government.

 

[ladyhawke]

@Trada: "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....it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players."

I am seriously in agreement with goatwack here... "Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling."

It has been a struggle for years to even get paid our winnings, while casinos took our deposits without any affordability checks, as it was against their business interests. But now, under certain circumstances, and at the whim of the casino, we are going to have to justify our deposits, and why? It is certainly not because casinos have changed their stance on deposit verification, but because their hand has been forced by the UKGC.

So a double whammy to us players, as the often difficult process of verification of withdrawals will still exist.

Casinos 1. Players 0.

And by the way, is there any redress for players who have previously spent more than they could afford due to lack of checks? Not a chance. Just the casinos taking 'a pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling.'

Spending more than you can afford is not just limited to online gambling e.g. FOBTs, betting on any sporting event, compulsive spending on many ordinary goods, etc.

So online gambling is not the only way to ruin lives, but it is a very easy target.

And Colinsunderland makes some very good points regarding flexible but legitimate income.

Some people have multiple sources of income spread over multiple bank accounts. Are you then meant to show details of every one of these accounts when asked for proof of income? Very intrusive behaviour by the casino if that is the case.

Or...if your deposits are income from a series of casino wins, do you then have to show to the casino making the request winnings from OTHER casinos to justify these deposits?

However, what really grinds my gears is that a casino will now have the power to make an arbitrary decision that you are living beyond your means, whether or not that is actually the case as people have different priorities as to how they spend their own money.

 

[bebo67]

@Trada: "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....it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players."

I am seriously in agreement with goatwack here... "Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling."

It has been a struggle for years to even get paid our winnings, while casinos took our deposits without any affordability checks, as it was against their business interests. But now, under certain circumstances, and at the whim of the casino, we are going to have to justify our deposits, and why? It is certainly not because casinos have changed their stance on deposit verification, but because their hand has been forced by the UKGC.

So a double whammy to us players, as the often difficult process of verification of withdrawals will still exist.

Casinos 1. Players 0.

And by the way, is there any redress for players who have previously spent more than they could afford due to lack of checks? Not a chance. Just the casinos taking 'a pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling.'

Spending more than you can afford is not just limited to online gambling e.g. FOBTs, betting on any sporting event, compulsive spending on many ordinary goods, etc.

So online gambling is not the only way to ruin lives, but it is a very easy target.

And Colinsunderland makes some very good points regarding flexible but legitimate income.

Some people have multiple sources of income spread over multiple bank accounts. Are you then meant to show details of every one of these accounts when asked for proof of income? Very intrusive behaviour by the casino if that is the case.

Or...if your deposits are income from a series of casino wins, do you then have to show to the casino making the request winnings from OTHER casinos to justify these deposits?

However, what really grinds my gears is that a casino will now have the power to make an arbitrary decision that you are living beyond your means, whether or not that is actually the case as people have different priorities as to how they spend their own money.

Agreed! And how is this any different then the banks blocking deposits? It's not because its on the stance that they " are looking out for us", or how is it different than a country banning gambling? Again it isnt! And yet the casinos are 100% against that happening. I think if any casino sees irregular playing and huge multiple deposits, then its up to the casino to flag and then request any information, but to go and build walls and encompass rules that are under assumption before anything happens is just wrong in so many ways! I think this commissions rules need to be fought! And yes they can be!

 

[colinsunderland]

Another quick one.
95% of my income is from affiliate earnings.
I am an affiliate for most casinos, although I tend to only promote 6 or so at any one time (currently).

If I show (and not picking on you Rachel, this applies to any casino) Trada my bank statements and it showed (for example) £2k from affiliate earnings from skybet, £1k from Videoslots, £3k from Leovegas, and £27 from Trada, am I likely to start getting emails from the affiliate department telling me I have to promote you more heavily or lose my account, or queries asking why I'm not earning as much with you as I am with other affiliate programmes?

 

[ternur]

I can certainly understand the AML rules when it comes to, let's say prepaid cards, which are bought with cash and then used to make deposits. But when the source of funds is a bank account, or webwallet, that should be enough. Especially banks are already obligated to investigate and report suspicious transfers in the account.

AML rules extends "policing" of customers to businesses. I myself need to deal with similar things when providing services to my clients. While I agree to a certain point the reasoning for this, I do oppose the idea, that businesses and people who provide professional services are more and more required to investigate their own clients.

Making CDD a part of responsible gambling is a slippery slope though. How many bars or pubs make you provide source of funds information to make sure that you're not drinking more than you can afford? If the gambling industry really cared about responsible gambling in this regard, no one should be able to deposit with credit cards.

There's a thin line between AML compliance/KYC/CDD and unnecessary intrusion on privacy. Especially online casinos are not the most transparent organisations, and I find it troublesome to say the least, that they are required to profile customers beyond the normal KYC rules. Sure, sometimes they need to address possible criminal behaviour, but determining this should lie with the authorities.

Source of funds requests are not really about casinos applying responsible gambling rules. They are mostly done because of compliance/regulatory risk reasons and to avoid liability.

 

[dusky]

I have ongoing one at the moment where the exact same screenshots have been fine for one organisation, but seemingly the same play history isn't acceptable for this other provider.

It comes across to me as another reason to withhold a withdrawal and actually adds MORE stress to a procedure that is already very stressful when you are cashing out.

I don't believe anyone except a court of law should require to see my payslips.