Rizk Source of Wealth Bullshit!
- Thread starter Deeplay
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rizk casino review
Rizk Casino is an award winning Accredited Casino at Casinomeister
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Location
- Tyrone, Ireland
Yes but it is entirely an AML measure as opposed to an RG one. They aren't the same; although some of the wording may appear to blur the lines a little for some people. It's all about interpretation of why Responsible Gaming is mentioned in the UKGC regarding AML. It has to do with making the distinction between a Problem Gambler and a Money Launderer. If a casino feels a customer was a problem gambler they wouldn't ask for his SoW. At least they shouldn't!
They would ask if he's comfortable with his level of gambling not his source of income. If they insist on seeing if the Customer can afford to gamble then they can of course ask for a simple Bank Statement that shows his affordability; without the need to see the source of this income.
Needing to see the source of income is the crux of the matter which differentiates whether it is a matter of AML or RG.
Anyway I'm off to sleep for the night
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
Thing is they need to IDENTIFY better. - ALL casinos NOT just Rizk/MT. - Also understand exactly what is being asked for and when.
I'll use myself as an example here...
Deposits are £25GBP 99/100, occasionally, I'll throw in one slightly higher but never more than £50 and that's pretty rare. This pattern has not changed in years. The frequency of this activity has also remained pretty much the same since the account(s) was/were opened.
Soon as I am over the £100 total balance, most times when this happens and I'm straight to the cashier to withdraw some and super rarely reverse.
Bet sizes are mostly minimum bet to 2x min bet, occasionally slightly higher but rarely over £1.
KYC is completed in full, driving licence, bank card, utility bill etc.
Now I'd confidently say that this "example" describes say 70% of the player community here, if not more. These players as I understand UKGC requirements and SoW triggers should NOT be approached, this scenario suggests neither Problem Gambling or money laundering, it simply doesn't.
Then why are we being SoW requested??, brings me back to my opening statement.
I'll use myself as an example here...
Deposits are £25GBP 99/100, occasionally, I'll throw in one slightly higher but never more than £50 and that's pretty rare. This pattern has not changed in years. The frequency of this activity has also remained pretty much the same since the account(s) was/were opened.
Soon as I am over the £100 total balance, most times when this happens and I'm straight to the cashier to withdraw some and super rarely reverse.
Bet sizes are mostly minimum bet to 2x min bet, occasionally slightly higher but rarely over £1.
KYC is completed in full, driving licence, bank card, utility bill etc.
Now I'd confidently say that this "example" describes say 70% of the player community here, if not more. These players as I understand UKGC requirements and SoW triggers should NOT be approached, this scenario suggests neither Problem Gambling or money laundering, it simply doesn't.
Then why are we being SoW requested??, brings me back to my opening statement.
DANB9191
Experienced Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2015
- Location
- United Kingdom
Forget this network
Play somewhere else... I only have a CitizenCard for photo ID and these won't even accept it ? They're telling me that I need a National ID Card... Just type National ID Card in on Google and tell me the very first result I've sent a load of other documents in too... Which some of their other casinos have glady accepted ? 
Let's just hope you at least get your deposits back
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Location
- Lincoln UK
I can see a LOT of people quiting online gambling over these SOW's TBH. I know the minute I have funds frozen thats it for me I will be done for ALL online casinos for fear its gonna happen everywhere, I will just go to a B&M one now and again, but as my nearest is 40+miles it wont be often so they will be doing me a favour!
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Location
- Finland
It could be argued that if a SOW is requested under AML, it's "information available" after the fact. It would be different than in your example (casino hacking fb account), because that would require illegal act to get the information. Asking for the information is not illegal, it's to comply with regulatory requirements under a gambling licence.
The UKGC views that the "GDPR should not be improperly used as an excuse to avoid taking steps which enable compliance with licence conditions, promote socially responsible gambling, and promote the licensing objectives."
At the end of the day, if the UKGC informs a casino they are not compliant with their licensing requirements if they don't have in place procedures to make inquires of financial information of their customers (be it based on AML or RG), I'd bet there isn't a casino that would risk their license over this.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
So after EMSEB we have now SOWBS! 
What a mess! Takes the fun out of gaming.
EDIT: Funny that both involve the UKGC being too lazy / incompetent to issue clear instructions / regulations.
What a mess! Takes the fun out of gaming.
