Casinoshare - Locking Account and demanding 'Certified Documents'

Hi there Dirk Diggler,

Hope you are well.

Dirk we totally agree with you in that this is a bit of a drag and if it was up to us we would have let this slide.

However unfortunately this is out of our hands.

We are not able to comment on which irregularities been found on your documentation due to a security reasons and we do hope that you understand this.

However it will really be appreciated if you can get that documentation certified at your earliest convenience and we will get your winnings posted to you as soon as the documentation has been approved.

Yet again we would like to thank you for your patients and understanding in this matter.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative

Err..
How can you refuse to comment on something that does not exist?

Since these irregularities don't actually exist, commenting on them will serve to show how the external company HAVE GOT IT WRONG, and will inform us all how these mistakes are made. To hide a mistake is a COVER UP, and does nothing to give confidence to players whose casinos still use this company.
So far, we seem to have an admission that the security provider are making mistakes, but players are not being allowed to correct them.
Likely these mistakes are being made due to the staff reviewing the documents not understanding the different ways in which different countries present the personal details. This can be evident where the address is a bit odd, perhaps in a small village or one of the "new towns" such as Milton Keynes or Bracknell. This can cause small differences in address presentation between drivers licence and utility bills. Names can also differ, depending on whether a middle name(s) is used. Microgaming casinos do not allow middle names to be registered, however formal ID documents require either the whole middle name or the initial. Credit cards can have many formats, as some card companies allow users to choose how their name will be displayed. This can be whether or not to use the prefix "Mr" or "Mrs/Ms", whether to have full name, or just initials or surname.
I rather suspect this is what may have happened here.
One way would be to have an independent person look at these documents with a view to seeing if there is a potential problem that is being misinterpreted by the security company.
If the same documents have been passed before, there is no reason for them to fail now, and someone should have the power at the casino to make the security company see sense!
Surely the money belongs to the CASINO, so why can't casino management overrule the security comopany. If someone like eCogra ruled the player should be paid because there was nothing wrong with the documents, whould the casino risk it's seal by telling eCogra "our security company says no, so we can't folow your ruling".

A full and open review of this may even show that players are being routinely "screwed" by having documents wrongfully rejected. There has been another case where a player was asked to certify the documents, only to have the security company still reject them. If the security company have convinced themselves this is fraud, certified documents will not really help, as the underlying documents will still contain the same "irregularities". The only way to investigate would be to seek an explanation of the irregularities that can rule out the presence of fraud.

Surely, it is about time we had a system where players presented their documents ONCE, and had them centrally cleared and their ID verified for whatever casino they play at in the future. This would be easy where there is a common link, such as all MG casinos, or all eCogra casinos. There may be a need to separately verify for "all Playtech", but even this will only require twice the processing.
 
Err..
How can you refuse to comment on something that does not exist?

Since these irregularities don't actually exist, commenting on them will serve to show how the external company HAVE GOT IT WRONG, and will inform us all how these mistakes are made. To hide a mistake is a COVER UP, and does nothing to give confidence to players whose casinos still use this company.
So far, we seem to have an admission that the security provider are making mistakes, but players are not being allowed to correct them.
Likely these mistakes are being made due to the staff reviewing the documents not understanding the different ways in which different countries present the personal details. This can be evident where the address is a bit odd, perhaps in a small village or one of the "new towns" such as Milton Keynes or Bracknell. This can cause small differences in address presentation between drivers licence and utility bills. Names can also differ, depending on whether a middle name(s) is used. Microgaming casinos do not allow middle names to be registered, however formal ID documents require either the whole middle name or the initial. Credit cards can have many formats, as some card companies allow users to choose how their name will be displayed. This can be whether or not to use the prefix "Mr" or "Mrs/Ms", whether to have full name, or just initials or surname.
I rather suspect this is what may have happened here.
One way would be to have an independent person look at these documents with a view to seeing if there is a potential problem that is being misinterpreted by the security company.
If the same documents have been passed before, there is no reason for them to fail now, and someone should have the power at the casino to make the security company see sense!
Surely the money belongs to the CASINO, so why can't casino management overrule the security comopany. If someone like eCogra ruled the player should be paid because there was nothing wrong with the documents, whould the casino risk it's seal by telling eCogra "our security company says no, so we can't folow your ruling".

