Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[EkJR]

Of course there are many examples where SOW have been carried badly and almost impossible for player to provide requested documents, most of players past these checks with no problems. AML directive just is quite strict, you really have to be able to provide these reasons why you didn't request xyz from certain customers if their total threshold is of deposits start to be even some amount of money. Then when you receive some documents which are not really matching to customers profile, you are expected to carry on verification process until documentation is satisfying.

Like said, there are very few people who use illegal money for gambling but operators are expected to be able to provide proof of source of wealth that these deposits are coming from. These regulations really are quite strict and much over 99% of time waste of time but these are still expected to be done. In these player have to proof non guilty even they are not suspected about anything but enough if there's possibility for that.

These very few cases which include loads of stolen money are hugely rare and only happen for gambling addicts. If you want to change your cash to clean and you have brains, you never do that anything at least more in one casino what average person with small salary can afford, you do same with 50 casinos with smaller amount and make sure you don't flag anything unusual, you don't play roulette black&red to wager your deposit once as you know even blind person see it's normal behavior.

I would guess that any casino don't start to annoy their players with their SOW requests if they don't think they need to or they are in danger to get problems in their audits, there's no any benefit in that. By my guess i think all casinos would be really happy if they wouldn't have to comply with these all EU AML directives and other regulations, only to pay salaries to compliance team (which really was not existing not too many years back) is some hundred thousands, then you lose players and all other extra work and shite it cause. It's really not having fun and piss players off, it's a scare about sanctions and trying to avoid them, not to get rid of depositing customers which is quite a bad business plan.

Then in casino industry these regulations are monitored mostly authorities like UKGC who is not best financial law guru itself and they kind of demand very strict approach from operators. Problem come pretty much there that most are not sure what to do and what is really needed and what is not, then you can decide rather be safe than sorry. At least most of casinos don't have same kind of experts in their payroll like big banks do but they still are expected to meet same AML directives. Due diligence what can be done is pretty much based on documents provided, it's not acceptable reason that casino thought that this person who lives in London and based on Linkedin have a good job, can spend £1000/month with no questions ever, that proof have to come from player and then can be documented that it sounds true and there's no reason not to believe what player says.

Casinos do get warning about ignoring to request SOW and documents to prove it right, if after warning there is no improvement that somebody can pass your monitoring without needed action, next step is some harder penalty.

I disagree with the UKGC comment. They do ask for SOW but it's the interpretation of what an operator is required to do thats the issue. As already mentioned, would this happen with William Hill, Sky, Paddy Power? The answer is no, you dont actually get asked for much if anything from them. So why can all casinos not show common sense and do the same? Oh, is that because Casumo got a £5m+ fine for RG and social responsibility issues last year??

 

[EkJR]

Hasn't it been established that they simply cannot hold money to ransom owing to laws of the land. Casino terms and conditions do not trump those, as much as the casinos may wish that they do.

As I read it, casinos either have to pay you or report you.

If there is suspicion of money laundering they can...otherwise they cant.

 

[goatwack]

I mean why not. I'll take out a loan say tomorrow, come paying-back time I'll just hastily produce the crumpled up sheet from my pocket stating 'my' Ts&Cs, and how I'm not beholden to that debt!

 

[Mr_Slot5]

If there is suspicion of money laundering they can...otherwise they cant.

But then surely they would have to report you and secondly, once cleared they'd still owe you the funds anyway *shrug*

 

[Slottery]

I disagree with the UKGC comment. They do ask for SOW but it's the interpretation of what an operator is required to do thats the issue. As already mentioned, would this happen with William Hill, Sky, Paddy Power? The answer is no, you dont actually get asked for much if anything from them. So why can all casinos not show common sense and do the same? Oh, is that because Casumo got a £5m+ fine for RG and social responsibility issues last year??

Sorry, didn't only mean UKGC especially but all regulators. WH also had to pay some millions about their AML breaches 2014-2016 so not only Casumo who been penalized about failing to follow regulations.

