ID Request For Withdraw - Info From U.K Gambling Commission

spintee

Ueber Meister
webby
mm2
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Location
Northants
I have just seen a bit of info on the U.K gambling commission site which they have tweeted. what do you think? cracking down on the sites that want I.D before cash out.

When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for. However, if you have asked to withdraw funds from your account, the company must not demand that you provide additional information as a condition of releasing those funds, if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier.

gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Safer-gambling/Why-ID-verification-is-important.aspx
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
I have just seen a bit of info on the U.K gambling commission site which they have tweeted. what do you think? cracking down on the sites that want I.D before cash out.

When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for. However, if you have asked to withdraw funds from your account, the company must not demand that you provide additional information as a condition of releasing those funds, if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier.

gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Safer-gambling/Why-ID-verification-is-important.aspx

That's been the case since May. It depends on the time between setting up the account and withdrawing. If you have had the account 2 hours and withdraw then it's probably reasonable for the casino to request additional docs if needed. If you have had the account for a week and withdraw then it's probably unreasonable.
 

aodat2

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
PABaccred2
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Location
Malaysia
When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for.

This is even more dangerous than anything else which is said... Suspending your account indefinitely and then you're in a huge load of trouble.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I have just seen a bit of info on the U.K gambling commission site which they have tweeted. what do you think? cracking down on the sites that want I.D before cash out.

When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for. However, if you have asked to withdraw funds from your account, the company must not demand that you provide additional information as a condition of releasing those funds, if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier.

gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Safer-gambling/Why-ID-verification-is-important.aspx
Are you the REAL spintee? Not Playford8 or 9? :laugh:

On a serious note I agree that if they want this level of ID then it should be collected BEFORE play and not at the point of W/D. I though the UKGC had brought in pre-verification while ago so this holding you over a barrel at w/d time should be a thing of the past, unless you are Casumo.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Are you the REAL spintee? Not Playford8 or 9? :laugh:

On a serious note I agree that if they want this level of ID then it should be collected BEFORE play and not at the point of W/D. I though the UKGC had brought in pre-verification while ago so this holding you over a barrel at w/d time should be a thing of the past, unless you are Casumo.

They have for pre verification, but this additional request will be on deposit methods and things I would assume? Also a casino can request additional information if they are not satisfied that the player in question is the same as who set the account up. Casinos may be abusing this slightly to delay withdrawals might be the only thing to say about it.
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
UKGC also mention clearly in their AML prevention guidances that casinos need to complete verifications when 2000 eur threshold is met
in remote casinos the 'threshold approach for remote gaming' – identification and verification are required when a customer deposits funds to take part in remote gambling or withdraws such funds or winnings amounting to €2,000 or more.

Pre-verification purpose mainly seem to verify player is full age. There are quite many UKGC guidances written, they don't really perfectly match with each others 100%, like this pre-verificarion/verification. I think this is latest AML guidance where's quite a lot about AML prevention, verification, CDD/EDD etc... stuff. Different verifications and document request can pop up when operator think it's needed (ie. SOW), their ongoing monitoring is like name says, ongoing and when they think some request is relevant for reasons XYZ, it's triggered and player expected to comply.

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

shadow123

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Location
midlands
One thing that has to be cracked down on is not processing withdrawals while carrying out checks but
allowing them to be reversed, this makes a total mockery of responsible gaming compliance.
Mecca do the right, the account is locked until the checks are complete.
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
One thing that has to be cracked down on is not processing withdrawals while carrying out checks but
allowing them to be reversed, this makes a total mockery of responsible gaming compliance.
Mecca do the right, the account is locked until the checks are complete.

That's quite creative from many casinos in reading these rules, it makes sense that you don't process withdrawals before you are satisfied to your AML verifications as you don't want anyone succeed in their ML activities, but as pretty much all casinos are operating by risk-based approach, if your AML risk concern is low, there shouldn't be huge concerns to process that one pending withdrawal and inform no more to be processed before they are satisfied with your verification.

It's mentioned somewhere of course that withdrawals shouldn't be paid before verification is done (due to mentioned reasons, of course you don't want to pay money if you have any doubt about something dodgy) but as also low risk players are asked to SOW and other verifications, if you don't have any concerns, there shouldn't be huge risk in paying out (like some casinos are doing, only stopping your withdrawals during ongoing SOW if they see some high risk for any reason, otherwise you can happily withdraw and only get account blocked if documents not received within satisfying timeframe) at least that one withdrawal (if it's very big amount, there is always of course more concern as possible failure is bigger what bigger amount is).

