Microgaming Locking Accounts That Were Opened During a Certain Time Frame

prindi

Senior Member
Can someone shed some light for me on this? I was told that by Villento Brands about Microgaming locking accounts that were opened during a certain time frame. Is this across the board? Or is this just a case of a personal preference to lock the casino account because I have not made my first deposit yet?

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with 'Jeremy '
diane: i was trying to log into rich reels and it said its locked
Jeremy : Hi Diane
Jeremy : How may I help you today?
diane: i dont recall having a problem with the password
diane: acct no is trrxxxxxxxx
Jeremy : Your account at Rich Reels account has been locked due to legislation regarding US Players.
Jeremy : Your Villento account remains open however.
diane: i dont understand?
Jeremy : There has been a legislation passed in the US..
diane: when?
Jeremy : This restricts US Players..
Jeremy : It has been some time now, unfortunately I am unaware of the exact date, however your account has been locked by Microgaming and will remain locked
Jeremy : I do apologize for the inconvenience but this is out of our hands and contingent on the US legislation
diane: I dont understand. I opened that acct long before microgaming restricted new us players
Jeremy : I do apologize for the inconvenience but this has been advised by Microgaming.
diane: I am sorry but this doesn't make sense to me
diane: it was open a couple day ago
diane: is my villento acct going to be locked?
diane: and lastly did this account get locked because I had not made a deposit yet?
Jeremy : Your Villento account should be fine since it has been registered in 2006
diane: and if you dont mind if you could answer my last question? I would be appreciative!
Jeremy : Details reflect that it has been locked due to the restriction of US Players.
diane: if i can ask..what restrictions?
diane: what is the criteria for one and not another?
diane: Im just not understanding this at all
diane: If i remember correctly the only restrictions here in the u.s. is the transfer of money
diane: im not aware of other restrictions?
Jeremy : These are legislations in the US
diane: that has been passed?
diane: i guess im just not aware of this
diane: if your not sure its ok with me for you to say you dont know.
Jeremy : It could be possible that you are not aware of this legislation..
diane: what legislation?
diane: is this recent?
Jeremy : All accounts which were opened within that particular time bracket...
Jeremy : ...unfortunately had to be locked..
diane: oh ok..your criteria is accts opened within a certain timeframe
diane: ok..
diane: and thats microgaming?
Jeremy : You are not the only Player to experience..
diane: no problem..just trying to understand
Jeremy : In fact this is across the board..
Jeremy : with all Microgaming casinos
diane: i see..so there is a date or period that they locked accts if they were more recent?
diane: do you know what that time frame is?
Jeremy : That's right Diane
Jeremy : I am uncertain as to the specifics of this legislation.
diane: when you say legislation are you saying something to the effect that microgaming made a decision on?
diane: or something that is a law?
diane: im not following
Jeremy : Legislation is in reference to the law passed in the US..
diane: it was passed? ok
diane: can i ask you what exactly it is about?
Jeremy : Other than this, there would be no reason why we and you would be restricted
Jeremy : It would have been a pleasure to host you Diane..
Jeremy : It's unfortunate that we were informed by Microgaming that certain accounts have to be locked due to US laws.
diane: thanks for your time jeremy.
diane: bye
Jeremy : You're most welcome!
Jeremy : Thank you for chatting, bye for now.

What am I missing here?
 

ksech

Dormant account
It's the UIGEA bill passed about a year and a half ago(?). The only mg casino I know still allowing US player to play at is Intertops and you had to have an account there before the bill was passed. You can play at most of the Rival casinos and RTG casinos though.
 

prindi

Senior Member
It's the UIGEA bill passed about a year and a half ago(?). The only mg casino I know still allowing US player to play at is Intertops and you had to have an account there before the bill was passed. You can play at most of the Rival casinos and RTG casinos though.

This doesn't make sense to me either. To clarify...I live in California. I also play at Fortunelounge, Casino Rewards, Jackpot Factory, and other Microgaming casinos. I was under the impression that Intertops was the only Micro that took players from the banned states if they had an account there already. ( This could have changed by now I don't really know. ) Also I opened this account ( Rich Reels) before Microgaming rejected new U.S players as I mentioned within the chat. So I thought it was interesting that they locked my account within the last couple days but they kept my Villento account open. I have a history of healthy depositing at Villento however I never made a deposit at Rich Reels and have gotten quite a bit of free credits in there in the way of free spins and other promotions. I just wanted to see if there was a correlation in the respect of bonus vs deposits and locking accounts. Did that make sense? lol..
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
The CSR has no clue about what they're talking about. MGS allowed new user signups until last Fall. They locked no accounts, other than the people from the banned states; and if your account was locked at one MGS casino for this reason, it would be locked at all of them if this was an issue of your IP pointing to a banned state, even if you don't live there.