EDIT: Funny that both involve the UKGC being too lazy / incompetent to issue clear instructions / regulations.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
I disgree, although I completely understand your point of view, in my opinion, its quite clear that it cannot be used for any other purpose, however I wouldn't be surprised to see that challenged at some point, or a casino getting a fine for not using it, simply because the rules aren't airtight, which is ridiculous. Also, as far as it states SoW for AML cannot be used for any other purpose, the same doesn't apply the other way round, so SoW for RG can be used for AML, even though the information requested should be quite different.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
I am just worrying thst casinos will issue these Willy nilly hoping that s good percentage of people will refuse to fill them in giving the casino an excuse to steal all the money in their accounts
So, you can use your money to buy a tv, a car, a boat, a house, an airplane or a small island, but you can't deposit $20 to play online?
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Location
- Finland
Yes but it is entirely an AML measure as opposed to an RG one. They aren't the same; although some of the wording may appear to blur the lines a little for some people. It's all about interpretation of why Responsible Gaming is mentioned in the UKGC regarding AML. It has to do with making the distinction between a Problem Gambler and a Money Launderer. If a casino feels a customer was a problem gambler they wouldn't ask for his SoW. At least they shouldn't!
They would ask if he's comfortable with his level of gambling not his source of income. If they insist on seeing if the Customer can afford to gamble then they can of course ask for a simple Bank Statement that shows his affordability; without the need to see the source of this income.
Needing to see the source of income is the crux of the matter which differentiates whether it is a matter of AML or RG.
Anyway I'm off to sleep for the night
I agree that AML and RG are not the same. The problem is that the UKGC requires this from license holders.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2013
- Location
- far far away
now if this is happening at Rizk, imagine what some crappy reputation casinos are doing to their players.
most of those wont have CM to resort to, and wont be able to contact a rep either because most of the time there is none.
But what bloody pisses me off the most is how its always done on cashouts and never on deposits. Saying sorry we also dont think its working perfectly doesnt help much imo. It cant possibly be how his deposit didnt trigger any alarms but all out of sudden his cashout made him suspicious?
most of those wont have CM to resort to, and wont be able to contact a rep either because most of the time there is none.
But what bloody pisses me off the most is how its always done on cashouts and never on deposits. Saying sorry we also dont think its working perfectly doesnt help much imo. It cant possibly be how his deposit didnt trigger any alarms but all out of sudden his cashout made him suspicious?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Location
- Malta
Saying more than I should on this subject (checked with my employer first), but over the past couple of weeks I have dealt with THREE individuals who have come up against the same problem. One was at Rizk and the other two at a reputable UKGC brands with reps here.
Player 'A' had won £2750 and had his account suspended pending investigation. He was requested to send proof of income which he was unhappy to do so because his employer was Government based. In the end a letter from his accountant confirming he was of good character and was in full employment was sufficient to release the funds. He then closed his account down and intends never to play there again.
Player 'B' won circa £4000 on live table games. Upon request for documentation and enhanced financial information, he made a complaint to the casino stating he was the victim of racism as he was a Nigerian and had been singled out because of his name. While this seems unlikely IMO (no disrespect to the gentleman who was calm and pleasant throughout), the amount of information requested seemed way over the top. The length of time with his current employer and total monthly outgoings on rent etc. Matter was resolved thanks in part to affiliate manager taking the issue higher up.
Player 'C' had joined a casino and deposited £200 with the promise of 'wager free' spins. Having won a modest £500 she was informed that source of wealth was required to process winnings. She was unhappy providing bank statements so forfeited both her deposit and withdrawal. A complaint with eCOGRA has been opened and is ongoing.
I can understand why the OP and others are not wanting to provide personal information, especially banking. The incomings and outgoings of one's bank account are personal. However, if you have a family friend or an accountant who is happy to provide a signed statement of income / character statement then this is a good way to get the matter resolved quickly.
Player 'A' had won £2750 and had his account suspended pending investigation. He was requested to send proof of income which he was unhappy to do so because his employer was Government based. In the end a letter from his accountant confirming he was of good character and was in full employment was sufficient to release the funds. He then closed his account down and intends never to play there again.
Player 'B' won circa £4000 on live table games. Upon request for documentation and enhanced financial information, he made a complaint to the casino stating he was the victim of racism as he was a Nigerian and had been singled out because of his name. While this seems unlikely IMO (no disrespect to the gentleman who was calm and pleasant throughout), the amount of information requested seemed way over the top. The length of time with his current employer and total monthly outgoings on rent etc. Matter was resolved thanks in part to affiliate manager taking the issue higher up.
