Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[SpinUk]

All they have said is affordability. I've sent them everything even a 3 months worth of bank statements.
I have no overdraft, no credit cards the money I play with is hard earned by me

All the is irrelevant now. You have closed your business with them now. They HAVE to either report you to the UK money laundering authorities - who would laugh in their face for this amount - or refund you. That is UK law.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Dont take it out on the advisors mate they are not the ones making this decision and are just told to not engage and say anything out of the guidelines and they wont for fear of saying something slightly incorrect which could potentially give you an angle so they are just following like you say a script they have no power to over turn anything and they will be fearful of saying something outside of them guidelines its not their fault

I understand your point. But who do I take it out on? They represent the company who are withholding my money.
I've been waiting for a Tesla for 6 months, I take my frustration out on the advisors, not Elon Musk, hes to busy building rockets

 

[Iamfozzzz]

All they have said is affordability. I've sent them everything even a 3 months worth of bank statements.
I have no overdraft, no credit cards the money I play with is hard earned by me

Is there a time frame though?

 

[Davey86]

 

[JohnSnow]

If you have submitted a PAB i wouldn´t highlight anything more here in public. That being said, Casumo you can suck it, this is not the behaviour of a legit company.

 

[Davey86]

View attachment 123965

View attachment 123965

Very highly rated

 

[Concerned Whistleblower]

I understand your point. But who do I take it out on? They represent the company who are withholding my money.
I've been waiting for a Tesla for 6 months, I take my frustration out on the advisors, not Elon Musk, hes to busy building rockets

Well it doesnt seem to be getting you anywhere does it and only causing you more stress by getting worked up about it.

In both cases youre just a other customer a number who they want to get off the line and move on to the next thats the harsh reality maybe change tact a little.

 

[colinsunderland]

Tell them your parents refuse to let you send their personal information to a company they have no relationship with and have asked which section of the GDPR allow them to process their data without consent

 

[lewisnadasurf]

Tell them your parents refuse to let you send their personal information to a company they have no relationship with and have asked which section of the GDPR allow them to process their data without consent

Im still struggling to see how Casumo think its legal to ask for OTHER PEOPLES DOCUMENTS and then withhold money when you aren't doing so!!!

I remember someone called the house phone when i lived with my parents, they asked for my mum - i said sure, who is it? She said she cant tell me because of GDPR! I told her 'well i cant tell you if shes here then!'

 

[greylady]

I just don't get how any reputable(?) company would ask for documentation from anyone they do not have a business relationship with - it's well dodgy and definitely not in adherence with the GDPR.

Casumo sure do seem a law unto themselves - what next, blood type, inside leg length, it's ludicrous!

 

[Davey86]

I just don't get how any reputable(?) company would ask for documentation from anyone they do not have a business relationship with - it's well dodgy and definitely not in adherence with the GDPR.

Casumo sure do seem a law unto themselves - what next, blood type, inside leg length, it's ludicrous!

Sshhhh don’t give them ideas

 

[mack341]

Who in their right mind would send an online casino a copy of his parent's mortgage agreement or proof that the mortgage has been paid up this is laughable madness, these kinds of 3rd party documents would be something left up for the appropriate govt authorities to look into once a case is referred to them surely?

I can't believe the ukgc were that stupid to expect people to provide this level of private info to a casino, some of the casinos must be misinterpreting the guidance and their role and by coincidence only when you have requested a withdrawal never at a deposit transaction or after a withdrawal.

Could IAM not approach the adr or is it best to wait for the PAB and do that first? Be interesting to have Max's analysis as he tends to stick to the letter of the law, it might shine a light on this issue for future cases.

 

[GunarsB]

So far I only played in Casumo. Didn't have any issues with this casino. Still looks like I'm gonna need to find another playground. Any suggestions?

 

[colinsunderland]

Maybe @Casinomeister could have a look at this? It's one thing having to provide intrusive SoW documents to a casino, but it's another for them to demand you supply financial documents relating to a third party, and then refusing a withdrawal due to this. If they are that concerned that there is a responsible gambling issue here, then surely paying the withdrawal and closing the account is the obvious way forward. Stealing the player's money, if anything, might put them in a bad financial situation. This isn't the first time Casumo have done this either.

