DaVinci's Gold requesting notarized docs

According to the regulation posted by BelleRock, ALL players fall into the "not physically present" category, which required their ID to be verified at once. While this would lose the casino money, there is no "get out" in law for this stance, the requirement begins as soon as the player puts money in, although this is different from "at registration". Clearly, the answer would be this (or similar).

On making the FIRST deposit, the process triggers an Email to the player giving them notice that, if they were to request a cash in, they would be required to produce certain documents. The specific documents required from that player should be listed so that they could prepare them in advance. This at least allows the instant gratification element, but also lets the player see what documents they would be asked for. If the player believes they would not be able to supply these, they have the opportunity to discuss this with the casino, and hopefully soon enough for them not to lose out. If they know they can provide the documents, they could rest easier, and could even send them off in advance for approval while they continue to play.
If the player knows they can provide the listed documents, a further request to have them "notarised" would be an inconvenience, but not an insurmountable obstacle.
While the term quoted and agreed to by players does state that a request for documents could arise, there is no information as to what documents will be accepted. Most players have "documents", but have no idea whether they would be acceptable or not till it is too late. If the casino wants a photo ID, this should be specifically stated by adding to the term "at least one form of ID must include a photo of the holder, and be issued by a government recognised authority". This would inform players who have no photo documents that they would not be able to satisfy this request should it be asked of them, and that they perhaps should not play until they have contacted the casino to see if they would accept other documents (or got themselves a photo document), perhaps even having their non-photo documents notarised, where the notary would be able to have them "physically present" at the time.

Discussing the issue does have value, as it makes casinos aware of problems with this issue, even if they cannot, or are unwilling to, change their procedures.

While requests for notarised documents are infrequent, it was the same for ANY kind of document when I first began to play in 2004. In the future, what is rare now is likely to become common, and raising the issues now will at least help form future procedures, both for casinos and for players.

One problem with players making these documents available in advance is that most casinos don't like this, as they insist not only on documents, but VERY RECENT ONES, so preparing a notarised proof of address could be a waste of money, as in 3 months they will have to get another, and then 3 months later another still.

The industry will still lose players, not at sign-up because they can't play straight away, but because this expanding issue starts to scare away potential new players because they increasingly see this problem being aired.

The best thing players can do now is to prepare to be asked for the following:-

1x Government photo ID, usually drivers licence or passport.
1x separate proof of address, this has to show both the player's name as on the photo ID, as well as the address they live at. A utility bill or bank statement serves this purpose. This can be a problem for those that rent their accommodation, as the utility bills go to the occupant in charge of the property, which is not always going to be the player - such players need to arrange a bill or statement to be sent to them in their own name, but at the rented address.
These two documents are used to tie the name and address together, and against that registered at the casino.
Where cards are used for deposits, images of the cards will almost certainly be requested, and usually a deposit declaration form will need to be signed and sent.

This is the usual MINIMUM standard now, and does not indicate the player is suspected of anything.
Where requests go beyond this, then it is likely that the player has triggered the flags for an enhanced ID check, which may require notarisation of documents, or extra documents, such as a letter from a bank or other institution confirming the player really is a customer, and lives where they say they do (the casino may well contact the institution to confirm the letter is genuine, this is the same as having something "notarised" in terms of the level of security it represents).

Despite casinos being afraid of giving too much away, failure to address the issues will eventually get the media involved once a certain level of complaints is received. Here in the UK, consumer programmes like "Watchdog" investigate such issues and will make the companies accountable. Simply appearing on this programme is enough to seriously dent the credibility of the company, however a story is only featured when a certain level, or severity, of complaints is received, a couple of fraudsters trying it on will not get past the programme researchers, as if they air a bogus complaint, the BBC gets a slap on the wrist, and it's own credibility comes into question.
I believe that online gambling will soon feature on such programes, as it is already heavily promoted through TV adverts and program sponsorship, and most of the country should now be aware that "online casinos" exist, and are considered as an activity as legitimate as going to the local high street bookie.
 
I'm not sure if I'm just not getting it, or whatever, but I still feel that no one has provided a convincing answer to this question:

Why are docs needed for a casino to process a withdrawl, but are unnecessary for accepting a deposit?