Reversing withdrawal not really make any AML risks, of course it's considered RG sign if player keep doing it all the time and hardly ever get it completed. In my opinion, that's really always every player personal choice, if can't stay without reversing withdrawal even verification would take a week, i would be really concerned about how control i am in my gambling. If it's too tempting to play even huge wins back if withdrawal take time to be processed for any reason, then i would make sure to take time-out every time when making one, i can't imagine how casino could force me to play back some ten thousands pending withdrawal with any tricks in the world (maybe threatening to burn my familys house or other really extreme ways i still haven't hear any been using) but as we know, it happens and we read stories about these there and then. Just my personal opinion but i would just be banging my head to wall how stupid i am and wouldn't even start to blame casino about it (of course it feels better to remove own responsibility and blame how these dirty tricks made me lost back my annual net salary, just can't do it as always know it's just me and my stupidity there to blame, even these tricks are unethical, i must be stupid or have huge RG issue to get sucked in these).
 

shadow123

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Location
midlands
In my case hell would have frozen over before I would reversed the withdrawal but there has to be a suspicion
of ulterior motives with casinos that do not lock accounts while doing checks and also there has to be big questions about the timing of the trigger,I did a series of deposits with no problem, action was only
taken when I submitted a withdrawal, could well be that the deposits took me to the level where the casino considered checks should be carried out but I was still allowed to play.
Would not accuse any casino of dodgy practices without proof but clarification and standardisation of
procedures is badly needed.
 
Last edited:

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
It's quite clearly mentioned that they can keep accepting deposits and let players play, just paying out withdrawals before AML verification is sufficient is wrong and can make troubles if you end up to pay some criminal person.

These are really operators DO:s and DON'T:s which don't really have much to do with user experience but regulator point of view, it's ok to let player play but not ok to let player withdraw before everything is clear and verification passed. Would be up to operators to make these processes more user friendly, like mentioned some times, there are some operators who let players withdraw normally during this process, only exception of course to be players with higher AML concerns (which is really small part of player base) which could make them to be part of criminal activities.

Some are doing these easier and better user experience than others, we mainly get posts for bad practices instead of good ones like usually in everything :)
 

SpinUk

Meister Member
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Location
London
Are you the REAL spintee? Not Playford8 or 9? :laugh:

On a serious note I agree that if they want this level of ID then it should be collected BEFORE play and not at the point of W/D. I though the UKGC had brought in pre-verification while ago so this holding you over a barrel at w/d time should be a thing of the past, unless you are Casumo.
Casumo still upto their old tricks and nothing changed. Puzzling. Someone turning a blind eye to it for sure...
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
It's quite clearly mentioned that they can keep accepting deposits and let players play, just paying out withdrawals before AML verification is sufficient is wrong and can make troubles if you end up to pay some criminal person.

These are really operators DO:s and DON'T:s which don't really have much to do with user experience but regulator point of view, it's ok to let player play but not ok to let player withdraw before everything is clear and verification passed. Would be up to operators to make these processes more user friendly, like mentioned some times, there are some operators who let players withdraw normally during this process, only exception of course to be players with higher AML concerns (which is really small part of player base) which could make them to be part of criminal activities.

Some are doing these easier and better user experience than others, we mainly get posts for bad practices instead of good ones like usually in everything :)

The thing is, regardless of SOW/AML guidelines, it must be against the notion of responsible gambling to block a withdrawal [even though it can still be reversed and lost] and yet still accept more new deposits.

I believe there is also a general rule about not benefiting from the proceeds of crime too, it actually makes the scenario worse to carry on accepting deposits if say for example the player is stealing from a charity or company to fund their gambling, it will cause more harm to that 3rd party and take longer to unravel and sort out surely?
 
Last edited:

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
The thing is, regardless of SOW/AML guidelines, it must be against the notion of responsible gambling to block a withdrawal [even though it can still be reversed and lost] and yet still accept more new deposits.

I believe there is also a general rule about not benefiting from the proceeds of crime too, it actually makes the scenario worse to carry on accepting deposits if say for example the player is stealing from a charity or company to fund their gambling, it will cause more harm to that 3rd party and take longer to unravel and sort out surely?

Not sure if it's mentioned anywhere that deposits shouldn't be accepted, at least can't recall seeing it anywhere but this found from one of fcking many of these guidelines provided to operators:

In carrying out the CDD measures, customers may be allowed to continue using their gaming account while the licensee obtains any necessary information from the customer concerned. However, until such time as the licensee obtains the necessary information and documentation from the customer to meet its CDD obligations, the customer is not to be allowed to effect any withdrawals from the account independently of the amount involved.

So player is allowed to use account but only not allowed to withdraw. Of course it's pretty much up to player if seeing it smart to do deposits when you are in situation that your withdrawals don't get processed (at least very fast) before your verification is completed. I wouldn't make deposits before it's completed
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Not sure if it's mentioned anywhere that deposits shouldn't be accepted, at least can't recall seeing it anywhere but this found from one of fcking many of these guidelines provided to operators:



So player is allowed to use account but only not allowed to withdraw. Of course it's pretty much up to player if seeing it smart to do deposits when you are in situation that your withdrawals don't get processed (at least very fast) before your verification is completed. I wouldn't make deposits before it's completed

I can only think the casinos lobbied for the rule to be written that way. And as we've seen with some casinos the SOW exercise may not be simple and can be deployed as a never ending fishing trip tactic, requesting documents from years ago and of 3rd parties willy nilly.

