Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[mack341]

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.

I agree it's total overkill and rogue, but I just wonder how this situation can be stopped from happening to more players in the future, I can only think it comes down to the ukgc doing something, the casinos will just carry on with more demanding checks at withdrawal time, asking for unreasonable things and proofs.

The whole situation is a dogs dinner, but strangely the uk bookie sites and skyvegas etc.. seem to adopt a more common sense risk based approach, although they have been fined for failings and are probably moving to a stricter system. I just think the ukgc have set an unrealistic goal regarding affordability and SOWs, there's nothing wrong with those things except people in general don't like sending their personal financial information to online casinos, so how can it work within people's expectations of what should be involved in order to play a few slot games etc..

 

[EkJR]

I agree it's total overkill and rogue, but I just wonder how this situation can be stopped from happening to more players in the future, I only can think it comes down to the ukgc doing something, the casinos will just carry on with more demanding checks at withdrawal time, asking for unreasonable things and proofs.

The whole situation is a dogs dinner, but strangely the uk bookie sites and skyvegas etc.. seem to adopt a more common sense risk based approach, although they have been fined for failings and are probably moving to a stricter system. I just think the ukgc have set an unrealistic goal regarding affordability and SOWs, there's nothing wrong with those things except people in general don't like sending their personal financial information to online casinos, so how can it work within people's expectations of what should be involved in order to play a few slot games etc..

You will find that operators with a UK presence will not be as in depth as a casino without one. Hills, Sky, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power....has anyone been asked for a SOW that plays at a relatively normal level?

 

[bamberfishcake]

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

Oh damn! sorry i didnt realise. Maybe they are not supposed to disclose its for AML purposes but thats just a guess. Like i said, either way money should be refunded based on what ive seen.

I just think the ukgc have set an unrealistic goal regarding affordability and SOWs

Totally agree. They have created this so called system and its massively open to abuse.

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Hi all,
Amazing responses so thank you.
Email I sent for clarification as I misplaced the email trail. Another copy and paste reply.
So just to confirm this is based on affordability as far as I can see and not money laundering.

 

[goatwack]

Mortgage payment proof of parents lol

Aah, these companies do raise a chuckle

 

[bamberfishcake]

Hi all,
Amazing responses so thank you.
Email I sent for clarification as I misplaced the email trail. Another copy and paste reply.
So just to confirm this is based on affordability as far as I can see and not money laundering.

This has probably already been asked but it seems a copy of a utility bill without your name on it will suffice?

I have some limited experience in AML and why they would want to see the mortgage is paid off is beyond me and if your living with parents the mortgage is neither here not there.

Your parents affordability is not a question that needs to be asked and no reason for AML to require this as far as i can see.

Getting the impression a lot of this may have already been covered. Soz i read most and thought i had the gist of it.

 

[Slottery]

Affordability can be kind of connected to AML purposes, if player can't show that he/she can afford amounts spent, there's valid reason start to think how he/she then have funded gambling if level of spending is not in line with players financial wealth. In these UKGC penalties in some cases players were let to spend quite a big amounts of stolen money (from empoyer or where ever).

With these SOW and affordability checks player is asked to provide enough information that it can be seen that players sustainable income (or other source like savings, winnings from other casinos, selling property etc..) can cover deposits, if there is remarkable difference, then there is need to understand how this gambling is funded.

Most of the funds we have these days can be traced and shown it's ways with documents what casinos with these requests are trying to do, if there's something which can't be seen or not making clear enough sense, quite enhanced due diligence can (need to) be completed where player is requested to provide almost all possible documents about income and costs of living. Casumo seem to be quite extreme in these after they failed so badly which cost them big time to not at least get again to situation where they should have done something but they didn't and pay afterwards.

Based by on these threads, it seems to be smaller thing to worry about if some players are threatened fair and decent way than fail ongoing monitoring and risk assessments again in eyes of regulator. Being too extensive and over reacting probably costs less millions in penalties than failing AML again (guess you would get punished more than first time if you still are failing same things).

 

[Matti]

You will find that operators with a UK presence will not be as in depth as a casino without one. Hills, Sky, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power....has anyone been asked for a SOW that plays at a relatively normal level?