So a cashout is a possible money laundering situation, but a deposit is not? It seems to me that there is far, far, more potential for multiple deposits to be used to launder drug or terrorist money than for a relatively small cashout to be used as such. And, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that any arguement for government compliance would apply to both deposits and cashouts equally, not only when a lucky player wants to actually posess some of his/her winnings.



First of all, John, I haven't seen anyone "picking" on Rival casinos in this thread; it has really been a discussion about any applicable casino or software. It was, however, Da Vinci's Gold that asked for the notarized docs that spurred the creation of this thread in the first place, and that is how Rival was brought into this.

More disturbing to me is your admonishment that "if you don't like these policies then don't play". John, this is a forum where players discuss issues that are important to them, including casino policies that are perceived as unfair. I don't see the need to get so heavy handed. I personally don't understand the need for documentation at all, let alone notarized docs.




Yes, yes, yes!!! I couldn't agree more. If all this fraud, money laundering, and government directive stuff is as important as the casinos would like us all to believe, then why not have any necessary documentation cleared before a player deposits more than, say, $300.00 or so?

The answer, it seems to me, is one that is totally self-serving for the casino operators. Quite simply, they would stand to lose money if this practice were to be implemented. In other words, if the casinos benefit from an attempt at fraud because the depositor lost their deposit, so be it; but try and cashout and all sorts of documentation is required in the name of fraud prevention.




I don't see where this directive applies only to cashout requests; it certainly should apply to deposits as well, no?



Well said. The casino operators should not get away with having it both ways.



First of all, just because casinos put something in their T&Cs doesn't mean that it's fair or cannot be discussed.

Secondly, your quotation of 3dice's policy puts my point into the exact perspective to end this post. So, I'll ask one more time: Why does a casino only care about documentation when they are paying out funds? Isn't it a concern at all when they are receiving them?????????
Please quit trying to confuse the debate by throwing in facts. The whole wear 'em down and then possibly crush the player has a much better feel to it:D. As die hard online fans (versus BandM) I think we should all choose to believe the online casinos (and its' industry) , regardless of any evidence to the contrary.;):thumbsup:;)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but the idea that the casino will lose money if they don't ask for the info upfront is flawed in my opinion. To the contrary, I think it will make the player feel more at ease that their withdrawl will be executed without hassle since the docs are already in place. As pointed out above, allowing players to keep depositing and then hitting them with obstacles costs the casino money in loss of future deposits from disgruntled players over this issue.

Besides, they all talk a good game about responsible gaming. I'm sorry, but for me this is no sort of responsible at all. Companies that put their own bottom line over responsible growth will usually fizzle and die of their own stupidity. Perhaps every casino that requires these unreasonable requests is in line for roguedom. Part of being upfront is requesting these things UPFRONT!

And, for that matter, what does it matter where I live?? My govt. issued ID is more than enough since none of this really proves who I am anyway.
 
Bryan, just to clarify, you're basically saying that your answer is that we are at the mercy of the casinos on this issue and we can like it or lump it? Unfortunately that does seem to be the situation. I don't know about you, but when the almighty casinos sell your emails for spam purposes, it justs seems stupid to give them more info to potentially sell.
 
Bryan, just to clarify, you're basically saying that your answer is that we are at the mercy of the casinos on this issue and we can like it or lump it? ...

No not totally. If you can present a good argument on how/what to change, many are receptive to this.

It's a bit like the "bonus" argument. I've preached for a long time that the whole bonusing concept is nothing but a Frankenstein's monster. It should never have happened. All bonuses have caused is player/casino fraud, confiscated winnings, bonus "abuse", etc., and one way to eliminate the bonus problem is to just not do it anymore. But which casino will take the first step? That's the problem - the industry is too competitive.

This whole ID check at the door sounds great, and I'm a supporter of this, but which casino is willing to be the first one to try this? That's the question. Is it practical? Is it needed? This is all debatable. And the operators need to be a part of this debate.

