I feel BGO are acting unlawfully!

[paul@bgo]

Mobile phone contracts, believe it or not, do not go through the same scrutiny that a utilities company would have to, therefore certain jurisdictions do not allow mobile phone statements to be used as part of the KYC process.

KYC is a pain but we're potentially paying out thousands of pounds in profit, we have to know who we are giving the money to. Plus we have responsible gambling to consider - if we know who you are the first time around, we have a much better chance of protecting problem gamblers from opening up new accounts.

 

[spintee]

Mobile phone contracts, believe it or not, do not go through the same scrutiny that a utilities company would have to, therefore certain jurisdictions do not allow mobile phone statements to be used as part of the KYC process.

KYC is a pain but we're potentially paying out thousands of pounds in profit, we have to know who we are giving the money to. Plus we have responsible gambling to consider - if we know who you are the first time around, we have a much better chance of protecting problem gamblers from opening up new accounts.

What if a player asks for I.D from a site, E.G who actually owns it, ect ect? alot of sites only got verry limited info, even phone numbers bounce around the world a few times,
I have seen recently that sites are asking for I.D which is fair enough but for asking to send of sealed docs is a bit much, considering that alot of casinos are using the same system for banking & deposit and withdraw from same sytem most days, I wonder if its just the casino stalling,
the threads I have read on here about the sealed docs, They have sent of and not heard of 1 being passed and if so than winnings still not got as there casino now say broke rules, I nether figure it out unless I was in the business my self

If I was ask for sealed docs I would do two things, Tell them to put it where the sun does not shine or or go there in person, Probly to meet a small office which deal whith hundreds of redirects, Only to be sent back thousands of miles back to the hidden U.K office,

This is no way pointing anythink at you Pau or bgo, Just happend to see the bit here about ID

 

[vinylweatherman]

Mobile phone contracts, believe it or not, do not go through the same scrutiny that a utilities company would have to, therefore certain jurisdictions do not allow mobile phone statements to be used as part of the KYC process.

KYC is a pain but we're potentially paying out thousands of pounds in profit, we have to know who we are giving the money to. Plus we have responsible gambling to consider - if we know who you are the first time around, we have a much better chance of protecting problem gamblers from opening up new accounts.

The problem is the quality of CS. Your CS agents should have been able to resolve this issue, instead it dragged out over two months, and was still in deadlock. This is, in a way, "unlawful". Rather than giving the OP the "talk to the hand" treatment, CS should have made sure this issue was escalated and dealt with long before the OP decided that they would have to raise it in a public forum.

The letter from the housing executive SHOULD have served the "utility bill" requirement of KYC, leaving only the ID document to sort out.

I am rather surprised that the "set in stone" requirement for a photo ID can be waived if electronic (non photo) checks manage to verify the player, yet there is zero leeway when they can't verify the player, and said player lives in a country like the UK that, unlike the majority of countries, has rejected the general issue of ID documents.

In terms of being "unlawful", it would be the Unfair Business Practices act, though this would probably only cover the seizure of the player's own money, rather than the refusal to register.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What if a player asks for I.D from a site, E.G who actually owns it, ect ect? alot of sites only got verry limited info, even phone numbers bounce around the world a few times,
I have seen recently that sites are asking for I.D which is fair enough but for asking to send of sealed docs is a bit much, considering that alot of casinos are using the same system for banking & deposit and withdraw from same sytem most days, I wonder if its just the casino stalling,
the threads I have read on here about the sealed docs, They have sent of and not heard of 1 being passed and if so than winnings still not got as there casino now say broke rules, I nether figure it out unless I was in the business my self

If I was ask for sealed docs I would do two things, Tell them to put it where the sun does not shine or or go there in person, Probly to meet a small office which deal whith hundreds of redirects, Only to be sent back thousands of miles back to the hidden U.K office,

This is no way pointing anythink at you Pau or bgo, Just happend to see the bit here about ID

Quite, and this has been a long standing criticism, and an issue that allows many rogue operators to rip players off, and then run off knowing that they are virtually untraceable. It's also likely to change in 2015 for UK players provided they stick to those sites that have the required UK license. The UK is not yet going to block players from playing at unlicensed sites, and the license is more to do with policing the new taxation rules than ensuring players can't use unlicensed sites.

