Rizk Source of Wealth Bullshit!

[Mr Wild]

With other words it should be a warning out for everyone who deposits at Guts, and are in the uk, so they know clearly what can happen. Maybe a new thread should be started.

MGA is enforcing this on all Malta casinos in June. So it will happen to customer all over EU or customer that play outside EU on a Maltese licenced site.

 

[Mr Wild]

I recommend all players to send their complaints to UKGC, not to the operator.
UKGC is reviewing casinos one by one. If they find players which are high depositors without SOW. They start digging deeper. Any customer that UKGC sees as High risk, they expect the operator to have SOW on, even though the operator might not see it as high risk. UKGC dont really follow their own guidelines. They are basically telling operators, if you dont know where your customers money is coming from you shouldnt accept them or you risk to get fined or lose your licence.
All this is real bs and goverments are using normal companies as their AML police. Operators have complained even filed law cases against regulators, but nothing is working. Maybe it will be different if they get 1000s of player complaints about this.

 

[brianmon]

I recommend all players to send their complaints to UKGC, not to the operator.
UKGC is reviewing casinos one by one. If they find players which are high depositors without SOW. They start digging deeper. Any customer that UKGC sees as High risk, they expect the operator to have SOW on, even though the operator might not see it as high risk. UKGC dont really follow their own guidelines. They are basically telling operators, if you dont know where your customers money is coming from you shouldnt accept them or you risk to get fined or lose your licence.
All this is real bs and goverments are using normal companies as their AML police. Operators have complained even filed law cases against regulators, but nothing is working. Maybe it will be different if they get 1000s of player complaints about this.

Which is as it should be, and you probably won't find many posters in this thread who disagree that high depositors should be questioned.

But the problems shown in this thread are the methods that MTST are using to gain information from ALL depositors.

Is holding a £10 deposit to ransom really a legitimate or necessary way of getting information?
Is a £10 depositor really a high risk player?

So complaining to the casino may make them look again at their procedures. Before they're fined by the UKGC for misusing the regulations

 

[Captain Rizk]

There are whole host of palpably incorrect assumptions that are now fanning the flames of mass hysteria. I cannot answer every post in this thread, however some points to note are:

1) We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it.
2) If you cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail then there is a problem. Full Stop.
3) There are many levels to SoW request and at the lowest level is very much like KYC which everyone is familiar with these days. Does it take a £10 deposit to trigger a KYC request? The answer to that as you all know is yes, however it has nothing to do with that individual deposit and more to do with a the lifetime accumulations.
4) We DO NOT want or need SoW from everyone from day 1 - same as KYC has been in the past.
5) As you all know, yes we do need players to prove where there funds come from at a certain point or when thresholds are reached, should this match what you entered in the initial SoW questionaire? Yes, if there is a difference do we need to investigate further? Yes, that is what is required by the regulator.
6) If we lose every single UK player as a result of the new SoW processes and requirements will that change our minds about doing this? No because, if we want to hold a UKGC licence then we have to comply.

 

[dealer wins]

@ no6, just ditch the UK licence then and be done with this SOW bollocks. No one likes it, and they way its being implementated is bordering on criminal by the casinos.

 

[brianmon]

@ no6, just ditch the UK licence then and be done with this SOW bollocks. No one likes it, and they way its being implementated is bordering on criminal by the casinos.

No point in doing that, since the MGA will apparently be enforcing the same regulation in June. So what then? should they also ditch their MGA license?

 

[brianmon]

There are whole host of palpably incorrect assumptions that are now fanning the flames of mass hysteria. I cannot answer every post in this thread, however some points to note are:

1) We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it.
2) If you cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail then there is a problem. Full Stop.
3) There are many levels to SoW request and at the lowest level is very much like KYC which everyone is familiar with these days. Does it take a £10 deposit to trigger a KYC request? The answer to that as you all know is yes, however it has nothing to do with that individual deposit and more to do with a the lifetime accumulations.
4) We DO NOT want or need SoW from everyone from day 1 - same as KYC has been in the past.
5) As you all know, yes we do need players to prove where there funds come from at a certain point or when thresholds are reached, should this match what you entered in the initial SoW questionaire? Yes, if there is a difference do we need to investigate further? Yes, that is what is required by the regulator.
6) If we lose every single UK player as a result of the new SoW processes and requirements will that change our minds about doing this? No because, if we want to hold a UKGC licence then we have to comply.

