Casino won't talk

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Correct I’d also include action fraud cos that’s what this amounts to weather your guilty or not..

Yes, I have a nagging feeling the casino may be looking at this process as a novel way of deleting the winnings and returning his deposit, at that point if the ukgc aren't interested what does the player do, pursue it in a small claims court?

As you said the ukgc/or relevant authorities should deal with these cases themselves, once it gets to the stage of thousands of pounds worth of deposits and winnings being confiscated from a player, and they would soon find out which casinos are applying the right approach.
 

LadyJelena

CM Account Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Location
Serbia
just a heads up, they aren't listed on the review

She is now :)

When looking for the latest casino rep (or all reps of some brand) you can go to Members -> iGaming Reps and search by casino name, cause they all have casino properties listed.

Anyway, looking for rep directly in the casino review helps us update the reviews, so thanks :)
 

dealer wins

Meister Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Location
London the sh$thole
Jesus Christ even casino's under UKGC license are fucking over people. MGA, UKGC what the fuck is wrong with these authorities?? They are supposed to be here for the players. Online casino's will feel the pain eventually when they have to shut down one by one..

Yep, thats why I stopped playing online this year. This industry is total joke, completely anti-player and many casinos are looking to scam and steal from players!
 

Nordog

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Location
Norge
Uhm. Not sure i understood it correct.
But if casino decides a sow check or whatever isnt good enough, they can return only the deposit?
There is no buisness standard on it? And if you want to complain about it to the ukgc, they do nothing aslong as you get your deposit back?
 

irish-ranger

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Location
United Kingdom
Uhm. Not sure i understood it correct.
But if casino decides a sow check or whatever isnt good enough, they can return only the deposit?
There is no buisness standard on it? And if you want to complain about it to the ukgc, they do nothing aslong as you get your deposit back?
Win win for the casinos as normal so let’s say u hit a £75k win on one of the smaller brands they make SOW impossible they wing back your deposits (if lucky).
Maybe it’s about time casinos who want to operate in the U.K. should actually be U.K. based hook line and sinker would certainly cut down on this sort of shite and make enforcement a dam lot easier.
 

hardwell24

Newbie member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Location
London
BGO terms saying "Until you have satisfactorily passed such verification, we may freeze your account and restrict the withdrawal of any funds (including winnings and deposits). "

Since the casino decides to stop "laundered money" should they not report the matter to the police or other institute than keep everything to themselves without notifying the player?

UKGC terms about complaining saying "But we don’t investigate individual complaints, and can’t
help consumers to get their money back. Nor do we change decisions made by an ADR provider."


First BGO email saying "This is a legal requirement under anti-money laundering legislation and also a requirement of our regulator, the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
"



So if I understands it well UKGC expects casinos to comply with money laundering rules but when it comes to enforcing them and checking if the casino works properly regulated in favor or not of the player they do not feel responsible to check it, they will only suggest what ADR decides. Where is the logic ?
 
Last edited:

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Uhm. Not sure i understood it correct.
But if casino decides a sow check or whatever isnt good enough, they can return only the deposit?
There is no buisness standard on it? And if you want to complain about it to the ukgc, they do nothing aslong as you get your deposit back?

No hopefully not, but we're still in untested waters with this SOW system, going to an adr for adjudication on AML issues is perhaps not what the ukgc had in mind, if instead it's an RG affordability issue there's no precedent for cancelling winnings, it doesn't make sense to go to adr for that either.

edit: the player could find himself in no-mans land for a while if the ukgc say 'we don't get involved in these type of individual cases' and the ukgc doesn't seemed to have laid down the procedure in black and white, at least not available for the player to read, what should happen step by step when your money is frozen in a aml investigation, is it a matter for an adr to decide or the authorities?
 
Last edited:

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I found some interesting text on the following website page

https://www.promediate.co.uk/8341-2/
which I believe is an adr, I think the following text they quote is from the ukgc


(in red text) When Can We Refuse to Deal with A Dispute [meaning the adr]

...........

Please note the position regarding regulatory matters:......

Types of disputes linked to regulatory matters could include (please note that these examples are not exhaustive):

Non-payment of winnings/ account suspended due to anti-money laundering (AML) concerns.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. The ADR provider does not need to know whether the gambling business has submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the appropriate authority to do this, and the gambling business should not disclose this information to the provider. If the ADR provider decides the dispute in the consumer’s favour, the gambling business should pay the consumer/return the consumer’s funds. Where the business continues to suspect or knows that the customer is laundering money, they may do this by submitting a defence against money laundering (DAML) SAR, requesting a defence for potential money laundering offences in respect of the transaction in question (that of paying off the customer). If consent is refused, it will be for the gambling business to seek information from appropriate authorities on what may be disclosed to the consumer. We intend to provide some additional information to gambling businesses to remind them of these obligations.

Non-payment of winnings/account suspension due to issues related to fraud or crime, but not money laundering.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. Relevant considerations could include whether there is an ongoing police or criminal investigation, or the suspicion has been reported to the authorities. Providers should note that unless prevented from doing so by legislation (such as criminal, or linked to data protection), they must be prepared to share the evidence on which they base their decision with both parties to the dispute, as required by the ADR Regulations, Schedule 3, part 7 (Fairness).