Player 'C' had joined a casino and deposited £200 with the promise of 'wager free' spins. Having won a modest £500 she was informed that source of wealth was required to process winnings. She was unhappy providing bank statements so forfeited both her deposit and withdrawal. A complaint with eCOGRA has been opened and is ongoing.
I can understand why the OP and others are not wanting to provide personal information, especially banking. The incomings and outgoings of one's bank account are personal. However, if you have a family friend or an accountant who is happy to provide a signed statement of income / character statement then this is a good way to get the matter resolved quickly.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
In the case of C, did they provide any legitimate reason for not paying that customer? Any casino who does that should be rogued tbh.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Location
- London the sh$thole
This SOW bullshit needs to be banned. The Casinos have NO right to our full finances. Its nothing short of outragous IMO.
Captain Rizk
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Location
- Malta
Hey guys, of course i cannot discuss specifics of this situation in an open forum. However i am working with Deeplay to see if we cant find a solution for this that works for both parties
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
No one has asked for specifics. However, assuming Deeplays version of events is correct, and I have no reason to think otherwise, how can you expect people to play at Rizk when you confiscate funds like this? Can you state the legislation that you are using to do this?
Is this a Rizk decision or MTST/GIG decision?
Just to quote your T&C's
In any such event, the company is prohibited from informing any players or third parties involved, save in limited circumstances, that an investigation is being or may be carried out, or that information has been or may be transmitted to the competent Authorities. Furthermore, in the event of any suspicious transactions, the company may suspend, block or close the account(s) of the relevant player(s) and withhold funds as may be required by law and/or by the competent Authorities.
So presumably you will have that information?
Captain Rizk
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Location
- Malta
No funds have been confiscated and as i stated above we are working with Deeplay to try to find a resolution.
Perhaps this case will find a resolution, but I suspect many others will have their winnings voided based on interpretation, coupled with discretion.
No point asking everyone to provide documentation and read it wrong, or trying to nitpick any reason not to pay. It should be one set of rules and verification hassle- free.
Unless we really all are hiding our money laundering ways........
No point asking everyone to provide documentation and read it wrong, or trying to nitpick any reason not to pay. It should be one set of rules and verification hassle- free.
Unless we really all are hiding our money laundering ways........
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Location
- The biG Eu
To make it clear Captain Rizk has been nothing but helpful in this and professional throughout. And as I have said to him it is in no way personal and I fully respect he has a job to do. Even if the current system Rizk Casino are using is fundamentally flawed, which at this time, I feel strongly it is. I wont comment further right now as CRizk is working towards a solution (I appreciate this ) I have asked for clarifaction on a few points and await his response. This is also a much bigger issue of privacy .. which is believe me or not important to myself - it is a matter of principle also.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Location
- London the sh$thole
Another thing is no criminal is going to deposit stolen money and launder it, when withdrawals have to go back to the same account/ewallet that they used to deposit, so saying its to prevent money laundering is just complete bollocks!
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2013
- Location
- far far away
he was told he wont be able cashout unless he complies with whatever cs asked for. If he wasnt a member of CM and didnt ask for your help, what would have happened to his funds?
Saying it wasnt confiscated, while he is unable to cashout, is kinda stretching it eh :=o
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Please be advised that your account has been temporarily suspended as you have stated that you will not provide any further information. We will require that sufficient supporting documents are provided in order to reopen your account.
So if you weren't involved, and he didn't supply any further documentation, when would you be releasing his funds? If you haven't confiscated them, then just pay him, he will close his account, everyones happy.
That statement above certainly implies that if he doesn't supply the documents, then his account won't be re-opened, and therefore wouldn't get paid. That certainly sounds like you have confiscated the funds to me.
Which law are your terms and conditions relying on please?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
It would take a pretty thick money launderer to go through the process of playing Bonanza & co with all these new regulations in place
Not to mention the usual flags that come up at every casino worth their salt.
I mean who wouldn't launder money through online slots?? Especially when 'laundering' that £25 deposit and withdrawing a few grand! That's to suggest they knew a good session was coming. So they also have the power to control slots....................