It's not what you're doing. It's how you're doing it.
Holding deposits and withdrawals to ransom is unethical, and possibly illegal.

If you require information from a player ask for it at login, as other casinos appear to be doing.
Don't have your systems set to make the request straight after a deposit, or before a withdrawal.

 

[Tirilej]

MGA is enforcing this on all Malta casinos in June. So it will happen to customer all over EU or customer that play outside EU on a Maltese licenced site.

Thanks for the warning. I haven't seen anything about that, but then I know I will be getting the same request very soon.
The sad thing is that many players will probably do like me. Either stop totally or choose one or two casinos where they will accept giving this information to, and then just stop using the rest. For me it will probably be VS and maybe 32Red. I would love to keep Rizk but we'll see about that. The rest have to go...

 

[Steviedoo]

I’m just wondering.
What happens when the casino deems the client (cuz of sow )reflect he she is not earning enough to play?
What will the casino do.
Stop taking their money?
Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

[pinnit2014]

I’m just wondering.
What happens when the casino deems the client (cuz of sow )reflect he she is not earning enough to play?
What will the casino do.
Stop taking their money?
Sorry if this has been asked before.

Probably say it’s ok he’s not a money launderer but exile on the basis on responsible gambling. Don’t think they can use it other than what they request it for though. Just means though they’ll use the old ‘management reserve the right to close any account for any reason’

Who knows.

UKGC have been pushing more and more into casinos the need to identify problem gamblers.

 

[theapple]

There are whole host of palpably incorrect assumptions that are now fanning the flames of mass hysteria. I cannot answer every post in this thread, however some points to note are:

1) We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it.
2) If you cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail then there is a problem. Full Stop.
3) There are many levels to SoW request and at the lowest level is very much like KYC which everyone is familiar with these days. Does it take a £10 deposit to trigger a KYC request? The answer to that as you all know is yes, however it has nothing to do with that individual deposit and more to do with a the lifetime accumulations.
4) We DO NOT want or need SoW from everyone from day 1 - same as KYC has been in the past.
5) As you all know, yes we do need players to prove where there funds come from at a certain point or when thresholds are reached, should this match what you entered in the initial SoW questionaire? Yes, if there is a difference do we need to investigate further? Yes, that is what is required by the regulator.
6) If we lose every single UK player as a result of the new SoW processes and requirements will that change our minds about doing this? No because, if we want to hold a UKGC licence then we have to comply.

I suspect it might be impossible to block a deposit from reaching you if SOW is triggered? If said deposit would trigger SOW, you shouldnt accept it to begin with, no?

i know you guys are in super panic mode because of UKGC fines and whatnot, but shouldnt you also be worried about new gpdr as fines are kinda draconian there and you definitely are asking for stuff you shouldnt have access to (people who work with other people will have to send you details of said people too, which you are not entitled to?). Especially since its done via simple mail i suspect you might "want" to comply with other regulations too, and not just ones that UKGC throws at you?

and one last thing, its been asked dozen of times here already. Are you allowed just to keep deposits as ransom until people comply and if they dont do whatever you ask from them, what happens with that money? Its kinda important question that keeps on being ignored all this time.

 

[Mr Wild]

Which is as it should be, and you probably won't find many posters in this thread who disagree that high depositors should be questioned.

But the problems shown in this thread are the methods that MTST are using to gain information from ALL depositors.

Is holding a £10 deposit to ransom really a legitimate or necessary way of getting information?
Is a £10 depositor really a high risk player?