My suggestion: e-mail support.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
CAG
MM
This may be a case of MGS changing the goalposts yet again, but wanting to keep this secret.

The previous MGS lockout was ONLY for players in the banned states, and covered ALL accounts, even those opened long before UIGEA.

This incident suggests MGS are now starting to lock accounts created AFTER the UIGEA was passed, but allowing those created before to remain open.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and MGS are protecting themselves from nothing. The UIGEA covers ALL transactions, and does NOT differentiate between transactions relating to gambling accounts opened before the bill was passed, and accounts opened afterwards.

If any casino operator was brought to a US court for breaches of UIGEA, it would be no defense to say that their transactions related only to accounts opened prior to the passage of the bill.

Unfortunately, the secrecy and uncertainty is going to damage operators, since how could players know whether MGS will shift the goalposts yet again, leaving them to wake up one morning to find ALL their MGS accounts locked overnight. Remember, this has happened before with Crypto and Playtech accounts - overnight and unannounced locking, followed by a torturous process to get the money out.

The announcement from MGS that they are terminating their relationship with Intertops has resulted in me uninstalling both Intertops and Royal Joker, as one day these will stop working, and past performance shows players will get little or no notice of this termination date, which MUST be a specific date (license renewal), yet one that players are not allowed to know.
 

silkprint

Dormant account
First I am hearing about this . I just played at Rich Reels about an hour ago.
 

kauphy

Meister Member
hi

The CSR has no clue about what they're talking about. MGS allowed new user signups until last Fall. They locked no accounts, other than the people from the banned states; and if your account was locked at one MGS casino for this reason, it would be locked at all of them if this was an issue of your IP pointing to a banned state, even if you don't live there.

My suggestion: e-mail support.
no mine was also locked at royal joker and none of my other accounts were. when i called they told me i was in a banned state and i told them no i live in az and i have sent in my docs and they were appoved. but all of a sudden i had to send my docs in again to prove i lived where i said i did which was a big hassle caz nothing would go thought. at the end when i started to get a little upset. they then changed their story and told me the reason i had to send my docs in again was because one of the bills i had sent in before they could not read and this was after i had been playing at their casino for almost 2 months and the frist set had been appoved. so i don,t know where they got that i lived in a banned state but thats what i was told at frist.
 

prindi

Senior Member
no mine was also locked at royal joker and none of my other accounts were. when i called they told me i was in a banned state and i told them no i live in az and i have sent in my docs and they were appoved. but all of a sudden i had to send my docs in again to prove i lived where i said i did which was a big hassle caz nothing would go thought. at the end when i started to get a little upset. they then changed their story and told me the reason i had to send my docs in again was because one of the bills i had sent in before they could not read and this was after i had been playing at their casino for almost 2 months and the frist set had been appoved. so i don,t know where they got that i lived in a banned state but thats what i was told at frist.

Your situation sounds different than mine. My Rich Reels account was open just a couple days ago. Rich Reels and Villento are "sister casinos". Notice the rep said my Villento account would remain open. I have cashed out before at Villento ( I think) lmao! Though I could be wrong. I do know I have gone through the motions with Villento and gone as far as flushing and I do remember them saying I did not have to send in docs. That was a very long time ago. It could very well be that even after I flushed not one of them ever made it to me...as I am the queen of reversals... Yes, I do know that I did that quite a few times there. Thats another situation entirely. I am thinking that Vinylweatherman may have has hit it on the nose. ...My only other feeling is if it isn't the case of microgaming changing the rules...then is this just a situation that I am singled out ( and not from microgaming) because of bonus vs deposits? As I mentioned before..my history of deposits at Villento are on the very healthy side...whereas my deposits at Rich Reels are at 0. I will be interested in seeing how this plays out for others.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
CAG
MM
Your situation sounds different than mine. My Rich Reels account was open just a couple days ago. Rich Reels and Villento are "sister casinos". Notice the rep said my Villento account would remain open. I have cashed out before at Villento ( I think) lmao! Though I could be wrong. I do know I have gone through the motions with Villento and gone as far as flushing and I do remember them saying I did not have to send in docs. That was a very long time ago. It could very well be that even after I flushed not one of them ever made it to me...as I am the queen of reversals... Yes, I do know that I did that quite a few times there. Thats another situation entirely. I am thinking that Vinylweatherman may have has hit it on the nose. ...My only other feeling is if it isn't the case of microgaming changing the rules...then is this just a situation that I am singled out ( and not from microgaming) because of bonus vs deposits? As I mentioned before..my history of deposits at Villento are on the very healthy side...whereas my deposits at Rich Reels are at 0. I will be interested in seeing how this plays out for others.
I read elsewhere that the full provisions of UIGEA come into force on 1st December. This might be what MGS are preparing for. They seem to have moved the goalposts bit by bit, starting with the banned states, then blocking NEW accounts from ALL states, and now it seems closing some EXISTING accounts from NON BANNED states, with the only reason given seeming to be down to a "certain timeframe".