Strictly speaking, under anti money laundering guidance, WE should also be verifying who we spend our money with, however we are not allowed to know this, and this is supported by the very same licensing jurisdictions that tell casinos they need to put players through the wringer in terms of documents, notaries, even sending stuff by post to the Philippines in some cases.

I would also think that where money can be paid back to the method of deposit, this is itself a pretty good method of preventing money laundering in standard casino accounts where "dirty" money cannot be deliberately lost to specific other players for laundering.

 

[spintee]

Yes I have read abit about these big operaters latley, running of with millons but I bet there not even the top men, I do wonder with all these new changes lately has something to do do with the U.K rule? As there seem to be alot of big time changes in recent months, Most of them under our nose and not even no, (bring up more excuse) Im yet to look into it, But I always said in many of post that profits end up in a few pockets only, And not ours, Tax Tax Tax, Thats most probs why there changing all around its like having 200 gangs build into 1, instead of paying taax on hundreds of company's it roles in to a few than paying min back, But keeping as a few organisations encase 1 decides to go bust or a runner with a few dozen mill,

Im not an expert on this rubbish or read into to much but what I have seen in the last few months makes any 1 think whats going on, Also whats going on, I like to play lose as normall & if win a few quid happy, Do not need all the changes and and shit help of cs, giving rubbish all time,
What ever happen to the good old days when you used to put in a few quid in laddys and was back to you in a few hours? Sites making a mole hole into a mountain trying to hide bits

Correct me if I wrong but thats my experience,

Quite, and this has been a long standing criticism, and an issue that allows many rogue operators to rip players off, and then run off knowing that they are virtually untraceable. It's also likely to change in 2015 for UK players provided they stick to those sites that have the required UK license. The UK is not yet going to block players from playing at unlicensed sites, and the license is more to do with policing the new taxation rules than ensuring players can't use unlicensed sites.

Strictly speaking, under anti money laundering guidance, WE should also be verifying who we spend our money with, however we are not allowed to know this, and this is supported by the very same licensing jurisdictions that tell casinos they need to put players through the wringer in terms of documents, notaries, even sending stuff by post to the Philippines in some cases.

I would also think that where money can be paid back to the method of deposit, this is itself a pretty good method of preventing money laundering in standard casino accounts where "dirty" money cannot be deliberately lost to specific other players for laundering.

 

[paul@bgo]

Certainly in the better jurisdictions - Alderney and Isle of Man (the ones I'm familiar with), owners of a business must go through an incredibly strict due diligence process. All player funds are ring fenced so there is no 'running off with all of the money' like what may have happened with other shady outfits. Gambling is heavily regulated these days and anyone licensed by what is considered a 'white listed' jurisdiction should be trustworthy.

In this particular case there was a very good reason the documents were turned away. The electronic checks we do are approved by regulators for use and comply with not just their rules, but the wider rules for any financial institution transferring money.

The CS team didn't give the 'talk to the hand' treatment as you describe it vinylweatherman, but I won't get into a discussion surrounding another persons account.

I'm trying to be informative on how KYC works. If you have questions on why particular documents cannot be accepted, I'll try to offer an explanation, provided it's not specific to an individual. As per my comment, mobile phone contracts do not undergo due diligence and you can apply for one at an address where you are not registered for tax, on the electoral role or hold any other utilities contracts, therefore they're not sufficient evidence that you reside at a particular address.