A full and open review of this may even show that players are being routinely "screwed" by having documents wrongfully rejected. There has been another case where a player was asked to certify the documents, only to have the security company still reject them. If the security company have convinced themselves this is fraud, certified documents will not really help, as the underlying documents will still contain the same "irregularities". The only way to investigate would be to seek an explanation of the irregularities that can rule out the presence of fraud.

Surely, it is about time we had a system where players presented their documents ONCE, and had them centrally cleared and their ID verified for whatever casino they play at in the future. This would be easy where there is a common link, such as all MG casinos, or all eCogra casinos. There may be a need to separately verify for "all Playtech", but even this will only require twice the processing.

Hi there Vinylweatherman,

We agree a once off or global network will assist and create fewer frustrations in regards to documentation.

That is most certainly an aspect which can be looked in and bettered in the global market.

Due to the nature of this query and the risk factor involved, is it not suggested to comment on what irregularities is applicable in this case on an open forum.

However we are dealing with the relevant department to unsure that no irregularities does creep up and will make sure that we streamline the process as far as possible.

Remember that the casino might not have the capability to review documentation and the necessary no how but this does not mean that the relevant departments are in the wrong.

The documentation might look perfect to us but there could be allot of aspects, which the casino does not know about, in reviewing documentation.

At this time of point it is requested that the relevant player send us certified documentation which we will gladly reimburse the charges for him.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative
 
Hi there Vinylweatherman,

We agree a once off or global network will assist and create fewer frustrations in regards to documentation.

That is most certainly an aspect which can be looked in and bettered in the global market.

Due to the nature of this query and the risk factor involved, is it not suggested to comment on what irregularities is applicable in this case on an open forum.

However we are dealing with the relevant department to unsure that no irregularities does creep up and will make sure that we streamline the process as far as possible.

Remember that the casino might not have the capability to review documentation and the necessary no how but this does not mean that the relevant departments are in the wrong.

The documentation might look perfect to us but there could be allot of aspects, which the casino does not know about, in reviewing documentation.

At this time of point it is requested that the relevant player send us certified documentation which we will gladly reimburse the charges for him.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative

So there ARE "irregularities" then!

All I see here is an utter shambles!

Who is running the business, the casino or the processing company.

If I deposited 1000 into your casino, but a month later my card company decided off of it's own bat to recover the funds because, say, it didn't realise it was a gaming transaction and this was against their terms, who would you hold liable?

What if I were to say, "sorry, it was my card company that did this, I agree I intended to make the deposits, but I am under a contract to accept my card companies determination as to what kinds of purchases it will accept. I will be severing my contract and getting a more understanding card company, but for now there is nothing I can do about it"


Mario, you say that if this was brought in-house, this player would not have this trouble; it follows from this that fraud against the group would then become easier.

While you may refund the costs, asking a player to go through the process of getting documents certified is not something that your run of the mill member of the public knows much about. Look how this player queued fruitlessly for an hour at the police station and still didn't get anywhere.

Certified copies certainly ARE produced by a solicitor, but all this means is that they make a copy of the document using their photocopier, and they then add their signature and stamp to it. This certified copy is only of value when sent PHYSICALLY to the person or authority requiring it. If it is merely copied into a scanner or faxed, then it loses it's certification and nothing has been gained.
The suggestion that a company will accept merely this copy as supporting evidence is a laugh. Any player who really is trying to defraud the casino will just buy one of those business stamps and assorted letters from a good stationers, and make their own "certified copy". You could only tell this if you both had physical possesion of the copy AND were able to prove that either the "solicitor" was bogus, or was real and denied ever having made the copy.
A guilty player would know very well what aspects of his account were fake, and would know what the irregularities were. They won't know how these were sussed out though, and it is this that needs to be kept secure.
An innocent player will be totally exasperated that they are "talking to a brick wall", and unable to get the treatment they deserve, which is merely to be treated like any other player, not some pariah the casino wants rid of.
No doubt this is what you will achieve, this player will most likely run a mile once they get their money, and play at those casinos that don't have any problem at all with their documents.