A relevant question is if they(WH, Sky PP etc) should in fact ask for a SOW more often than they do. I don't have the answer to that but it might be the case. Just because they are British doesn't make them perfect in interpretating the law

I stated this before but it is well worth repeating. NO casino like to ask their customers for SOW.

 

[SpinUk]

Still nothing from the rep @CasumoLouis

Do your job.

 

[Davey86]

Affordability can be kind of connected to AML purposes, if player can't show that he/she can afford amounts spent, there's valid reason start to think how he/she then have funded gambling if level of spending is not in line with players financial wealth. In these UKGC penalties in some cases players were let to spend quite a big amounts of stolen money (from empoyer or where ever).

With these SOW and affordability checks player is asked to provide enough information that it can be seen that players sustainable income (or other source like savings, winnings from other casinos, selling property etc..) can cover deposits, if there is remarkable difference, then there is need to understand how this gambling is funded.

Most of the funds we have these days can be traced and shown it's ways with documents what casinos with these requests are trying to do, if there's something which can't be seen or not making clear enough sense, quite enhanced due diligence can (need to) be completed where player is requested to provide almost all possible documents about income and costs of living. Casumo seem to be quite extreme in these after they failed so badly which cost them big time to not at least get again to situation where they should have done something but they didn't and pay afterwards.

Based by on these threads, it seems to be smaller thing to worry about if some players are threatened fair and decent way than fail ongoing monitoring and risk assessments again in eyes of regulator. Being too extensive and over reacting probably costs less millions in penalties than failing AML again (guess you would get punished more than first time if you still are failing same things).

asking for bank statements payslips and savings or income is enough and would show the ukgc they followed the rules... asking for family members statements or anything else is just to extreme and worrying to say the least

 

[Borgie]

What i want to know is if you refuse to provide them with the stuff they ask. Like bringing your parents in for full interrogation and torture :axeman2: . Do they have to refund deposits as opposed to winnings and if they in turn refuse to refund what do you do ?

 

[mack341]

this part of that 2nd letter seems to allude to the future:

'if we can get these documents from you and they do show you're not liable for any bills etc...then this could drastically change your affordability'

Couldn't the customer just say 'put me on the minimum affordability level and pay out my withdrawal please', the affordability check is for the player's benefit supposedly, so if you want it set to £5 a week they should allow you to without sending in your parent's mortgage docs.

 

[Slottery]

Hi all,
Amazing responses so thank you.
Email I sent for clarification as I misplaced the email trail. Another copy and paste reply.
So just to confirm this is based on affordability as far as I can see and not money laundering.

So it looks that as you don't receive any utility bills, they would like to see some proof that you are not liable any utility or other (including mortage) bills in that address you are living. When trying to estimate your affordability and sustainable income. No idea what exact documents you have provided and what they in total are looking so we all can only guess and assume what and why they came to conclusion they demand that.

Like said, affordability is closely connected to AML, if it looks that you play £1000/month more than you earn, how that deficit is covered, in gambling we have seen loads of stories in news papers and UKGC statements where players have been stealing from employers, committed different crimes etc... to fund their gambling habits. Casumo have already paid millions when they failed to spot such a behavior which maybe can be one big reason why they seem to be most strict in these at the moment (assumption just based on threads here in CM where players have been in very difficult situations to provide enough documentations about their finances).

 

[misstrouble]

Casumo staying quiet is a bit worrying

 

[goatwack]

So parents could be loaded and despise gambling altogether, nevermind bankroll anyone

I'd like to know how casinos can show this irrefutable link between a third-party's income and wealth, and one's own outgoings

 

[colinsunderland]

Casumo won't comment in any detail on this

 

[Slottery]

asking for bank statements payslips and savings or income is enough and would show the ukgc they followed the rules... asking for family members statements or anything else is just to extreme and worrying to say the least

It totally depends what these are showing, if it shows that player is using more funds to gambling than he/she can afford, then more documents for sure are needed or then you fail AML regulations big time (like Casumo have done in past).

It's not any better to show that you requested and they were not in line with players spending or you haven't requested documents at all. First one is usually much bigger failing if you have something front of your eye and you decide not to do anything just because you decided it's enough if we have these documents, doesn't matter they don't make any sense with amounts.