Cheers

 

[spintee]

Am I sorted with your site Paul? I do not think I ever sent docs in but I did withdraw about 35 quid when you was xbingo, I have deposit sinse but that bonus turned me away when its linked to bingo? Unsre if you changed rules yet, thats only reason Im keeping away, Abit diff to work out

Certainly in the better jurisdictions - Alderney and Isle of Man (the ones I'm familiar with), owners of a business must go through an incredibly strict due diligence process. All player funds are ring fenced so there is no 'running off with all of the money' like what may have happened with other shady outfits. Gambling is heavily regulated these days and anyone licensed by what is considered a 'white listed' jurisdiction should be trustworthy.

In this particular case there was a very good reason the documents were turned away. The electronic checks we do are approved by regulators for use and comply with not just their rules, but the wider rules for any financial institution transferring money.

The CS team didn't give the 'talk to the hand' treatment as you describe it vinylweatherman, but I won't get into a discussion surrounding another persons account.

I'm trying to be informative on how KYC works. If you have questions on why particular documents cannot be accepted, I'll try to offer an explanation, provided it's not specific to an individual. As per my comment, mobile phone contracts do not undergo due diligence and you can apply for one at an address where you are not registered for tax, on the electoral role or hold any other utilities contracts, therefore they're not sufficient evidence that you reside at a particular address.

Cheers

 

[asadzareef89]

Well whenever this player gets his account reopened what would happen to his bonus funds? as i think they expire after 30 days so if he/she took the bonus with their deposit all of it would have automatically been forfeited? right??

 

[paul@bgo]

Bonuses only expire after 24 months of inactivity. If you play, it'll never expire.

Spintee - ping me your username and i'll check for you.

Cheers

 

[spintee]

Bonuses only expire after 24 months of inactivity. If you play, it'll never expire.

Spintee - ping me your username and i'll check for you.

Cheers

Sorry Paul user name is same as here and all other sites unless some1 nicked it
If not sotered with I.D I will send some as I will bet I will deposit agin

I go out now for beer, Hope I not miss much , I no from expreainces theres a few good reps on here, I do not no much how it works or vare at the min as long as things sorted, Paul;BGO, LucaS; vidio slots, And others you more than your weight in gold, Not that I have had problems but its soon sorted if any, I forgot hats of to coralcasino,

 

[vinylweatherman]

Certainly in the better jurisdictions - Alderney and Isle of Man (the ones I'm familiar with), owners of a business must go through an incredibly strict due diligence process. All player funds are ring fenced so there is no 'running off with all of the money' like what may have happened with other shady outfits. Gambling is heavily regulated these days and anyone licensed by what is considered a 'white listed' jurisdiction should be trustworthy.

In this particular case there was a very good reason the documents were turned away. The electronic checks we do are approved by regulators for use and comply with not just their rules, but the wider rules for any financial institution transferring money.

The CS team didn't give the 'talk to the hand' treatment as you describe it vinylweatherman, but I won't get into a discussion surrounding another persons account.

I'm trying to be informative on how KYC works. If you have questions on why particular documents cannot be accepted, I'll try to offer an explanation, provided it's not specific to an individual. As per my comment, mobile phone contracts do not undergo due diligence and you can apply for one at an address where you are not registered for tax, on the electoral role or hold any other utilities contracts, therefore they're not sufficient evidence that you reside at a particular address.
Cheers

This is where we get the problems. There are many documents that can show this, not just a utility bill.

I would have thought that any letter from something like a Housing Executive for your property would provide sufficient proof of address. Even so, the CS could have been more helpful in enabling the OP to find a suitable letter. A bank statement would also do, and even where they are issued online (as are most utility bills now), the PDF version is an exact copy of what is posted out, so printing off the header page and scanning it would be indistinguishable from a posted copy.

It may even be possible to get a recognised company or organisation to write to you by writing to them with a question, or doing something that would trigger such a letter.

As for KYC, there is a full list of what the UK regulators deem as acceptable proof of ID and address. It does NOT state that a mobile phone bill is acceptable, however it does have a "list B" that provides for people who cannot provide photo documents. It just means that more documents are required from list B to provide a full KYC, whereas for list A it's a photo ID and only ONE other document.

