Casumo Source of Wealth issues

[Playford7]

What a shame, once my most trusted go to, well before l and l came along.

Now it’s just not worth the risk even trying a daft tenner deposit, the hassles and BS far outweigh what was a great casino.

fall from grace award if we ever saw one... casumo what the fuck have you done....

 

[mack341]

The wikipedia page needs updating now, it comes up fairly high on the google search results too:

Reviews[edit]

Casumo has generally negative reviews on Trustpilot with a poor rating as of 28 May 2020 [19]

Casumo has generally positive reviews on Casinomeister as of 23 June 2020 with a score of 9.3/10

 

[goatwack]

What a shame, once my most trusted go to, well before l and l came along.

Now it’s just not worth the risk even trying a daft tenner deposit, the hassles and BS far outweigh what was a great casino.

fall from grace award if we ever saw one... casumo what the fuck have you done....

Always knew you had a split personality. Either that, or a sock

 

[dealer wins]

I personally think UK players will find themselves short of somewhere to play in the next 2 years that isn’t asking you to jump through hoops, running games at full rtp or completely trustworthy.

UK players will need solid unregulated places to play at. It is literally going to come to this soon.

Funny enough Ive had to say farewell to LVbet just today because I refuse to send in proof of my savings and investments.

 

[thr0b]

There will come a point where the regulation will force the hands of casinos and game providers to look the other way. The UK is a huge market for gambling, and ultimately money will talk.

 

[snorky510238]

There will come a point where the regulation will force the hands of casinos and game providers to look the other way. The UK is a huge market for gambling, and ultimately money will talk.

It is but why do so many choose to leave? More hassle than it’s worth? Thrills used to be my go to Casino and I was amazed when they left and have been followed by others like Vera&John who are decent outfit. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Casumo leave it tbh.

 

[colinsunderland]

Updated:

Casumo Review | Grey Zone | Casinomeister®Online Casino Authority

"I have supported Casumo’s mission, defended them in the public fora when they were unfairly attacked, and have given them kudos during presentations at online gaming industry events. Sadly, I can’t find a way to defend them now – and leaving them in the Accredited section puts my reputation at stake and devalues the Accreditation status at Casinomeister. "

That's the bottom line.

thank you for acting so quickly

 

[Playford7]

Always knew you had a split personality. Either that, or a sock

Well how rude...

 

[SpinUk]

Yeah I had my second biggest win ever there, £4800 on Bonanaza then got a few other hits and withdrew £6k about 4 hours after making a £30 deposit!
Was in my account in under 24 hours.

Wouldn't dare play there now, imagine them holding a big win, and I don't care what they say, they have absolutely no right to. Have read on other forums that if you refuse point blank to supply the documents they then proceed to submit a SAR that can cause your bank account to be frozen for days/weeks while it's looked into. If (and I do mean if as I don't know for sure) thats true, then its pretty disgusting. If they suspect something is dodgy, a SAR should be submitted. Not supplying documents cannot make the evidence stronger, as obviously they only have the same as they did before you said no. Therefore the only reason to do that would be to screw you about.

Bryan's back in the next day or so, hopefully he takes a look at the massive number of complaints Casumo are generating at the moment, and how the rep is non responsive.
No other casino are generating anywhere near this many complaints, and no other casino is being as heavy handed with document requests as these are.
As for holding withdrawals but allowing deposits, well thats just predatory.

“If they suspect something is dodgy, a SAR should be submitted. Not supplying documents cannot make the evidence stronger, as obviously they only have the same as they did before you said no. Therefore the only reason to do that would be to screw you about.”

I bet you can count on the fingers of one hand how many of these have been submitted by Casumo. Can you pm me the link to the forum where they have apparantly done it

 

[Slottery]

Wouldn't think it's that rare for Casumo to submit SAR/STR:s, think normal average size casinos submit few per month, hard to see them to be that much different with their SOW volumes. Not supplying documents is one quite typical reason to submit SAR, operator is with bit limited options if player not willing to comply with requests (at least it's not any positive sign if not willing to provide requested documents) so asking consent from authorities to release funds to player is safe way out from situation which not getting further. It doesn't have to be anything really dramatic to submit one, just that you are not able to verify which funds are used for deposits, collect account information and all documentation you have to one form and send it, usually getting them back very fast too.

 

[shadow123]

its just gone crazy over the last few months with casinos either being shit scared of repercussions and going way over the top with regulation compliance or twisting the requirements to their own advantage, really seeing how low the gaming business can stoop
Very soon Its going to reach the stage where its no longer viable for casinos to operate or players to gamble in the UK. cheers UKGC, you are a disgrace.

