Rizk, really? Im stunned !!

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
I'm sure you're right, and I actually was expecting you to quote me :p
I know, so thought I better so as not to disappoint :)

But seriously, while casinos make things up as they do, there are always going to be problems. For the RG side in the UK, the UKGC should create a clear process for casinos to follow, just like they do in other areas, like KYC procedures, then no one can complain, and the casinos all work to the same set of rules. For AML it's harder as it isn't the UKGC (or any licensing body) who require them to do this, but they could still do a 'best practice' document. The casinos are taking so much stick over this, when it could be pretty much solved by an official statement on what to do and when.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
CAG
MM
It's not that it cannot be triggered when the player starts to deposit. If I go to make a deposit when I have a limit set that exceeds my limit, my deposit is blocked with a pop-up telling me I'll be exceeding my limit.

Brianmon had requests triggered on login.

So it's not that it cannot be done, it's because Rizk wants to force their players to have to submit it.

As you can see from my poll on the SOW issue, there are a large number of players that would have difficulty with complying with SOW requests for a number of reasons, including for most affiliates breaching contracts, for business owners a lot of work frequently, and for those who receive gifts or allowances from family members it may or may not be accepted.

I was told that neither my income tax returns or copies of my rent receipts I give to my tenant would be satisfactory proof of my income (as of course I issue the receipts). It would probably be a breach of privacy to provide my tenant's name and address to Rizk. Now, I am in Canada, have not had any source of wealth requests and may or may not need to comply with the MGA rules. For people that run businesses, especially sole proprietorships, what proof is there beyong their records often?
Yet it's the very casinos that set the terms of affiliate contracts that are now telling players they must break these terms in order to comply with SOW. This could easily end up in court and blow up in their faces when a judge has to decide whether or not the affiliate term or the SOW rules take precedence. This could, in theory, render the affiliate confidentiality term unenforceable as the affiliate will be expected to break this confidentiality routinely for SOW checks, not just with casinos, but when buying property, operating a bank account, etc.
 

davidsmith56

Senior Member
I know, so thought I better so as not to disappoint :)

But seriously, while casinos make things up as they do, there are always going to be problems. For the RG side in the UK, the UKGC should create a clear process for casinos to follow, just like they do in other areas, like KYC procedures, then no one can complain, and the casinos all work to the same set of rules. For AML it's harder as it isn't the UKGC (or any licensing body) who require them to do this, but they could still do a 'best practice' document. The casinos are taking so much stick over this, when it could be pretty much solved by an official statement on what to do and when.
That is precisely the problem in that there does not appear to be a set of rules,merely guidelines which different casinos interpret in different ways.I hold VIP status at one casino where I get generous deposit bonuses and have deposited as much as £4000 in a month and have made withdrawals in excess of that figure.My withdrawals are paid within 24 hours and I have NEVER received any form of a source of wealth request.If the SOW rules were set in stone there is no way in which this could happen.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top