Interwetten - won't refund deposit

[mikehendi]

Hello,

I recently deposited at Interwetten (using moneybookers), and after some trouble, they stated that I recieved the 50% signup bonus they offer in my account. But because I was unable to find the bonus in my account, I changed my mind about playing in their casino.

So, I forfeited the bonus, and tried to cash out using moneybookers again. Unfortunately, This wasn't possible! They state that my first cashout MUST proceed with a bank wire transfer, for "security reasons".

I've played at about 10 different online casino's, and at about 8 online pokerrooms, but I have never had any problems cashing out with the same way I deposited (always neteller or moneybookers).

I emailed support, and after a few mails, this was their final answer:

- You must withdraw with a bank wire transfer because of anti-money laundering policies

- If you deposit, and then withdraw again WITHOUT wagering, we will keep 10% of your deposit!


My question is: Are these normal policies? can they just keep 10% of my deposit because I changed my mind about playing?

If needed, I will post the entire email conversation here.

 

[GrandMaster]

You must withdraw with a bank wire transfer because of anti-money laundering policies

Interestingly, most casinos will insist on least the amount of your deposit to the source where it came from, supposedly also to prevent money laundering.

If you deposit, and then withdraw again WITHOUT wagering, we will keep 10% of your deposit!

It does cost the casino money to process deposits and withdrawals. You are better of playing your deposit once on blackjack, you are likely to lose less than 10% of your money.

 

[winbig]

You are better of playing your deposit once on blackjack, you are likely to lose less than 10% of your money.

Or if you wanted to split hairs with them, bet the table minimum on one hand of blackjack and try to cash out then.

They said "without wagering", but failed to say how much wagering is required. Any bet placed should cover it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Irrelevant, the casino reneged on an advertised 50% bonus, and is therefore in breach of contract. Player should get 100% return of deposit, and if hair splitting is in order, an additional sum to compensate for the breach of contract. If the casino did indeed add the bonus, then their levels of customer service are very poor indeed, otherwise the player would have been helped to find and play this seemingly missing bonus.

The statement about money laundering laws is bullshit, there is apparently no such thing, either for those casinos that blame such laws for requiring deposits to be returned to their origin, or for those few that just make it up as they go along, as in this case. If it were really down to "money laundering regulations", each and every casino, sportsbook, or poker room would have identical policies.

Many players would LIKE to be paid by bank wire, but funnily enough, THOSE players are told it can't be done, and they have to accept their money back to their deposit method, or by cheque. Just goes to show that casinos really ARE LYING about this - they have some hidden agenda, but are trotting out lies to obscure what is really going on.

 

[Rob]

Irrelevant, the casino reneged on an advertised 50% bonus, and is therefore in breach of contract. Player should get 100% return of deposit, and if hair splitting is in order, an additional sum to compensate for the breach of contract. If the casino did indeed add the bonus, then their levels of customer service are very poor indeed, otherwise the player would have been helped to find and play this seemingly missing bonus.

The statement about money laundering laws is bullshit, there is apparently no such thing, either for those casinos that blame such laws for requiring deposits to be returned to their origin, or for those few that just make it up as they go along, as in this case. If it were really down to "money laundering regulations", each and every casino, sportsbook, or poker room would have identical policies.

Many players would LIKE to be paid by bank wire, but funnily enough, THOSE players are told it can't be done, and they have to accept their money back to their deposit method, or by cheque. Just goes to show that casinos really ARE LYING about this - they have some hidden agenda, but are trotting out lies to obscure what is really going on.

I wonder did the OP check if the bonus was on the pending bonus bit of the account section in game?

And all that nonsense about breach of contract, the casino always has a rule similar to this one "14. Management decision is final. No discussion will be entered into.". If they decide they are going to charge you for depositing then withdrawing straight away that is their choice.

And hidden agenda, wtf are you talking about; its only dependant on what withdrawral services each casino supplies, and you know it changes from place to place. Most casinos let you deposit/withdraw via the same method. And any evidence to prove that those who want to withdraw by bank wire are told they can't, and those that dont want that method are forced into it?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I wonder did the OP check if the bonus was on the pending bonus bit of the account section in game?

And all that nonsense about breach of contract, the casino always has a rule similar to this one "14. Management decision is final. No discussion will be entered into.". If they decide they are going to charge you for depositing then withdrawing straight away that is their choice.

