Conqueastador casino WTF

For sure there's no legal reason, like in OP here, they just said it's their policy not to let people without any other income than some benefit not to play with them.

Can assume that they requested players sow and some months bank statements, if you player stated that benefit was only income they decided to block account.

Of course you could leave account open with some very small limits etc... but blocking account eliminates all the risks what you could possibly get from UKGC if that player have blown all his dosh to gambling and their decisions are harder to predict than correct scores in football, they migh ask "Why you didn't block that account when saw that players only income is this small benefit?"

If your max reward from player is £20 a month or what ever could be thought players disposable income is and how much from it accept as deposits and still possibly some could afterwards say that blocking account would have been only right thing.

Would think it high risk, fcking low reward decision, not much benefit to keep player so why bother.
Ive done a few SOW always showed im on benefits NEVER had an issue so far its just that casino is VERY rogue in what they are doing
 
If the casino genuinely cared for the player, protecting his financial welfare as they claim, they should have paid all deposits, minus the winnings paid out to the OP, back to the player.

If they're so concerned with SoW, they should verify accounts before allowing any deposits from their customers.
 
Ive done a few SOW always showed im on benefits NEVER had an issue so far its just that casino is VERY rogue in what they are doing

Sure it's casinos own decision, don't really see rogue point there if they only block account and pay all balance including winnings.

Also like some mentioned earlier, there are really different situations that only receiving benefits is no reason to block your account if at same time have proof that you won big from lottery and have that money on your account etc...

It's not only magic word benefit but over all how your bank statement is looking. Like said earlier, i personally would block player who is living only with some small benefit, you can't let them play lot anyway and all you can get is possible troubles as people with unemployment benefits don't usually bring you many coins but possible troubles if there's not some extreme strict limit to prevent player overspending.

At that moment when you know players financial situation, you can get troubles by ignoring it and by letting player deposit even little bit over tenner (or what ever amount is counted to be too much to spend from that disposable income), as long you don't know that player is on unemployment benefit, you can happily let everybody deposit few hundreds a month and you don't do anything bad, as long spending is not that high that you fail to request sow etc...
 
Sure it's casinos own decision, don't really see rogue point there if they only block account and pay all balance including winnings.

Also like some mentioned earlier, there are really different situations that only receiving benefits is no reason to block your account if at same time have proof that you won big from lottery and have that money on your account etc...

It's not only magic word benefit but over all how your bank statement is looking. Like said earlier, i personally would block player who is living only with some small benefit, you can't let them play lot anyway and all you can get is possible troubles as people with unemployment benefits don't usually bring you many coins but possible troubles if there's not some extreme strict limit to prevent player overspending.

At that moment when you know players financial situation, you can get troubles by ignoring it and by letting player deposit even little bit over tenner (or what ever amount is counted to be too much to spend from that disposable income), as long you don't know that player is on unemployment benefit, you can happily let everybody deposit few hundreds a month and you don't do anything bad, as long spending is not that high that you fail to request sow etc...
Ok if casino pays out full balance then blocks account then fair enough but if they do no pay any winnings then thats rogue
 
I use this site and have never had a problem with them.

Done a SOW thingy and they reduced my deposit limits down.

which was fine by me on my opinion.

I think other casinos will be doing this more and more. Once people do there SOW check they will reduced there deposit limits to what they think they can afford.

I know a lot of people won’t agree with this but this whole face of gambling lately and what’s to come is going to be changing for the worse until it’s gets better.
 
I use this site and have never had a problem with them.

Done a SOW thingy and they reduced my deposit limits down.

which was fine by me on my opinion.

I think other casinos will be doing this more and more. Once people do there SOW check they will reduced there deposit limits to what they think they can afford.

I know a lot of people won’t agree with this but this whole face of gambling lately and what’s to come is going to be changing for the worse until it’s gets better.

Believe exactly same, no casino wanna get fined by UKGC, making sow verifications early enough and then set limits or even block accounts based on what player provide should be quite safe way to take and probably something what regulators are expecting them to use sow information collected.
 