They require operators to do quite a lot with quite vague regulations, referring to AML directives is not making it too easy for casino operators to know right away what everything is expected from them. They do some bit more specific guidelines and hopefully much better in future and demonstrate some practic level examples what casinos really are expected and when.

Common sense unfortunately is not commonly recognized legal term what could be used "We followed common sense" just don't exist in laws and directives, that's why more practical guiding in these would for sure be welcome for all casinos.

 

[Slottery]

But then surely they would have to report you and secondly, once cleared they'd still owe you the funds anyway *shrug*

That's exactly is 100% correct, nobody don't have any legal ground to add your gambling account balance to their own pocket, these do get sorted to way or another based on laws and directives, not casinos will and they have no right to keep any money confiscated for these reasons.

 

[EkJR]

Sorry, didn't only mean UKGC especially but all regulators. WH also had to pay some millions about their AML breaches 2014-2016 so not only Casumo who been penalized about failing to follow regulations.

They require operators to do quite a lot with quite vague regulations, referring to AML directives is not making it too easy for casino operators to know right away what everything is expected from them. They do some bit more specific guidelines and hopefully much better in future and demonstrate some practic level examples what casinos really are expected and when.

Common sense unfortunately is not commonly recognized legal term what could be used "We followed common sense" just don't exist in laws and directives, that's why more practical guiding in these would for sure be welcome for all casinos.

I know what your saying, but consider this. Ladbrokes, William Hill, Paddy Power, Sky, Jackpotjoy to name a few....all have had some form of fine for social responsibility failings....do they resort to SOW requests all over the place and this 'enhanced' SOW that Casumo are going through? No, they do not. It's common sense, they use SOW where they see patterns of excessive deposits etc as it is intended for. They might ask if your depositing over £1k a month asking for details of the source. Casumo are hitting a threshold for almost all players and then doing this, its complete and utter overkill and the UKGC do not want that! They want operators to see patterns, make judgements if in doubt, not a blanket policy applied to all players.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Reading through @CasumoLouis post and then through more of the t'&c's. After Casumo, "paused" my account when I asked them close it permanently I have asked them to reactivate.
I will then self exclude, because reading the 19.9 is clearly stated once self excluded "Any undetermined bets at the time of your self exclusion will be settled in the normal way, according to the normal timescales and, if applicable, winnings paid to you"

I may have missed something here but is this the best option for me now?
I cant see anything that says if i self exclude and verification is outstanding then they wont pay. It only says on withdrawals.

Edit: unless of course 9.7 comes into play. Although they have said this is affordability only

 

[Spikie]

I had a source of wealth request , but only had to scroll down a box and select my status. Nothing else asked for.

What are the thresholds for obtrusive document requests ? Or is it subjective in some way ?

 

[mack341]

Reading through @CasumoLouis post and then through more of the t'&c's. After Casumo, "paused" my account when I asked them close it permanently I have asked them to reactivate.
I will then self exclude, because reading the 19.9 is clearly stated once self excluded "Any undetermined bets at the time of your self exclusion will be settled in the normal way, according to the normal timescales and, if applicable, winnings paid to you"

I may have missed something here but is this the best option for me now?
I cant see anything that says if i self exclude and verification is outstanding then they wont pay. It only says on withdrawals.

Edit: unless of course 9.7 comes into play. Although they have said this is affordability only

well they did specifically say affordability in that letter, but then louis referred to SOW which made me wonder had he actually looked at the correspondence you were sent.

I think they might still dick you around but there's no harm in trying to use the self exclusion route if the rules are laid down more clearly regarding the settling of your account; it's kafkaesque, the more you don't want to provide the mortgage docs the more they'll suspect something, even though most people in the same situation wouldn't dream of asking their parents to provide this info on their behalf to an online casino.