Again, no any idea what OP:s provided documents looks like compare to amounts but if sufficient documents are not provided, then it's not really possible to approve them. If you cover wrong digits from your credit card picture, casino don't approve it. With SOW and all affordability checks it's not that black and white than in approving your card or id. They asked now some prove that OP is not liable for any bills or mortgage of apartment as it could change OP:s affordability (stated in email) so based on that, they are not satisfied what they are seeing.

Would ask them what's going to happen if OP is not able to provide any further documents and which action they are taking then and if they advise that they are not going to pay balance from account, would ask them to make clear statement about situation why they refuse to do that (and what action they are taking with that money) and that can be attached to any complaint whichever process is chosen.

 

[goatwack]

Perhaps ma and pa are secret money launderers?.............

I mean why not right. If that's casinos' reckoning then Jesus didn't only weep but had a full mental break

 

[colinsunderland]

Surely seeing there are no payments to a mortgage company, rent payments and payments to utility companies is proof enough that he does not pay them. Having to show proof a mortgage that was not in his name, is paid off is an absolute joke.

They are asking him to prove a negative, which is impossible most times. Even if he shows a mortgage statement in his Dad's name, how will they know he doesn't give his Dad half the payment in cash every month?

In 2011 my Mam died. I lived in her house until 2014 when it was sold. It was paid for in 2005, cash, from the sale of another property, at which the mortgage was paid off, in full, in 1991. If a casino had asked me for this level of SoW I would not have been able to provide it at all, it would have been impossible.

 

[GourdFollower]

Hi Guys,

First time posting so apologies if i am posting in the wrong area, but i really need some help.
I am having real problems with Casumo and source of wealth.
I have been through the process about 2-3 months ago with no problems.
I recently withdrew and depositied more than usual (actually was up about £2k). I requested a withdrawal on 11th Feb.
5 days later i was slapped with a verification SOW. Okay so i sent the docs as requested (letter from employer confirming salary, Drivers license and most recent payslip).
They then asked me for outgoings etc. I told them i dont have any regular outgoings (i live with my parents twice a week as away with work a lot). I then was asked to provide my parents rental or mortgage agreement and proof that utility bills were in their names. I have told them i was never going to do that.
Its now the 25th Feb and i have heard nothing.
So i went on to live chat just now and spoke to Crispin.
See the attached files.
He/she is basically saying that i cant withdraw funds even when i request my account to be closed until the process is complete.
I cant complete any more than i already have and i will not provide them with any other person details, let alone my families.
I have private messaged @CasumoLouis (not sure if im supposed too) because i have £1k withdrawal still locked and i cant get it. Yet i am still able to deposit as much as i like.
This is really unfair and i just want my money.

Any suggestions?

You submitted a PAB yesterday at 2:58 pm on this issue. Yesterday evening at 6:50pm you started this thread and have posted 20+ times.

Having submitted a PAB, you will of course be familiar with the Player Arbitration Policies and Procedures. As such, it will come as no suprise to you that you are in direct violation of item 2.3. Given this, I'll be closing your PAB on the grounds that you're abusing our service by deliberately ignoring the FAQ guidelines.

Should you wish to use our PAB service again, I HIGHLY recommend you read and respect the Player Arbitration (PAB) Policies and Procedures. Otherwise you'll simply be wasting your time and ours.

 

[Davey86]

casumo actioned SOW with me in January asked was I employed how much I get
Asked for bank statement it shows my income coming in that’s it no rent or mortgage payments no utilities! Have a separate joint account for all that but sow successful! their policy is not standard or across the board universal it seem, and come to think of it no affordability check? And it could of possibly looked like AML because the statements showed transfers in and out! For me SOW was easy but a waste of time because it wouldn’t of answered any of the questions SOW Is used for

 

[goatwack]

SoW is speculative at best and in no way definitive proof of anything. So casinos are quite clearly taking it to varying extremes.

e.g how can they possibly ascertain if someone's doing cash-in-hand work for example, and therefore 'afford' to gamble etc.....the list goes on

 

[Iamfozzzz]

Apologies,
I really should have read the t&c's before the PAB
Last thing I want to do is cause unnecessary work or time for anyone.
Sorry for all that its affected.
I just wanted help

Mark

 

[mack341]

If this PAB can't be resurrected then the OP must take this to the adr, also contact ukgc and tell them what's happened - [it maybe better to do this before contacting the adr] that you have an ongoing problem with a ukgc casino confiscating your funds etc.. and see what they advise.