...I don't know about you, but when the almighty casinos sell your emails for spam purposes, it justs seems stupid to give them more info to potentially sell...
I don't think they would sell your ID - perhaps the unscrupulous ones would sell your email address/name/real address to spammers, but this doesn't happen too often. Nevertheless, whenever signing up at a casino use a unique email address: pacers31-prismcasino@hotmail.com for instance. That's how you catch these guys. :thumbsup:
 
Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure someone will :D) but I think I remember having to send in ID documentation before I could make more than 1 deposit at Club World. I know that my account was locked until they got the information. Wouldn't that be the same thing as requesting ID at the beginning of play? Didn't bother me any at the time but I am kinda naive about things like that.

We can bat this around all we want but it all boils down to this, unless and until things change, we have to do whatever the casinos want if we want to continue to play there. Everyone has the option to play whereever they want (except US) and in doing so, have to abide by the rules.

Sucks but true.
 
With second deposit with club world i got a phone call. Telling me how to send id to them without this they wouldnt allow another deposit. So I went out and faxed them the forms and got it all set up to find out visa wouldnt work so they helped me set up instadebit account. There are a few other casinos that after few deposits hold account off till you forward id. Now after reading this forum
i always send id as i open up a new casino account and i wait till the ok comes in then make a deposit
 
Yeah Bryan I too hope someone will step up and add a little more legitimacy to this whole document thing. It seems unbelievable to me that these same casinos that are so concerned with rules and regulations are so quick to take action from US players in clear violation of US federal law. I would think they would want to take care of the customer in as smooth and expedient manner as possible so as not to draw unwanted attention to themselves by jerking customers around and getting in the "news" so to speak at sites like this. Smart money would be to keep providing, we'll keep playing, and keep it as quiet as possible until the atmosphere improves in the online world. Just another angle on this whole ridiculous thing. Sure makes the casinos look bad when they hassle the customer that wins while continually sucking up the same customers deposits no questions asked.
 
Yeah Bryan I too hope someone will step up and add a little more legitimacy to this whole document thing. It seems unbelievable to me that these same casinos that are so concerned with rules and regulations are so quick to take action from US players in clear violation of US federal law. I would think they would want to take care of the customer in as smooth and expedient manner as possible so as not to draw unwanted attention to themselves by jerking customers around and getting in the "news" so to speak at sites like this. Smart money would be to keep providing, we'll keep playing, and keep it as quiet as possible until the atmosphere improves in the online world. Just another angle on this whole ridiculous thing. Sure makes the casinos look bad when they hassle the customer that wins while continually sucking up the same customers deposits no questions asked.

This is because they can be selective about which laws to obey. Clearly, they have to obey the laws of their licencing juristiction, but this would not include the US. Publically listed companies have pulled out of the US, since it would not be wise for such a company to be seen openly flouting the laws of another country. Casinos that do take US players can do so because their licencing juristiction and software vendors have no clause preventing it, and they stand to lose a great deal of money if they simply do it themselves on the grounds of obeying laws of all countries, regardless if said countries' authorities can "get them". What is oddest, is that some casinos that accept US players against the UIGEA then quote the money laundering regulations of said USA and other countries as the reason for requiring documents, perhaps notarised. In this case, this is bollox, they have not given the true reason behind their requirements, which is all about not wanting to lose money to "dodgy players".

Club World (above) DO seem to be doing the right thing, which is a compromise between asking for documents on registration and driving away new players, and never asking till the first withdrawal.
I would like to know how much lost revenue Club World thinks this has cost them from players not making further deposits after being asked for ID after the first, yet were legitimate players, and not frauds put off by this early ID request. Other casinos seem to think following this Club World strategy would cause them to lose player revenue to such an extent that they are willing to "bend" the money laundering regulations by only requesting ID upon first withdrawal, however much the player has deposited.

As for "F U Clauses". Yes, pretty much every business has one (or more), HOWEVER, unlike online casinos, such companies can be ordered by the courts to strike out such clauses if they are deemed to be unfair, or the contract too one sided in favour of the business. UK banks have just had their own "F U Clauses" which they used to charge 25 for going overdrawn by as little as 1p ruled as reviewable under consumer "unfair consumer contract" laws. This could mean them having to refund all these "confiscations" that they have made for these various "services".