And hidden agenda, wtf are you talking about; its only dependant on what withdrawral services each casino supplies, and you know it changes from place to place. Most casinos let you deposit/withdraw via the same method. And any evidence to prove that those who want to withdraw by bank wire are told they can't, and those that dont want that method are forced into it?

There are numerous complaints about casinos forcing unwanted withdrawal methods on players. The casino here is blaming EXTERNAL regulations, if it down to merely the whim of management, they are STILL LYING by trying to blame "laws" for what is merely the whim of management.
Most casinos insist on paying back to the method of deposit. In this case, Moneybookers. There is no question here that being able to refund back to Moneybookers is something that ALL casinos can do if they have a merchant account there to accept the deposits. The hidden agenda is that they are not willling to disclose why they REALLY can't refund to Moneybookers, but the recent Playtech/Neteller issue has given the game away. Casinos were using every trick they could think of to resist paying out to Neteller, in order to hise the fact that they had not been verified by Neteller, and thus were not allowed to add fresh funds to their merchant accounts. This meant that they could ONLY pay back to Neteller what they had collectively received in deposits. These casinos, were, in effect, "money laundering" their way out of the crisis by using the funds that Neteller would not accept to pay players by other methods where they were able to get the funds accepted for transit - this was usually payment by cheque.

Their reasoning of "security" is also bogus, "security" is best served by refunding back to the method of deposit. Refunding to a different bank account, one that the player has given them, is less secure, and would also be an excellent way to defraud someone's Moneybookers account and get the money out by another method before Moneybookers could be alerted and act. The casino would then leave itself wide open to a "chargeback" from Moneybookers, but would no longer have the funds, and neither would Moneybookers, they would be in a bank account.
For security purposes, it is the document check that verifies the player, and most casinos will hold up any withdrawal until they are happy with the player's details.

 

[Rob]

Ah, didn't realise this you see. Cashouts for me have always been pretty straightforward.

 

[uungy]

i still have about 100 stuck in payspark(probably they have taken 10 a week for not using the account now) when bellerock decided to pay it out like that, even thogh i requested it to neteller. (they only let you withdraw your balance mninus 10 for charges, incase you go over etc)

so there is definatly something behind this payment saga

 

[vinylweatherman]

i still have about 100 stuck in payspark(probably they have taken 10 a week for not using the account now) when bellerock decided to pay it out like that, even thogh i requested it to neteller. (they only let you withdraw your balance mninus 10 for charges, incase you go over etc)

so there is definatly something behind this payment saga

Can't you just drop this into another MG casino?

Payspark were/are based in Lebanon, and had some kind of crisis a while back. I was given a Payspark account by BelleRock (and another by Jackpot Factory), but resisted temptations to activate it, but they did try to get me to use it. I was right not to do so, because after their crisis they just seemed to vanish with player's funds - they did not return contact attempts, and the accounts were inaccessible for a while. I think they rebranded as EZpay, and work for non-US players at MG casinos.

There was certainly something behind this, as they breached privacy rules, as well as financial regulations, in opening accounts without permission. They did this despite this particular "bank" being in Lebanon, not exactly a stable part of the world where players could be confident their funds were safe.

There is certainly something else going on, there is an increase in casinos having "anti Neteller" rules, often buried in general terms and conditions, and some also extend this to Moneybookers. At the same time, new payment methods are coming on stream and being promoted by special offers, not draconian penalty terms, as was once the case with Neteller and Moneybookers. Seems they want players to move away from tried and tested ewallet solutions in favour of these new upstarts that have little in the way of track record. Apart from the US and Canada, there is no reason why other players should be cajoled away from Neteller and Moneybookers, with the protection of UK and Isle of Man regulation, in favour of new and untested options regulated by "who knows".

Click2Pay is still being promoted, yet is far more problematic than Neteller and Moneybookers, and Clickandbuy has sprung up, a very similar sounding name as Click2Pay making me think there is some kind of connnection.

 

[gerilege]

They simply don't provide moneybookers as a payout option for me even after several cashouts, only wire transfer.

Edit: I removed wrong assumptions, because of explanation in reply to my post

 

[Rob]

They simply don't provide moneybookers as a payout option for me even after several cashouts, only wire transfer. So I guess the first withdrawal should go via wire transfer is only an excuse. As they and you are both in the EU and probably have EUR accounts, wire transfer is probably cheaper for them than moneybookers, and I guess that they have a sportbook-like mentality, withdrawals should be rare and big, so they probably think that no wide range of options is required.

