Rizk Source of Wealth Bullshit!

[goatwack]

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!

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....................

 

[SpinUk]

hi all - we are checking this as we speak and i will get back to you.

We know that the system as it stands is inherently floored and i personally hate the fact that this happens on withdrawals and we will be releasing a new version of the SoW system that deals with this very differently and will effectively block all play win, lose or draw when the SoW questionnaire is triggered.

@colinsunderland Yep, i didnt reply to you regarding your point about affiliate income, terms and conditions etc because your point was perfectly valid and i genuinely have no answer to that one.

Hands up, not sure what to say other than we know that this system is not perfect and we are trying to make it as easy and flexible as possible but completely understand your frustrations

What percentage of your players reverse the withdrawal when the SOW is requested? I’m guessing conservatively 20%.

 

[goatwack]

What percentage of your players reverse the withdrawal when the SOW is requested? I’m guessing conservatively 20%.

Please don't give them any ideas

 

[SpinUk]

Please don't give them any ideas

Haha - I think the horse has bolted on this one already.

 

[bigbear]

Im starting to feel like they view as me as some kind of criminal and i dont like it one bit. Soon as this shite situation is sorted they can close my account. I dont need this bullshit.

Be warned dont deposit too much or win too much at Rizk right now as they will be straight onto your back.

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.

 

[goatwack]

I think most would provide this documentation if requested on large wins, because we know they're extremely rare.

Problem with casinos not having one definitive 'rulebook' is that they can always just say

"No"

 

[aceking123]

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

 

[goatwack]

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

 

[SpinUk]

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.

1000% this. Anything else is self-interested BS from the Casino and also pretty unethical.

 

[lockinlove]

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.

 

[goatwack]

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

 

[SpinUk]

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.

 

[Slottery]

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 and withdraw and lose their withdrawal.

100% that is why.

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]

... 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.

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.

 

[Harry_BKK]

What a disaster some drama queen at the UKGC has made.

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.

 

[nikantw]

Why is it ALWAYS on withdrawal things like this happen. No wonder people don't trust casinos. Even with the initial KYC.....

.....UKGC.... have no clue about gambling or a background in betting/gambling either....
That for me is the core of the problem....

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.

 

[mack341]

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.

 

[brianmon]

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.

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

 

[mack341]

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.

 

[TheSam469]

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.

 

[interlog]

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.

 

[Deeplay]

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.

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

 

[colinsunderland]

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

Rizk - source of wealth request

 

[interlog]

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

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?