Online casinos are not answerable, for the most part, to the courts, but only to voluntary codes, such as eCogra, where they are members. These voluntary regulators, unlike courts, cannot FORCE them to pay up, but can only expel them from the scheme as a last resort.

Casinos licenced in the EU MAY be answerable to the courts for their actions, but it would take players to bring a case, or sufficient complaints to warrant the authorities to bring one on behalf of consumers, which is what has happened to our banks.
 
Very good point, vinyl. It is a double standart action by Bellerock entertainment.
 
I haven't really heard much about rival, but all of the affiliates I still communicate with, say that Bellerock requires notarized identification from literally everyone who withdraws from them, and many of them have dropped promoting Bellerock altogether because they are tired of having to apologize to people who are waiting several weeks for them to approve documents, and frequently rejecting even those who take the time to go get them notarized.

Doesn't really surprise me though, we've seen Microgamings go generally downhill with a few stellar and consistent exceptions (32red, etc) and Bellerock/Trident (who is Carmen Media owned) have had a number of issues on here as of late.
 
Hard to withdraw casinos will eventually cease to exist

hopefully

This thread gave me enough info to never risk my hard earned money there.
 
Club World (above) DO seem to be doing the right thing, which is a compromise between asking for documents on registration and driving away new players, and never asking till the first withdrawal.
I would like to know how much lost revenue Club World thinks this has cost them from players not making further deposits after being asked for ID after the first, yet were legitimate players, and not frauds put off by this early ID request. Other casinos seem to think following this Club World strategy would cause them to lose player revenue to such an extent that they are willing to "bend" the money laundering regulations by only requesting ID upon first withdrawal, however much the player has deposited.

I must admit that I was really pi**** after the frist deposit at ClubWorld..and the message..first send ID then you can deposit. BUT, after a few deposists and withdrawals later - that politic is really a step forward.
Did it cost them players? I don`t think so. They players (like me) still come back - cause the withdrawal is really quick. And on the other side - the amount of fraudsters (or how you say to them) in their player-database is low.
As I said in another thread. There is no need for a processing time for a withdrawal. Check the ID of the player before depositing...I think Inetbet do the same. (?). In long term you will loose players when they start to feel that the payment is on hold, because they want you to reverse your paying. And if you have any question you notice that in some (or more) casino, the word chaos and "i am just the pencilpusher here" are reaching new heights.

And so...
 
Just to update this thread:
I submitted the notarized documents to them almost two weeks ago and so far have not had confirmation that my account is ready to withdraw.
They tell me they have tried to call me on many occasions but I haven't had any missed calls or messages despite giving them my current contact details.
I submitted another withdrawal request 2 days ago, no action so far.

Obviously a 5 star service from this casino :rolleyes:
 
STILL no action from this terrible casino.
I have had TWO replies to my last SEVEN emails over the last couple of weeks or so.
It is now coming up for THREE WORKING WEEKS since I sent them the notarized documents they insisted on.
 
Yes I have, and Max has been in touch for updates.
Just posting here to update the thread. :)
 
Problem is, once an issue is up (and active) on the boards the casino people tend to look at that and forget the PAB: things can happen a lot faster on the boards than via emails.

The other thing too is that they generally treat private issues and public issue quite differently: they drag their heels more with private issues, but they tend to be more flexible when it comes to making accommodations in order to get the thing settled. With public issues you generally get the T&Cs and not much more.

Update: FWIW, the casino reports that this has been going on for over a year now. They ask for docs, kernow says he'll send them and the casino never receives the docs. After such a long time the casino is understandably extremely reluctant to fork over the cash with out solid proof of identity.

If this were me I'd send them via Registered Mail or the like. Have you done that K? You have proof that the docs were sent and received? I've shipped a lot of valuable stuff internationally this way and know from first hand experience that it's a system that works quite well.
 
Who is the rep here for DV? PM him and send the docs to him. I am surprised that no one has stuck their head up from DV to check this out.
 
Rakesh was the rep, hasn't been around in quite a while though ... and I seem to remember something about having stepped away from the plate.