So complaining to the casino may make them look again at their procedures. Before they're fined by the UKGC for misusing the regulations

Its written in the LCCP that the operator is not entitled to release a withdrawal if an AML trigger has been flagged. Releasing the withdrawal before establishing the SOW is a breach against the UKGC regulation.
If you dont wish to send in SOW, your case will be forwarded to the NCA. Then you need to contact NCA (national crime agency) to have your money released as its their decision and not the operator.

 

[Biti]

I think the best thing to happen is that the UKGC will continue it's crusade against gambling. Sooner of later some brands will just fold their license , because it's not worth the hassle anymore. That wouldn't be bad perhaps.

 

[Mr Wild]

I suspect it might be impossible to block a deposit from reaching you if SOW is triggered? If said deposit would trigger SOW, you shouldnt accept it to begin with, no?

i know you guys are in super panic mode because of UKGC fines and whatnot, but shouldnt you also be worried about new gpdr as fines are kinda draconian there and you definitely are asking for stuff you shouldnt have access to (people who work with other people will have to send you details of said people too, which you are not entitled to?). Especially since its done via simple mail i suspect you might "want" to comply with other regulations too, and not just ones that UKGC throws at you?

and one last thing, its been asked dozen of times here already. Are you allowed just to keep deposits as ransom until people comply and if they dont do whatever you ask from them, what happens with that money? Its kinda important question that keeps on being ignored all this time.

Here you can read what the operator has to do when thresholds are triggered:
Old / Expired Link

Requirements for remote casinos

6.99 Where remote casino operators are unable to complete or apply the required CDD measures in relation to a particular customer at the point the CDD threshold for transactions is reached, and are accordingly required to cease transactions or terminate the business relationship with the customer, they should adopt the following procedure:

• at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made

• further deposits can be made to that account as long as they too are locked into it until CDD is completed

• bets can be made from the account, again providing any winnings are locked until CDD is completed

 

[dealer wins]

How can you money launder by depositing with your own debit card or Ewallet, its impossible?

 

[vinylweatherman]

@vinylweatherman I suspect they don't even know the answer to the question of "what is a certificate of winnings?"

As a test I went onto live chat to ask:-

===========

08:42
If I won £1000 - would you be able to produce a certificate of winnings for me?

08:46
That can be possible yes. We will have to escalate it to the game provider and they can give it to us.

08:47
OK. And what exactly would you provide....a document which says Mr X won £1000?

08:49
Some of the game provides can provide you with a video of the winning, I thought it was that you meant.
But we don't provide the customers with any other documents. You will be able to see your winnings on your bank statement and your account game transactions and payment transactions.
Is it anything special you need it for?

======

Make of that what you will.

08:51 Yes, as A UK player who does not work for a living, but simply recycles past wins from casinos, I will now require a certificate for ALL wins over £9.99 from yourselves. This is not down to me, but is a new requirement laid down by the UKGC that ALL UK licensed casinos must abide with. I will require certificates for all wins over £9.99 in order to comply with SoW requests from your competitors as and when they occur.

 

[Tirilej]

Here you can read what the operator has to do when AML flags are triggered:
Old / Expired Link

Requirements for remote casinos

6.99 Where remote casino operators are unable to complete or apply the required CDD measures in relation to a particular customer at the point the CDD threshold for transactions is reached, and are accordingly required to cease transactions or terminate the business relationship with the customer, they should adopt the following procedure:

• at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made

• further deposits can be made to that account as long as they too are locked into it until CDD is completed

• bets can be made from the account, again providing any winnings are locked until CDD is completed

Do you know if MGA will just copy all ukgc have, or will it be different? Can or will you keep them separate?

 

[vinylweatherman]

There are whole host of palpably incorrect assumptions that are now fanning the flames of mass hysteria. I cannot answer every post in this thread, however some points to note are:

1) We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it.
2) If you cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail then there is a problem. Full Stop.
3) There are many levels to SoW request and at the lowest level is very much like KYC which everyone is familiar with these days. Does it take a £10 deposit to trigger a KYC request? The answer to that as you all know is yes, however it has nothing to do with that individual deposit and more to do with a the lifetime accumulations.
4) We DO NOT want or need SoW from everyone from day 1 - same as KYC has been in the past.
5) As you all know, yes we do need players to prove where there funds come from at a certain point or when thresholds are reached, should this match what you entered in the initial SoW questionaire? Yes, if there is a difference do we need to investigate further? Yes, that is what is required by the regulator.
6) If we lose every single UK player as a result of the new SoW processes and requirements will that change our minds about doing this? No because, if we want to hold a UKGC licence then we have to comply.

