Casumo-Louis answers

page 57, section 6 has caught my attention, the first part seems to back casumo's policy

at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made


but the 2nd part doesn't

if CDD cannot be completed, then the operator must proceed in line with regulation 31(1)(c) and terminate the existing business relationship with the customer

if funds are to be repaid, then the amount repaid should consist of all funds owed to the customer at the point that the threshold was reached, plus all deposits made at that point and thereafter

funds should be refunded back to the originating account, and:

there should be appropriate risk mitigation

where it is suspected that the funds are the proceeds of crime, remote casino operators should submit SARs or seek a defence (appropriate consent) before refunding any of the funds

^^^^
I can't see anyway round this, it's clear in black and white, a remote casino cannot hold a player's funds indefinitely. common sense tells you it has to be this way, casinos are not a law unto themselves.
 
Last edited:
Casumo is Reviewed and Rated at Casinomeister:
Like a company as Casumo tracks that mate. Sorry, but no! They only track success, of customers actually providing the requested documents upon hitting a threshold.

The majority of the customers bounce, either due to the fact they wont want to provide such docs because its pretty private. The remaining customers who don't provide are the part holding dodgy money that these days cant be spend in casino's any more.

You view it as taking money? I don't.

How different casinos among eachother deal with it in different ways is due to various reasons: risk appetite of the casino for example. It is not up to the customer, it is not written in the law, it is the casinos decision to decide upon what moment additional information is required. IF that process is not executed accordingly, the UKGC/MGA/SGA will tell you and you can adjust.

So your comment is pretty lame and short sighted.
oke maybe weird question but im gonna try sorry if my English is not so good. So im gonna sell my car for Lets say 25k i will gamble with that money and then I get a SOW. You think its right that the casino asked for the papers from the persoon who bought the car from me? This is offcourse not really the case for me but its the same as asking papers from third parties! This Casumo bullshit is one big Joke and very soon they Will have no players left mark my words.
 
Also, I thought Louis couldnt speak about this case, as mentioned in the other thread this has been discussed at length about.

I think what he meant was that if the questions are non case specific he would try to answer them. I don't think any have been customer specific so far, certainly none of mine have, as there has been more than one on here with the same problem, and I have seen similar on other forums
 
I think what he meant was that if the questions are non case specific he would try to answer them. I don't think any have been customer specific so far, certainly none of mine have, as there has been more than one on here with the same problem, and I have seen similar on other forums

Oh i see, soz, not trying to derail any questioning, i thought we were going down the same road as before.

Plenty of questions for Louis to tackle at least :)
 
gone quiet hasnt he I see it as a smoke screen creates a new thread to show as I'm doing something when in actual fact I've never answered a simple basic question because I can't

As much use as Anne frankes drum kit that lad

Louis works some funny shifts so he might not be at work now. Also, he is actually a pretty good rep, and I believe a decent person too, but I have a feeling he won't be allowed to answer too much on the thread, rather than not wanting to. Hopefully I'm wrong, but we'll see.
 
Hope you're right too but a fact is in the original thread he CHOSE to not answer non specific questions and just ignored them he'll do the same here

thats an opinion not fact. You dont know what he has been told about what he can answer in public. I'm not defending Casumo here, and in fact, if he isn't allowed to answer questions that are non account specific and don't reveal details of their specific risk assessments, I would say it shows Casumo know they are in the wrong, or why not allow them to be answered.
 
On this SOW lark... please can I add a little perspective. (On something VERY real and happening in many places, this scenario is based on a documentary I watched a while ago).

imagine I am involved in human trafficking. I pay for men from Poland to come to the Uk. I take their passports and crest bank accounts for them.
I allow them to live with the basic but have direct access to their wages and bank accounts.
I transfer money from them into my bank account at varying times and varying amounts.
I then hit the casinos to launder the cash.

What would my SOW look like?
How could a casino be certain that the cash was handed over willingly and from a legitimate source?
 
On this SOW lark... please can I add a little perspective. (On something VERY real and happening in many places, this scenario is based on a documentary I watched a while ago).

imagine I am involved in human trafficking. I pay for men from Poland to come to the Uk. I take their passports and crest bank accounts for them.
I allow them to live with the basic but have direct access to their wages and bank accounts.
I transfer money from them into my bank account at varying times and varying amounts.
I then hit the casinos to launder the cash.

What would my SOW look like?
How could a casino be certain that the cash was handed over willingly and from a legitimate source?
that would be the point they submit a SAR and await guidance on what to do next. The NCA would then either pass it back to them and say its ok to continue trading with them, or apply for a confiscation order under the POCA, what wouldn't happen would be that the casino just gets to keep the money, and that is the problem here.