Account suspended due to failed identity checks/ refusal to comply with identity checks

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. ADR providers may wish to consider the nature of the information that the gambling business is requesting the consumer to provide, and whether it appears to be reasonable/fair in accordance with the requirements of consumer protection legislation and money laundering regulations. The provider may also wish to consider the reasons behind and the timing of the request. For example, if a gambling business allows a consumer to continue to deposit funds while refusing to allow him or her to withdraw them, this might cast some doubt on the necessity of the checks. Providers should note that in September 2018 we launched a consultation looking at age and identity verification issues. Pending the outcome of the consultation, we may require businesses to at least verify the basic identity of customers before the customer is permitted to gamble.

------------

^ sorry for the wall of text, but that's how it's written. I've added the bold to make it easier to read the sections separately
 
Last edited:

hardwell24

Newbie member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Location
London
I found some interesting text on the following website page

https://www.promediate.co.uk/8341-2/
which I believe is an adr, I think the following text they quote is from the ukgc


(in red text) When Can We Refuse to Deal with A Dispute [meaning the adr]

...........

Please note the position regarding regulatory matters:......

Types of disputes linked to regulatory matters could include (please note that these examples are not exhaustive):

Non-payment of winnings/ account suspended due to anti-money laundering (AML) concerns.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. The ADR provider does not need to know whether the gambling business has submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the appropriate authority to do this, and the gambling business should not disclose this information to the provider. If the ADR provider decides the dispute in the consumer’s favour, the gambling business should pay the consumer/return the consumer’s funds. Where the business continues to suspect or knows that the customer is laundering money, they may do this by submitting a defence against money laundering (DAML) SAR, requesting a defence for potential money laundering offences in respect of the transaction in question (that of paying off the customer). If consent is refused, it will be for the gambling business to seek information from appropriate authorities on what may be disclosed to the consumer. We intend to provide some additional information to gambling businesses to remind them of these obligations.

Non-payment of winnings/account suspension due to issues related to fraud or crime, but not money laundering.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. Relevant considerations could include whether there is an ongoing police or criminal investigation, or the suspicion has been reported to the authorities. Providers should note that unless prevented from doing so by legislation (such as criminal, or linked to data protection), they must be prepared to share the evidence on which they base their decision with both parties to the dispute, as required by the ADR Regulations, Schedule 3, part 7 (Fairness).

Account suspended due to failed identity checks/ refusal to comply with identity checks

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. ADR providers may wish to consider the nature of the information that the gambling business is requesting the consumer to provide, and whether it appears to be reasonable/fair in accordance with the requirements of consumer protection legislation and money laundering regulations. The provider may also wish to consider the reasons behind and the timing of the request. For example, if a gambling business allows a consumer to continue to deposit funds while refusing to allow him or her to withdraw them, this might cast some doubt on the necessity of the checks. Providers should note that in September 2018 we launched a consultation looking at age and identity verification issues. Pending the outcome of the consultation, we may require businesses to at least verify the basic identity of customers before the customer is permitted to gamble.

------------

^ sorry for the wall of text, but that's how it's written. I've added the bold to make it easier to read the sections separately


I am really curious about the ADR response but I have a strange feeling that everything may end in court but first have to be patient and wait for their answer.
 

irish-ranger

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Location
United Kingdom
I found some interesting text on the following website page

https://www.promediate.co.uk/8341-2/
which I believe is an adr, I think the following text they quote is from the ukgc


(in red text) When Can We Refuse to Deal with A Dispute [meaning the adr]

...........

Please note the position regarding regulatory matters:

Types of disputes linked to regulatory matters could include (please note that these examples are not exhaustive):

Non-payment of winnings/ account suspended due to anti-money laundering (AML) concerns.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. The ADR provider does not need to know whether the gambling business has submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the appropriate authority to do this, and the gambling business should not disclose this information to the provider. If the ADR provider decides the dispute in the consumer’s favour, the gambling business should pay the consumer/return the consumer’s funds. Where the business continues to suspect or knows that the customer is laundering money, they may do this by submitting a defence against money laundering (DAML) SAR, requesting a defence for potential money laundering offences in respect of the transaction in question (that of paying off the customer). If consent is refused, it will be for the gambling business to seek information from appropriate authorities on what may be disclosed to the consumer. We intend to provide some additional information to gambling businesses to remind them of these obligations.

Non-payment of winnings/account suspension due to issues related to fraud or crime, but not money laundering.

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. Relevant considerations could include whether there is an ongoing police or criminal investigation, or the suspicion has been reported to the authorities. Providers should note that unless prevented from doing so by legislation (such as criminal, or linked to data protection), they must be prepared to share the evidence on which they base their decision with both parties to the dispute, as required by the ADR Regulations, Schedule 3, part 7 (Fairness).