Maybe tell Deeplay about this. he was told that he MUST provide an UNREDACTED PayPal statement as part of SoW. By it's very nature, an unredacted Paypal statement will show the names and addresses of those who have paid money into his PayPal, hence "third party information" has been "insisted upon". He DID provide a summary so as to avoid disclosing the details of his clients, but this was rejected.
Now, if this kind of thing is simply down to shoddy CS and untrained members of staff in compliance, it needs to be addressed urgently in order to prevent the proverbial "shitstorm" from developing. In the end I see Deeplay managed to get paid in the end without having to disclose the names of his clients, but it was one hell of a fight, and has lost the casino a customer.


As for 2 - MANY people "cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail" because this is now 2018, and so many things are now "done online", and there is no "paper". Even pay slips are now being sent by email and stored on an online account for the worker. Whilst this can easily be resolved, the player then runs into "we can't accept anything printed from the internet". This is mere KYC, not the new SoW.

The government is to blame for much of this with it's drive to "do everything online", initially touted as "to save trees by eliminating paper". It is now enacting regulations that require "everything to be documented on paper" for the purposes of KYC, AML, and HMRC.

If the authorities won't listen to the lobby groups working for what is a big gambling sector, it isn't going to listen to individual players. The government, as well as casinos, will simply have to learn the hard way, loss of customers to the offshore unlicensed sites and an increasing number of players resorting to consumer rights legislation to at least part resolve stalemates (retrieving deposits, although this won't help with retrieving winnings).

 

[brianmon]

Here you can read what the operator has to do when thresholds are triggered:
Old / Expired Link

Requirements for remote casinos

6.99 Where remote casino operators are unable to complete or apply the required CDD measures in relation to a particular customer at the point the CDD threshold for transactions is reached, and are accordingly required to cease transactions or terminate the business relationship with the customer, they should adopt the following procedure:

• at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made

• further deposits can be made to that account as long as they too are locked into it until CDD is completed

• bets can be made from the account, again providing any winnings are locked until CDD is completed

That's fine, and probably in some cases very necessary where there's a high enough level of suspicion.
But those paragraphs you've quoted talk about 'a particular customer', not about going to such extremes for every single customer, which is what MTST appear to be doing

 

[vinylweatherman]

Here you can read what the operator has to do when thresholds are triggered:
Old / Expired Link

Requirements for remote casinos

6.99 Where remote casino operators are unable to complete or apply the required CDD measures in relation to a particular customer at the point the CDD threshold for transactions is reached, and are accordingly required to cease transactions or terminate the business relationship with the customer, they should adopt the following procedure:

• at the point where the threshold is reached, remote casino operators should put all funds owed to the customer into an account (or equivalent) from which no withdrawals can be made

• further deposits can be made to that account as long as they too are locked into it until CDD is completed

• bets can be made from the account, again providing any winnings are locked until CDD is completed

This shows the UKGC don't fully understand AML either. If you can still make deposits and bets on an account flagged up for CDD, then this playing/betting can also be a means to launder the money from the CDD locked account to a non CDD locked account. This is known as "chip dumping" in poker, where it's most prevalent and where operators are already looking out for it, but it can also be done in regular online casinos where products allow players to play against other players in a way that allows them to collude to achieve a desired outcome. The UKGC should require a full lock, one that blocks play and further deposits. I just wonder if this oddity is down to the lobby from the casino industry arguing that players need to be able to play whilst they comply with SoW and the casino has a chance to review the information provided, else they will lose that customer to a competitor. This is the SAME argument that originally allowed concessions with KYC, which many argued should be done before the first deposit was accepted.