You could write a letter to your mp and cc the ukgc, that might be an approach that gets a reply.

Given the activity in this thread we'd all like to know the rights and wrongs here, we could all be asked to provide similar 3rd party information down the line at withdrawal time.

 

[Slottery]

casumo actioned SOW with me in January asked was I employed how much I get
Asked for bank statement it shows my income coming in that’s it no rent or mortgage payments no utilities! Have a separate joint account for all that but sow successful! their policy is not standard or across the board universal it seem, and come to think of it no affordability check? And it could of possibly looked like AML because the statements showed transfers in and out! For me SOW was easy but a waste of time because it wouldn’t of answered any of the questions SOW Is used for

That's the thing that we can all be so different what from our finances and how they look when somebody review them. For most providing payslip is enough, for some you might need some more documents to make your financial situation to match with your deposits. It can't really be made as standard like approving ID or prood of address.

SOW and affordability checks are always then much more personal and different for others, if you deposit amounts which can't at least easily be covered with your disposable income, casino kind of need to know that you have access to these amounts from legal source.

These are not really easy for casinos either like we can see from various threads when these requests doesn't make much sense, casinos probably haven't have that many professionals who are really familiar with financial regulations like AML directives and how exactly to follow them in practice and how to make it easy as possible for players. If there are discrepancies in players deposits vs financial wealth, you kind of make risk yourself if you approve something what didn't really cover enough to understand that player can cover all actions on his accounts (or at least some point that there is no any big gabs or just no enough information to convince you). When casinos do these, they have to be able to show to regulator in their audits what they have done (like in audits usually inspector taking random amount of accounts to check that some process is done good enough, for example amount of higher risk players, show all the history of ongoing monitoring, due diligence, your findings and actions) and could imagine that usually person who is carrying checks for AML monitoring for work, is not that interested about player experience than if you meet AML 5th directive etc...

Not writing especially about this case or Casumo as not having any information to try to understand what and why they need some more proof of affordability but in general that when you start to verify your players affordabilities, you don't want to approve any documents if they don't provide what you need or information provided and activity with casino don't match. Not easy to explain afterwards in audit that why something passed even discrepancies in information are clear. For most of us SOW should hopefully be just one payslip and if asked bank statement, if amounts or something else don't make sense, it's quite a big fail to close your eyes from that and let player pass them even documents were not satisfying.

Hope OP get this sorted soon, PAB for sure latest help OP to understand what and why is now demanded. I don't really see that as an end result that players funds will get confiscated, there would be need for some legal ground on it, casino themselves need to follow these regulations if they have suspicious transactions they are willing to investigate further and it can't just be made as their money.

edit: Hope OP don't comment anything further and PAB can stay alive. We really only can speculate here, so not worth to kill your PAB by posting all your payslips and bank statements here, let us know what happened once that's done

 

[Speedy38]

I dont get this, I used to play a lot at vera&johns casino I deposit more then 100k in one year paid out more then 200k the same year never had any sow or other shit. I also have a account at Casumo but after all the stories I dont play there anymore.

 

[EkJR]

T

Did you get the info on the SE players and paying back the balances? I still cant find anything in the LCCP about it. If there are outstanding AML/SOW requests there can they hold it?

 

[Slottery]

Did you get the info on the SE players and paying back the balances? I still cant find anything in the LCCP about it. If there are outstanding AML/SOW requests there can they hold it?

Don't know if there's exact guideline how to proceed with players who are in pending verification process but in general, operators should always payout balance from self-excluded accounts without any unreasonable delays. This can be bit tricky from that point that if there is some clear suspicion about fraud/AML/identity etc... i would assume that it can be exception as paying any money to player who probably suspected about some criminal activity is not ok.

At least if casino don't pay balance from self-excluded account, they have to have good reason for that. Don't know where exactly UKGC draw line in there again what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[EkJR]

Don't know if there's exact guideline how to proceed with players who are in pending verification process but in general, operators should always payout balance from self-excluded accounts without any unreasonable delays. This can be bit tricky from that point that if there is some clear suspicion about fraud/AML/identity etc... i would assume that it can be exception as paying any money to player who probably suspected about some criminal activity is not ok.

At least if casino don't pay balance from self-excluded account, they have to have good reason for that. Don't know where exactly UKGC draw line in there again what is acceptable and what is not.