 

[pinnit2014]

Wouldn't think it's that rare for Casumo to submit SAR/STR:s, think normal average size casinos submit few per month, hard to see them to be that much different with their SOW volumes. Not supplying documents is one quite typical reason to submit SAR, operator is with bit limited options if player not willing to comply with requests (at least it's not any positive sign if not willing to provide requested documents) so asking consent from authorities to release funds to player is safe way out from situation which not getting further. It doesn't have to be anything really dramatic to submit one, just that you are not able to verify which funds are used for deposits, collect account information and all documentation you have to one form and send it, usually getting them back very fast too.

But you still need to have a suspicion of ML etc - if, for example, you're SOW'ing your entire client base based on some weird, arbitrary, amount/threshold then it's highly likely you don't have a suspicion, but rather it's just a company policy - in that case, a refusal to supply, wouldn't really be a reason to submit a SAR.

 

[thr0b]

It is but why do so many choose to leave? More hassle than it’s worth? Thrills used to be my go to Casino and I was amazed when they left and have been followed by others like Vera&John who are decent outfit. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Casumo leave it tbh.

At the moment - the costs are increasing, the fines can be absolutely massive. Quit the market, hand back the licence, don't pay the fine.

 

[dealer wins]

I honestly think that an online casino with 100,000 players wont have a single case of money laundering that wasn't blindingly obvious. By blindingly obvious I mean 2 players betting 4 figures on roulette on red/black, or a poker chip dump between players and similar.

For 99.999% of people, they will deposit what they intend to gamble with, and play a very predictable pattern, just like 99.999% of people I have slotted next to or played blackjack with over the last 30 years in land based casinos.

This money laundering excuse is a complete load of BS, it would be so obvious to the casino its unreal.

 

[Slottery]

But you still need to have a suspicious of ML etc - if, for example, you're SOW'ing your entire client base based on some weird, arbitrary, amount/threshold then it's highly likely you don't have a suspicion, but rather it's just a company policy - in that case, a refusal to supply, wouldn't really be a reason to submit a SAR.

You don't really need big reason to submit one, if player can't or refuse to comply with request to prove how deposits are funded, you might submit one. Then you often get consent to release funds to player, just filling them take few moments when you build whole story together that total strange person can see everything you can without having access to any systems.

 

[Slottery]

I honestly think that an online casino with 100,000 players wont have a single case of money laundering that wasn't blindingly obvious. By blindingly obvious I mean 2 players betting 4 figures on roulette on red/black, or a poker chip dump between players and similar.

For 99.999% of people, they will deposit what they intend to gamble with, and play a very predictable pattern, just like 99.999% of people I have slotted next to or played blackjack with over the last 30 years in land based casinos.

This money laundering excuse is a complete load of BS, it would be so obvious to the casino its unreal.

Usually nothing this cool but it's not unheard that AML directives are broken by using funds which don't really have legal grounds to be used for gambling by person who did that. These ones i would assume every casino have that often that they know how to file SAR.

 

[colinsunderland]

Wouldn't think it's that rare for Casumo to submit SAR/STR:s, think normal average size casinos submit few per month, hard to see them to be that much different with their SOW volumes. Not supplying documents is one quite typical reason to submit SAR, operator is with bit limited options if player not willing to comply with requests (at least it's not any positive sign if not willing to provide requested documents) so asking consent from authorities to release funds to player is safe way out from situation which not getting further. It doesn't have to be anything really dramatic to submit one, just that you are not able to verify which funds are used for deposits, collect account information and all documentation you have to one form and send it, usually getting them back very fast too.

Thats not how SAR's are meant to be done. There has to be at least suspicion or belief that a breach of the money laundering laws is about to take place

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

If a person knows or suspects that he or she is about to deal with criminal property (in other words if that person believes that he or she is about to commit one of the principal money laundering offences under sections 327, 328 or 329 of POCA) then it may be a defence to such an offence if that person makes an ’authorised disclosure’ and, if the authorised disclosure is made before the transaction takes place, that he or she has the ’appropriate consent’ to conduct it.

and

3.15 The statutory mechanism under POCA, which allows the NCA to grant permission for a ’prohibited act’ by an operator to go ahead where the operator deals with criminal property, is known as ’appropriate consent’ 18 and may provide the operator with a defence against prosecution for committing a prohibited act. As noted above, where an operator fails to obtain appropriate consent from the NCA, the operator or its employees may be committing a money laundering offence. In order to obtain the appropriate consent, the operator must make an authorised disclosure to the NCA.