 

[mack341]

Can you imagine a bricks and mortar casino in the west end requesting to see a non customer's mortgage documents, in order to complete affordability checks and withholding your money until you complied?

In a way the ukgc are to blame, if online casinos feel they can do this with impunity, something is wrong in the way the industry is being regulated imo.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

After another two emails sent since closing my account they both say the same:

"As previously explained, we are unable to send your remaining balance untill your source of wealth verification has been complete.
Kindly send the requested documents at your earliest convieniece"

 

[dealer wins]

No sane person is going to give personal documents/financial info to someone else, who then is sending it on to a random company. This should never be requested, ever!!

 

[Borgie]

After another two emails sent since closing my account they both say the same:

"As previously explained, we are unable to send your remaining balance untill your source of wealth verification has been complete.
Kindly send the requested documents at your earliest convieniece"

I really think you should do a PAB.

 

[Davey86]

@CasumoLouis surely only OP documents can be requested

 

[Davey86]

I really think you should do a PAB.

Even if it was successful their is some serious flaws in casumos SOW policy and Players need clarification

 

[Borgie]

Even if it was successful their is some serious flaws in casumos SOW policy and Players need clarification

I respect that there are several issues here but the OP should get his money back asap so needs to take action

Casumo for the UK seems to be dying a death.

 

[Davey86]

I respect that there are several issues here but the OP should get his money back asap so needs to action .

Casumo for the UK seems to be dying a death.

Definitely OP should receive his money I’d be the same if it was me. casumos several issues are becoming a little bit more common and their review should reflect that and the rep should clarify what/if/why/where/how as soon as possible because it shouldn’t happen again to the next player

 

[mack341]

After another two emails sent since closing my account they both say the same:

"As previously explained, we are unable to send your remaining balance untill your source of wealth verification has been complete.
Kindly send the requested documents at your earliest convieniece"

It is incredibly frustrating, and their smug replies are only going to increase the stress and annoyance, if you can hold on I think you'll get your money in the end via the PAB or adr. It's easy to think they're getting some sort of vindictictive pleasure in being a PITA and causing you this worry and stress.

They're clearly not accepting/following the written guidance/rules on this matter, in the end they will have to otherwise the ukgc rules aren't worth the paper they're written on, which is something you could raise with your mp after complaining to the ukgc that one of their regulated casinos isn't following the issued guidance and holding your money to ransom.

 

[EkJR]

Who in their right mind would send an online casino a copy of his parent's mortgage agreement or proof that the mortgage has been paid up this is laughable madness, these kinds of 3rd party documents would be something left up for the appropriate govt authorities to look into once a case is referred to them surely?

I can't believe the ukgc were that stupid to expect people to provide this level of private info to a casino, some of the casinos must be misinterpreting the guidance and their role and by coincidence only when you have requested a withdrawal never at a deposit transaction or after a withdrawal.

Could IAM not approach the adr or is it best to wait for the PAB and do that first? Be interesting to have Max's analysis as he tends to stick to the letter of the law, it might shine a light on this issue for future cases.

The thing is this is not a UKGC directive in any way shape or form. Yes they ask casinos to do SOW but this is beyond that, this is a policymaker at Casumo who has come up with this major enhancement. It's also against data protection rules as well I have to add.

The UKGC and the CMA also state that this type of request cannot hold up any withdrawal. I'd report this all to them and see what happens. Its absolutely shocking stuff.

 

[mack341]

The thing is this is not a UKGC directive in any way shape or form. Yes they ask casinos to do SOW but this is beyond that, this is a policymaker at Casumo who has come up with this major enhancement. It's also against data protection rules as well I have to add.

The UKGC and the CMA also state that this type of request cannot hold up any withdrawal. I'd report this all to them and see what happens. Its absolutely shocking stuff.

