colinsunderland
RIP Colin
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
just a heads up, they aren't listed on the review@EveBgo is our latest BGO rep
just a heads up, they aren't listed on the review@EveBgo is our latest BGO rep
probably best to flag @perebluejust a heads up, they aren't listed on the review
Correct I’d also include action fraud cos that’s what this amounts to weather your guilty or not..
just a heads up, they aren't listed on the review
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..
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).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?
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?
When was SOW requested? Was this before or after withdrawal?
I found some interesting text on the following website page
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
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.I found some interesting text on the following website page
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
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
Who’s going to pay for the court case?I am really curious about the ADR response but I have a strange feeling that everything may end in courtbut first wait for their answer
Who’s going to pay for the court case?
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.
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.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.
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: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?