To my mind all the casino need worry about is can the transactions to them be traced to enough sufficient legal money in your account eg. from wages etc..they are not expected to be more thorough than the banks surely, nit picking over whether your parents have paid their mortgage or even have one

 

[cncas2123]

Have read through all the terms.

9.7. As a gambling operator, we need to comply with our anti-money laundering obligations. This can mean we sometimes need to ask you for a lot of documentation and information related to the source of deposited funds. It is important you realise that if the requested information and/or documentation is not provided or is not considered by us (acting reasonably) as satisfactory, we may suspend/terminate your Account, withhold payment of any monies held in your Account, and pass on any necessary information to the relevant authorities.

What defines "acting reasonably"? That appears to be a get out and surely cant be feasible as it's open to interpretation.

But didnt Casumo say it was an affordability check and not AML??

 

[Iamfozzzz]

well they did specifically say affordability in that letter, but then louis referred to SOW which made me wonder had he actually looked at the correspondence you were sent.

I think they might still dick you around but there's no harm in trying to use the self exclusion route if the rules are laid down more clearly regarding the settling of your account; it's kafkaesque, the more you don't want to provide the mortgage docs the more they'll suspect something, even though most people in the same situation wouldn't dream of asking their parents to provide this info on their behalf to an online casino.

To my mind all the casino need worry about is can the transactions to them be traced to enough sufficient legal money in your account eg. from wages etc..they are not expected to be more thorough than the banks surely, nit picking over whether your parents have paid their mortgage or even have one

So it should be simple, the bank statements I've sent show only two sources of income. One is my salary which never changes and two is mi withdrawals from Casumo.
I have no personal credit cards, phone bill, car insurance etc.
I do not have an overdraft either.
The only consistent monthly outgoings are to other bank account (savings) which clearly in my name.
I live in a hotel 5 nights a week all expenses through my company credit card.
A conversation with my parents on providing their finances has nothing to do with it being a casino or not. My father would quite rightly tell me to do one and ask me to pass on the same message to Casumo.

I understand all the questions around affordability from Casumo and I'm happy to share the numbers to a certain extent.
In the last 3 month I've deposited approx 4k. I've withdrawn successfully 6k and gave 1k being held ransom.
My salary is higher than my deposit

Anyone can do the math to decide if it's an affordability issue. Simply my winnings alone say no.

 

[EkJR]

But didnt Casumo say it was an affordability check and not AML??

Yes they did, but @CasumoLouis referred to this particular term

 

[goatwack]

Probably just checking if he could afford to launder money

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Yes they did, but @CasumoLouis referred to this particular term

If it is AML then my parents mortage certainly has no relevance

 

[EkJR]

From CMA/UKGC.

Have Casumo provided for the below? I do not see any example of "circumstances in which it would be required". Only then can an operator reasonably hold a withdrawal. Hiding in T&Cs is not enough.

• It will also state that before they deposit money, players should be informed of the types of identity documentation that might be required, the circumstances in which it would be required and how it would have to be provided to the operator.

 

[Spikie]

Can you not just send an old fashioned letter to their head office by registered post , or hand deliver it with evidence , stating the terms of licence breached , also send a copy to UKGC the same way , then there is no dispute on timescale , and would force someone into a decision ?

Third party source of wealth is taking the piss and the UKGC need to kick them where it hurts for asking for it , and make the rules clearer for everybody.

If there is a valid reason for not paying this should also be made clear by the rules of the game .

Otherwise reputations get hurt and companies can lose a lot of genuine customers.

Also , why not put the onus on the banks that provide the funds ? To have a banking license you must know your customer . So why not just have the bank that makes the payment have it’s own personal limit ?

Problem gamblers would run out of funds as the banks that have loans etc on the accounts can just say no to the payment authorisation .

 

[Iamfozzzz]

From CMA/UKGC.

Have Casumo provided for the below? I do not see any example of "circumstances in which it would be required". Only then can an operator reasonably hold a withdrawal. Hiding in T&Cs is not enough.