 

[Mr Wild]

Do you know if MGA will just copy all ukgc have, or will it be different? Can or will you keep them separate?

We dont know yet how strict they will be.
However, as your living in Sweden. Next year you will only be allowed to play at Swedish licenced casinos. That is not so much great news, they are removing bonuses etc, not sure how strict AML is. But will be similar as to open a bank account. What I read, you can deposit, but need to verify on withdrawal. Not sure if that includes SOW.

 

[Mr Wild]

That's fine, and probably in some cases very necessary where there's a high enough level of suspicion.
But those paragraphs you've quoted talk about 'a particular customer', not about going to such extremes for every single customer, which is what MTST appear to be doing

Well that is not how UKGC see it. They see whole industry as high risk. Just read their risk assessment they publish lately. They have also publish that they want to change so you need to complete SOW on signup.

Read here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Tirilej]

We dont know yet how strict they will be.
However, as your living in Sweden. Next year you will only be allowed to play at Swedish licenced casinos. That is not so much great news, they are removing bonuses etc, not sure how strict AML is. But will be similar as to open a bank account. What I read, you can deposit, but need to verify on withdrawal. Not sure if that includes SOW.

I knew about next year but I suspect the casinos I choose to use will get a license. You will get one, I'm sure of that.
...and I've already stopped using bonuses, so no problem. Thank you for that answer

 

[Mr Wild]

One thing to remember, if you been a customer for a couple of years in a casino you like. Your deposit and withdrawals will be high regardless if you lost or not.
Maybe during 2 years you deposit 15k and withdraw 14k. Then you will probably get a SOW check pretty soon.

Trust me, this only costs the casino money in educating staff, hiring new staff that understands AML and losing customers that feel the casino is intrusive on their personal life.
Then you also have to worry when UKGC do an audit of your business, which they do yearly and if they find a player which they think is high risk and you dont have SOW on that player. You will get a massive fine or lose your licence.

 

[mack341]

How can you money launder by depositing with your own debit card or Ewallet, its impossible?

I would have thought once its in the banking system, i.e. in a bank account its as good as laundered. However maybe the money launderers want to further disguise their money with more activity in and out of their account and gambling fits the bill.

 

[Captain Rizk]

I suspect it might be impossible to block a deposit from reaching you if SOW is triggered? If said deposit would trigger SOW, you shouldnt accept it to begin with, no?

i know you guys are in super panic mode because of UKGC fines and whatnot, but shouldnt you also be worried about new gpdr as fines are kinda draconian there and you definitely are asking for stuff you shouldnt have access to (people who work with other people will have to send you details of said people too, which you are not entitled to?). Especially since its done via simple mail i suspect you might "want" to comply with other regulations too, and not just ones that UKGC throws at you?

and one last thing, its been asked dozen of times here already. Are you allowed just to keep deposits as ransom until people comply and if they dont do whatever you ask from them, what happens with that money? Its kinda important question that keeps on being ignored all this time.

Nope i havent been ignoring this one, but thanks for reminding me. As a very last resort if we cannot get the documentation to prove the provenance of the funds or that the documentation does not match the information given and a reasonable explanation is not provided then we have a duty to report the incidents and we remit the funds to the authorities/regulator who decide on the next stage. This is however the very very last resort after every other avenue has been explored. IT is very important to understand that we DO NOT get to keep this money.

 

[Captain Rizk]

Maybe tell Deeplay about this. he was told that he MUST provide an UNREDACTED PayPal statement as part of SoW. By it's very nature, an unredacted Paypal statement will show the names and addresses of those who have paid money into his PayPal, hence "third party information" has been "insisted upon". He DID provide a summary so as to avoid disclosing the details of his clients, but this was rejected.
Now, if this kind of thing is simply down to shoddy CS and untrained members of staff in compliance, it needs to be addressed urgently in order to prevent the proverbial "shitstorm" from developing. In the end I see Deeplay managed to get paid in the end without having to disclose the names of his clients, but it was one hell of a fight, and has lost the casino a customer.


