Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Betsafe now at it.

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...


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
jjezebel37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr Wild said:
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.
Click to expand...

I remember that thread. But how high is that amount and is it from the sign up date or from when the law came in to place?
If I have spent more than my income are what will happen? Do I need to provide my Neteller history to show my winnings to all casinos?
Isn't the law mostly for high rollers? I know they already ask them for proof when needed.
 
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.
 
TradaCasino said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nutnut said:
just tell them you're a drug dealer and can't declare your income
Click to expand...

Exactly the point - proceeds of crime. That's one of the reasons casinos have to ask for this information when the player hits a certain threshold. These days you can't even pay cash in a car dealership without proving where it came from (which is a good thing, it ensures spending funds obtained criminally is now extremely difficult wherever you go).

Tirilej said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah yes you're absolutely right, its an EU directive too. When I first got notification we had to ask certain players for source of funds I was appalled! I completely understand why it's a necessity now though, it's positive that this is now in place.
 
TradaCasino said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jjezebel37 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 :thumbsup:
 
Indeed, said player deposits £100+ a week for months/ years and no income requests are forthcoming.....because it doesn't matter where the money came from there.

I'd be peeved having to provide my income, especially as a long-standing player. Of course a 'fly-by'night' punter who wants to make a quick buck and has made one deposit is different altogether. It used to be a thing called 'discretion' whereby a business would use some common sense without needlessly antagonizing its loyal players...

Now if Christmas came early and I had a £20,000 withdrawal pending, they can have my shoe size and urine sample, I don't really care at that juncture. Yet all I see happening is casinos making unreasonable, invasive demands for ever- smaller amounts. And that's not a good thing :cool:
 
Jono777 said:
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 :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Did you get those examples from somewhere or made them up?
 
Tirilej said:
Did you get those examples from somewhere or made them up?
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:
 
Jono777 said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I believe you can forget those examples.

They are already implemented so if no casino have asked you yet I doubt they will.
Unless you start playing as a high roller or deposit high amounts in a short time then you're safe.
I believe the op is playing a bit higher than you are, but that's just a guess.
 
Jono777 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand this may come across as cheeky, but I can assure you - there is no casino out there that is asking for these documents out of curiosity or cheek. They are just trying to ensure players have the means to gamble the money they are depositing.

In your third scenario, where you wouldn't agree with this document being requested - it would never be requested in that scenario anyway.

While it would seem objectionable for a player who is happily gambling within their means to receive this request, don't forget there will be someone else spending the same amount who simply cannot afford to lose that.
 
Well i would never be in position where my deposits should require such documents if any casino started asking i would just then stick to UK bookies sites.

But to be fair i understand why its needed.

For example if a player that stays in an area that is classed as really poor yet deposits thousands a week then its understandable they would want proof
 
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 :mad:
 
goatwack said:
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 :mad:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jono777 said:
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...


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I should just send them a used pair of my undercrackers then
 
TradaCasino said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
Jono777 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
'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 :cool:
 
goatwack said:
'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 :cool:
Click to expand...

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.
 
TradaCasino said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
colinsunderland said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
@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.
 
ladyhawke said:
@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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

me_and_ed
N1 Not Paying 12K and playing games
Replies
12
Views
526
lockinlove
lockinlove
B
No option to withdraw - is this fair?
Replies
2
Views
402
hubbadubbadingdong
H
K
MrPunter Casino – Withdrawal Delayed Beyond Stated Policy
Replies
4
Views
243
SYPlayer95
S
cappync
Bad Experience at Shazam Casino
Replies
4
Views
759
SYPlayer95
S
D
Betandyou
Replies
1
Views
439
andysbetting1187
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top