Account suspended due to failed identity checks/ refusal to comply with identity checks

We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. ADR providers may wish to consider the nature of the information that the gambling business is requesting the consumer to provide, and whether it appears to be reasonable/fair in accordance with the requirements of consumer protection legislation and money laundering regulations. The provider may also wish to consider the reasons behind and the timing of the request. For example, if a gambling business allows a consumer to continue to deposit funds while refusing to allow him or her to withdraw them, this might cast some doubt on the necessity of the checks. Providers should note that in September 2018 we launched a consultation looking at age and identity verification issues. Pending the outcome of the consultation, we may require businesses to at least verify the basic identity of customers before the customer is permitted to gamble.

------------

^ sorry for the wall of text, but that's how it's written. I've added the bold to make it easier to read the sections separately
Not worth the paper it’s printed on it’s just(so to speak) which the casino can give the bird to if it suites them.
The gambling Commission are limited in what action they can take they can suspend and revoke licenses and impose fines if the casino decides not to comply eventually they will revoke their licence big deal.
Come to think of it the Northern Ireland Fisheries board carry far more weight than the commission does.
 

hardwell24

Newbie member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Location
London
Who’s going to pay for the court case?


If in any way ADR agrees with the casino or will avoid resolving the case I will be forced to advise lawyers what to do in this situation and possibly file a lawsuit against the casino then apply for a refund of casino winnings as well as court costs ( it will be propably small claim court , im not exploring yet about information about qualified gambling lawyers)
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I am really curious about the ADR response but I have a strange feeling that everything may end in court but first have to be patient and wait for their answer.

Reading that guidance I didn't get the feeling it is an issue for a small claims court, if the adr uphold the casino's position then the casino have to approach the relevant authorities [edit: it's not actually clear what they mean as they don't say what should happen next if the adr agrees with the casino, only if the adr disagrees]

[after the adr make their decision in favour of the player]

If the ADR provider decides the dispute in the consumer’s favour, the gambling business should pay the consumer/return the consumer’s funds.
Where the business continues to suspect or knows that the customer is laundering money, they may do this by submitting a defence against money laundering (DAML) SAR, requesting a defence for potential money laundering offences in respect of the transaction in question (that of paying off the customer).


@ternur might be able to shed some light on what happens then, the money can't be just retained by the casino I would have thought, it would be proceeds of crime. Not saying it is money laundering by yourself but in the event they still think it is and the adr sides with them.

But overall it's typical ukgc, their guidance always leaves basic questions unanswered, not very helpful to players, the other side of the equation who's actually funding the whole show.
 
Last edited:

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
This case shows yet again how flawed the entire system is. :(

Under these new circumstances with SOW, AML and whatever other acronyms they can come up with, no casino should be allowed to accept a deposit until all checks have been satisfactorily completed.

BGO here was happy to take GBP8,000, no questions asked, no account lock. They might have sent an email but nothing else that would show "due care" for AML or SOW. Instead, they kept accepting deposits, no issue whatsoever. They went into action mode only once a withdrawal is submitted.

IIRC, the UKGC reiterated in one of their last publications that winnings cannot be held to ransom. What happened with that?
 

irish-ranger

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Location
United Kingdom
Reading that guidance I didn't get the feeling it is an issue for a small claims court, if the adr uphold the casino's position then the casino have to approach the relevant authorities

[after the adr make their decsion]

Where the business continues to suspect or knows that the customer is laundering money, they may do this by submitting a defence against money laundering (DAML) SAR, requesting a defence for potential money laundering offences in respect of the transaction in question (that of paying off the customer).

@ternur might be able to shed some light on what happens then, the money can't be just retained by the casino I would have thought, it would be proceeds of crime. Not saying it is money laundering by yourself but in the event they still think it is and the adr sides with them.

But overall it's typical ukgc, their guidance always leaves basic questions unanswered, not very helpful to players, the other side of the equation who's actually funding the whole show.
There lays the problem UK law enforcement have the law behind them to confiscate goods under the proceeds of crime act these goods are auctioned off or if cash split between the home office and police to cover cost of the investigation.
Casinos /UKGC/ADRs have zero powers if BGO are claiming money laundering why aren’t they passing this on to the U.K. authorities to investigate instead of giving the money to some random charity?
I’ll tell you why because they aren’t based in the U.K. per say and don’t have to comply to the laws of the land.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
The latest LCCP came into effect on 31st October 2019.

Now, BGO could relate to the last sentence in the highlighted paragraph.

But, they allowed the OP to deposit before he was verified as I understood it!

1576426365915.png
 

irish-ranger

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Location
United Kingdom
This case shows yet again how flawed the entire system is. :(

Under these new circumstances with SOW, AML and whatever other acronyms they can come up with, no casino should be allowed to accept a deposit until all checks have been satisfactorily completed.

BGO here was happy to take GBP8,000, no questions asked, no account lock. They might have sent an email but nothing else that would show "due care" for AML or SOW. Instead, they kept accepting deposits, no issue whatsoever. They went into action mode only once a withdrawal is submitted.

IIRC, the UKGC reiterated in one of their last publications that winnings cannot be held to ransom. What happened with that?
Harry if casinos choose to hold winnings they can as the commission have zero powers to enforce them to do other ways hence why we have threads like these:
 
Top