As for the idea that regulations are this strict:-

Certainly in the better jurisdictions - Alderney and Isle of Man (the ones I'm familiar with), owners of a business must go through an incredibly strict due diligence process. All player funds are ring fenced so there is no 'running off with all of the money' like what may have happened with other shady outfits. Gambling is heavily regulated these days and anyone licensed by what is considered a 'white listed' jurisdiction should be trustworthy.

Purple Lounge

Is it any wonder that players don't trust the offshore jurisdictions.

As for Alderney - we have the Full Tilt fiasco, where they bent to the will of the company in agreeing to waive transparency by holding the enquiry into vanished players' funds in private. Remember, they were licensed in Alderney, and players' funds went missing right under their noses. Seems all this hot money was ring fenced in a chocolate teapot - another illustration of why players don't even fully trust these A list licencing jurisdictions.

 

[paul@bgo]

Most of the examples you gave VWM are correct and we'd accept them as proof of address. We do have a team of guys whose job it is to check all of these KYC documents and yes, on occasions they may be too strict, but I'd rather that than being too lenient and we end up under the gun for facilitating crime.

Alderney were lied to as far as I know re. Full Tilt. With the new controls they have in place I sincerely doubt it'll ever happen again under their watch, getting a license from them was 2 years of serious hard graft!

Spintee - provided you're the same person I just found under the same username, you're all good

 

[psmith2020]

just a quick one on some i.d advise

1. I am not the electrol roll and it would make things difficult for me would that cause alarms bells to ring at any online cashino

2. from number 1 as this is the care of address only on paper only unofficial as cause would that cause any problems with the kyc check

as I cannot even pull up my own credit file

 

[vinylweatherman]

Most of the examples you gave VWM are correct and we'd accept them as proof of address. We do have a team of guys whose job it is to check all of these KYC documents and yes, on occasions they may be too strict, but I'd rather that than being too lenient and we end up under the gun for facilitating crime.

Alderney were lied to as far as I know re. Full Tilt. With the new controls they have in place I sincerely doubt it'll ever happen again under their watch, getting a license from them was 2 years of serious hard graft!

Spintee - provided you're the same person I just found under the same username, you're all good

This is the main problem. Rogues are hardly likely to admit to their regulators what they are really up to, yet players cannot run their own checks due to the secrecy surrounding who owns and runs what. Only the regulators are privy to this information, so when they fail badly, trust is eroded. Even worse is the fact that regulators are powerless to get redress for players once they find out they have been lied to. In the Purple Lounge case, matters are even worse, as the LGA were complicit in allowing the scam to succeed, and when it went wrong, they quietly accepted the license back from Purple Lounge, and when players complained they said it was no longer anything to do with them as they were no longer licenced.

Even with stricter procedures now in Alderney, they could still be taken in by a clever rogue who would seek the Alderney license as it is seen as one of the least untrustworthy jurisdictions among players. There will always be mistrust of the LGA, which is regarded as a jurisdiction of convenience for any operator that is looking to minimise tax and accountability whilst benefitting from being licensed by an EU member state.

As for KYC, there is being strict and there is being deliberately obstructive and unhelpful. The latter is where the stated procedures themselves are not enough, whereas the former regards how far to go when dealing with an individual who cannot be verified in the normal manner.

In the OPs case, it looks like you don't accept players who rent property where the rent they pay is inclusive of things that are often the responsibility of the tenant such as water and heating. Many such properties use prepayment meters for energy, and these don't come with "utility bills" that provide for proof of address.

Players with certain personal circumstances just cannot play online as the KYC procedure just can't work for them, even when they are who they say they are, live where they claim to live, etc. This is something these players only find out after they have joined a casino and played. It turns out they can never win, but they can lose for months, even years, before finding this out. As far as they are concerned, they have been scammed. It does not matter in their eyes that it's the KYC procedures that are the problem, they feel that once they have been allowed to play, they should be allowed to win and leave, the same as in a land casino.