BelleRock were embroiled in a similar fiasco last year. There was at least one player who was asked to get certified documents, he did, and this made no difference other than to cost a further 60 or so on top of the lost winnings - BelleRock still refused to pay out. Clearly, the certified documents still bore the same irregularities that the scanned copies did.
Casinmeister has on occasion been allowed to see disputed documents, either the casino will show them in the course of arbitration, or the player may send them, after agreement, for an opinion.


The REAL fraudsters are not getting caught by this at all, these are the ones that are obtaining fake ID sets from organised criminals, usually in order to get into this country, or claim benefits under an assumed name. While defrauding online casinos is unlikely to be their main objective, no doubt many see it as a sideline. One way to catch these organised fraudsters is to forget about letting THEM prove their ID, but to use central records, such as Experian and the electoral roll to check that the details they provided upon registration match. Additional verification is then to post a code or password to their registered address, which they must receive and quote as the final step in verification. Cryptologic casinos used to do this, posting a PIN to players that they had to enter before being able to withdraw, Lasseters still do this by requiring a cheque for the first withdrawal, with the player having to quote the cheque reference upon receipt. These are all aimed at proving residence or access by the player to the address given upon registration. If the address is a fake, the post office will return the code as undeliverable.
 
...
BelleRock were embroiled in a similar fiasco last year. There was at least one player who was asked to get certified documents, he did, and this made no difference other than to cost a further 60 or so on top of the lost winnings - BelleRock still refused to pay out. Clearly, the certified documents still bore the same irregularities that the scanned copies did...
Just popping in here real quick-like. The player you are referring to may have had his documents "certified", but it turned out to be fraud anyway.
 
So there ARE "irregularities" then!

Mario, you say that if this was brought in-house, this player would not have this trouble; it follows from this that fraud against the group would then become easier.

Hi Vinylweatherman,

Hope you are well.

Lets just say that there will be better control over these types of queries as well as the turn around time will be allot quicker.

Will it in fact make it simpler and less frustrating, time will tell but we are willing to take the plunge and make our players experience better.

This will not happen today or tomorrow but it is in the pipeline.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative
 
While you may refund the costs, asking a player to go through the process of getting documents certified is not something that your run of the mill member of the public knows much about. Look how this player queued fruitlessly for an hour at the police station and still didn't get anywhere.

Certified copies certainly ARE produced by a solicitor, but all this means is that they make a copy of the document using their photocopier, and they then add their signature and stamp to it. This certified copy is only of value when sent PHYSICALLY to the person or authority requiring it. If it is merely copied into a scanner or faxed, then it loses it's certification and nothing has been gained.
The suggestion that a company will accept merely this copy as supporting evidence is a laugh. Any player who really is trying to defraud the casino will just buy one of those business stamps and assorted letters from a good stationers, and make their own "certified copy". You could only tell this if you both had physical possesion of the copy AND were able to prove that either the "solicitor" was bogus, or was real and denied ever having made the copy.
A guilty player would know very well what aspects of his account were fake, and would know what the irregularities were. They won't know how these were sussed out though, and it is this that needs to be kept secure.
An innocent player will be totally exasperated that they are "talking to a brick wall", and unable to get the treatment they deserve, which is merely to be treated like any other player, not some pariah the casino wants rid of.
No doubt this is what you will achieve, this player will most likely run a mile once they get their money, and play at those casinos that don't have any problem at all with their documents.

The REAL fraudsters are not getting caught by this at all, these are the ones that are obtaining fake ID sets from organised criminals, usually in order to get into this country, or claim benefits under an assumed name. While defrauding online casinos is unlikely to be their main objective, no doubt many see it as a sideline. One way to catch these organised fraudsters is to forget about letting THEM prove their ID, but to use central records, such as Experian and the electoral roll to check that the details they provided upon registration match. Additional verification is then to post a code or password to their registered address, which they must receive and quote as the final step in verification. Cryptologic casinos used to do this, posting a PIN to players that they had to enter before being able to withdraw, Lasseters still do this by requiring a cheque for the first withdrawal, with the player having to quote the cheque reference upon receipt. These are all aimed at proving residence or access by the player to the address given upon registration. If the address is a fake, the post office will return the code as undeliverable.