3.16 The decision by an operator whether to obtain appropriate consent will arise where the operator believes that, by proceeding with a customer transaction, they will be concealing, disguising, converting, transferring or removing criminal property; facilitating the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by, or on behalf of, another person; or acquiring, using or possessing criminal property.

The casino either thinks or doesn't think an offence is about to take place. Refusing to supply documents should not influence that belief, unless of course the customer states something along the lines of 'I'm not supplying that, I make my money by selling drugs', then it would be grounds to submit a SAR.

They shouldn't even be doing AML checks to this degree unless the customer is deemed high risk.

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

18.6 In order to detect customer activity that may be suspicious, it is necessary to monitor all transactions or activity. The monitoring of customer activity should be carried out using a risk-based approach. Higher risk customers should be subjected to a frequency and depth of scrutiny greater than may be appropriate for lower risk customers. Operators should be aware that the level of risk attributed to customers may not correspond to their commercial value to the business.

18.7 Where a customer is assessed as presenting a higher risk, additional information in respect of that customer should be collected. This will help the operator judge whether the higher risk that the customer is perceived to present is likely to materialise, and provide grounds for proportionate and recorded decisions. Such additional information should include an understanding of where the customer’s funds and wealth have come from. The need to 'know your customer' (KYC) is particularly relevant here. While the Commission recognises that some relationships with customers will be transient or temporary in nature, operators still need to give consideration to this issue in relation to all customers.

 

[pinnit2014]

You don't really need big reason to submit one, if player can't or refuse to comply with request to prove how deposits are funded, you might submit one. Then you often get consent to release funds to player, just filling them take few moments when you build whole story together that total strange person can see everything you can without having access to any systems.

Well the NCA tell you you need to 'know' or 'suspect' ML to submit one and pretty sure they wouldn't want to be wading through a load of documents based on a lack of the above?

Edit - Colin got there first.

 

[Slottery]

Thats not how SAR's are meant to be done. There has to be at least suspicion or belief that a breach of the money laundering laws is about to take place

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

If a person knows or suspects that he or she is about to deal with criminal property (in other words if that person believes that he or she is about to commit one of the principal money laundering offences under sections 327, 328 or 329 of POCA) then it may be a defence to such an offence if that person makes an ’authorised disclosure’ and, if the authorised disclosure is made before the transaction takes place, that he or she has the ’appropriate consent’ to conduct it.

and

3.15 The statutory mechanism under POCA, which allows the NCA to grant permission for a ’prohibited act’ by an operator to go ahead where the operator deals with criminal property, is known as ’appropriate consent’ 18 and may provide the operator with a defence against prosecution for committing a prohibited act. As noted above, where an operator fails to obtain appropriate consent from the NCA, the operator or its employees may be committing a money laundering offence. In order to obtain the appropriate consent, the operator must make an authorised disclosure to the NCA.

3.16 The decision by an operator whether to obtain appropriate consent will arise where the operator believes that, by proceeding with a customer transaction, they will be concealing, disguising, converting, transferring or removing criminal property; facilitating the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by, or on behalf of, another person; or acquiring, using or possessing criminal property.

The casino either thinks or doesn't think an offence is about to take place. Refusing to supply documents should not influence that belief, unless of course the customer states something along the lines of 'I'm not supplying that, I make my money by selling drugs', then it would be grounds to submit a SAR.

They shouldn't even be doing AML checks to this degree unless the customer is deemed high risk.

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

18.6 In order to detect customer activity that may be suspicious, it is necessary to monitor all transactions or activity. The monitoring of customer activity should be carried out using a risk-based approach. Higher risk customers should be subjected to a frequency and depth of scrutiny greater than may be appropriate for lower risk customers. Operators should be aware that the level of risk attributed to customers may not correspond to their commercial value to the business.

18.7 Where a customer is assessed as presenting a higher risk, additional information in respect of that customer should be collected. This will help the operator judge whether the higher risk that the customer is perceived to present is likely to materialise, and provide grounds for proportionate and recorded decisions. Such additional information should include an understanding of where the customer’s funds and wealth have come from. The need to 'know your customer' (KYC) is particularly relevant here. While the Commission recognises that some relationships with customers will be transient or temporary in nature, operators still need to give consideration to this issue in relation to all customers.