There is little in the way of advice for players regarding personal circumstances that might make it difficult, even impossible, to pass casino KYC, nor what they should do in preparation if they intend to try online gambling for the first time. It's made even harder because there is no consistency among operators with regard to KYC. The same documents can work at casino after casino, and then suddenly get rejected out of hand.

For an industry this mature, such problems should be a thing of the past, but if anything it's far worse now than it ever was.

 

[paul@bgo]

In the OPs case, it looks like you don't accept players who rent property where the rent they pay is inclusive of things that are often the responsibility of the tenant such as water and heating. Many such properties use prepayment meters for energy, and these don't come with "utility bills" that provide for proof of address.

This is a very good point and one I have made to the guys here. I appreciate KYC can be difficult at times and we will always try to help where we can but we cannot risk a single misstep. Anyone who has been to Vegas will know that they ID absolutely everyone who goes to the bar, this is because one single under age gambler/drinker can put their whole operation at risk. This is how we are with KYC.

As far as Alderney and the FTP fiasco is concerned, I can't really comment as it was before we moved to our Alderney license, but they were shut down for money laundering - a crime that extends much further than the reach of the gambling regulator, hence the DoJ and FBI being involved.

 

[Azzurri]

For what it's worth, I was verified with minimal fuss, and I'm based in Australia. I've also had many discussions with Paul, and have found him to be one of the most honest and upfront reps on here. I can smell bull shit a mile away, and have never even caught a whiff when dealing with Paul.

To be honest, I haven't had the greatest experience early on with the cs, but there was never an issue to great for Paul, and he gave me his word he would improve his cs, and since then I have had only positive experiences with them. Tells me Paul's a man of his word, and not just looking for a quick fix to shut us up. Reps that prove they actually care about us players, deserve our patience in return, as not all issues have quick fixes due to many factors. Unlike some reps who disappear at the first sign of negative feedback, we must give credit to reps like Paul who meet the criticism head on, and engage in discussions to reach a resolution.

If this issues been resolved with the op, I think they should have the title of the thread updated to resolved as a courtesy. I have never found bgo, and in particular Paul, to ever be unlawful or untrustworthy, therefore the current title of the thread is unjustly damaging. Paul has proven he doesn't deserve that title.

My two cents.

 

[dusky]

This is a very good point and one I have made to the guys here. I appreciate KYC can be difficult at times and we will always try to help where we can but we cannot risk a single misstep. Anyone who has been to Vegas will know that they ID absolutely everyone who goes to the bar, this is because one single under age gambler/drinker can put their whole operation at risk. This is how we are with KYC.

I've only ever been ID'ed at Planet Hollywood, most others have been ok. It must be my youthful looks wearing off!

BGO have always been superb with me and as just mentioned you can spot some reps nonsense a mile off but BGO have to be able to know who they are dealing with in ALL cases so I can see why they are being a bit sticky with this one.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is a very good point and one I have made to the guys here. I appreciate KYC can be difficult at times and we will always try to help where we can but we cannot risk a single misstep. Anyone who has been to Vegas will know that they ID absolutely everyone who goes to the bar, this is because one single under age gambler/drinker can put their whole operation at risk. This is how we are with KYC.

As far as Alderney and the FTP fiasco is concerned, I can't really comment as it was before we moved to our Alderney license, but they were shut down for money laundering - a crime that extends much further than the reach of the gambling regulator, hence the DoJ and FBI being involved.

The problem is usually with the front line CS that players are dealing with. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about alternative means that might work because one is speaking to a CS rep that has not been trained in the KYC aspect. They sometimes fail to actually listen to what a player is saying and parrot out a completely inappropriate answer over and over again. This makes players guess what might do, and when they guess wrong, it makes the casino look as though they are messing them around.

For a UK person, they can actually complain to the ICO where they feel that they have unfairly failed KYC checks. This has been happening with the banks, and the ICO and banking regulators have told the banks that they must not use systems that exclude certain sectors of the community such as the elderly, disabled, etc.