Saying 'the money stays in the customer account even if closed' is rubbish tbh. If a customer cannot complete the SoW, especially if outside the customer's control, then the casino may as well stick a billion in his account, as they will never see it.
 
So say I cant answer sorry dont ignore or them create a thread for answers I'd respect that more
to which I would reply 'if you can't answer then clearly somethings being hidden, or why not answer'. It's a no win situation for him.
If he answers with something we don't like, he will get stick
If he answers that he can't answer, he will get stick
If he ignores the question, he will get stick.
Again, not defending Casumo's actions, just looking at it from a reps possible perspective.
 
Here lies the problem this is the second ‘thread’ regarding casumo? Is a staff member going to look long and hard and think wait a minute somethings is seriously wrong here or are they just going let another thread morph you into something non-specific that’s hasn’t really accomplished anything? If I was a staff member here which I’m not! I would be asking serious questions behind the scenes regarding casumo??? Or is the affiliation worth too much
 
page 57, section 6 has caught my attention, the first part seems to back casumo's policy

at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made


but the 2nd part doesn't

if CDD cannot be completed, then the operator must proceed in line with regulation 31(1)(c) and terminate the existing business relationship with the customer

if funds are to be repaid, then the amount repaid should consist of all funds owed to the customer at the point that the threshold was reached, plus all deposits made at that point and thereafter

funds should be refunded back to the originating account, and:

there should be appropriate risk mitigation

where it is suspected that the funds are the proceeds of crime, remote casino operators should submit SARs or seek a defence (appropriate consent) before refunding any of the funds

^^^^
I can't see anyway round this, it's clear in black and white, a remote casino cannot hold a player's funds indefinitely. common sense tells you it has to be this way, casinos are not a law unto themselves.

Correct. Its here in black and white.
 
And this thread was created why?

So the Casumo management could have a good laugh over a beer tonight at everyone tying themselves in knots again?

There’s only two questions here:

1. The GDPR issue. No you cannot request third party info without consent.

2. No you cannot keep player funds indefinitely, certainly not according to the UKGC handbook quoted twice in the thread.

These are really not hard concepts or statements to comment on. So let’s hear it @CasumoLouis, it’s getting embarrassing now.

This is an interesting page for you also - remarkably the UKGC have a named person - Sarah Gardner - overseeing “reviewing and strengthening rules to tackle unfair and misleading practices”. Maybe they could help with advising you on these aspects.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Last edited:
So the Casumo management could have a good laugh over a beer tonight at everyone tying themselves in knots again?

There’s only two questions here:

1. The GDPR issue. No you cannot request third part info without consent.

2. No you cannot keep player funds indefinitely, certainly not according to the UKGC handbook quoted twice in the thread.

These are really not hard concepts or statements to comment on. So let’s hear it @CasumoLouis
I wouldn't be holding my breath over that one either. I'd imagine questions like that will be marked under the 'Cannot comment on individual cases' bracket
 
Like others have asked numerous times before, "I'd REALLY like to know the truth behind (and the policy/legal standpoint about) Casumo's request(s) for third party documents?"

The question is not about if you're allowed to process this info under GDPR once you have legally obtained it, but rather how you get this information and how does that relate to the overall process of SOWs and releasing funds held in the account?
 
On this SOW lark... please can I add a little perspective. (On something VERY real and happening in many places, this scenario is based on a documentary I watched a while ago).

imagine I am involved in human trafficking. I pay for men from Poland to come to the Uk. I take their passports and crest bank accounts for them.
I allow them to live with the basic but have direct access to their wages and bank accounts.
I transfer money from them into my bank account at varying times and varying amounts.
I then hit the casinos to launder the cash.

What would my SOW look like?
How could a casino be certain that the cash was handed over willingly and from a legitimate source?

Answer is simple.

No criminal gang be it in human trafficking, drugs, etc, would act that amateurish, not in a million years. Don't you think they know what could be ahead of them and cover their tracks?

However, I do not see a reason for them to do it from the UK or the like because SOW is asked from people in regulated markets only. Outside those, you can deposit millions and no one will bother in the slightest.
 
Hi hi hello,

As questions always comes up I thought you could ask anything here.
Keep it to general questions only, nothing account specific :)

I will try to answer as soon as I can.


Hi,

I'm in Canada. I deposit with etransfer via Gigadat. Why can't I withdraw through this method? At the moment, shouldn't (i.e. logically) I deposit at other Casinos that offer this method for withdrawal? Thanks Louis.
 
Casumo is Reviewed and Rated at Casinomeister:

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top