• It will also state that before they deposit money, players should be informed of the types of identity documentation that might be required, the circumstances in which it would be required and how it would have to be provided to the operator.

I guess their T&C's is the fallback.
However nowhere does it state my parents credibility or finances should be provided

 

[EkJR]

Can you not just send an old fashioned letter to their head office by registered post , or hand deliver it with evidence , stating the terms of licence breached , also send a copy to UKGC the same way , then there is no dispute on timescale , and would force someone into a decision ?

Third party source of wealth is taking the piss and the UKGC need to kick them where it hurts for asking for it , and make the rules clearer for everybody.

If there is a valid reason for not paying this should also be made clear by the rules of the game .

Otherwise reputations get hurt and companies can lose a lot of genuine customers.

Also , why not put the onus on the banks that provide the funds ? To have a banking license you must know your customer . So why not just have the bank that makes the payment have it’s own personal limit ?

Problem gamblers would run out of funds as the banks that have loans etc on the accounts can just say no to the payment authorisation .

You can get that with some banks although it's only where the customer has requested it. Block all gambling transactions, I have it on Monzo for instance.

 

[EkJR]

I guess their T&C's is the fallback.
However nowhere does it state my parents credibility or finances should be provided

It isnt a fallback. It has to be made clear either in a welcome email or when you are making a first deposit. I'm pretty sure I have seen this message before in casinos alongside the legally required segregation of funds popup.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

It isnt a fallback. It has to be made clear either in a welcome email or when you are making a first deposit. I'm pretty sure I have seen this message before in casinos alongside the legally required segregation of funds popup.

It may well have been stated upon sign up. The fact they havent quoted that and have just pushed my towards T&C's says no.

 

[Spikie]

You can get that with some banks although it's only where the customer has requested it. Block all gambling transactions, I have it on Monzo for instance.

Was thinking that the bank could set its own limit , say X amount per week / month for gambling transactions, instead of a yes or no which is set by the customer on deposit.

Then the casino themselves wouldn’t have to ask for all of the other crap that nobody wants to give them .

The bankers would be the bad guys then , like the normally are

 

[EkJR]

Was thinking that the bank could set its own limit , say X amount per week / month for gambling transactions, instead of a yes or no which is set by the customer on deposit.

Then the casino themselves wouldn’t have to ask for all of the other crap that nobody wants to give them .

The bankers would be the bad guys then , like the normally are

Not a chance unfortunately. Banks cant be seen to be restrictive particularly when it comes to someones own funds. For overdrafts though.... Now there is an idea.

 

[goatwack]

The banking industry could take RG by the scruff of the neck and near-enough eliminate all these grievances, been saying it for yonks, in tandem with regulatory bodies. But clearly they have little real interest in doing so, so on marches the catalogue of failings and bread & circus

 

[Spikie]

In some ways it is better to have ‘Big Brother ‘ ( eg the banks) making decisions, rather than others ..... but also would set a dangerous precedent...

In a free country you should also have free will. As long as your gambling doesn’t hurt others there shouldn’t be an issue.

Where do you draw the line ?

Who should make the decision ? If I go to Tesco and buy a beer , should the cashier be asking how many beers I had that week ? I think not .......

 

[Iamfozzzz]

I've now gone through ADR.
This is going to be a lengthly process but I will not let Casumo win.
This isnt even about the money anymore to me. Yes 1k is a lot of money to me but in the grand scheme of things I am overall down on the last 12 months net and always prepare to lose what I deposit.
I dont depend on gambling but I enjoy it. Sitting in a lonely hotel 5 nights a week (violins out) and setting off my next 100 spins whilst i work on my laptop will now be replace with supporting this forum.
The response has been amazing so i thank you all this far

 

[goatwack]

I hope you've used Trivago for all your hotel needs, especially with that "Wait What?" cow annoying us every 35 seconds

 

[Spikie]

I play a lot at Casumo and would be very disappointed if they have failed in their operation and licensing .