If the ordinary punter was as well versed as the criminals, they would have little trouble getting past KYC as they would be who they say they are, whereas the criminals are using their knowledge to beat the system.

At casinos, the whole KYC system is shrouded in secrecy, yet here in the UK there are many programs that cover EXACTLY how it's done, and how the criminals and fraudsters eventually got busted. They also show in some detail what happens in the secretive world of looking at a set of documents to determine whether they are genuine or fake.

We have "Caught Red Handed" on BBC1 daytime TV, "Fake Britain" also. Both cover the war between the fakers and criminals who target individuals and companies, what they did, and how, and how they eventually got busted.

Watching such shows may guide the innocent in not inadvertently triggering those false positives when dealing with a bank, loan company, or even their employer.

The fundamental advice is to always get on the electoral roll as soon as you move house, rather than waiting for the form in October. It is much more than just "registering to vote". The other is to check your credit files for errors, they are much more common than one might expect.

Another important piece of advice is to shred anything with your personal information on it, and NEVER send such data by insecure means, advice with most online casino players are forced to disregard as the casinos have such archaic systems for the initial processes of KYC, sending in high quality images of all the personal data an ID thief could want by email.

KYC is so strict because casinos can't even have ONE mistake, yet they often couldn't care less about players' documents going missing during the initial stages, it's just a case of "please send it again". I do not think the ICO will be too happy with this state of affairs once the new UK regime drags them into such complaints.

 

[paul@bgo]

Another important piece of advice is to shred anything with your personal information on it, and NEVER send such data by insecure means, advice with most online casino players are forced to disregard as the casinos have such archaic systems for the initial processes of KYC, sending in high quality images of all the personal data an ID thief could want by email.

Funny you should mention this - this is one of the hardest and most expensive parts of obtaining an Alderney license. They are so strict on KYC and how it is stored. We had to spend a huge amount on this area of our compliance.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Funny you should mention this - this is one of the hardest and most expensive parts of obtaining an Alderney license. They are so strict on KYC and how it is stored. We had to spend a huge amount on this area of our compliance.

How do you receive documents from players?

Take a look around the forum and you will see dozens of gripes from players who send them by email, only to have the casino front line CS confirm receipt, only to be told later on that they never arrived and to send them again. Also common are players who have to send them repeatedly because they never arrive, yet no one has any idea where the missing emails and attachments are, let alone whether they are securely destroyed in the process of getting "lost".

It is this stage that is the weak link in the chain. Most casinos, once they have the documents in the hands of their cashier and security teams, store them safely.

Another point raised is that documents sent by email can be viewed by front line CS, and thus exposed to a rogue employee making illicit copies before forwarding them to banking. The onslaught of spam already demonstrates how easy it is for our basic contact details to leak from casinos that we have signed up to. Sometimes the spammers know our NAME, not just our email address, which strongly suggests a leaked list as opposed to spamming random email addresses, or harvesting from forums where we go by an alias, rather than our real name.

 

[paul@bgo]

All staff here are CRB and reference checked due to the information they have available to them, so we don't just employ 'anyone'. KYC is generally sent to us via Email but I can't disclose how we handle it from that point on, just rest assured it is routed securely and is PCI compliant

We also have a proper KYC/Verification team who verify these documents. Our front line team don't generally look at the documents and once they're verified in the system, only senior staff can view them. We don't mess around with this stuff, we know how important the information being sent to us is and we invest huge amounts of time, effort and money making sure that we keep things secure.

 

[vinylweatherman]

All staff here are CRB and reference checked due to the information they have available to them, so we don't just employ 'anyone'. KYC is generally sent to us via Email but I can't disclose how we handle it from that point on, just rest assured it is routed securely and is PCI compliant

We also have a proper KYC/Verification team who verify these documents. Our front line team don't generally look at the documents and once they're verified in the system, only senior staff can view them. We don't mess around with this stuff, we know how important the information being sent to us is and we invest huge amounts of time, effort and money making sure that we keep things secure.