Hi there Vinylweatherman,

We agree to what you are saying - does Certification of documentation really assist in proving the authentication of it. That is surely a debatable question seeing that it does get scanned, emailed to the relevant parties and easily altered.

However that is what is requested from the player at this time and we will merely need to oblige to this request.

You've raised really important factors for us to consider especially in regards to "Cryptologic" methods.

This will definitely be considered once we've been able to move everything in-house as it seems like it is a tested and working manner of verifying a player. The biggest concern for us will be the timeframe for getting the players verified as it will need to fall part of the player expectation in regards to instant gratification.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative
 
Just popping in here real quick-like. The player you are referring to may have had his documents "certified", but it turned out to be fraud anyway.

A good point, the player was able to get FAKE documents certified! Clearly this didn't get past the checks, but who is to know that the same will happen to an "innocent" player. It proves the point that certified documents are NOT necessarily accepted as proof positive, and I doubt that certifying the irregularities will make much differerence.
What WILL make a difference is being able to EXPLAIN the "irregularities", and how they fit with a legitimate claim rather than being evidence of fraud. Unfortunately, in order for a player to offer an explanation, they have to be asked the right questions, which will not happen if the irregularities are not explained.
There is no need to detail the methods by which they got found out, it would be worth asking a set of questions that, by deduction, will confirm or eliminate the possibility of fraud.

What is curious about this case is that casino management say they see no problem in paying this player, and apologise for the problems. I see this as BS, as the security departments job is to raise a flag and investigate, surely the OWNER or MANAGER of the casino can decide in any particular case to overrule the flag and pay, even if this means later having to have the player subjected to full scrutiny before they are able to play again. If eCogra were to rule in favour of a member casino whose "security department" had ruled against payment, would the casino seriously tell eCogra to "get lost" because their security company disagrees with eCogra.

Given that this player claims to have had the exact same documents verified and passed before, how is that they have now suddenly failed the process, and more to the point, how does any player who has had no problem before with their documents know that this won't suddenly happen to them, without them having the slightest clue as to why.

If this player really IS guilty of fraud, why on earth is Mario trying to get him paid?
 
Actually, if you guys go back and read the BelleRock thread, ONE of the people who was asked to get his documents certified (MarcHolmes) was found to have submitted a fraudulent claim, and banned from the forum and I would assume all BelleRock casinos. But it was bugging me that I was pretty sure there was another "regular" here who had the same problem. It was Vesuvio...he was also asked for "certified" documents:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...cs-and-no-payouts.12742/?highlight=belle+rock

I have to read the rest of the thread, because I could be mistaken, but I have a feeling that even once he sent the certified version, he was told they were unacceptable, which obviously was not the case. I could be wrong, maybe they did accept them from him directly.

In any event, it's enough of a hassle just to send ID in period....to have to go to a lawyer and pay to have him/her stamp your copies is just going too far, IMO. I'm glad for threads like this, because it tells me where I definitely do NOT want to play.

Edit: I've made it to page 14 of the BelleRock thread, and Vesuvio posted there that ECogra had sided with the casino at that point regarding his claim. Keeping in mind this is another player who had been asked to supply certified documentation.

Okay, finally got to where Vesuvio Pitched A Bitch, and the casino did reverse their decision regarding his account, and he was paid. As far as I can tell, he never did send in the certified documents and I don't blame him. Been a member here since 2004, and the excuse was that he got lumped in with the fraudulent players by some misfortune. So had it not been for Casinomeister, he probably would not have been paid either, certified documentation or not...and with no help from ECogra either.

One thing that was brought back to me was the fact that it wasn't the casino themselves asking for certified documents, it was ProcCyber. Perhaps Mario can tell us if this is the case here as well?

I'm sorry, but this is just becoming too insane for me. It's okay to take the money no problems, but when it comes to paying out winnings, it's just one excuse after another...and it's getting worse.