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
What percentage of your players reverse the withdrawal when the SOW is requested? I’m guessing conservatively 20%.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
Please don't give them any ideas
Haha - I think the horse has bolted on this one already.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Location
- Kent
Exactly and what criteria are Ritz applying in respect of their SoW demands.Is it the case that any withdrawal request will be denied or does it depend on the amounts of your deposits and/or the amounts you win.I think we need clarification from the Captain as I for one would certainly not enjoy a session of slotting if it was always in the back of my find that I would have jump through numerous hoops before I could collect any winnings.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
Just a thought & maybe captain can put me correct it is not rizk that is really asking it's mt secure or gig. Already had dealing about this & that's why my accounts shall remain closed. If they don't have any grounds for player money laundering or anything else.
It's simple you pay the player then lock the account & then request what you require its not hard. Its just casinos dont really want to pay.
How many players are going to get pissed off with it then blow all the winnings because its pretty much forcing you too.
If you cannot or do not want to supply this info then your caught up by the bollocks. again not for the first time the casinos have even more power & it will be abused by many many online casinos, im glad im out of it.
It's simple you pay the player then lock the account & then request what you require its not hard. Its just casinos dont really want to pay.
How many players are going to get pissed off with it then blow all the winnings because its pretty much forcing you too.
If you cannot or do not want to supply this info then your caught up by the bollocks. again not for the first time the casinos have even more power & it will be abused by many many online casinos, im glad im out of it.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Why is it ALWAYS on withdrawal things like this happen. No wonder people don't trust casinos. Even with the initial KYC, I get why it isn't done on first deposit, but whats preventing casinos sending an email on registration or first deposit explaining what KYC is and giving the customer 72 hours to send the documents over or the account will get blocked. But no, you can deposit and lose £1000's, then you try to withdraw a tenner and then they delay it until you send ID in.
Same here, if there are genuine concerns about the source of the funds (which there should be to request proof) then why wait until a withdrawal? The money going out from Rizk is clearly legitimate, unless of course Rizk are money laundering, so why ask for proof then. The incoming funds should trigger the risk alert, not outgoing funds.
Same here, if there are genuine concerns about the source of the funds (which there should be to request proof) then why wait until a withdrawal? The money going out from Rizk is clearly legitimate, unless of course Rizk are money laundering, so why ask for proof then. The incoming funds should trigger the risk alert, not outgoing funds.
The very least those lazy tw*ts at the UKGC could do in between munching on prawn sandwiches, is to make all verification/ AML questions be dealt with before any playing even commences. Hell, even lock the Deposit option before everything is green- lit.
It would lay to rest 99% of these problems and may well be the best thing they've ever done
It would lay to rest 99% of these problems and may well be the best thing they've ever done
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
1000% this. Anything else is self-interested BS from the Casino and also pretty unethical.
lockinlove
Editing my post so I dont get in trouble
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Location
- Canada
Just got caught up with this thread and wow just terrible. Has to be completely frustrating. Nothing else to really add everyone else hasnt said, just remember this frustration next time you go to deposit. No idea how to get around this sort of garbage since alot of you are under the UKGC.
Maybe someone should start a petition or something and send it to these dummies because surely this cant continue like this. Who wants to deal with this crap?
Im addicted to going on the internet, can my IP start demanding proof that I can afford my internet bill?
Do you guys not have any government laws of privacy you can use?
What a disaster some drama queen at the UKGC has made.
Maybe someone should start a petition or something and send it to these dummies because surely this cant continue like this. Who wants to deal with this crap?
Im addicted to going on the internet, can my IP start demanding proof that I can afford my internet bill?
Do you guys not have any government laws of privacy you can use?
What a disaster some drama queen at the UKGC has made.
Last edited:
I'm sure the UKGC will be amazingly understanding and make compromises once 50% of gamblers no longer gamble.
Ultimately, the industry survives on money. That will never be allowed to dry up, despite their virtuous posturing
Ultimately, the industry survives on money. That will never be allowed to dry up, despite their virtuous posturing
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
The very least those lazy tw*ts at the UKGC could do in between munching on prawn sandwiches, is to make all verification/ AML questions be dealt with before any playing even commences. Hell, even lock the Deposit option before everything is green- lit.
It would lay to rest 99% of these problems and may well be the best thing they've ever done
Your being way too generous to the Casinos. Agreed, but there is no UKGC guidance suggesting that the SOW is done at withdrawal. But that is purely down to self interest for the Casino.