As for 2 - MANY people "cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail" because this is now 2018, and so many things are now "done online", and there is no "paper". Even pay slips are now being sent by email and stored on an online account for the worker. Whilst this can easily be resolved, the player then runs into "we can't accept anything printed from the internet". This is mere KYC, not the new SoW.

The government is to blame for much of this with it's drive to "do everything online", initially touted as "to save trees by eliminating paper". It is now enacting regulations that require "everything to be documented on paper" for the purposes of KYC, AML, and HMRC.

If the authorities won't listen to the lobby groups working for what is a big gambling sector, it isn't going to listen to individual players. The government, as well as casinos, will simply have to learn the hard way, loss of customers to the offshore unlicensed sites and an increasing number of players resorting to consumer rights legislation to at least part resolve stalemates (retrieving deposits, although this won't help with retrieving winnings).

Hmm - thought i had replied to this one but cant see it now - apologies if i double post.

We have said many times that we will not, ever comment on an individual case in an open forum.

However i refer you to my point 1)

I used the term "paper trail" in its widest possible sense. it does not have to be paper based but can of course be electronic in this day and age. however the point still stands that the money trail must be proven in whatever format it comes in

 

[colinsunderland]

There are whole host of palpably incorrect assumptions that are now fanning the flames of mass hysteria. I cannot answer every post in this thread, however some points to note are:

1) We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it.
2) If you cannot prove where your funds came from by some form of official paper trail then there is a problem. Full Stop.
3) There are many levels to SoW request and at the lowest level is very much like KYC which everyone is familiar with these days. Does it take a £10 deposit to trigger a KYC request? The answer to that as you all know is yes, however it has nothing to do with that individual deposit and more to do with a the lifetime accumulations.
4) We DO NOT want or need SoW from everyone from day 1 - same as KYC has been in the past.
5) As you all know, yes we do need players to prove where there funds come from at a certain point or when thresholds are reached, should this match what you entered in the initial SoW questionaire? Yes, if there is a difference do we need to investigate further? Yes, that is what is required by the regulator.
6) If we lose every single UK player as a result of the new SoW processes and requirements will that change our minds about doing this? No because, if we want to hold a UKGC licence then we have to comply.

So I can supply a bank statement with every incoming payment redacted? As when i asked earlier you said you didnt have an answer to my situation? But if you dont need third party details, how do you know if a payment is legitimate?

 

[shadow123]

What fun times we live in.

 

[Captain Rizk]

So I can supply a bank statement with every incoming payment redacted? As when i asked earlier you said you didnt have an answer to my situation? But if you dont need third party details, how do you know if a payment is legitimate?

Funny i was thinking about your situation again the other day and i realised that actually in your case it is even easier - i assume that you report your income in some way shape or form to HMRC/IR etc. So a copy of last years P60 or whatever equivalent that you have is perfectly acceptable. You dont need to give any details of individual affiliate streams or amounts or names or anything sensitive or confidential.

So lets take this as a procedural example:

1) you are asked to complete a SoW questionaire, which you do and put in that you earn 30k per year as an affilaite

2) your play volume/patterns trigger an alert and you are requested for documentation to prove what you stated in your questionaire. You provide your last year P60 or whatever equivalent doc you have from HMRC and it shows similar to that that you have declared then, job done. You have passed through SoW - it can be that simple.

Clearly if you dont report your income to the authorities then there is a problem as you wont have the documentation. I am certainly not suggesting that is the case in your scenario @colinsunderland, however you can see what the UKGC is looking to do here, which is to ensure that all funds used for gambling are fully legitimate. We are just the vehicles that they are using for this.

Personally i would prefer it they would just provide a "gambling pass/certificate" to a player that passes SoW and then they are allowed to play at any licenced ukgc casino rather than putting the onus on us - but it is what it is.

Now i understand why some people do not want to prove or tell a casino how much you earn - that is your perogative of course but the bottom line is that if you want to play the it is likely at some point that you will have to go through this process.

Of course if you are directly employed then it is even easier and a copy of your last payslip cover the above.

 

[dealer wins]

Seriously who wants to show their P60 or bank statements etc to an online casino, these are PRIVATE documents!!!