But was the guidance written in such a way that it left some things to interpretation, of what could and could not be requested from consumers.

If it's clear cut going against the ukgc rules, he should be able to phone ukgc up and get action, but I bet it's not that straightforward. It should be and I hope it is, but it feels to me that the consumer is left in no man's land for weeks on issues like this; and that can only be a failing of the regulator, only they have the power to stop casinos from routinely doing these withdrawal shenanigans.

 

[SpinUk]

They are leaving the UK market for sure, you watch.

Also as these terms conflict with UK regulations that has a bearing on their merchant agreement - namely the licence to process money from UK accounts whilst adhering to all UK laws and regulations.

They arn’t doing this.

They might think they can do what they like and ignore that but they cannot.

Seperate issue is the requesting of third party private information without consent, which breaks European GDPR privacy law - penalty is upto 3% of compay turnover.

What’s your legal department upto Casumo? Apart from sitting smoking in cafes in Malta and watching the money roll in.

 

[Slottery]

Still not much progress in this casinos SOW requests and how to keep them if not player-friendly, even reasonable.

So they closed the account and refuse to refund any of it's balance to you? Wonder what they would do if the player self-exclude account in this situation, there are quite strict rules how fast you have to pay out players remaining balance from the account if there are some at a time of self-exclusion...

Would be interesting to know what's their planned process in cases where such a balance if left on account on it's closure/self-exclusion, i'm pretty sure UKGC haven't advised casinos to keep all money when this happen. They got quite big penalty for their failures earlier, now they seem to at least carry risk assessments for players, also should have some processes what to if player don't comply. Making SAR/STR is made quite fast if their suspicions are that big that they are not comfortable to pay balance and leave account closed for good (or until enough information and documents received to make them happy about funds player is using for gambling.

Here's that one old UKGC review of their processes at the time which suggest they failed in their ongoing monitorings and risk assessments quite badly, now seems that at least now these are made very extensive but they also have to have some process in place if they are not satisfied to information provided and not only close account and wait forever that player finally provide something they think is needed for them.

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

 

[goatwack]

Seems like the fat lady's (or man - equality) warming up her tonsils and Casumo have one last push towards that April tax deadline boom by 'hoarding' players' funds by any means possible, with absolute ludicrous SoW requests.

Whilst others may slate them, I've always found Casumo's presence on here not baffling, and their high scores completely deserved. Nor have they ever, EVER, continued to court controversy with similarly head-scratching stunts that would make rogues blush.

In my heart they'll always be 11/10

 

[EkJR]

But was the guidance written in such a way that it left some things to interpretation, of what could and could not be requested from consumers.

If it's clear cut going against the ukgc rules, he should be able to phone ukgc up and get action, but I bet it's not that straightforward. It should be and I hope it is, but it feels to me that the consumer is left in no man's land for weeks on issues like this; and that can only be a failing of the regulator, only they have the power to stop casinos from routinely doing these withdrawal shenanigans.

Licence condition 17.1.1 section 2

A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal it the licensee could have reasonably requested the information earlier.

 

[SpinUk]

Seems like the fat lady's (or man - equality) warming up her tonsils and Casumo have one last push towards that April tax deadline boom by 'hoarding' players' funds by any means possible, with absolute ludicrous SoW requests.

Whilst others may slate them, I've always found Casumo's presence on here not baffling, and their high scores completely deserved. Nor have they ever, EVER, continued to court controversy with similarly head-scratching stunts that would make rogues blush.

In my heart they'll always be 11/10

You’d be surprised how quickly companies can turn when their margins are being squeezed.

 

[goatwack]

You’d be surprised how quickly companies can turn when their margins are being squeezed.

I've been through the VS Battles last year or so, and can relate to that

 

[EkJR]

Still not much progress in this casinos SOW requests and how to keep them if not player-friendly, even reasonable.

So they closed the account and refuse to refund any of it's balance to you? Wonder what they would do if the player self-exclude account in this situation, there are quite strict rules how fast you have to pay out players remaining balance from the account if there are some at a time of self-exclusion...