Yeah it appears to be deliberately left vague again.

"Any remaining balance should be paid back to the customers depositing method" is what I can see.

 

[Louis]

Hi hi hello,

I'm sorry if my reply wasn't fast enough.

As usual with these kind of cases, we cannot give any information directly about the case. I can therefore not give you any answers to why and what we are asking @Iamfozzzz for.
I can say though that going through SoW can take time, and I'm sorry that it does. For whatever reason it has been requested, I can assure all of you that there is always a reason.
If you're not happy with our reason or the way we handle these cases you can always escalate it to other instances such as the UKGC for example.


As @SpinUk was very eager for an answer to his question regarding withholding withdrawals, I've taken the time to get you some information.
When it comes to holding the withdrawals we have this mentioned in our terms and conditions for different reasons. And I will add some of these terms below. Worth having in mind is that I am not saying any of these apply to OP, it's simply a show of some reasons we can withhold money.

Examples of terms in our terms and conditions that is mentioning withholding of funds:
9.4.
9.7.
12.1. C
13.
25.3 a-n

As I'm not allowed to post links you will have to go to Casumo and the terms and conditions should be available in the bottom of the side.


PS: I want to make a shout out to @Slottery who has given very good general explanations and information regarding how it works in most cases.

 

[EkJR]

Hi hi hello,

I'm sorry if my reply wasn't fast enough.

As usual with these kind of cases, we cannot give any information directly about the case. I can therefore not give you any answers to why and what we are asking @Iamfozzzz for.
I can say though that going through SoW can take time, and I'm sorry that it does. For whatever reason it has been requested, I can assure all of you that there is always a reason.
If you're not happy with our reason or the way we handle these cases you can always escalate it to other instances such as the UKGC for example.


As @SpinUk was very eager for an answer to his question regarding withholding withdrawals, I've taken the time to get you some information.
When it comes to holding the withdrawals we have this mentioned in our terms and conditions for different reasons. And I will add some of these terms below. Worth having in mind is that I am not saying any of these apply to OP, it's simply a show of some reasons we can withhold money.

Examples of terms in our terms and conditions that is mentioning withholding of funds:
9.4.
9.7.
12.1. C
13.
25.3 a-n

As I'm not allowed to post links you will have to go to Casumo and the terms and conditions should be available in the bottom of the side.


PS: I want to make a shout out to @Slottery who has given very good general explanations and information regarding how it works in most cases.

One thing Louis, are you legally allowed to ask for documents from a third party completely unconnected in terms of the account?

 

[dunover]

Hi hi hello,

I'm sorry if my reply wasn't fast enough.

As usual with these kind of cases, we cannot give any information directly about the case. I can therefore not give you any answers to why and what we are asking @Iamfozzzz for.
I can say though that going through SoW can take time, and I'm sorry that it does. For whatever reason it has been requested, I can assure all of you that there is always a reason.
If you're not happy with our reason or the way we handle these cases you can always escalate it to other instances such as the UKGC for example.


As @SpinUk was very eager for an answer to his question regarding withholding withdrawals, I've taken the time to get you some information.
When it comes to holding the withdrawals we have this mentioned in our terms and conditions for different reasons. And I will add some of these terms below. Worth having in mind is that I am not saying any of these apply to OP, it's simply a show of some reasons we can withhold money.

Examples of terms in our terms and conditions that is mentioning withholding of funds:
9.4.
9.7.
12.1. C
13.
25.3 a-n

As I'm not allowed to post links you will have to go to Casumo and the terms and conditions should be available in the bottom of the side.


PS: I want to make a shout out to @Slottery who has given very good general explanations and information regarding how it works in most cases.

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

Casumo Terms and Conditions - Read our terms of playing at Casumo casino.

 

[Slottery]

Yeah it appears to be deliberately left vague again.

"Any remaining balance should be paid back to the customers depositing method" is what I can see.

Yes, in general many of these are very vague, they make some more exact guidelines and recommendations to operators for different exceptions/conditions which usually are followed quite well as not that many want to make troubles with regulator.

