Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[Iamfozzzz]

Thank you for that. I think if Louis had said 'sorry guys, I started the thread with best intentions, but I've now been told I'm not allowed to answer questions on the SoW process' it would have came across much better. Yes people wouldn't have liked it, but at least people would have understood the reasons why he didn't answer anything.

I stand by my view though that Casumo are acting against UKGC and AML guidelines. Parts of the LCCP are posted in here clearly stating funds shouldn't be held indefinitely. I can see nothing within the LCCP or the guidance issued by the UKGC for either RG or AML issues, that allow a casino to do what they are doing.

On top of that, the fact that Casumo refuse to point to anything in writing that exists to show they are allowed to do what they are doing, process third party personal information without consent, hold funds, what to do if a third party refuses documents, seems to suggest they are making the rules up themselves.

If I was being accused of theft on many different places on the internet, and I was confident that what I was doing was legal, I would defend myself by posting a link to the legislation, to regain my reputation. If I just carried on regardless and told people, I'm not talking about it, then I would expect the accusations to continue.

The worst thing for me though is, allowing deposits to continue when a player has no chance of getting paid, if they can't complete the SoW process. Jan, when he mentioned third party documents, stated they wouldn't accept deposits while the process was ongoing. That is a world away from what Casumo are doing.

I completely agree.
Casumo asked me for statements and questioned deposits back in August. If August was an issue then why, when I have attempted to withdrawal question it?
I deposited £££££'s since then and nothing was ever questioned and I stick to my original judgement, if I had never ever won or processed a withdrawal then my SOW would never have been questioned.
Players like me will never understand the rational, because we are the ones affected.

Its shocking, and anyone who says different obviously hasn't been waiting two months for a legit withdrawal and been asked to present their parents financial history.

I thank casinomeister for their help but dont stick up for casinos poor behaviour

 

[ternur]

... accricated, accririted, accrecated, accrieted, accreded (how the f do you spell that word?) page.

Easy on the sauce there Lobo, it's still early in the quarantine period.

 

[dionysus]

I thank casinomeister for their help but dont stick up for casinos poor behaviour

I don't think it's a matter of Bryan defending the casino; rather, recognizing the rep's hands are tied; they answer to their own higher ups and are limited and bound by the casino's choices

 

[Lobo]

Easy on the sauce there Lobo, it's still early in the quarantine period.

haha, yeah - english is not my first language, and don't have a spelling check + I am too lazy to Google it.

 

[dionysus]

haha, yeah - english is not my first language, and don't have a spelling check + I am too lazy to Google it.

accredited

 

[Lobo]

Deleted

 

[dionysus]

Deleted

well...at least you beat me to it

 

[Lobo]

well...at least you beat me to it

I am quicker than the Corona virus

 

[Gaz237]

Thank you for that. I think if Louis had said 'sorry guys, I started the thread with best intentions, but I've now been told I'm not allowed to answer questions on the SoW process' it would have came across much better. Yes people wouldn't have liked it, but at least people would have understood the reasons why he didn't answer anything.

I stand by my view though that Casumo are acting against UKGC and AML guidelines. Parts of the LCCP are posted in here clearly stating funds shouldn't be held indefinitely. I can see nothing within the LCCP or the guidance issued by the UKGC for either RG or AML issues, that allow a casino to do what they are doing.

On top of that, the fact that Casumo refuse to point to anything in writing that exists to show they are allowed to do what they are doing, process third party personal information without consent, hold funds, what to do if a third party refuses documents, seems to suggest they are making the rules up themselves.

If I was being accused of theft on many different places on the internet, and I was confident that what I was doing was legal, I would defend myself by posting a link to the legislation, to regain my reputation. If I just carried on regardless and told people, I'm not talking about it, then I would expect the accusations to continue.

The worst thing for me though is, allowing deposits to continue when a player has no chance of getting paid, if they can't complete the SoW process. Jan, when he mentioned third party documents, stated they wouldn't accept deposits while the process was ongoing. That is a world away from what Casumo are doing.

I also, very much doubt he would be allowed to post the above.

 

[colinsunderland]

I also, very much doubt he would be allowed to post the above.

but was allowed to tell Bryan for Bryan to post?
Plus, considering he has ignored answering any questions about this for weeks, he must have known before now that he wasn't allowed to answer the questions, so the thread was created just to troll the forum.

 

[Gaz237]

but was allowed to tell Bryan for Bryan to post?
Plus, considering he has ignored answering any questions about this for weeks, he must have known before now that he wasn't allowed to answer the questions, so the thread was created just to troll the forum.

Telling Bryan in a PM, is not quite the same as posting it on a forum for all to read.

Your attacking of the monkey, is relentless.

 

[colinsunderland]

Telling Bryan in a PM, is not quite the same as posting it on a forum for all to read.

Your attacking of the monkey, is relentless.

so Bryan got a PM then breached the confidence Louis placed in him, by posting the contents of that PM on here in public, knowing full well it wasn't for public consumption? I very much doubt that.

Your trolling, as is pretty much every post you make on here, becomes extremely tiresome.

 

[shapesy]

Telling Bryan in a PM, is not quite the same as posting it on a forum for all to read.

Your attacking of the monkey, is relentless.