So will wait for the outcome before making judgement. But from other people’s SOW experience, it seems that something needs to change, otherwise they will lose business.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Got to be the next step right? I'm certainly never playing at Casumo again

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Seemed to have posted twice, sorry, attachment removed from this post

 

[Iamfozzzz]

I hope you've used Trivago for all your hotel needs, especially with that "Wait What?" cow annoying us every 35 seconds

No way, if I was paying yes. Work pay so give me the hilton points so I can have a nice flight somewhere free. I bloody need it now I'm currently 1k down!

 

[ternur]

The banking industry could take RG by the scruff of the neck and near-enough eliminate all these grievances, been saying it for yonks, in tandem with regulatory bodies. But clearly they have little real interest in doing so, so on marches the catalogue of failings and bread & circus

I once had an interesting conversation with a banker. I asked him how they deal with ever increasing AML requirements and if they are worried about fines and other repercussions.

He shrugged his shoulders and answered: "It's a cost of doing business".

When a company (esp. in finance) gets big enough and mainly works with OPM (other people's money), AML is just an annoyance.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

I once had an interesting conversation with a banker. I asked him how they deal with ever increasing AML requirements and if they are worried about fines and other repercussions.

He shrugged his shoulders and answered: "It's a cost of doing business".

When a company (esp. in finance) gets big enough and mainly works with OPM (other people's money), AML is just an annoyance.

I dont know the net worth of Casumo but if £5.6m didn't hurt then nothing will

 

[ternur]

I dont know the net worth of Casumo but if £5.6m didn't hurt then nothing will

Sure. Banks are in a different league though. I'm usually just commenting on trigger words around the forum. Don't mind me.

 

[goatwack]

Beware of what words are used, it's like a bat-beacon to some

Anyway, anyone seen the film Ghost?

 

[Spikie]

He shrugged his shoulders and answered: "It's a cost of doing business".

When a company (esp. in finance) gets big enough and mainly works with OPM (other people's money), AML is just an annoyance.

Like shoplifting in supermarkets, the prices reflect the losses in goods as well as the profits from everything else

 

[EkJR]

I dont know the net worth of Casumo but if £5.6m didn't hurt then nothing will

Rumour has it that it wont be the last either....

 

[colinsunderland]

Got to be the next step right? I'm certainly never playing at Casumo again

I would self exclude, I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, they then have to pay you.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

I would self exclude, I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, they then have to pay you.

Well Casumo seem to think otherwise...
I have replied with a yes and see what happens

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes they did, but @CasumoLouis referred to this particular term

I'm just going to defend @CasumoLouis on this point, he stated he can't share exact details of this case, and obviously if he posted one term he would be telling people more than he is allowed, so I presume he has posted every term that 'could' apply, not that do apply.

I'm not sure why he can't tell people what section of the GDPR they are relying on to process a third parties data though, that isn't account specific and clearly they must know or they wouldn't do it.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well Casumo seem to think otherwise...
I have replied with a yes and see what happens

The section is posted above.
Have you told them you cannot supply third party documents without their permission, which you don't have?
Have you also asked for the section of the GDPR they are relying upon to process the information as they don't have the data subjects consent?

 

[EkJR]

I would self exclude, I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, they then have to pay you.

Do they? It's very unclear around this. I posted an example of another casino(wont name them) who have asked a player for advanced KYC docs including a selfie with bank card, they self excluded with a balance owing.

 

[colinsunderland]

Nothing stopping an accredited site posting a link to their terms in the context of a discussion.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I think thats due to cm being an affiliate site and whas happened recently, rather than being against cm policies.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

The section is posted above.
Have you told them you cannot supply third party documents without their permission, which you don't have?
Have you also asked for the section of the GDPR they are relying upon to process the information as they don't have the data subjects consent?