Now if it turns out that Dirk is a scammer, I'll eat my words. But I highly doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Actually, if you guys go back and read the BelleRock thread, ONE of the people who was asked to get his documents certified (MarcHolmes) was found to have submitted a fraudulent claim, and banned from the forum and I would assume all BelleRock casinos. But it was bugging me that I was pretty sure there was another "regular" here who had the same problem. It was Vesuvio...he was also asked for "certified" documents:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...cs-and-no-payouts.12742/?highlight=belle+rock

I have to read the rest of the thread, because I could be mistaken, but I have a feeling that even once he sent the certified version, he was told they were unacceptable, which obviously was not the case. I could be wrong, maybe they did accept them from him directly.

In any event, it's enough of a hassle just to send ID in period....to have to go to a lawyer and pay to have him/her stamp your copies is just going too far, IMO. I'm glad for threads like this, because it tells me where I definitely do NOT want to play.

Edit: I've made it to page 14 of the BelleRock thread, and Vesuvio posted there that ECogra had sided with the casino at that point regarding his claim. Keeping in mind this is another player who had been asked to supply certified documentation.

Okay, finally got to where Vesuvio Pitched A Bitch, and the casino did reverse their decision regarding his account, and he was paid. As far as I can tell, he never did send in the certified documents and I don't blame him. Been a member here since 2004, and the excuse was that he got lumped in with the fraudulent players by some misfortune. So had it not been for Casinomeister, he probably would not have been paid either, certified documentation or not...and with no help from ECogra either.

One thing that was brought back to me was the fact that it wasn't the casino themselves asking for certified documents, it was ProcCyber. Perhaps Mario can tell us if this is the case here as well?

I'm sorry, but this is just becoming too insane for me. It's okay to take the money no problems, but when it comes to paying out winnings, it's just one excuse after another...and it's getting worse.

Now if it turns out that Dirk is a scammer, I'll eat my words. But I highly doubt it.


One point, are casinos REALLY at the mercy of ProcCyber with regard to who they pay?
In terms of law (not that many casinos worry about this) the player's contract is with the CASINO, it is the responsibility of the CASINO to effect payment, it is no good claiming that they can't pay because a company who is an EMPLOYEE says they don't think they should.
It makes you ask, who is really running the business, are MG casinos just a set of "white labels" for ProcCyber?

The case of Vesuvio, shows that innocent players DO get cheated due to inadequacies in the system, and despite getting documents certified, AND going to eCogra, the mistake was still not rectified. It's the same as accidental shoplifting, it is a mistake, but once you walk out the store you are still a thief, and will be subject to the full force of the law. Similarly, if the casino refuses to pay a bona-fide player, they have effectively stolen the money. When the player sometimes gets it back after much hassle, they have merely returned stolen goods, and often this is done grudgingly without an apology.

While casinos insist on behaving like this, they will be seen as the seedy underbelly of commerce (they clearly are by the DoJ), and when they DO get scammed there will be players who have been wronged by the industry who will think "serves you right you bunch of thieves", rather than feeling that the fraudster has done a terrible thing. To see this in the real world, just try to find any motorist who has a kind word to say about a traffic warden or "parking control officer".
 
Pinababy - :notworthy for getting all the way through that thread! You're right - I was asked for certified docs but didn't see any point in providing them as it would just mean the casino would have lower quality scans of the same documents. I did offer to certify the docs if they guaranteed I'd then be paid, but they didn't.

They refused to pay my withdrawal and eCogra sided with them, claiming the casino were within their rights and details couldn't be revealed. Bryan finally persuaded them to pay up :thumbsup:

From that situation I know that ProcCyber, BelleRock and eCogra were willing to sanction confiscation of funds on the grounds of mere suspicion. The bonus had been mentioned on at least a couple of forums and all I did was play it on games that gave me an edge. Sure, some other people who read those forums might have engaged in fraud (as far as I can tell the "soft" fraud of playing for other people with their consent in exchange for a cut of any profits), but there was no way ProcCyber could prove I'd committed any sort of fraud (as I hadn't!).