Like in this one, there can be some big suspicions about fraud, fake details and what ever where it can make sense that operator don't straight away pay to some very suspicious Skrill account without getting some docs.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

So it looks that as you don't receive any utility bills, they would like to see some proof that you are not liable any utility or other (including mortage) bills in that address you are living. When trying to estimate your affordability and sustainable income. No idea what exact documents you have provided and what they in total are looking so we all can only guess and assume what and why they came to conclusion they demand that.

Like said, affordability is closely connected to AML, if it looks that you play £1000/month more than you earn, how that deficit is covered, in gambling we have seen loads of stories in news papers and UKGC statements where players have been stealing from employers, committed different crimes etc... to fund their gambling habits. Casumo have already paid millions when they failed to spot such a behavior which maybe can be one big reason why they seem to be most strict in these at the moment (assumption just based on threads here in CM where players have been in very difficult situations to provide enough documentations about their finances).

I have no figures to hand but the point remains- the % of people who use criminal ends to fund gambling is probably less than 1%. This would say to me that using such aggressive SOW methods is akin to opening a tin of beans with a chainsaw.

As has been said, it's all about common sense...sense these casinos seem to lack. If you're going to resort to crime to fund a gambling habit, you're hardly going to risk it for a couple of hundred a week.

The fact these checks are being done on withdrawal is disgusting. It's nothing but a tactic to strong arm the player.

Shame on all casinos that do this.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I'll also add, if someone is depositing from and withdrawing to the same debit card, there should be no need whatsoever for the casino to perform AML on the grounds that the bank (certainly in the UK) will have a clear picture of your transactions and any suspicious activity. They have their own fraud teams for this.

As for affordability, I'd suggest people put deposit limits and loss limits on their accounts to pre- empt this intrusiveness.

 

[goatwack]

Exactly.....a lot of financial institutions already have AML checks in place and didn't come down in the last shower in regards to fraud, as if it's a new phenomenon that's surfaced in the last few months.

Even most E-wallet firms will auto-verify based on their oh-so-fun registration setup. And as for banks and cards linked to them, well, hmmmm, let's see......

And affordability will never be truly revealed as the regulations stand, so they may as well stop messing players around because 'they can'. There's a myriad of other pressing RG issues casinos and regulatory bodies ought to focus on instead of this merry dance they lead us on.

And as said months ago, AML, SoW & RG are all being melded into one to put the icing on this particular farce they call the gambling industry

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Exactly.....a lot of financial institutions already have AML checks in place and didn't come down in the last shower in regards to fraud, as if it's a new phenomenon that's surfaced in the last few months.

Even most E-wallet firms will auto-verify based on their oh-so-fun registration setup. And as for banks and cards linked to them, well, hmmmm, let's see......

And affordability will never be truly revealed as the regulations stand, so they may as well stop messing players around because 'they can'. There's a myriad of other pressing RG issues casinos and regulatory bodies ought to focus on instead of this merry dance they lead us on.

And as said months ago, AML, SoW & RG are all being melded into one to put the icing on this particular farce they call the gambling industry

Totally agree.

Casinos trying to shaft the player all roads but it'll be such casinos that come a cropper when there are no customers left to harass.

I wouldn't give Casumo a penny piece of my money based on the cases posted in here.

 

[Slottery]

I have no figures to hand but the point remains- the % of people who use criminal ends to fund gambling is probably less than 1%. This would say to me that using such aggressive SOW methods is akin to opening a tin of beans with a chainsaw.

As has been said, it's all about common sense...sense these casinos seem to lack. If you're going to resort to crime to fund a gambling habit, you're hardly going to risk it for a couple of hundred a week.

The fact these checks are being done on withdrawal is disgusting. It's nothing but a tactic to strong arm the player.

Shame on all casinos that do this.

SOW is just something what casinos, banks and many other industries are expected to do. For sure is much less than 1% of customers to banks and casinos but you have to be able to show to your auditor where your assumption is based that some certain player haven't been requested any SOW related documentation, they don't really think that it's onle one in thousand or less, all companies are expected to follow regulations and casinos pretty much same AML than banks and other financial institutes, probably don't make any sense but that's how it is.

If you have some player with non matching SOW, auditor randomly checking that account, it's not help you at all if that player haven't done anything illegal, you need to be able to show that you have completed these checks, it have nothing to do with how many people actually are committing any kind of fraud.

Also using only your own debit card doesn't mean that you are automatically ok to use all that money, if you work in place where you have access to cash (like there are quite many) you possibly can steal from your employer and use cash to all your expenses and then use your whole salary for gambling.

