Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[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.