Any system, no matter how well designed, is only as strong as it's weakest link. In this case, it's the email network, notoriously insecure, and target of many hacking attempts because someone's mailbox can be a goldmine of stored and unencrypted information. It doesn't matter how secure handling is after the documents reach the casino's systems, the nature of the email protocols means that there are unencrypted copies lying around vulnerable to a hack, no more so than when a mobile device is used, including anything connected via public WiFi or an unsecured home network. The problem here is that the casino will get the blame if these documents are stolen by a hack into the players' email account, because as far as the player is concerned, the obvious cause and effect would be sending their documents via email to xxx casino followed by these very same documents being implicated in an attempted fraud against them.

Ideally, the documents should be encrypted locally on the players' machine, and then sent in this form to the casino along with the public key, and not decrypted until they reach the security department.

 

[JackMack]

All staff here are CRB and reference checked due to the information they have available to them, so we don't just employ 'anyone'. KYC is generally sent to us via Email but I can't disclose how we handle it from that point on, just rest assured it is routed securely and is PCI compliant

We also have a proper KYC/Verification team who verify these documents. Our front line team don't generally look at the documents and once they're verified in the system, only senior staff can view them. We don't mess around with this stuff, we know how important the information being sent to us is and we invest huge amounts of time, effort and money making sure that we keep things secure.

Hi Paul,
Could you point me to the part of Alderney regulation that requires you to verify the identity of your players and what specific documentation it mentions?
As far as I aware most jurisdictions leave it up to the Casino managements discretion and there is a request that the casinos does what possible to ensure players are of legal gambling age.

Also on Whitelisted jurisdictions, I can assure you they are not all created equally.
The department for culture, media and sport will not be held accountable for a whitelisted jurisdiction actions that is detrimental to a player.
It is just a way of UK government shaking down a few territories for the right to advertise in the UK, otherwise it is a bit hit and miss though I will accept a complaint with Alderney or Isle of Man will get further than one with Curacao or Costa Rica

 

[spintee]

Hi Paul,
Could you point me to the part of Alderney regulation that requires you to verify the identity of your players and what specific documentation it mentions?
As far as I aware most jurisdictions leave it up to the Casino managements discretion and there is a request that the casinos does what possible to ensure players are of legal gambling age.

Also on Whitelisted jurisdictions, I can assure you they are not all created equally.
The department for culture, media and sport will not be held accountable for a whitelisted jurisdiction actions that is detrimental to a player.
It is just a way of UK government shaking down a few territories for the right to advertise in the UK, otherwise it is a bit hit and miss though I will accept a complaint with Alderney or Isle of Man will get further than one with Curacao or Costa Rica

Alderney do point out that casinos need to kyc, Infact they point out in 1 of there rules,
What gives them the right to charge what ever they want for license ect, The prices are outrageous,Ive always said I do not no much about it but like VWM said as soon as U.K gets involed next year I can see its all gona change, We most probly not see much of it exept a lot less sites to play on and govrments pockets will certainly be a lot more heavier

 

[paul@bgo]

Hi Paul,
Could you point me to the part of Alderney regulation that requires you to verify the identity of your players and what specific documentation it mentions?
As far as I aware most jurisdictions leave it up to the Casino managements discretion and there is a request that the casinos does what possible to ensure players are of legal gambling age.

Also on Whitelisted jurisdictions, I can assure you they are not all created equally.
The department for culture, media and sport will not be held accountable for a whitelisted jurisdiction actions that is detrimental to a player.
It is just a way of UK government shaking down a few territories for the right to advertise in the UK, otherwise it is a bit hit and miss though I will accept a complaint with Alderney or Isle of Man will get further than one with Curacao or Costa Rica

Being 'of age' isn't necessarily the sole purpose of the KYC, it's about knowing who you are transacting with. We have responsibilities far beyond that of gambling. I have no idea if Alderney disclose their requirements to the public but the ICS document we have to comply with is a few hundred pages long.