These really like you said are not happening often but casino operators and many other businesses are responsible to have their ongoing monitoring in place to be sure that certain checks are completed and you have to have that documention in your file.

It's very few people in this world who would carry explodes or other weapons to airport but we all have to pass these security checks and empty our pockets, if machine peep, you get individual check until you pass that.

 

[paul7388]

Just gets worse with some casinos.

I can understand the need for SOW etc. but no casino should ever be asking you to send proof of someone elses financial situation.

What next. Is it getting to the stage where someone earns 3k a month and deposits 500. Prove their income to Casino who then tells them they need the company they work for to send in their annual accounts to prove they can afford to pay 3k a month to the employee.

Glad i stick mainly to UK bookies sites.If and when they ask for too much information it will be time to go old school and back to placing footie bets in the shops.

 

[dunover]

SoW is speculative at best and in no way definitive proof of anything. So casinos are quite clearly taking it to varying extremes.

e.g how can they possibly ascertain if someone's doing cash-in-hand work for example, and therefore 'afford' to gamble etc.....the list goes on

Yeah, I never had one customer pay for his crack, crystal meth or cannabis by card. Although on the dark web I can take bank transfer and debit cards via Propay now.

 

[goatwack]

Yeah, I never had one customer pay for his crack, crystal meth or cannabis by card. Although on the dark web I can take bank transfer and debit cards via Propay now.

Or I guess after your Bonanza shafting that'd be ProbePay

 

[Mr_Slot5]

SOW is just something what casinos, banks and many other industries are expected to do. For sure is much less than 1% of customers to banks and casinos but you have to be able to show to your auditor where your assumption is based that some certain player haven't been requested any SOW related documentation, they don't really think that it's onle one in thousand or less, all companies are expected to follow regulations and casinos pretty much same AML than banks and other financial institutes, probably don't make any sense but that's how it is.

If you have some player with non matching SOW, auditor randomly checking that account, it's not help you at all if that player haven't done anything illegal, you need to be able to show that you have completed these checks, it have nothing to do with how many people actually are committing any kind of fraud.

Also using only your own debit card doesn't mean that you are automatically ok to use all that money, if you work in place where you have access to cash (like there are quite many) you possibly can steal from your employer and use cash to all your expenses and then use your whole salary for gambling.

These really like you said are not happening often but casino operators and many other businesses are responsible to have their ongoing monitoring in place to be sure that certain checks are completed and you have to have that documention in your file.

It's very few people in this world who would carry explodes or other weapons to airport but we all have to pass these security checks and empty our pockets, if machine peep, you get individual check until you pass that.

Due diligence is a term that crops up fairly often in my line of work...and it applies here too.

Due diligence gives the business some leeway. Even if a customer was taking money from their employer, it would not equate to a guaranteed fine for the operator IF there was nothing to suggest the customer was high risk. As long as the operator can point towards evidence that helped them reach the conclusion not to SOW the customer, they are in little trouble.

The cases we hear about where the casinos have been fined have been clear and obvious examples of due diligence not being enacted... I.e a customer spends 250k in 6 months etc etc.

Of course, due diligence does not preclude the choice of aggressive SOW action by the casino, but in the long run they'll probably just lose more in custom than they would in fines.

 

[SpinUk]

Hi hi hello,

I'm sorry if my reply wasn't fast enough.

As usual with these kind of cases, we cannot give any information directly about the case. I can therefore not give you any answers to why and what we are asking @Iamfozzzz for.
I can say though that going through SoW can take time, and I'm sorry that it does. For whatever reason it has been requested, I can assure all of you that there is always a reason.
If you're not happy with our reason or the way we handle these cases you can always escalate it to other instances such as the UKGC for example.


As @SpinUk was very eager for an answer to his question regarding withholding withdrawals, I've taken the time to get you some information.
When it comes to holding the withdrawals we have this mentioned in our terms and conditions for different reasons. And I will add some of these terms below. Worth having in mind is that I am not saying any of these apply to OP, it's simply a show of some reasons we can withhold money.

Examples of terms in our terms and conditions that is mentioning withholding of funds:
9.4.
9.7.
12.1. C
13.
25.3 a-n

As I'm not allowed to post links you will have to go to Casumo and the terms and conditions should be available in the bottom of the side.