If you don't know where funds for deposits are from, it's often good enough reason to submit one. If player don't want to comply with request about SOW, it's often really hard to discard your suspicions about these funds. Original request for SOW is done to find out the requested information, if not getting it you shouldn't just let it be but submit SAR as you are suspicious about these funds used (you wouldn't request SOW without any concerns). Can't imagine many other ways to continue your EDD process than submit SAR and assume it's most common reason casinos submit them, it's also much easier to believe something is not legit if player don't wish to comply with your request.

It's not really something what's happening once in year per casino that some player get reported to authorities, these checks are been encouraged to be done more and more by regulators which also cause more to be reported.

 

[colinsunderland]

If you don't know where funds for deposits are from, it's often good enough reason to submit one. If player don't want to comply with request about SOW, it's often really hard to discard your suspicions about these funds. Original request for SOW is done to find out the requested information, if not getting it you shouldn't just let it be but submit SAR as you are suspicious about these funds used (you wouldn't request SOW without any concerns). Can't imagine many other ways to continue your EDD process than submit SAR and assume it's most common reason casinos submit them, it's also much easier to believe something is not legit if player don't wish to comply with your request.

It's not really something what's happening once in year per casino that some player get reported to authorities, these checks are been encouraged to be done more and more by regulators which also cause more to be reported.

But there should be suspicion, or the player be high risk, to start these checks. It's clear from some reports that these aren't high risk players, they are either blanket requesting, or have cash thresholds, neither of which should, alone, trigger an AML SOF request.
If I sign up to a casino tonight, deposit £20, the casino does not know where those funds came from. That isn't reason to submit a SAR or start a SOF process.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

But there should be suspicion, or the player be high risk, to start these checks. It's clear from some reports that these aren't high risk players, they are either blanket requesting, or have cash thresholds, neither of which should, alone, trigger an AML SOF request.
If I sign up to a casino tonight, deposit £20, the casino does not know where those funds came from. That isn't reason to submit a SAR or start a SOF process.

Exactly.

This is the fundamental point. To trigger SOW you should be under suspicion in the first place and have exhibited playing patterns that need looking into closer. This is why having arbitrary thresholds is ludicrous and why unnecessary angst is being caused.

THIS is where the UKGC are causing all sorts of issues. They should not be fining casinos for cases where there was no suspicious activity by the end user to suggest they were up to no good. Casinos should only be fined where there were CLEAR AND OBVIOUS failings.

 

[Slottery]

Sure you first have some documents player provided like bank statement or payslip, if these don't explain where funds are originated, then you have suspicious and if player is not willing to provide any further information about SOF there is often enough reason to submit SAR.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Sure you first have some documents player provided like bank statement or payslip, if these don't explain where funds are originated, then you have suspicious and if player is not willing to provide any further information about SOF there is often enough reason to submit SAR.

To be honest with you, all I see you doing is defending the whole debacle. There is no defence. The average casino player should not be cajoled into submitting sensitive documents just so they can have a gamble on the slots. End of story.

The UKGC has gone far too overboard.

 

[colinsunderland]

Sure you first have some documents player provided like bank statement or payslip, if these don't explain where funds are originated, then you have suspicious and if player is not willing to provide any further information about SOF there is often enough reason to submit SAR.

How would you have those if the player wasn't high risk?
Thats also not what you said earlier about the situation.
If you have legitimately started the SOF process for a high risk player, the information provided along with deposit levels, gameplay etc give cause for you to suspect the funds aren't legitimate, and the customer refuses to supply clarification (assuming your requests are reasonable) then yes, a SAR should be submitted.
What casinos shouldn't be doing is blanket requesting every customer, then submitting a SAR when a customer refuses.

 

[Slottery]

To be honest with you, all I see you doing is defending the whole debacle. There is no defence. The average casino player should not be cajoled into submitting sensitive documents just so they can have a gamble on the slots. End of story.

The UKGC has gone far too overboard.

Not defending it, trying to clarify some reasonings why these are requested and reported. I'm pretty sure casinos also would be really happy to request much less these as it also cost money in resources and lost players. Fully agree that players shouldn't be asked to provide much financial information than currently is asked but regulators want to see it happening quite a lot.

 

[Slottery]

How would you have those if the player wasn't high risk?
Thats also not what you said earlier about the situation.
If you have legitimately started the SOF process for a high risk player, the information provided along with deposit levels, gameplay etc give cause for you to suspect the funds aren't legitimate, and the customer refuses to supply clarification (assuming your requests are reasonable) then yes, a SAR should be submitted.
What casinos shouldn't be doing is blanket requesting every customer, then submitting a SAR when a customer refuses.