I havent quoted any gdpr but have said that my parents will not allow me access to any such document. They replied with "without those documents we will not be able to complete verification"

 

[colinsunderland]

9.4 is about verification checks. Doesnt apply in this case
9.7 is about AML, but its affordability so RG
12.1.c mentions an investigation, so would suggest AML, not RG.
13 AML
25.3a-n cheating, collusion etc

From what I've seen this is supposed to be about RG issues, so none of these apply in my view. I personally would be happy to argue that in court.

Also

12.8. Casumo reserves the right to carry out additional verification procedures for any pay-out exceeding the equivalent of 1000 EUR or cumulative withdrawals exceeding the equivalent of 2000 EUR. We further reserve the right to carry out such verification procedures in case of lower pay-outs. Where additional verification is required, we will not prevent you from withdrawing funds from your Account if we could reasonably have requested and / or obtained that information from you earlier, for example at Account registration.

Don't think that applied but have popped it in just in case.

19.11. Any funds held in your Account will be returned to you once the self-exclusion has been registered.

That is clear, and has no external clauses of any kind referenced. Any funds will be returned when the SE registers. No ifs or buts, the money WILL be returned.

20. Closing Your Account
If you wish to close your Account, you may do so at any time by contacting our Customer Support Team by email or chat (see Section 27 below). Any funds in the Account will be remitted to you upon closure except where these Terms permit us to withhold payment.

As for which specific term they are witholding the money under.


Just thought I would put a few thoughts out there

 

[Iamfozzzz]

9.4 is about verification checks. Doesnt apply in this case
9.7 is about AML, but its affordability so RG
12.1.c mentions an investigation, so would suggest AML, not RG.
13 AML
25.3a-n cheating, collusion etc

From what I've seen this is supposed to be about RG issues, so none of these apply in my view. I personally would be happy to argue that in court.

Also

12.8. Casumo reserves the right to carry out additional verification procedures for any pay-out exceeding the equivalent of 1000 EUR or cumulative withdrawals exceeding the equivalent of 2000 EUR. We further reserve the right to carry out such verification procedures in case of lower pay-outs. Where additional verification is required, we will not prevent you from withdrawing funds from your Account if we could reasonably have requested and / or obtained that information from you earlier, for example at Account registration.

Don't think that applied but have popped it in just in case.

19.11. Any funds held in your Account will be returned to you once the self-exclusion has been registered.

That is clear, and has no external clauses of any kind referenced. Any funds will be returned when the SE registers. No ifs or buts, the money WILL be returned.

20. Closing Your Account
If you wish to close your Account, you may do so at any time by contacting our Customer Support Team by email or chat (see Section 27 below). Any funds in the Account will be remitted to you upon closure except where these Terms permit us to withhold payment.

As for which specific term they are witholding the money under.


Just thought I would put a few thoughts out there

See attached what just came through....

Edit: I have replied with "if you can send me a list of what is still required"

 

[colinsunderland]

I havent quoted any gdpr but have said that my parents will not allow me access to any such document. They replied with "without those documents we will not be able to complete verification"

Go back, say you have spoken to them again, and they have said no, but are now asking who the data controller is, and which section of the GDPR the controller is relying on. What sort of consent forms do they have to send in and what will they request to prove their their identity, so they can be sure they are dealing the with the account holder, before the documents are sent

 

[colinsunderland]

See attached what just came through....

Edit: I have replied with "if you can send me a list of what is still required"

Tag on the end of that I put above, that you would like to know which exact license obligation requires them to withhold funds, on a closed/self excluded account

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Tag on the end of that I put above, that you would like to know which exact license obligation requires them to withhold funds, on a closed/self excluded account

Done and sent. Thank you

 

[Cocochanel]

I cant understand that Casumo can get away with this nonsens about your parents money.

I read this from

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Once you have made a self-exclusion agreement, the gambling company must close your account and return any money in your account to you. It must also remove your name and details from any marketing databases it uses.

What is it they cant understand, its clear what they have to do. Obay the rules

I wish you the best of luck of getting your money.

Why didnt you get the PAB don?