Ultimately I blame the ukgc, they have not seen how this will play out in reality, or just don't care.

As you say you wouldn't personally redeposit until your withdrawal is completed, so if that is the general, common sense approach a sensible player will take, why do the casinos/ukgc want the deposit option left open?
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
As you say you wouldn't personally redeposit until your withdrawal is completed, so if that is the general, common sense approach a sensible player will take, why do the casinos/ukgc want the deposit option left open?

Good question, could be easily have done that all deposit/withdrawal activity should be stopped on account. Like you said, sounds bit casinos talk to keep account functioning normally except withdrawals.... Just leave account open for player to upload documents, use possible rewards/bonuses etc...
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Said it before on other threads, my view is

If its AML, then if they have serious concerns and have submitted a SAR then they should block any withdrawal, in fact they have to.

If they have serious concerns about AML and haven't (or aren't about to) submit a SAR then deposits and withdrawals should be blocked, but this shouldn't be done on withdrawal that seems to be the norm now. Any concerns should be apparent at the deposit stage, unless of course a withdrawal is done very soon after. Obviously there are exceptions to this, for example, someone depositing £1000, putting £450 on red, £450 on black, £100 on 0 then withdrawing. That would be a massive red flag and only apparent on withdrawal. Someone depositing £1000 playing for 5 hours on £2 stakes, then withdrawing £5k should not trigger an AML check, as that is normal play and playing slots is extremely risky if you are money laundering. If there are concerns about the legitimacy of the fund, then on deposit or between sessions is the obvious time to ask for AML documents.

If it's a RG issue, then if they have serious concerns that someone has a problem with gambling, then continuing to accept deposits from a problem gambler is abhorrent and any casino doing so is no better than those targeting gamstop excluded customers. Holding a withdrawal is just as bad, if they are a problem gambler then they might have spent their rent, food money or anything, so need the withdrawal. I've seen quite a few people make a withdrawal at casino A then think, my rents not due till next week, I'll stick £100 in casino B from it till my withdrawal comes through. Should they do that? Of course not, but people do, and holding a withdrawal can cause major money problems for people.

Regarding Casumo, in my view, when a rep is told by his bosses he cannot answer questions on something, then you know they are doing something indefensible. I know for a fact, if I owned a business and was getting slated & losing customers like they are, I would want my side putting over if I wasn't doing anything wrong!
 

SpinUk

Meister Member
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Location
London
Yea exactly. They are very basic and non-contentious question that the rep failed to answer, not once but numerous times.

They can tell us the monthly top 10 games and wins at their casino though, so that’s alright then.
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
Not sure what all questions are asked and referred now, but i wouldn't disclose almost any information about ongoing monitoring, AML and other practices. To tell how and when these are done, is easiest way to tip off people how to circumvent them. If you inform that we trigger SOW for all who lifetime threshold reach £XXXX you could expect amount of accounts stop transacting before that, due to reason they just want to get involved to process or if you do have something dodgy going, you for sure change casino before that point.

Would really keep all these procedures as internal confidential information.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Not sure what all questions are asked and referred now, but i wouldn't disclose almost any information about ongoing monitoring, AML and other practices. To tell how and when these are done, is easiest way to tip off people how to circumvent them. If you inform that we trigger SOW for all who lifetime threshold reach £XXXX you could expect amount of accounts stop transacting before that, due to reason they just want to get involved to process or if you do have something dodgy going, you for sure change casino before that point.

Would really keep all these procedures as internal confidential information.

Why they only allow deposits and not withdrawals.
What section of the GDPR allows them to process personal data belonging to subjects who have no relationship with them
What happens if they ask for third party information and the third party refuses to give it

are just a few questions that could be answered.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Not sure what all questions are asked and referred now, but i wouldn't disclose almost any information about ongoing monitoring, AML and other practices. To tell how and when these are done, is easiest way to tip off people how to circumvent them. If you inform that we trigger SOW for all who lifetime threshold reach £XXXX you could expect amount of accounts stop transacting before that, due to reason they just want to get involved to process or if you do have something dodgy going, you for sure change casino before that point.

Would really keep all these procedures as internal confidential information.

But AFAIK you shouldn't be using a threshold for SOW (other than those groups like High Value Dealers etc where an amount is set) - using a threhold approach is arguably against the whole concept of risk, mainly because you don't consider risk (what country are they from, their history with us etc) as you've just set a arbitrary figure. There are plenty of examples of risk indicators that allow for a more targeted approach to SOW, it's just that some casinos don't appear to be arsed putting the time in.

Also goes against GDPR's data minimisation principles as well, potentially.
 
Top