Didn't say casinos submit SAR for every player but that they do them, think i said few per month or something which is really small part of these requests. It's of course always up to casino and other are different than other but if you release funds to player without getting satisfying replies to your request, you are paying funds when you are suspicious about origin of deposits.

edit: There's not much sense but UKGC for example have added that line to their guide lines about levels of SAR submissions and they do expect operators to submit them. What request by operators are reasonable decided by operator (and take responsibilities about wrong doing, not asking enough or breaching some other regulations by asking too much). I don't have any agenda to tell SOW:s are good or reasonable, fact just unfortunately are that these will be requested probably more in future than less. There are loads of different guidances which probably also confuse some operators as you only usually learn that you haven't done enough when regulator find it in audit but not usually what has been too much. Seem that many operators have chosen better be safe than sorry, it do cost resources and players satisfaction so don't think many would do them just for fun but instead willing to be safe as possible.

 

[colinsunderland]

Didn't say casinos submit SAR for every player but that they do them, think i said few per month or something which is really small part of these requests. It's of course always up to casino and other are different than other but if you release funds to player without getting satisfying replies to your request, you are paying funds when you are suspicious about origin of deposits.

You said ' Not supplying documents is one quite typical reason to submit SAR', I'm just saying it shouldn't be.

In the case of Casumo, as I said earlier in the thread, if they suspect someone has RG issues, or is using illegitimate funds, then they should not take more deposits. It's disgusting that they do so. Also, SOF/SOW requests are usually done on withdrawal by reports in here. I can see very very few reasons why a withdrawal should trigger a SOF request.

So they think you may have a gambling problem, but are happy for you to keep giving them your rent or food money for that month.

They think you may be using stolen money, they are happy for you to keep giving them your stolen money, no blocks in place to stop you depositing.

That is bad enough, but if you refuse to give them your mates driving license and full financial details who you borrowed a tenner from 3 months ago, then they just steal any money you have in your account.

Rogue casinos don't do that type of shit. Hope Casumo do leave the UK (and everywhere else) as we don't want shit casinos like these here.

 

[Slottery]

You said ' Not supplying documents is one quite typical reason to submit SAR', I'm just saying it shouldn't be.

In the case of Casumo, as I said earlier in the thread, if they suspect someone has RG issues, or is using illegitimate funds, then they should not take more deposits. It's disgusting that they do so. Also, SOF/SOW requests are usually done on withdrawal by reports in here. I can see very very few reasons why a withdrawal should trigger a SOF request.

So they think you may have a gambling problem, but are happy for you to keep giving them your rent or food money for that month.

They think you may be using stolen money, they are happy for you to keep giving them your stolen money, no blocks in place to stop you depositing.

That is bad enough, but if you refuse to give them your mates driving license and full financial details who you borrowed a tenner from 3 months ago, then they just steal any money you have in your account.

Rogue casinos don't do that type of shit. Hope Casumo do leave the UK (and everywhere else) as we don't want shit casinos like these here.

Apologies, meant more specifically if requested information for the reason like bank statement look weird etc.. and player refuse to comply.

Haven't defend Casumos actions at all, my guess was just that even they do submit SAR:s there and then.

 

[Playford7]

So why never ever have William hill, even betway, Ladbrokes, Boyle sports or sky never gave me a bit of bother depositing or making a withdrawal...

ive made over 4K bets on races in the past multiple time’s in days, had big withdrawals over the years and the money was always paid no questions asked....

why is it certain casinos want to take you literally to the cleaners for making a bet?..
it’s a disgrace, clearly it can’t be all (ukgc bad) as all the above over the past ten years I’ve had no issues at all....

 

[Mr_Slot5]

So why never ever have William hill, even betway, Ladbrokes, Boyle sports or sky never gave me a bit of bother depositing or making a withdrawal...

ive made over 4K bets on races in the past multiple time’s in days, had big withdrawals over the years and the money was always paid no questions asked....

why is it certain casinos want to take you literally to the cleaners for making a bet?..
it’s a disgrace, clearly it can’t be all (ukgc bad) as all the above over the past ten years I’ve had no issues at all....

I think it has been touched on that the bigger UK sites have access to more electronic records when profiling you. I still find it baffling that Maltese casinos don't just invest in this kind of infrastructure to cut down on all this bullshit.

 

[colinsunderland]

So why never ever have William hill, even betway, Ladbrokes, Boyle sports or sky never gave me a bit of bother depositing or making a withdrawal...

ive made over 4K bets on races in the past multiple time’s in days, had big withdrawals over the years and the money was always paid no questions asked....

why is it certain casinos want to take you literally to the cleaners for making a bet?..
it’s a disgrace, clearly it can’t be all (ukgc bad) as all the above over the past ten years I’ve had no issues at all....