Checking ... well, yes and no. Tried to get in touch with Rakesh a while back and it appears that didn't work out.

Regardless, the point is a good one. I'll alert DV to what's going on here ... though I could swear I've already done so.
 
Davinci's has now lost alot of future revenue and new accounts over this preposterous doc requirement. I know I will never play there and I'm certain many others feel the same. I still haven't been asked for documents ever at any site I've withdrawn from, so I know that the whole issue is a scam. There is no way to really protect anyone from the casino or player in this situation and I get P.O.ed about the whole facade of "security" and "fraud protection" that these casinos purport as their reason to delay withdrawls. Real smart business decision DaVinci's, you make yourselves look extremely foolish.
 
It seems their communications are in a mess. Perhaps this is just another case (there have been many) where player have sent documents again and again, the Emails haven't bounced, yet the casino constantly claims never to have received them.

It's happened to me before, and there have been numerous complaints about this happening to others.

Registered mail is no good if their base is outside the UK, as you would be relying on their own country's postal service to get it right. If they have UK offices though, this would be the way to resolve this, it would arrive within a couple of days, and there would be proof of delivery, and they could not then claim never to have received them.

Perhaps they have already decided this player is a fraud, and are just going through the motions to make it look like a fair decision has been made.
They would have used other databases for screening before asking for notarised documents, but these government and big company databases are NOT 100% accurate, despite the fact they claim this to be so to protect their commercial interests and image.

UK persons have the right to see, and correct, the information in the vast majority of these databases, but they need to know which ones have been used, and will have to request a copy of their data (costs 10). Credit reference agencies only charge 2. Not being on the electoral roll at the registered address can also cause problems with credit and fraud checks, this can be corrected. This can happen to students, those who frequently move house (for up to a year after each move), and to those who simply fail to register at any address (a possible 1000 fine).
 
Registered mail is no good if their base is outside the UK, as you would be relying on their own country's postal service to get it right.

VM, you know I normally love your stuff but this one is a bit off IMHO.

I'm sure there are circumstances where what you say here is true, but in all fairness there are many other cases it's not true at all. In my experience if you are shipping out of any of North America into Europe or vice versa you stand a good chance of getting excellent service.

In another part of my life I make custom silver jewelry -- sorry, my jewelry site is down at the moment -- and ship this expensive stuff all over the place. 9 times out of 10 registered mail is _the_ way to go. There are obvious exceptions but you'd be surprised what a fiver will buy you in terms of tracking and verification.
 
VM, you know I normally love your stuff but this one is a bit off IMHO.

I'm sure there are circumstances where what you say here is true, but in all fairness there are many other cases it's not true at all. In my experience if you are shipping out of any of North America into Europe or vice versa you stand a good chance of getting excellent service.

In another part of my life I make custom silver jewelry -- sorry, my jewelry site is down at the moment -- and ship this expensive stuff all over the place. 9 times out of 10 registered mail is _the_ way to go. There are obvious exceptions but you'd be surprised what a fiver will buy you in terms of tracking and verification.

It depends on where the casino's base is. Places like the USA, where the mail should be good, are not going to house the offices of online casinos.

I do not know where these Rivals have their offices, but if they are in some out of the way place, this could compromise things.

In other threads, there have been cases of players waiting a golden age to receive payout checks from online casinos where these checks have been posted outside the destination country. The casinos claim this has been down to "the post". Well, if this is so, it would be just as likely to affect post in the other direction, but at the very least would make postal communications between player and casino look very poor.

Perhaps these casinos are generally lying about these delays, the old "check's in the post" syndrome of the pre-internet age, used by unscrupulous, or financially stretched, businesses to help with cashflow while making the customer believe the fault lies elsewhere.

Despite this, it should be possible to get a proof of posting, even if proper tracking turned out to be difficult.

Maybe the documents could be forwarded to Max, and then conveyed to the casino. This would provide a reliable and independent witness to the fact that documents have indeed been provided from this player to the casino. With Max already looking into this, this should not be seen as a compromise to personal information, but more an exercise in expediting the matter.
 
According to the rep this has been resolved. I'm trying to reach the OP to confirm this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top