Did you first deposit via credit card, if so you cannot withdraw via moneybookers ever.

 

[mikehendi]

Thank you all for your replies! I see that I still have a leg to stand on here. My original post contains some misconceptions though, I used my own words to describe their answer (for example, they didn't literally say "we keep 10% since you haven't done ANY wagering).

I will post the entire email-conversation later tonight (in a few hours, that is).

But really, thank you all very much!

 

[vinylweatherman]

They simply don't provide moneybookers as a payout option for me even after several cashouts, only wire transfer.

Edit: I removed wrong assumptions, because of explanation in reply to my post

This is silly, if a player's circumstances changes, their only choice would be to take their custom elsewhere to a place that accepts their preferred payout options.
They should be making their policy clear from the outset. If they have a table that lists Moneybookers as a withdrawal option, they should not then tell players it isn't only when they have played.

Not all players actually have bank accounts, it depends on their credit rating, which dictates what banking services they will be accepted for. Without a bank account, receiving bank wires and cheques is difficult, as they have to be passed through a third party, which is pretty much what money laundering is about.

This outfit should stop blaming external rules and regulations and come clean about the true reasons behind this, as well as a full and clear set of rules relating players initial actions to what payment options will be available for them. Obscure rules such as this only seem to serve one purpose, to delay withdrawals, and reflects the tactics employed by rogue operators with a view to getting the player to play on with their balance rather than withdrawing it.

 

[mikehendi]

Here's the whole email conversation.

When I found out I couldn't withdraw with moneybookers (the same way I deposited), I sent the first email:

================================
mikehendi sent:

Hello,

I'm sorry to say I've changed my mind regarding playing in your casino.

I've deposited using moneybookers, so I didn't expect it to be a problem to cash out again to moneybookers. Unfortunately, it is!!!

Although I deposited with moneybookers, you state that I MUST withdraw with a bank transfer, before I can withdraw with moneybookers.

First, the main reason why I use moneybookers, is that I DON'T want my personal/private bank account data to be spread around the internet everywhere.

Second, there's the currency issues. You make make me convert $ to , and then back to $.

Third, standard procedures are that one can always withdraw using the same method he has deposited, at least for the amount of the deposit.

So, Please allow me to withdraw my original deposit through moneybookers. (please please please please please don't give me the "your identity must be validated" crap argument, I am more than willing to send you a copy of my ID-card and if needed, a bank-statement to verify my adress (with private information blanked out, of course)).

Thanks,

Michael Hendriks

===============================================

Interwetten replied:

Dear Mr. Hendriks,

It is a general rule for all customers that we do insist on a first withdrawal to a bank account for security reasons. No exceptions will be made. Also we cannot really help with your currency as nobody has forced you to register an account in USD as the standard currency of European customers in the settings is of course Euro which can of course be used in the Online casino. Please be informed that we will anyway charge a 10% fee of your initial deposit if you are requesting a withdrawal without used a single cent for one of our products. You have paid in for 160 USD through moneybookers, bought casino chips and never played any casino game.

Kind regards

Michael Bluemel
Serviceteam

=========================================

mikehendi replied:

Dear mr. Bluemel,

You state that "It is a general rule for all customers that we do insist on a first withdrawal to a bank account for security reasons." What security reasons did you have in mind? You are not supporting your statement with any reasons. You seem to be about the only site where people can't withdraw in the same way they've deposited. So far, this seems completely ridiculous to me.

Since when is it a crime to change your mind about whether or not I'd like to play in a casino? Of course, I understand that you charge no fee's for deposits or cashouts, but Interwetten has to pay a (very) small amount of money for it. Professional gaming organisations seem to have no problem with this. By the way, this strange "we always charge 10% of the original deposit if no wagering took place" sentence appears to be made up while writing your email.

I stay with my request to cash out my original $160 deposit using moneybookers. If the future of interwetten is dependant on the $1 or so charge you pay to moneybookers, you may substract this amount from my account.