Because they do it properly, using a risk based approach. William Hill were asking for SOF documentation well over 10 years ago, but very rarely, and only when justified.

People think these rules are new. They aren't. Money Laundering laws have been around longer than most casinos. They are only now doing it because of the massive penalties the UKGC have started handing out.

 

[Playford7]

I think it has been touched on that the bigger UK sites have access to more electronic records when profiling you. I still find it baffling that Maltese casinos don't just invest in this kind of infrastructure to cut down on all this bullshit.

Maybe it’s better business they don’t actually use such methods...

don’t get me wrong I’ve been treated great by l and l for example, also believe it or not ikibu in the past, but I’ll never sign up to a maltese casino again.

Just far too risky, sad thing is many Will sign upto the likes genesis, nektan, aspire.... it’s a disgrace places like those are allowed to conduct business as they do.

reality is loads whom are not clued up or don’t know of casinomeister will just get ripped right off, they watch a divvy and think it’s all real, playing £40 a spin for example almost daily.

It’s the genuine players that feel the ukgc fallout and the nonsense that comes with it, also the responsible affiliate, this was always going to happen.
wont get into for obvious reasons, but the whole house of cards can only stand so long mate.

 

[mcgameboy]

Yes I am convinced it is because after 4 years I am slightly ahead. I deposit a lot, I withdraw a lot. GUTS did exactly the same, as I was slightly ahead with them after 2 years.The only difference being they said it was because of bonus abuse. In the previous 6 months they had given me 10 free spins at 20p. It’s laughable at best but from a business point of view I am no good to them.

Hypothetically let’s say I had lost £10,000 over that period (and let’s remember I passed SOW and all other verification). Would they still be closing my account? I highly doubt it as any overseeing organisation would be hard pushed to find them negligible and I would be the perfect customer.

Take that scenario a step further and as a disgruntled player I make a vain attempt to claim Casumo failed to take care of me properly and I want my 10k back. Would anybody give me a chance of succeeding? Would Casumo of turned around and said, “Yes we were wrong have it back”? No of course not, which tells you they are using double standards here and manipulating rules to suit their agenda.

Strange how my withdrawal for £300 stayed pending for 2 weeks and was then paid out, whilst the other guy had his 4K returned to his account and blew it. Who is the more responsible there? Would they have closed his account had he completed SOW? Not a chance, he would probably have been greeted with VIP status.

For any players just getting into online slotting, who may be looking in, I would say be very careful where you play and take heed of what is written here on the forum.

I personally think UK players will find themselves short of somewhere to play in the next 2 years that isn’t asking you to jump through hoops, running games at full rtp or completely trustworthy.

I am also convinced that is the case.

Correct me if I am wrong, but one of your monster wins on DOA2 happened at Casumo, didn't it?
I'm fairly sure that when CasumoLouis did one of his monthly big wins at Casumo posts,
your said your DOA2 win was among the top 10 wins listed (in terms of x bet) for that entire month.
£3,500-ish on 18p or something?

So it's safe to assume that prior to that win (which happened around March?), you were a fair bit in the red overall at Casumo (around £3k?).

Call my a cynical middle-aged bastid, but it wouldn't surprise me if (after that huge win),
Casumo were kind of expecting you to suddenly start depositing a craptonne more often.
And possibly reaching your monthly £2k deposit limit on a regular basis.
And eventually spunking back the entirity of that win right back into their coffers.

To your credit, you haven't even come remotely close to doing that. And THAT was the problem.
You were the low-rolling cash cow that never materialised.

My biggest bugbear with this industry in general is the sheer hypocrisy of some of these casinos.
If you so much as dare to complain about the piss-poor levels of so-called entertainment that you are receiving in relation to your total spend, you immediately get accused of being a problem gambler.
Not a sore loser, a problem gambler.

But if you win big and do not spunk it back, then you are a problem customer.
IE One that doesn't make them any money.

You've been binned because you were in profit overall at Casumo.
And that you never looked like spunking back that £3.5k anytime soon.
They have chosen to get salty about it, taken their ball and said "we're not playing with you anymore".

But look on the bright side. They have enabled you to leave their casino as a WINNER.

So fuck 'em. Sideways. With a chainsaw. Two times.

Move on and give another Bonanza-providing casino, one that treats their customers with a little bit of respect and a lot less BS, a chance to give you their money.

And then, when they eventually realise that you are in fact "the Bonanza whisperer", a guy who is taking them to the cleaners, they will bin you too.