The main flag that kicks off a SOW is deposit levels. Not withdrawals. So these should be limited if there are suspicions. The withdrawals have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I’ll give you another more vanilla example.
A bank account recieved large amounts of credits into the account, the source of funds is sketchy. This is the point that kicks off their ML checks/freezes accounts if necessary and begins looking at other aspects known about the client.
What they definately do NOT do is accept the credits into the accounts and sit on their hands until the client makes a withdrawal before flagging it up.
So why is alright for the Casinos to do this as a matter of course?
Because they can, because no one is challenging them and because they know that for every 10 SOW they send out, regardless of merit, 1-2 of those players will lose patience, reverse and lose their withdrawal.
100% that is why.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Location
- Malta
I somehow see bit hard to believe that GIG with big growing plans (if you check their IR section of their website for example) would take this very short term strategy to try to make all excuses not to pay players, few grands there and then don't really are thing where they are targeting when listening/reading their strategy plans, that kind of action could maybe be done with some small short term "hit and run" sites. As Captain said, they are all the time building more automated process which prevent you from playing when SOW is triggered. If they now have to do it manually with reporting tools (assuming as CR mentioned earlier that new process is coming on place where you can't do nothing before you are approved) they have, deposit can trigger SOW, but there is no person who would send that request in a same moment and it will come up when account is reviewed and then you can have balance of 0 or pending withdrawal and you get once account is recognized it's needed for AML/RG.
I know for sure that some operators are struggling even worse as they don't have these kind of resources and we will see more fined operators by UKGC again shortly as they just don't have capability to compete with new rules UKGC is throwing in with very short notice. Rizk/GIG is probably on table now because they try their best to compete with these quite unreasonable regulations of UKGC. I'm quite sure that not many casino jump up from joy because of this SOW thing as it seems to be bit tough even for UKGC, competing this needs quite much money and resources what i bet casinos would rather use to other revenue bringing projects instead of (like Captain said himself) loosing players because of this process where too personal information have to be provided.
Also i don't believe a second that OP don't get his money, if requested documents will not be provided, operator can close cease relationship with player and pay out balance and not accept player back before documentation is provided. Closing account and confiscating winnings would need really strong evidence about ML and that money would not be casinos then anymore in that case but will be legally reported.
This is still very new process and i haven't yet heard about casino who would have this well automated ready on site and making it easy, fast and convenient as it possibly can be and hopefully will in near future, at least with bigger operators, don't wonder if small ones just cease UK as planning and building this take time, money and needs probably more staff to be hired just for these tasks. Hope to see soon operators which really don't let you deposit and play at all once triggered and then requested documents approved but still gonna cost many players for casinos, so can't see that any of big operators would make this just by holding withdrawals and wait them to be reversed, especially Rizk just because they have lock function what prevent you to reverse your request.
ladyhawke
On a Break
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Location
- Here, There, Everywhere.
This is the part I simply don't understand. Irrespective of the size of the deposits, if the withdrawals themselves are very small, then these 'money launderers' need to find another occupation. As for targeting the deposits instead, would this be under AML or RG regulations?
If RG, I would refuse to provide any documentation whatsoever, as it is not up to the UKGC to tell me how to spend my money.
As for AML - I am fairly certain my bank (Lloyds) would be the first to flag up any irregular transactions, so as far as I am concerned, they have verified my SOW, and I certainly don't need any tin-pot casino asking for private and confidential info that, in my view, they have absolutely no right to.
Rant over.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
The drama queen (chief executive) at the UKGC, who, BTW, had no experience whatsoever in betting/gambling, stepped down a few months ago. And if you read about the current board of directors, they have no clue about gambling or a background in betting/gambling either.
That for me is the core of the problem.
The other part of the problem is that SOW requests players to hand over private / financial information which one usually would give to a bank when applying for a loan. There is no guarantee that this info is safe, handled correctly, is not sold to third parties etc. Has the UKGC issued clear vetting standards / procedures for casino employees who handle these documents? It is virtually a Pandora's Box.
Just remember the GIG blunder when they asked verified players to re-verify because they could not find the docs for some reason. They tried to explain it with something like "on old server, new one put in now", IIRC.