Would be interesting to know what's their planned process in cases where such a balance if left on account on it's closure/self-exclusion, i'm pretty sure UKGC haven't advised casinos to keep all money when this happen. They got quite big penalty for their failures earlier, now they seem to at least carry risk assessments for players, also should have some processes what to if player don't comply. Making SAR/STR is made quite fast if their suspicions are that big that they are not comfortable to pay balance and leave account closed for good (or until enough information and documents received to make them happy about funds player is using for gambling.

Here's that one old UKGC review of their processes at the time which suggest they failed in their ongoing monitorings and risk assessments quite badly, now seems that at least now these are made very extensive but they also have to have some process in place if they are not satisfied to information provided and not only close account and wait forever that player finally provide something they think is needed for them.

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

What are the rules around self exclusion payouts? I know of an operator currently who have requested bank statements, selfie with bank card, utility bill over a week after an SE was applied before they will pay out!

 

[mack341]

Licence condition 17.1.1 section 2

A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal it the licensee could have reasonably requested the information earlier.

right so perhaps that's the get out and grey area for casinos that ukgc left in, casumo could argue the level of deposits earlier didn't warrant requesting these docs.

do the ukgc mention 3rd party information/documents can or can't be requested?

edit: Unless the last deposit triggered it, in which case it could be argued the request for the affordability check should happen then, but they would then hold the player's deposit to ransom until he sent in those mortgage docs of his parents. It's that term 'reasonably' that is open to interpretation. Why did the ukgc put that whole clause in there, it means if it wasn't reasonable to request the info then the withdrawal can be held up until the additional information is provided.

 

[Davey86]

Seems like the fat lady's (or man - equality) warming up her tonsils and Casumo have one last push towards that April tax deadline boom by 'hoarding' players' funds by any means possible, with absolute ludicrous SoW requests.

Whilst others may slate them, I've always found Casumo's presence on here not baffling, and their high scores completely deserved. Nor have they ever, EVER, continued to court controversy with similarly head-scratching stunts that would make rogues blush.

In my heart they'll always be 11/10

The thing is it’s been my go to casino last couple of years! fully verified and SOW at the turn of this year if I hit another SOW limit or however you trigger it will it get more intrusive like OP

 

[EkJR]

right so perhaps that's the get out and grey area for casinos that ukgc left in, casumo could argue the level of deposits earlier didn't warrant requesting these docs.

do the ukgc mention 3rd party information/documents can or can't be requested?

edit: Unless the last deposit triggered it, it could be argued the request for the affordability check should happen then, but they would then hold the player's deposit to ransom until he sent in those mortgage docs of his parents.

They don't need to, they cant unless you have a signed mandate to provide them. Also never ever seen a request for this info.

 

[EkJR]

right so perhaps that's the get out and grey area for casinos that ukgc left in, casumo could argue the level of deposits earlier didn't warrant requesting these docs.

do the ukgc mention 3rd party information/documents can or can't be requested?

edit: Unless the last deposit triggered it, it could be argued the request for the affordability check should happen then, but they would then hold the player's deposit to ransom until he sent in those mortgage docs of his parents.

The SOW is for affordability...he has closed his account...there are zero grounds to hold onto this money.

 

[goatwack]

I don't care what the casino is or their supposed reputation, SoW should be used with discretion and common sense, or else we'll see casinos pull whatever stunts they want under the guise of 'following protocol'

Surely anyone that breaches a certain deposit threshold can have any SoW fears allayed by one quick comb through that player's history and banking methods to prove nothing untoward is afoot. Anything else is just stalling and intrusive BS that should mean insta-accreditation-lowering if tried by these stellar outfits

 

[EkJR]

I don't care what the casino is or their supposed reputation, SoW should be used with discretion and common sense, or else we'll see casinos pull whatever stunts they want under the guise of 'following protocol'

Surely anyone that breaches a certain deposit threshold can have any SoW fears allayed by one quick comb through that player's history and banking methods to prove nothing untoward is afoot. Anything else is just stalling and intrusive BS that should mean insta-accreditation-lowering if tried by these stellar outfits