I agree with Vinylweatherman that it's astonishing that the casino here are claiming they don't have the final say over what ProcCyber do. The only explanation I can see is that ProcCyber are being paid on a commission basis (getting a percentage of any funds they can avoid paying players). That would also help explain the clear switch from looking for fraud (credit card fraud, identity theft or the like), to looking for players or patterns of play that cost the casinos money (bonus hunting).

eCogra and the casinos need to get a grip on this, and any industry onlookers need to remind them that confiscating funds without certain proof of fraud is theft.

p.s. of course asking for certified docs is nonsensical for all the reasons given above. It's a delaying tactic worthy only of rogue casinos.
 
I had to read it through Vesuvio, it's been bugging me since this thread started. I knew there was a "regular" here who had been asked to do the certification thing, and I was pretty sure it was you. I was also pretty sure that you had been paid in the end and weren't a fraudster.

I've said it before, when new posters show up lodging a complaint, or a group of new posters......I tend to be a bit skeptical, it's my nature. But when someone who's established here has a grievance, I give it more weight. It's for this exact reason I'm a bit dumbfounded that Dirk is being asked to jump through these hoops. As he himself has stated, he has used these exact same documents many times before...and I'd even hazard a guess that they've gone through Procyber before. So what is the problem now?
 
I had to read it through Vesuvio, it's been bugging me since this thread started. I knew there was a "regular" here who had been asked to do the certification thing, and I was pretty sure it was you. I was also pretty sure that you had been paid in the end and weren't a fraudster.

I've said it before, when new posters show up lodging a complaint, or a group of new posters......I tend to be a bit skeptical, it's my nature. But when someone who's established here has a grievance, I give it more weight. It's for this exact reason I'm a bit dumbfounded that Dirk is being asked to jump through these hoops. As he himself has stated, he has used these exact same documents many times before...and I'd even hazard a guess that they've gone through Procyber before. So what is the problem now?

Hi there guys,

We can see all your points of view and appreciate your feedback in this regards. Does this mean that processor got stricter it's hard to say but we know that there has been and always will be issues in regards to documentation.

Ultimately with Certification of documentation, it shows that the casino and the processor did everything in their power to verify that the player in question is the registered player. Should any fraudulent activities happen after that then at least the casino is covered in es sens even though the casino will ultimately pay for it.

Dirk will get his funds, I can promise you that as I will make sure of that.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative
 
Hi there guys,

We can see all your points of view and appreciate your feedback in this regards. Does this mean that processor got stricter it's hard to say but we know that there has been and always will be issues in regards to documentation.

Ultimately with Certification of documentation, it shows that the casino and the processor did everything in their power to verify that the player in question is the registered player. Should any fraudulent activities happen after that then at least the casino is covered in es sens even though the casino will ultimately pay for it.

Dirk will get his funds, I can promise you that as I will make sure of that.

Best Regards
Mario
PlayShare Group Representative


So in essence, making players jump through these hoops is nothing more than an "a**e covering exercise", if a fraud DOES slip through, blame can be deflected away from any one party, and thus no party can be held to account, probably by the casino's owners or shareholders.

One way to elevate this to beyond "a**e covering", would be for the casino, or proccyber, to send a coded envelope to the player's registered address. In this, would be a coded return envelope into which the player must place the physical certified copies of the documentation, AND full details of the certifying solicitor. Upon receipt, ProcCyber would examine these copies, AND contact the solicitor to confirm that they really did attach their certification to said documents. The coded envelope would ensure that not only was the player able to get the documents certified, but he also most likely really lived (or had access) at the address registered with his account.

This would be an a**e well covered, not scantily clad as above.

This would still not be 100%, but only the most determined fraudsters would take this kind of system on. Do the casinos really want to PREVENT or DETER fraud, or do they get a better result from making fraudsters think they are a soft target, and then catching them after the fact & keeping ALL the money.
 
Hi all, been away for a while so not been on the forum to comment on the thread.

Anyway managed to get the documents certified by a Notary Public. It cost 70 which was actually the cheaper of the two quotes I got (the other was 80), so I've really no idea where anyone thinks this will be done for free in the UK.