PS: I want to make a shout out to @Slottery who has given very good general explanations and information regarding how it works in most cases.

Thanks for highlighting the terms - unfortunately these do not answer any of the OPs concerns.

Lets keep it really simple -

1. Kindly confirm that you are fulfilling your obligations under GDPR by requesting unconnected third party protected information without said third party consent being given to Casumo.

Yes or No.

2. Kindly confirm in the event of a client refusing to comply with your SOW/KYC request, Casumo - not “the relevant government bodies” - has the authority to permanently confiscate funds from UK players.

Yes or No.

 

[goatwack]

Due diligence is a term that crops up fairly often in my line of work...and it applies here too.

Due diligence gives the business some leeway. Even if a customer was taking money from their employer, it would not equate to a guaranteed fine for the operator IF there was nothing to suggest the customer was high risk. As long as the operator can point towards evidence that helped them reach the conclusion not to SOW the customer, they are in little trouble.

The cases we hear about where the casinos have been fined have been clear and obvious examples of due diligence not being enacted... I.e a customer spends 250k in 6 months etc etc.

Of course, due diligence does not preclude the choice of aggressive SOW action by the casino, but in the long run they'll probably just lose more in custom than they would in fines.

Yes indeed, discretion, leeway, common sense, all gone bye-bye, and we're left with different companies following different protocols from vague guidelines.

So when something's that open to interpretation you'd expect restraint, logic and common sense to rule the day. Yet in its stead we have financial risk calculations and casinos erring on negative slants in a one size fits all scenario. If I was to start splurging £2K a month as opposed to my usual £100 I EXPECT casinos to pull me up on this.

With such publicized 250K in 6 months cases and the like many barriers were seemingly long breached before they came to light, so I'd imagine casinos simply chose to ignore them altogether. So in essence the rules were already in place, but they preferred the short-term gain from seemingly reckless players. Plus how does a case like that apply to the vast, vast majority of the userbase? It doesn't

However did the industry manage before the 'regulations' I wonder

 

[Jackstar]

My enhanced check from Allbritish. I have a monthly limit set so not spent more than I usually do but received this last week .
Why do these checks always come on a withdrawal? Although to be fair my withdrawal was processed but mostly on hearing about these checks there’s usually a withdrawal pending.
Al

 

[goatwack]

Jesus Christ we have Source of Wealth to go with Source of Funds now?

 

[Slottery]

Due diligence is a term that crops up fairly often in my line of work...and it applies here too.

Due diligence gives the business some leeway. Even if a customer was taking money from their employer, it would not equate to a guaranteed fine for the operator IF there was nothing to suggest the customer was high risk. As long as the operator can point towards evidence that helped them reach the conclusion not to SOW the customer, they are in little trouble.

The cases we hear about where the casinos have been fined have been clear and obvious examples of due diligence not being enacted... I.e a customer spends 250k in 6 months etc etc.

Of course, due diligence does not preclude the choice of aggressive SOW action by the casino, but in the long run they'll probably just lose more in custom than they would in fines.

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

With such publicized 250K in 6 months cases and the like many barriers were seemingly long breached before they came to light, so I'd imagine casinos simply chose to ignore them altogether. So in essence the rules were already in place, but they preferred the short-term gain from seemingly reckless players. Plus how does a case like that apply to the vast, vast majority of the userbase? It doesn't

However did the industry manage before the 'regulations' I wonder

The rules have been in place for years in regard to AML especially. I know of cases 10+ years ago where William Hill have asked customers for Source of Wealth documentation. Casinos decided to ignore the law, as they did with advertising rules, then start crying when they get fined/penalties. If they actually spent some money on legal advice from WITHIN the UK they wouldn't run into all these problems. Having counsel from Malta or outside the UK does't work, they don't understand the way the UK courts work properly, just as I wouldn't dream about giving legal advice to someone in Malta. reading the law and understanding how its implemented in different regions are two completely different things. Look at that plank from GIG who tried to threaten me on the Guts thread and ran away never to be heard from again.

Last time this happened I emailed the DPO at Casumo asking what authority they were using to process third party data without consent. Guess what the reply was? I'll have to too seeing as they haven't replied.

 

[EkJR]

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.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

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.

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.