Plus most casinos are asking to send the documents via the most unsecured option, a simple email!!! That in itself is totally unacceptable and negligent, it actually borders on "criminal" (for the lack of a better word) negligence. If you need confidential and/or private docs / data provide a secure upload facility.
Last edited:
Quick derail, a rogue casino locked my acc. before 1st dep and asked for KYC to reopen it. I think Trada did something like that also. I really liked it.
UKGC is the problem. Some of the things I read in their guidelines posted above say it all.
They say to casinos "ask SoW for min deposits", "don't check only after a red flag" meaning check everybody, "criminals are problem gamblers" meaning gamblers are criminals (since all gamblers can potentialy have a problem),.... and other BS like that.
Rizk is just trying to follow the rules in a situation where there are no rules! Everything goes, every player is a suspected criminal with gambling addiction!
You ask why on cashouts. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a directive from UKGC saying "don't pay". It is clear from everything they have done so far that players getting paid is not in their list of priorities. Even worse, many there believe players gatting paid is the reason for crime and addiction.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I think a lot of this problem situation has been caused by the UKGC craftily tying in responsible gaming with money laundering; in the william hill case they were fined because "ten customers had been allowed to deposit large sums of money linked to criminal offences which resulted in gains for WHG of around £1.2m."
So the large deposits should have triggered some sort of common sense check by whill and then ukgc wouldn't have been able to fine them 5m for the breach and the further 1.2m; however once ukgc throw responsible gaming into the mix it gets more complicated for the casino as smaller deposits might have to be checked out as well.
Even though a lot of the blame should go to UKGC for their approach, regrettably some casinos are using this issue to withhold/delay payment when they have no grounds to suspect criminal activity.
So the large deposits should have triggered some sort of common sense check by whill and then ukgc wouldn't have been able to fine them 5m for the breach and the further 1.2m; however once ukgc throw responsible gaming into the mix it gets more complicated for the casino as smaller deposits might have to be checked out as well.
Even though a lot of the blame should go to UKGC for their approach, regrettably some casinos are using this issue to withhold/delay payment when they have no grounds to suspect criminal activity.
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Location
- Cumbria
Because the William Hill case was mostly about responsible gaming. The 'link to criminal offences' wasn't about someone laundering illegal funds.
In most of the cases it's stated (and implied in the others) that the players were stealing from their employers to fund their playing
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
Ah right that makes sense, I didn't read it fully and thought some of the 10 must be money launderers. What a messy situation we've got in, people stealing from work to gamble online, then they steal more to chase the losses in the hope they can eventually cover their tracks before someone at work spots the balance sheets don't add up.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2016
- Location
- Malta
I was asked to provide SoW from all the casinos I play at, and most of them would just be a questionnaire style of form. This would need to be filled in in order to allow me to deposit or make any other form of transaction. I was asked in another popular casino to provide documentation, and when questioned I was told that it was due to the large amount of deposits made throughout the years (£10000+). Simply bullshit tbh, but anyway. There should not be any reason why a withdrawal is held back imo, especially if a player has been loyal enough to deposit on the casino in question.
Deja-vu time.
The exact same thing happened to me a few months ago (I made a topic regarding it). I eventually did get my winnings and my account remains blocked because I too refused to give additional information.
@Deeplay - did you make your deposit of the back of a promotional email? Did you receive promotional emails recently? If so, Rizk is going to find it difficult to justify requesting proof of wealth on withdrawal when they actively encouraged deposits.
The exact same thing happened to me a few months ago (I made a topic regarding it). I eventually did get my winnings and my account remains blocked because I too refused to give additional information.
@Deeplay - did you make your deposit of the back of a promotional email? Did you receive promotional emails recently? If so, Rizk is going to find it difficult to justify requesting proof of wealth on withdrawal when they actively encouraged deposits.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Location
- The biG Eu
Hi no I did not get any promo material I think. But support did assist with increasing my deposit limits - you have to go through to support after 24 hours to confirm you want a higher DL .
Was your issue with Rizk @interlog
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
It was indeed mate. The link to my topic is: Rizk - source of wealth request (just noticed Colin posted it too)
Well, if support did increase your deposit limits they have no leg to stand on in my opinion. They were happy for you to make bigger deposits so what the heck is the source of wealth request for then?
@Captain Rizk - what do you think about that little fact? Increase of deposit limit is OK, yet when it comes to withdrawal it is getting suspicious and documents needed. Surely some investigations should have been done when the increase was requested?