 

[Captain Rizk]

Seriously who wants to show their P60 or bank statements etc to an online casino, these are PRIVATE documents!!!

Agreed and understood. so your choice is simple then. dont play casinos online - i wish that wasnt the case but it is...

 

[dealer wins]

Just wow!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hmm - thought i had replied to this one but cant see it now - apologies if i double post.

We have said many times that we will not, ever comment on an individual case in an open forum.

However i refer you to my point 1)

I used the term "paper trail" in its widest possible sense. it does not have to be paper based but can of course be electronic in this day and age. however the point still stands that the money trail must be proven in whatever format it comes in

Even if only ONE player is told they must provide third party data in order to pass SoW, then the statement "We NEVER EVER need any 3rd party confidential information as part of any SoW checks. We do not require this and we DO NOT want it." is not true. As far as the ICO is concerned, even ONE breach will lead to a fine if they are asked to investigate.

You SHOULD say "Only in exceptional circumstances will we require third party personal data in order for a player to pass SoW".

This is not the first time this has happened either. William Hill were demanding to see the bank statements of other family members in order to complete SoW on a player.

So, electronic is good enough for SoW, yet is NOT good enough for KYC

 

[Jono777]

This is not the first time this has happened either. William Hill were demanding to see the bank statements of other family members in order to complete SoW on a player.

Yeah, I can imagine my families reaction to that one!!!

 

[colinsunderland]

Th

Funny i was thinking about your situation again the other day and i realised that actually in your case it is even easier - i assume that you report your income in some way shape or form to HMRC/IR etc. So a copy of last years P60 or whatever equivalent that you have is perfectly acceptable. You dont need to give any details of individual affiliate streams or amounts or names or anything sensitive or confidential.

So lets take this as a procedural example:

1) you are asked to complete a SoW questionaire, which you do and put in that you earn 30k per year as an affilaite

2) your play volume/patterns trigger an alert and you are requested for documentation to prove what you stated in your questionaire. You provide your last year P60 or whatever equivalent doc you have from HMRC and it shows similar to that that you have declared then, job done. You have passed through SoW - it can be that simple.

Clearly if you dont report your income to the authorities then there is a problem as you wont have the documentation. I am certainly not suggesting that is the case in your scenario @colinsunderland, however you can see what the UKGC is looking to do here, which is to ensure that all funds used for gambling are fully legitimate. We are just the vehicles that they are using for this.

Personally i would prefer it they would just provide a "gambling pass/certificate" to a player that passes SoW and then they are allowed to play at any licenced ukgc casino rather than putting the onus on us - but it is what it is.

Now i understand why some people do not want to prove or tell a casino how much you earn - that is your perogative of course but the bottom line is that if you want to play the it is likely at some point that you will have to go through this process.

Of course if you are directly employed then it is even easier and a copy of your last payslip cover the above.

The closest to a P60 for self employment is a SA60 but that shows taxable profit, not income, and they can be wildly different.

I do understand casinos are in a difficult position, can I ask, have you asked the UKGC what to do for self employed customers as surely they should give guidance?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Agreed and understood. so your choice is simple then. dont play casinos online - i wish that wasnt the case but it is...

You may as well prepare for the possibility of your business going under. It's the "average Joe" that will most react badly to intrusive SoW demands, and it's the "average joe" that tends to be the "bread and butter" revenue source for the online casinos. Currently, the MT system stands out among the rest as being far more intrusive, and demanding this SoW from EVERY player, even those who just deposit £10. Why are ALL UK facing casinos not being equally thorough? As they are not, UK players will drift from the most intrusive to the least intrusive, and unless ALL the casinos operate SoW in the same manner, it will tilt the business playing field towards those who take a more common sense approach by ONLY targeting those accounts that have raised suspicions.

The current "gig economy" means that a significant number of WORKING Brits will struggle with SoW, as the jobs involved are not "salaried" but more akin to self employment or individual short term contracts. THIS is where the "third party data" problem comes in, as some of these jobs involve direct payment from individual clients, rather than payment to a company which then pays a salary to the worker.