Imo they wont be around in the UK much longer anyway

 

[EkJR]

right so perhaps that's the get out and grey area for casinos that ukgc left in, casumo could argue the level of deposits earlier didn't warrant requesting these docs.

do the ukgc mention 3rd party information/documents can or can't be requested?

edit: Unless the last deposit triggered it, in which case it could be argued the request for the affordability check should happen then, but they would then hold the player's deposit to ransom until he sent in those mortgage docs of his parents. It's that term 'reasonably' that is open to interpretation. Why did the ukgc put that whole clause in there, it means if it wasn't reasonable to request the info then the withdrawal can be held up until the additional information is provided.

It's not reasonable though. It's only reasonable if there was serious suspicion of money laundering. Certainly not for affordability!

 

[mack341]

The SOW is for affordability...he has closed his account...there are zero grounds to hold onto this money.

I'm not saying the casino has grounds or should hold onto it, I'm saying the way ukgc regulate the industry and word their guidance is letting this stuff go on, where's the fines for holding onto player's money in situations like this? I don't think there has ever been one. The broader picture will always focus back on the ukgc, rogue behaviour towards players still goes on because the ukgc are seen to sit on their hands imo.

 

[mack341]

It's not reasonable though. It's only reasonable if there was serious suspicion of money laundering. Certainly not for affordability!

But affordability checks and SOW's always seem to crossover in the casino's mind. It's 'reasonable' in terms of when they should be expected to request that info, putting that clause in there creates a grey area, the ukgc are basically saying there will be instances when holding a withdrawal pending additional information is okay, but not giving any examples from the real world.

 

[SpinUk]

IMHO they should be rogued for this. They do not have carte blanche to hold onto to the money as they see fit. Apart from the clear legal rules on it, even from their own false/illegal stance on this it is clearly (as here) open to abuse.

“Can’t get a third party proof of address? We are keeping your money then”

I think not.

Watch the rep eventually make an appearance here and give the whole “in these circumstances we have decided to pay etc” speech. Like they had a choice.

 

[bamberfishcake]

They are completely entitled to ask for the OP's parents information if they are following a trail under AML which is what these identification and verification processes are all about.

The fact is if they start down a trail, under the guidleines, they are not supposed to stop until the trail ends and are allowed and actually encouraged to do this.

Problem here is the UKGC guidelines are too vague and open to being used in different ways, potentially being used to a casinos benefit away from its intended purposes.

I get the impression Casumo and many other casinos have taken it upon themselves to use the £2000 threshold to do their SOW and/or various checks.

Anyone wanting to read more here is the link

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

There is no actual guideline for when this should be employed in the customer journey.

I must admit, having seen it so many times with so many casinos it does seem somewhat cynical and there are definitely operators who abuse this but trying to put myself in a casino operators shoes I wouldnt want to do SOW on sign ups and wouldnt want the UKGC checking a withdrawal and not being seen to be compliant.

In any case, if the OP just wants their money back as they cannot complete the SOW then they are entitled to it in my opinion.

 

[EkJR]

But affordability checks and SOW's always seem to crossover in the casino's mind. It's 'reasonable' in terms of when they should be expected to request that info, putting that clause in there creates a grey area, the ukgc are basically saying there will be instances when holding a withdrawal pending additional information is okay, but not giving any examples from the real world.

It's the same as any legislation. See HMRC for example. They always leave small grey areas as the legally have to. Remember legal teams check every single word that is written here. They may have to leave that open as operators will have different ways and means to test AML and affordability and what constitutes a valid withdrawal etc. Conversely, the legislation around verification for example is very clear and to the point. That's probably because legally there is no way round it and it's a directive for all operators.

 

[mack341]

Edit: sorry this has overlapped with #94, it's largely a redundant point now

That clause 17 was to do with customer verification, is that exactly the same for affordability and SOW checks?