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Michael Hendriks

==============================================

Dear Mr. Hendriks,


There is definitely no discussion about this matter of facts. The first withdrawal will definitely be a bank transfer and for unused deposit we will for sure charge 10% of this deposit also to fight money laundry. Let us know if you want to use your initial deposit and withdraw then to your bank account without charges. Below you will find the information published in our terms and conditions of business that you have agreed when registering :


Interwetten reserves the right to charge a processing fee on any deposits which were not, or only partly, spent on play should the player/customer wish to withdraw the funds. Such processing fee may amount to up to 10% of the amount deposited. Such a withdrawal will, as a rule, be made in the same manner as the respective deposit. In order to validate the identity of the player/customer, withdrawals may in certain cases be made only by bank transfer.

Be aware that this will be our last answer to your query.

Kind regards

Michael Bluemel

=======================================

That was all, folks!

The last email says, that I have to play at least once through my deposit, or they will charge the 10%.

But immideately, it states:

Such a withdrawal will, as a rule, be made in the same manner as the respective deposit

Meaning they OBLIGE me to use moneybookers (which is what I want of course).

Next they say:

"In order to validate the identity of the player/customer, withdrawals may in certain cases be made only by bank transfer."

A copy of my ID-card / drivers license will do fine instead, if you ask me.


What would be the best thing to do? I will probably sent another email containing all those new arguments, but they are not likely to answer anymore ("Be aware that this will be our last answer to your query").

If they don't, would it be a good idea to "pitch a bitch"?

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is a case of a casino that can do what it likes, because they cannot be held to account however badly they behave. Are they based in Kahnawake by any chance?

They seem to be contradicting their own rules, you want their standard rules to apply, but they seem to want to make an exception in your case.
They seem to want possession of your bank details, and this means you have to trust them. The ewallet system was designed to ensure players could hide their bank and card details from the end merchant, as this could allow their misuse, and this has indeed happened on some occasions.

ID issues are usually dealt with by sending documents, your bank details will NOT verify your identity, UNLESS they intend contacting your bank to verify that the ID they have matches the details on your bank account. This means that not only do they want your bank details, but they want to invade your privacy by using them to contact your bank.
As for prevention of money laundering, bullshite!, paying back to MONEYBOOKERS would prevent any chance of moneylaundering. Paying a Moneybookers deposit out by bank transfer creates a money transfer from one source to another, which is the aim of moneylaundering when practiced by criminals.
You could always try complaining to Moneybookers, and see if they have a system of "adverse merchant reporting" like VISA and Mastercard.

You should also PAB, as this will allow the real truth about this to emerge.

 

[Rob]

But immideately, it states:

Such a withdrawal will, as a rule, be made in the same manner as the respective deposit

Meaning they OBLIGE me to use moneybookers (which is what I want of course).

Next they say:

"In order to validate the identity of the player/customer, withdrawals may in certain cases be made only by bank transfer…."

A copy of my ID-card / drivers license will do fine instead, if you ask me.

I like how you highlight the bit in bold that supports your viewpoint then put the remainder of the sentence as a foot note.

The key part of that sentence is actually withdrawals may in certain cases be made only by bank transfer, and you agreed to these terms when you signed up at interwetten, you are bound by these terms and no amount of arguing will change the situation.

So the best coursse of action would be to just wager through your deposit 1x (not hard on blackjack at low stake) then withdraw to bank transfer. Or just leave your money in limbo, because you certainly are not going to get it out to moneybookers.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I cannot agree. When the player signed up, they believed that "as a rule" they could be paid by moneybookers. Since the player has provided ID documentation, these is no need for this to be a case of "in certain circumstances". Since this player does NOT want to play, they should be entitied to have their deposit refunded and account permanently closed. ID is of no consequence where the player no longer wants to play, and the deposit simply returned from where it came.

The casino, for their part, should have clarified the rule as to when a bank transfer would be needed, they failed to do this UNTIL the player made the deposit. It is not unreasonable for the player to want to keep their bank details private, as MANY frauds can be done just from knowing someone's bank details. Here in the UK, it is possible to set up a direct debit electronically without a signature, the bank details are enough. Many have fallen victim to this kind of fraud, and sadly the biggest culprits have been the UK utility companies, and "slamming" by phone companies. The first customers know about it is the welcome letter and the new direct debit agreement on their bank accounts. Banks themselves advise us to NOT give out our bank details unless we trust the company we give them to. Casinos, by their nature, would not be accountable should the bank details of customers fall into the wrong hands, as it would not be possible to take them to court in the player's own country.
This is also a very exceptional policy, nearly all casinos would insist that deposits were returned to their source. This casino must have an exceptional reason for taking this risk that would help moneylaundering, and they seem intent on withholding the reason from the player.