 

[Mouche12]

And it's not just Casumo where this happened to you, Snorky, Guts closed your account, just like that, for what looks like the same reason. What a stupid move. I despise hypocrisy as well, mcgameboy. Good post

 

[pinnit2014]

Sure you first have some documents player provided like bank statement or payslip, if these don't explain where funds are originated, then you have suspicious and if player is not willing to provide any further information about SOF there is often enough reason to submit SAR.

Edited - misread

 

[pinnit2014]

One of the few casino's I'm actually up in. These amounts will stay static because there's literally no reason, au contraire, to deposit there: no offers, dodgy practices (incompetent at best) and just a dark cloud over every withdrawal request (which should never be the case)

What a shame as probably the loosest Bonanza on the market.

 

[snorky510238]

Let’s look at the scenario again.

1. All my documents were passed so my funds are legit.

2. I have never reversed a withdrawal

3. I am in profit lifetime.

4. Casumo set my monthly deposit limit at £2,000 without asking any questions and tell me I have got a problem.

5. I have played there for 4 years.

If those facts still merit my account being closed due to IG then apart from the SOW, Casumo already had all the other information but did nothing and let’s be honest how many players have they got who are losing money they cannot afford?

The answer is thousands, literally. Make no bones about that’s how the industry survives and always has done. If every player was checked tomorrow and my case used as the yardstick to judge others, Casumo would lose a hell of a lot of their players (that goes for any Casino tbf).

So, if it takes this level of intrusiveness to determine, that I have a gambling problem, then unfortunately the logic says, that to carry out due diligence to all players, this procedure must be applied to everyone who opens an account, at any Casino.

 

[thr0b]

The UKGC has responded to me. I... don't think they understood my complaint, so I've gone into FAR more details in my response to them.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

From your email I can see that you are having difficulty withdrawing your winnings. This is because the gambling business has asked you to provide further documentation.

You have contacted us for help in this matter. I am afraid we cannot become involved in your complaint or get money back for you. This is because we are an industry regulator and not an ombudsman. Our role is to consider whether a gambling business has breached their licence conditions. We will take regulatory action where appropriate. But we do not have the power to get money back for individuals.

All gambling businesses must establish your name, address and date of birth before allowing you to gamble. They may be in breach of a licence condition if they don’t do this.

The gambling business may be able to verify this information electronically. For example, they may use credit referencing agencies and the electoral roll. If they can verify you in this way, the gambling business will allow you to place bets without providing further information. If not, they will ask you for your identity documents. This can include copies of your passport, driving licence and utility bills.

There is currently no requirement to check bank card details as part of the ID verification process.

I understand that you feel that the gambling business is delaying your withdrawal by asking for further information. But there will be circumstances where customers hit risk triggers later in the relationship. This may mean that further checks are required.

All gambling businesses must comply with Anti Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) rules. This may mean that they will ask you to provide more information at any time, including at withdrawal. For example, you may be asked to provide copies of bank statements and payslips.

These requests are rare. The business should let you know the type of information that they may need before you register.

If you have concerns about the information requested or how your data is stored, you should contact the gambling business. You can find their complaints process in their terms and conditions on their website.

If you are not happy with their final decision, you can contact their chosen Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is an impartial adjudication service which is free of charge. You can find details of the nominated ADR in the complaints process. The ADR will ask you to exhaust the complaints process before taking your complaint to them. They may ask for a “deadlock” letter as evidence of this.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have made a record of your complaint against the gambling business. We cannot become involved in your complaint, but this information helps us in our ongoing work to drive up standards within the gambling industry. 

The red bit is my highlight...

 

[Slottery]

I think that is how it is, no operator verify your payment method before letting you deposit but these other details they need to.

 

[thr0b]

Oh, and my response...

Thanks for your response. I have since been verified and received my winnings, however this was not the issue I was concerned with as such.

Just to be clear, I have no issues with supplying source of wealth information to reputable operators, and indeed supplied bank statements and payslips to Casumo as soon as they requested them.

I was also fully verified with them previously in terms of standard KYC checks, and had been for several years.

My concerns with them are solely:-

* In requesting the additional source of wealth information, they advise that they will not process any withdrawals until this information is provided. (Copy of the initial email attached)

* Further, they advise that despite this investigation, the player is still able to deposit there, they just won’t payout. This would indicate that they are not acting responsibly by encouraging the player to potentially spend (and win) money which they may ultimately decide not to pay out.