I must admit this all seems total madness to me and has ment that Casinoshare will have spent 70 for no good reason. The same passport ID has been used everywhere else with no problem.

I've just scanned and emailed them to Mario so this should finally be the end of this affair.
 
Ever try those little bamboo toys called Chinese handcuffs? Your fingers go in a woven tube really easy, but when you try and pull them out it restricts and tightens up on your fingers. For some reason I'm reminded of that childhood toy after reading this nonsense. Your fingers are money.... easy in, very hard to get out.
 
Hi all, been away for a while so not been on the forum to comment on the thread.

Anyway managed to get the documents certified by a Notary Public. It cost 70 which was actually the cheaper of the two quotes I got (the other was 80), so I've really no idea where anyone thinks this will be done for free in the UK.

I must admit this all seems total madness to me and has ment that Casinoshare will have spent 70 for no good reason. The same passport ID has been used everywhere else with no problem.

I've just scanned and emailed them to Mario so this should finally be the end of this affair.


So, this is about a PASSPORT:what:
I was thinking this was all about the lesser known forms of ID that may well not be familiar to operators, but a passport is ALREADY A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT, in order to be granted one, you have to have the passport office check all your other ID documents, and now this is to be done in person.
While the casino have only received a scan, not seen the actual passport, they are merely asking for a scan of a photocopy of the passport done by a Notary Public (you were ripped off, my Mum got a document done for 5 - I'll have to double check this, she is getting on a bit, and may be thinking of something else, 70 is more like what a solicitor would charge).

Passports are good enough for US border control, but not good enough it seems for Proccyber.
All players ought to be told (in general terms), why passports are now getting the thumbs down, there is no current single ID document better than a passport here in the UK - drivers licence is second best.
 
Seventy Pounds??? My God, if I had to do that, it would cost me about $150 Canadian. I'm sorry, but I'd be pissed...and royally.

I hope you have an answer by Monday Dirk.
 
The casino promised to repay him the costs of notarisation, so it is the casino's money. Maybe Dirk is in London where everything is more expensive, but on the couple of occasions I needed something notarised, it was only 10/page.
 
So, this is about a PASSPORT:what:
I was thinking this was all about the lesser known forms of ID that may well not be familiar to operators, but a passport is ALREADY A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT, in order to be granted one, you have to have the passport office check all your other ID documents, and now this is to be done in person.
While the casino have only received a scan, not seen the actual passport, they are merely asking for a scan of a photocopy of the passport done by a Notary Public (you were ripped off, my Mum got a document done for 5 - I'll have to double check this, she is getting on a bit, and may be thinking of something else, 70 is more like what a solicitor would charge).

Passports are good enough for US border control, but not good enough it seems for Proccyber.
All players ought to be told (in general terms), why passports are now getting the thumbs down, there is no current single ID document better than a passport here in the UK - drivers licence is second best.

I think this discussion has probably covered just about everything but the fact that the casino is actually requesting that a COPY of the document has been certified TRUE AND CORRECT by someone, and recently, rather than certifying that the document itself is true, or indeed certified. The scan does not have to be done by the notary - the notary must only verify that the scan is true and correct.
 
Geez, in the States, a Notory only attests that they witnessed you sign a document and that they have reason to believe it is 'you' based on other unnotorized documents you provide them.
 
FYI I'm in Leeds and the fact there are only two Notary Publics listed probably means they can charge what they want to an extent.

They did require I provided proof of who I am and my address to do the service BTW (which so happened to be the exact same documents they were certifying :) )

Casinoshare has already credited the 70 charge so fare enough to them for this, but TBH I think we all know this is a pointless excercise all round.
 
FYI I'm in Leeds and the fact there are only two Notary Publics listed probably means they can charge what they want to an extent.

They did require I provided proof of who I am and my address to do the service BTW (which so happened to be the exact same documents they were certifying :) )

Casinoshare has already credited the 70 charge so fare enough to them for this, but TBH I think we all know this is a pointless excercise all round.

Now let's see if you get paid after this run around. If they come up with another hurdle, the point about certified documents, scanned and sent, being no better than a straight forward scan, will have been proven.