 

[Rob]

That does not change the fact that the terms and conditions state that bank transfer may be the only method available in certain circumstances, and the player agreed to abide by these terms when they signed up.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That does not change the fact that the terms and conditions state that bank transfer may be the only method available in certain circumstances, and the player agreed to abide by these terms when they signed up.

The casino MUST define these "certain circumstances" though, for the term to be clear enough for the player to know what to expect. Casinos also have their "F U clauses", but it doesn't make it right when they use them without good reason.
The casino's stance makes no sense at all. A FRAUDSTER who had hold of someone else's Moneybookers account could use this term to steal the money. They could deposit by Moneybookers, and then wait for the casino to insist they be paid by bank draft. They submit the bank details, and their ID documents, money is then paid to the bank. When the fraud is discovered, the money is lost, because the casino went against the principles of minimising the risk of moneylaundering. The pay back to deposit method would mean that it would be far far harder to move money from a stolen Moneybookers account to a bank account, it would simply bounce back to the originating Moneybookers account.
This casino has a funny idea about security, and I will have no sympathy with them if they get defrauded in this manner and are then chased by the deposit method for recovery of funds that they paid out by a different method. The same applies to casinos that insist on paying by cheque, they take the risk that they are paying out from a stolen deposit source.
This makes me believe that when casinos make rules supposedly to stop moneylaundering opportunities like this, it is a load of bullshite, the rules have nothing to do with money laundering, and probably have more to do with wanting to keep a float in their merchant account with Moneybookers by paying first withdrawals directly from their bank to the players bank. We saw this with Playtech last year, and more recently with MiniVegas making excuses to avoid paying out by Neteller except for the most persistent of players.

Interestingly, I received an audit request from Neteller, it seems they could not understand my transactions and wanted an explanation. Given that I have only used Neteller to deposit to, and withdraw from, online casinos, I would have expected Neteller to know EXACTLY what the transactions were, and to whom, and from whom. I deduce that Neteller at least, do not entirely trust their merchants to be transacting "clean" money, or are disguising some transactions as consumer "gambling withdrawals" when they actually relate to something else, such as a business payment - maybe a tax avoidance trick. This fits neatly with the difficulty some casinos have had with paying out by Neteller, mainly because they can't pass Neteller vetting for further funding of their merchant accounts. There is something going on here, and we are not being told the truth.
American players have reported some shady goings on with the poor quality processors that are prepared to pretend that casino deposits are, say, purchases of merchandise, such as memorabilia.

 

[Rob]

Im not questioning whether it is right or wrong, I am simply stating that he will not get his money back through moneybookers, and there i sno point him arguing it because he agreed to those terms when he signed up.
Yes it might be worth asking why, but the terms when he signed up stated that under certain circumstances withdrawal to bank transfer is the only way. Don't mean to be arguing

 

[malleeboy]

will we ever learn

There are numerous complaints about casinos forcing unwanted withdrawal methods on players. The casino here is blaming EXTERNAL regulations, if it down to merely the whim of management, they are STILL LYING by trying to blame "laws" for what is merely the whim of management.
Most casinos insist on paying back to the method of deposit. In this case, Moneybookers. There is no question here that being able to refund back to Moneybookers is something that ALL casinos can do if they have a merchant account there to accept the deposits. The hidden agenda is that they are not willling to disclose why they REALLY can't refund to Moneybookers, but the recent Playtech/Neteller issue has given the game away. Casinos were using every trick they could think of to resist paying out to Neteller, in order to hise the fact that they had not been verified by Neteller, and thus were not allowed to add fresh funds to their merchant accounts. This meant that they could ONLY pay back to Neteller what they had collectively received in deposits. These casinos, were, in effect, "money laundering" their way out of the crisis by using the funds that Neteller would not accept to pay players by other methods where they were able to get the funds accepted for transit - this was usually payment by cheque.