The new licence condition, Licence Condition 17 – Customer identity verification, requires that:

A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal if the licensee could have reasonably requested that information earlier. This requirement does not prevent a licensee from seeking information on the customer which they must obtain at that time due to any other legal obligation.

^that clause is also heavily open to interpretation, are you meant to pay the withdrawal and then seek the information, some casinos probably think 'they won't give it to us unless we hold the withdrawal'

 

[EkJR]

They are completely entitled to ask for the OP's parents information if they are following a trail under AML which is what these identification and verification processes are all about.

The fact is if they start down a trail, under the guidleines, they are not supposed to stop until the trail ends and are allowed and actually encouraged to do this.

Problem here is the UKGC guidelines are too vague and open to being used in different ways, potentially being used to a casinos benefit away from its intended purposes.

View attachment 123974


I get the impression Casumo and many other casinos have taken it upon themselves to use the £2000 threshold to do their SOW and/or various checks.

Anyone wanting to read more here is the link

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

There is no actual guideline for when this should be employed in the customer journey.

I must admit, having seen it so many times with so many casinos it does seem somewhat cynical and there are definitely operators who abuse this but trying to put myself in a casino operators shoes I wouldnt want to do SOW on sign ups and wouldnt want the UKGC checking a withdrawal and not being seen to be compliant.

In any case, if the OP just wants their money back as they cannot complete the SOW then they are entitled to it in my opinion.

So in the land of GDPR and data protection, how can providing documents in the name of someone completely unconnected be legal? The facts are it isnt. Edit without an appropriate mandate!

 

[EkJR]

That clause 17 was to do with customer verification, is that exactly the same for affordability and SOW checks?

The new licence condition, Licence Condition 17 – Customer identity verification, requires that:

A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal if the licensee could have reasonably requested that information earlier. This requirement does not prevent a licensee from seeking information on the customer which they must obtain at that time due to any other legal obligation.

^that clause is also heavily open to interpretation, are you mean't to pay the withdrawal and then seek the information, some casinos probably think 'they won't give it to us unless we hold the withdrawal'

A SOW is not a legal obligation though. It is an assessment by the casino at a point in time. If the player hadn't provided proof of ID or bank info then I could see their point but not for an affordability check as they have stated.

 

[bamberfishcake]

So in the land of GDPR and data protection, how can providing documents in the name of someone completely unconnected be legal? The facts are it isnt.

I dont know what connection they see but they follow the money trail until its conclusion i.e. bankroll paye etc.

SOW is not just about affordability its about where the funds have come from.

Its a pain in the arse and i personally cant stand it. I feel its being abused by some.

Another problem i think though is the UKGC are not worried about anybody being over zealous or how its applied as long as its applied.

Edit: And have a guess in the remarkable thread, provide SOW for entry though

 

[Kroffe]

I don't care what the casino is or their supposed reputation, SoW should be used with discretion and common sense, or else we'll see casinos pull whatever stunts they want under the guise of 'following protocol'

Surely anyone that breaches a certain deposit threshold can have any SoW fears allayed by one quick comb through that player's history and banking methods to prove nothing untoward is afoot. Anything else is just stalling and intrusive BS that should mean insta-accreditation-lowering if tried by these stellar outfits

Totally agree.
This is rogue-pit behaviour imo.
If i have understood the comments in this thread correctly, what they are doing is not even legal.
The holding funds ransom part.

I could see them blocking deposits (wich they didnt) in wait for documents showing he can afford to play, but not paying out a withdrawal because they suspect he has played over his limits is just ridicilous.

Also, i see you have begun fighting for equality with your comments.
And i agree with that aswell.

 

[EkJR]

I dont know what connection they see but they follow the money trail until its conclusion i.e. bankroll paye etc.

SOW is not just about affordability its about where the funds have come from.

Its a pain in the arse and i personally cant stand it. I feel its being abused by some.

Another problem i think though is the UKGC are not worried about anybody being over zealous or how its applied as long as its applied.

Edit: And have a guess in the remarkable thread, provide SOW for entry though

Yeah but Casumo have told the OP that this is on affordability rather than AML...