You might like to know, that should ProcCyber brand you a fraud after this, you can take them to court (small claims), for losses caused. You just need to show that on the balance of probabilities you did not commit any fraud in relation to the documents, or your identity. The beauty of small claims is that you stand to lose only a fixed amount, and will not end up paying the other sides costs. Your case would NOT be about recovery of a gambling debt, but the fact that you would have had no problem recovering the funds had ProcCyber not considered your documents "iffy". The fact that ProcCyber has passed these same documents before greatly strengthens your case. I hope none of this will prove necessary, and ProcCyber will finally accept the latest presentation of these same documents.
 
FYI I'm in Leeds and the fact there are only two Notary Publics listed probably means they can charge what they want to an extent.
I know it is too late now, but here is the full list from the Faculty Office:

Mr J D Pike
Sovereign Hse
Sovereign St
Leeds LS1 1HQ
T 0113 209 2000
F 0113 209 2060
ADDLESHAW GODDARD
MDX 12004 LEEDS
E-mail: john.pike at addleshawgoddard.co.uk
Web:addleshawgoddard.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr D A Salter
Sovereign Hse
Sovereign St
Leeds LS1 1HQ
T 0113 209 2000
F 0113 209 2060
ADDLESHAW GODDARD
MDX 12004 LEEDS 1
E-mail: david.salter at addleshawgoddard.co.uk
Web:addleshawgoddard.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr W L Towers
Sovereign Hse
Sovereign St
Leeds LS1 1HQ
T 0113 209 2000
F 0113 209 2060
ADDLESHAW GODDARD
MDX 12004 LEEDS
E-mail: lennox.towers at addleshawgoddard.co.uk
Web:addleshawgoodard.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr P J Lee
7 Park Sq East
Leeds
LS1 2LW
T 0113 251 4720
T 0113 251 4900
BEACHCROFT LLP
DX 14099 LEEDS PARK SQ
E-mail: plee at beechcroft.co.uk


Mr G Watson
Crown Hse
Great George St
Leeds LS1 3BR
T 0113 283 2100
F 0113 283 3999
BROOKE NORTH
DX 713100 LEEDS PARK SQ
E-mail: gw at brookenorth.co.uk
Web:brookenorth.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr S A Frieze
Crown Hse
Great George St
Leeds LS1 3BR
T 0113 283 2100
F 0113 283 3999
BROOKE NORTH LLP
DX 713100 LEEDS PARK SQ
E-mail: saf at brookenorth.co.uk
Web:brookenorth.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr J Mark Green
No 1 Whitehall Riverside
Leeds
LS1 4BN
T 0845 404 2404
F 0845 404 2424
COBBETTS LLP
DX 14085 LEEDS PARK SQ
E-mail: mark.green at cobbetts.co.uk
Web:cobbetts.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr A H Wilson
32 Park Cross St
Leeds
LS1 2QH
T 0113 200 2000
F 0113 200 2001
J B LAW
NDX
E-mail: antony.wilson at jbllaw.co.uk

LEEDS

Mr A M Pliener
Protection Hse
16/17 East Parade
Leeds LS1 2BR
T 0113 399 3476
F 0113 399 3454
KEEBLE HAWSON
DX 12043 LEEDS 1
E-mail: andrewpliener at keeblehawson.co.uk
Web:keeblehawson.co.uk
LEEDS

Mr C H P Atkinson
Suite 9C, Joseph' Well
Park Ln
Leeds LS3 1AB
T 0113 244 2216
F 0113 242 1214
WHITTLES
NDX
E-mail: christopher.atkinson1 at virgin.net
Web:atkinsonnotary.com
 
Dirk, have you been paid yet? Or at the very least had your documents approved? I'm curious about this one.
 
No not yet been paid.

The last I heard was on Tuesday when Mario informed me they couldn't get through to the solicitor to confirm validation. It apparently just keeps going to voicemail (wonder if they're calling in UK opening hours as I got through no problems when I contacted him :what:).

Mario said he'd follow it up on Wednesday but I've not heard anything, so have sent him a chase up email.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top