Seems Luckyscouser was right about you

 

[dionysus]

let's move along guys, please - I'm too tired for a tit for tat
cheers

 

[goatwack]

Sports betting is off everywhere, what a drag.

What better time than to have Forum Fights Betting!!

I'll take Gaz at 14-1, if you would Dion

 

[dionysus]

Sports betting is off everywhere, what a drag.

What better time than to have Forum Fights Betting!!

I'll take Gaz at 14-1, if you would Dion

can't hardly hold a cage fight if someone let you out of your cage

 

[Casinomeister]

I'm a bit lost as to where this thread has gone to.

And we may be at an impasse here. Everyone has their opinions on the matter about SOW, and how the casino properties deal with their obligations to their legal teams and licensing jurisdiction(s).

As I mentioned before, my responsibility is to provide information in order for you to make smart decisions. This is not just from what I post in the forum, but via the reviews which I really try to keep updated as much as possible.

Additionally, the reviews are not only my "review" but reviews from our Meister Minions. So if anyone is imagining there is biasness in my perceptions - they can refer themselves to what these members think.

LOL - but then maybe the MMs are biased too.

Anyway - what would be nice are suggestions on how to make the user experience better with SOW - either at Casumo or for any casino for that matter. If that's the case, a new thread should be initiated.

If we are just going to be bitching at each other here, then why bother continuing a conversation?

 

[Davey86]

An across the board SOW policy adopted by all casinos from a certain jurisdiction is what is needed but because of the interpretation in terms set by for instance the UKGC probably won’t happen

 

[colinsunderland]

Anyway - what would be nice are suggestions on how to make the user experience better with SOW - either at Casumo or for any casino for that matter. If that's the case, a new thread should be initiated.

I think most of that has been suggested on this thread and the Q&A one. When the rep (through choice or not) just ignores everything thats asked or suggested, it does make it a bit of a waste of everyones time.

Obviously the main suggestion is not to hold withdrawals hostage, and not to keep accepting deposits. I haven't seen a single person think that is the correct way to do things. Casumo seem to be the only casino doing so at the moment, and therefore the comments are clearly directed at them. We can't ask Jan (for example) not to keep accepting deposits when customers can't get paid, as he doesn't accept deposits while SoW is ongoing.

We know SoW stuff has to be sensitive, as otherwise you are telling the criminals how to get round the checks casinos have in place, so no casino will ever give a step by step run down of how their SoW procedures work, which is fair enough. However, linking to the section of the act/guidance/GDPR that allows them to operate in the way they do shouldn't be a problem, as it is public anyway, and would in no way give criminals loopholes.

 

[pinnit2014]

An across the board SOW policy adopted by all casinos from a certain jurisdiction is what is needed but because of the interpretation in terms set by for instance the UKGC probably won’t happen

I think Spin UK's quoted quite a few relevant sections that to be fair, don't need much interpretation - they're pretty straightforward, especially around the whole outstanding SOW and deposits/withdrawals

I know the last iteration of AML put more checks to be done on beneficial owners but that wouldn't apply here for punter - casino relationships.

I think there's a duty on a casino to 'enquire', 'ask questions', 'satisfy themselves' when reviewing SOW and seeing any transactions etc but that is a world away from asking your second cousin twice removed to go through their own SOW? - maybe this area is the one that's more open to interpretation, I dunno - if a casino asks 'why did Uncle Bob fire you 500 quid', would the answer of 'They won on the horses and wanted me to have a punt myself' satisfy?

 

[Davey86]

When the casinos use a third party verification company to verify a regulated SOW kind of company which all casinos could use not really clues up on the laws around this but surely their is a better way

 

[pinnit2014]

When the casinos use a third party verification company to verify a regulated SOW kind of company which all casinos could use not really clues up on the laws around this but surely their is a better way

Sometimes the problem with using third parties to do this stuff is that some companies aren't keen on it because ultimately the risk of non compliance still sits with the company (you can't outsource that - thought contractually you may have a claim against the 3P). Plus, there are additional requirements on the part of the company such as getting the right assurances that the 3P are doing what they need to - sometimes a business might think 'well, given we're still het if it goes wrong and will require us to monitor the 3P, may as well do itself'.

Due diligence wise i don't think (may be wrong) that the company can rely on the 3P to perform 'ongoing monitoring'.

 

[mack341]

my solution is the data of all casino transactions [deposits, withdrawals] are forwarded to the ukgc, which has some computer program analyse the data and then they instruct the casino who to SOW, referring back to them with the results. Or if really hands on, the ukgc could carry out the SOW, compliance would be higher as people would feel safer sending confidential financial info to a govt dept/quango than a casino.

many people live with parents, no one is going to ask their parents for mortgage docs to send to a casino, it's crazy to think they would, and then withholding the funds indefinitely because the customer doesn't provide these docs is wrong, refer the case onto the fraud authorities for advice if you're that concerned of the risks.

 

[Kroffe]

Should be added to the review that you may get hit by an impossible SOW-request when making a withdrawal.

 

[BlaCGaming]

all the regulations aside, lets assume that you are trying your best to supply every requested document:

What can do you if the third party refuses to give you their documents? There is literally no solution given and you are stuck on both ends? Or am I missing something here? Isnt this a huge issue even for people who believe all the checks are fine?