* The time taken to review these documents is excessive; it took around a fortnight for them to complete the review. Oddly, the payout was made four days before the review had been completed - they rejected a document initially, but still made the payment. This would indicate to me that the payout was not delayed due to concerns over my source of wealth, rather as a business decision.

* Checking various sources (Twitter, TrustPilot, internet forums) indicates that this issue of requesting documents for source of wealth was only affecting their players under their UKGC licence, and that this issue was widespread and has been ongoing for some time. Please see the attached thread, indicating the issue was not limited - Casumo Source of Wealth issues

As such, I have concerns that they have been using this request as a tactic to delay payment to players, rather than any genuine concerns over sources of wealth.

 

[thr0b]

I think that is how it is, no operator verify your payment method before letting you deposit but these other details they need to.

Aye. Just interesting that there is no UKGC requirement to provide a photo of your payment method. I'll continue to do it as it's too small an issue to quibble over really.

 

[bigbear]

Yes I am convinced it is because after 4 years I am slightly ahead. I deposit a lot, I withdraw a lot. GUTS did exactly the same, as I was slightly ahead with them after 2 years.The only difference being they said it was because of bonus abuse. In the previous 6 months they had given me 10 free spins at 20p. It’s laughable at best but from a business point of view I am no good to them.

Hypothetically let’s say I had lost £10,000 over that period (and let’s remember I passed SOW and all other verification). Would they still be closing my account? I highly doubt it as any overseeing organisation would be hard pushed to find them negligible and I would be the perfect customer.

Take that scenario a step further and as a disgruntled player I make a vain attempt to claim Casumo failed to take care of me properly and I want my 10k back. Would anybody give me a chance of succeeding? Would Casumo of turned around and said, “Yes we were wrong have it back”? No of course not, which tells you they are using double standards here and manipulating rules to suit their agenda.

Strange how my withdrawal for £300 stayed pending for 2 weeks and was then paid out, whilst the other guy had his 4K returned to his account and blew it. Who is the more responsible there? Would they have closed his account had he completed SOW? Not a chance, he would probably have been greeted with VIP status.

For any players just getting into online slotting, who may be looking in, I would say be very careful where you play and take heed of what is written here on the forum.

I personally think UK players will find themselves short of somewhere to play in the next 2 years that isn’t asking you to jump through hoops, running games at full rtp or completely trustworthy.

I had to laugh at the first part of your initial post where Casumo say they want playing at their casino to be a relaxing and entertaining experience.After all the stresses various forum members have been through over Source of Wealth,'relaxing' is the last word i would use to describe playing there.As for entertaining,forget it unless for have masochistic tendencies.

 

[pinnit2014]

Always did wonder as never had to send card pic to SV, William Hill etc.

Never had SOW from them either, despite neck for neck depos

Doesn’t take Turing to identify a pattern.

Why then, if it’s not a requirement, are folk told ‘we can’t payout without front and back of your card’?

 

[goatwack]

Always did wonder as never had to send card pic to SV, William Hill etc.

Never had SOW from them either, despite neck for neck depos

Doesn’t take Turing to identify a pattern.

Why then, if it’s not a requirement, are folk told ‘we can’t payout without front and back of your card’?

With the four corners visibly showing. Please don't overlook this crucial element to tackling cyber crime

 

[pinnit2014]

With the four corners visibly showing. Please don't overlook this crucial element to tackling cyber crime

Or the fact, with a little bit of help with a GCSE student, it wouldn’t be hard to mock one up before Home and Away

And colour! All know fraudsters deal in black and white

 

[shadow123]

Often wonder how much info is communicated to the dunno what you would call it, player team possibly from the SOW team regarding the financial status gleaned from submitted bank statements etc.
I sent a bank statement to casino showing a respectable balance and was made a VIP without any chunky
deposits, not complaining,get treated very nicely but makes you wonder, that info really should go further than
people scrutinzing it for the purpose it was sent.

 

[goatwack]

Often wonder how much info is communicated to the dunno what you would call it, player team possibly from the SOW team regarding the financial status gleaned from submitted bank statements etc.
I sent a bank statement to casino showing a respectable balance and was made a VIP without any chunky
deposits, not complaining,get treated very nicely but makes you wonder, that info really should go further than
people scrutinzing it for the purpose it was sent.

Don't worry too much. Rest assured, all personal info sent to casinos is treated with the utmost contempt and bandied about like a lady of easy virtue

 

[pinnit2014]

Now it's my turn

Bye bye Casumo.

 

[Kroffe]

Now it's my turn

Bye bye Casumo.

View attachment 138507

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

 

[pinnit2014]

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

320 isn't enough for GOLD, that's why i'm oot.