Their reasoning of "security" is also bogus, "security" is best served by refunding back to the method of deposit. Refunding to a different bank account, one that the player has given them, is less secure, and would also be an excellent way to defraud someone's Moneybookers account and get the money out by another method before Moneybookers could be alerted and act. The casino would then leave itself wide open to a "chargeback" from Moneybookers, but would no longer have the funds, and neither would Moneybookers, they would be in a bank account.
For security purposes, it is the document check that verifies the player, and most casinos will hold up any withdrawal until they are happy with the player's details.

Until there is an online ombudsman, situations like this will continue to happen. Until then we are just spitting into the wind. Thanks be to casinomeister that we have some form (sort) of approach to resolving matters from rogue casino and poker rooms.

 

[vinylweatherman]

There is another way out for this complainant, and it is something other players have done BECAUSE they don't trust casinos with their bank details.
This involves opening an account at a different bank, with said account ONLY being used for online gaming. With this approach, the player's main bank account is safeguarded from any leakage of sensitive information from the casinos. The player would only use the account to move money around between casinos, eWallets, and, of course, to accept bank wires. Said player would ensure that funds that were not earmarked for immediate use were transferred to their main bank account, out of reach of any risk posed by leakage of the bank details.
If the worst happend, the player could close the compromised account without all the inconvenience that would result should it be their main account that became compromised.

The OP should open a new bank account to receive this $160 back, and then keep this account for the possibility this may happen again. The $160 should be removed as soon as it turns up, and the account left empty till it is needed again. The ID that didn't satisfy the casino should be enough to satisfy a bank.
The casino itself has already done itself more than $160 worth of damage because they seem to be "up to something", and refuse to explain by giving a straight forward reason for this odd demand.

I believe myself that they are lying, it is not "certain circumstances", but "EVERY TIME". The won't be honest about this, as it would lose them customers who would know that they had no chance whatsoever to avoid giving out their bank details for their first withdrawal. It is also likely that once they have the details, they will insist on paying ALL withdrawals by this method.

Now, if only they could accept my cashback credit cards and record the transaction as "merchandise" rather than "gambling". I would be only too pleased to take advanatage of their insistence I have my card deposits "laundered" to me as interest free cash advances, while I pocket 1% or more of the amount as cashback on the card.

This brings back memories of 2004 and 2005, when this very thing was possible with cashback and loyalty point VISA cards
I was gutted when Barclaycard scrapped Nectar points on all my gambling, follwed by Shell VISA stopping gambling from counting towards free petrol.
There may still be ways to do this, but many casinos have scuppered this by suddenly finding that, after all, "VISA Regulations" do NOT stop then from refunding back to my cashback cards

 

[erp1]

This is a case of a casino that can do what it likes, because they cannot be held to account however badly they behave. Are they based in Kahnawake by any chance?

Interwetten holds a class 1 and class 2 license from Malta. As such they are one of the rather few operators that must follow rules from a genuine regulation body.

Opposite casinoes that are licensed and "regulated" somewhere in Latin America or Kahnawake they can't just do what they like.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Interwetten holds a class 1 and class 2 license from Malta. As such they are one of the rather few operators that must follow rules from a genuine regulation body.

Opposite casinoes that are licensed and "regulated" somewhere in Latin America or Kahnawake they can't just do what they like.

That does at least give the OP another complaint option. It should be based on the undesirability of being forced to divulge personal bank details, with the attendant risk, when the OP specifically chose to use an eWallet in order to keep his bank details private from the internet.

There was a similar ID issue a while back, where a US player was told to send his social security card details. He objected due to the risk of these details falling into the wrong hands, and complained to eCogra, who ruled that the casino had to use an alternative form of ID for checking the player's validity.

Further, if anything DID happen after bank details were passed to an operator licenced by Malta, there would be a good chance of an investigation of the casino's security procedures, which would have to prove it wasn't them that caused the breach. EU companies have to adhere to strict rules as to how they handle personal information, and this is probably why this casino believes it has a right to request this info, and to expect the player to trust them with it.

 

[Komodo]

Same complaint

Its a matter of money too. Cashing out to MB is free.
Cashing out to a bank account with different currency, then transfer it back to MB is a lot of extra work and costs money.
Also Im pretty sure Interwetten has it written in the TC that the player must cash out the same way as he/she deposited, which they religiously dont follow.

That does not change the fact that the terms and conditions state that bank transfer may be the only method available in certain circumstances, and the player agreed to abide by these terms when they signed up.

Certain circumstances??? We are talking about every player who has made a deposit via MB!