Exactly.

That way once they do this to people’s accounts, they actually can’t lose more than they can afford.

I suppose it’s good in a way but then that’s just my opinion again.

But am sure the UKGC will
Be changing things again and again until it is right or how they want it.

God knows when.
 
Surely given the current state of online gaming we should not be surprised by this. I can see the argument from both sides here.

Without delving a lot further into peoples personal circumstances it would be impossible to make any judgement that is valid. For example a person who is financially secure but in later life finds themselves on benefits through illness or injury and has no dependents could surely afford a flutter here and there.

Compare that with a single Mother of three who has no other source of income other than benefits and you may draw a different conclusion.

Hypocrisy is my main problem with rules and regulations. Some are completely over the top and unnecessary while other things that need addressing are completely ignored. If any regulating body really knew what they were doing or cared about the player then how are games allowed where you can play £100 a spin.

A simple solution that would avoid a large percentage of the continuous problems we see, would be to verify the account before a deposit can be made. That should surely be mandatory.

Please note. Despite being referred to repeatedly as “he” in this thread the email posted at the beginning clearly shows it’s a lady. (Sorry can’t help being old fashioned).
 
Surely given the current state of online gaming we should not be surprised by this. I can see the argument from both sides here.

Without delving a lot further into peoples personal circumstances it would be impossible to make any judgement that is valid. For example a person who is financially secure but in later life finds themselves on benefits through illness or injury and has no dependents could surely afford a flutter here and there.

Compare that with a single Mother of three who has no other source of income other than benefits and you may draw a different conclusion.

Hypocrisy is my main problem with rules and regulations. Some are completely over the top and unnecessary while other things that need addressing are completely ignored. If any regulating body really knew what they were doing or cared about the player then how are games allowed where you can play £100 a spin.

A simple solution that would avoid a large percentage of the continuous problems we see, would be to verify the account before a deposit can be made. That should surely be mandatory.

Please note. Despite being referred to repeatedly as “he” in this thread the email posted at the beginning clearly shows it’s a lady. (Sorry can’t help being old fashioned).

Maybe we identify her as a man.
After all, you cant spell Woman without Man.
:p

Agree with what you are saying.
For these checks to have any effect, they need to be done before deposits can be made.
The way they always do the checks once a withdrawal (usually a sizeable one) is made just makes the whole process look like a thing done only to complicate withdrawals (wich is probably true in some cases)

But as other have said, where does one draw the line for how much nanny-ing a casino is supposed/allowed to do?
Should we ban fast food,alcohol,candy,cinema,tobacco etc for everyone on benefits aswell?

I more in-depth look would be required to justify closing an account imo.
Like others have said, just because you are on benefits, it does not automatically mean you cant afford to deposit the odd €10-20.
 
The nannying is due to the regulation in the various jurisdictions. For Dutch players, casinos in the future will be required by law (as of 2021) to monitor their gambling behaviour and report any issues to the Dutch Gambling Authority, amongst other things.
 
Just out of interest. I’ve taken 3 months from November to jan 16th off work. I’m self employed.
In the meantime I’ve claimed universal credit.
So regardless of what I own, where I live and what I’ve got in the bank a casino can decide not to take my custom? The reason being it pays my stamp that I’m entitled to for working since I was 16?..
if that’s really the case I’d never darken a casinos doors again, or is this just the Maltese lot?
We don’t see many issues from William hill, sky or Ladbrokes etc..
 
Ongoing monitoring is mandatory for casinos to carry out already for money laundering reasons and because nature of business, casinos are using all that information they have, also to prevent problem gambling where these cool sentences like social responsibility, duty of care etc... are coming from :)

AML rules and directives are more behind of these SOW checks and casinos are expected to Know Your Customer which also covers SOW at some point.

It's not that many years ago when hardly any due diligence was carried out by casinos, now these have come more and more extended all the time. Would guess that casinos would be more than happy to go back in time where they could just keep accepting deposits without any questions.
 