Perhaps in November/December we will see a FULL MGS pull out from the US, just as we did with Playtech and Crypto.

The phased withdrawal may simply be down to MGS having already decided on a FULL withdrawal, but wanting to give their licensees time to adjust to having to recruit players from outside the US, but without withdrawing their entire US player base from them in one go, which might cause some to go bust.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
vwm, can you please advise where you saw the information about the UIGEA coming into full force as of 1st December?

As far as I know, they are unable to enforce the UIGEA because the provisions and conditions of this legislation have yet to be established by the US Treasury, despite having been given a 270 day period to create these guidelines... needless to say we are way beyond that 270 day period.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
CAG
MM
vwm, can you please advise where you saw the information about the UIGEA coming into full force as of 1st December?

As far as I know, they are unable to enforce the UIGEA because the provisions and conditions of this legislation have yet to be established by the US Treasury, despite having been given a 270 day period to create these guidelines... needless to say we are way beyond that 270 day period.
It was a discussion post, it is doubtful whether the banks will put much effort into enforcing it, since they have already pronounced the procedures unworkable.

The forum search function is not much good at digging out this kind of thing, but I will have a go. I am not allowed to search boolean AND on words, it does not work:mad:



Found it anyway.

In press release posted by Jetset.

DETAILS OF FRANK ONLINE GAMBLING BILL RELEASED (Update)

New title but similar precautions

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Barney Frank released details of his new legislative proposal aimed at legalising online gambling in the United States Wednesday ahead of a delayed press conference re-scheduled to late afternoon Washington time.

Titled the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act the proposal seeks to overturn the controversial and much villified Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in 2006, which outlawed financial transactions with online gambling companies and has caused billions in damages to European companies forced to withdraw from the US market.

The bill seeks to issue licenses to online gambling operators, but only those who are in good financial and legal standing and of good character, honesty and integrity, and whose prior activities, reputation, habits and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of of the licensed activities.

Pre-licensing checks are likely to be stringent, and would be operators will have to demonstrate that they possess the requisite expertise to professionally manage Internet gambling operations. There will be an insistence on operators having the technology and systems necessary to effectively combat money laundering and fraud, exclude underage and problem gamblers, meet tax requirements and comply with US federal and state laws.

Applications are open to all entities, who will have to supply detailed financial records and personal details of directors in order that credit and criminal histories can be checked.

The nature and depth of background checks will be decided by the Secretary for the Treasury, who will be charged with the approval and monitoring of licensees and may call on the US Attorney General for enforcement and compliance issues.

Licensing terms will be for five years, renewable conditional on good conduct and efficiency, and the Secretary for the Treasury will have authority to terminate the licenses at any time if a licensee does not comply with requirements. Terms of imprisonment of up to five years are provided for under the Act.

Congressman Frank later told reporters that he intends to move the bill before the House's August break, but that he will be introducing special legislation titled the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act of 2009 aimed at delaying for a year the implementation of the highly controversial and much delayed regulations supporting the UIGEA, which were rushed through in the twilight months of the Bush administration and are due to finally go into effect on 1st December.
This will allow the new Democrat controlled Congress to decide a national policy.

Representative McDermott is also re-introducing a companion bill aimed at ensuring that individual and corporate taxes owed on regulated Internet gambling activities are collected.

There are already rumblings from Republican politicians like Spencer Bachus, and from national sports leagues and conservative Christian groups, which indicate that the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act is unlikely to enjoy a trouble-free passage.

Barney Frank is wanting to delay this by a year, but it must be something that is playing on the minds of operators, who might suffer serious payment issues should Frank be unable to get his bill through, and the banks decide to implement the provisions, despite them being flawed.

The problem I feel might be the worry of more frequent seizures of funds, creating the risk of bigger and repeated losses to casinos and poker rooms, who would have to find fresh funds to again attempt to pay players.
 
Top