Just out of interest. I’ve taken 3 months from November to jan 16th off work. I’m self employed.
In the meantime I’ve claimed universal credit.
So regardless of what I own, where I live and what I’ve got in the bank a casino can decide not to take my custom? The reason being it pays my stamp that I’m entitled to for working since I was 16?..
if that’s really the case I’d never darken a casinos doors again, or is this just the Maltese lot?
We don’t see many issues from William hill, sky or Ladbrokes etc..

Difference though if you are only claiming it to get stamp then i assume you aren't actually getting benefit money

You can prove your money comes from sources other than benefits which the op could not. You have a job.
 
Difference though if you are only claiming it to get stamp then i assume you aren't actually getting benefit money

You can prove your money comes from sources other than benefits which the op could not. You have a job.
If I’m not working however then that would be my main source of income.
I get upto 4 months off a year if I choose to take it.
So on paper I could be on benefits for that time, however I have my own house and a bank balance that may prove different to the fact I’m not working.
Who exactly is trained enough in finance and fiscal matters to decide if im allowed to gamble or not?
It’s a utter farce. Infact laughable
 
AML should only be requested if there are grounds to think there is something illegal happening. They shoud be looked at individually. AML documents should not be used for any other reason, including SoW. There is an exception but most casinos don't list it as they have to, to be allowed to do it.

I will never send SoW or AML documents to a casino. Energy tried it and my account was closed 5 minutes later. My business contracts will not allow me to send other contacts my earnings from them, its in every affiliate terms and conditions I've read. My play is not suspicious.

Theres always trust issues too. Got an email last week from an ex affiliate manager for a UK based bookmaker. He had been talking to his mate, an affiliate casino manager from a MGA licensed casino (and UKGC), and long story short, he had been asked to try to sort a problem out. However, to do that the UK bookie one had to have took my details from them when he left, or he wouldn't have my details. He then discussed me with the second one, who must have also sent my name, and email address over to the first, or how would he know who I was. I have a feeling this story will end up as a thread at some point, as I'm not exactly happy at how it's gone down, but will decide on that when/if the resolution proposed is acted on :)

So why on earth would I trust them to keep my information safe. My name address etc is fair game, I know it will be leaked out at some point, but do people really want AML stuff out there being shipped about all over the place?
 
Absolutely never provide SOW to online casinos. They are about the least trustworthy companies you could possibly share highly personal information with, based god knows where offshore, hiring people without properly vetting them I am sure, and I bet without proper data protection and security etc

Just tell any casino that sends a request to F off and use another, or like me give up online gambling and go to landbased or cruise!!
 
Absolutely never provide SOW to online casinos. They are about the least trustworthy companies you could possibly share highly personal information with, based god knows where offshore, hiring people without properly vetting them I am sure, and I bet without proper data protection and security etc

Just tell any casino that sends a request to F off and use another, or like me give up online gambling and go to landbased or cruise!!

There should actually be little difference between online and offline casinos when it comes to AML.
In both you need to prove where your money come from.
 
There should actually be little difference between online and offline casinos when it comes to AML.
In both you need to prove where your money come from.

Sorry can you explain what you have to provide to a landline casino please ?
 
Sorry can you explain what you have to provide to a landline casino please ?

I guess it depends on in which country you are in. AML is an EU law but different countries have different ways of interpretating it. Some countries also seems to enforce the law differently between online and offline casinos.
 
I guess it depends on in which country you are in. AML is an EU law but different countries have different ways of interpretating it. Some countries also seems to enforce the law differently between online and offline casinos.

The law is the same law. All casinos should do the same checks when they have reason to believe or suspect criminal activity is funding the gambling.
 
The law is the same law. All casinos should do the same checks when they have reason to believe or suspect criminal activity is funding the gambling.

Agreed. But that is not the case. The law is open for interpretation to some extent and different countries also enforce it in different ways.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top