 

[dealer wins]

Even opening up a bank account doesnt require completing SOW and supplying P60s etc, and thats something that can be used for money laundering lol This is a joke seriously!

 

[mack341]

I think the UKGC and the casinos should focus their attention on those customers most likely to fit the behaviour criteria for laundering, this will then allow the casinos to retain and grow their business by not peeing off the broad majority of customers.

I wonder if the problem developing here is being caused by language, the legal advisers for the overseas casinos are perhaps slightly misunderstanding what UKGC requires. Whereas the UK based bookmakers, your betfairs, ladbrokes etc.. maybe understand where and what the reasonable limits are in terms of customer behaviour and what constitutes a money laundering risk. That is just a theory, time will tell I suppose, and I await to see if the uk bookmakers [esp those who I have accounts with] copy the approach complained about in this thread.

 

[dealer wins]

I think the UKGC and the casinos should focus their attention on those customers most likely to fit the behaviour criteria for laundering, this will then allow the casinos to retain and grow their business by not peeing off the broad majority of customers.

I wonder if the problem developing here is being caused by language, the legal advisers for the overseas casinos are perhaps slightly misunderstanding what UKGC requires. Whereas the UK based bookmakers, your betfairs, ladbrokes etc.. maybe understand where and what the reasonable limits are in terms of customer behaviour and what constitutes a money laundering risk. That is just a theory, time will tell I suppose, and I await to see if the uk bookmakers [esp those who I have accounts with] copy the approach complained about in this thread.

Exactly, I win/lose upwards of £10000 a week on Betfair alone, and have not been asked for SOW shit from them. Yet deposit a few quid in a casino to have a bit of fun (or stress) with Raging Rhino and they want intrusive documents.!!

 

[brianmon]

I think the UKGC and the casinos should focus their attention on those customers most likely to fit the behaviour criteria for laundering, this will then allow the casinos to retain and grow their business by not peeing off the broad majority of customers.

I wonder if the problem developing here is being caused by language, the legal advisers for the overseas casinos are perhaps slightly misunderstanding what UKGC requires. Whereas the UK based bookmakers, your betfairs, ladbrokes etc.. maybe understand where and what the reasonable limits are in terms of customer behaviour and what constitutes a money laundering risk. That is just a theory, time will tell I suppose, and I await to see if the uk bookmakers [esp those who I have accounts with] copy the approach complained about in this thread.

Yeah, I've mentioned this before in regard to other similar UKGC issues.
English is likely to be a second language to most of the european based casinos' legal staff.

So, while they may be fluent speakers, they may not fully appreciate the subtleties of the written English language, especially when used in legal documents and regulations. Where the same word can have different meanings, depending on the context it's used in

 

[miksaxxx]

Do you know if MGA will just copy all ukgc have, or will it be different? Can or will you keep them separate?

I am Finnish ( as you know ) and have done SOW in 2 MGA lisenced casinos. It was nightmare.

 

[Tirilej]

I am Finnish ( as you know ) and have done SOW in 2 MGA lisenced casinos. It was nightmare.

I remember, but I believe it's worse for someone like you who play so much more and higher than I do. I don't have that much to send

 

[heador112]

MGA is enforcing this on all Malta casinos in June. So it will happen to customer all over EU or customer that play outside EU on a Maltese licenced site.

Do you have a link for this claim ?
I thought operators in Malta have to ask in individual cases for Sow since last summer .
Its quit ironic that people from the Uk votet to leave the Eu but still have to deal with this EU socialistic bureaucracy bullshit

 

[SpinUk]

I recommend all players to send their complaints to UKGC, not to the operator.
UKGC is reviewing casinos one by one. If they find players which are high depositors without SOW. They start digging deeper. Any customer that UKGC sees as High risk, they expect the operator to have SOW on, even though the operator might not see it as high risk. UKGC dont really follow their own guidelines. They are basically telling operators, if you dont know where your customers money is coming from you shouldnt accept them or you risk to get fined or lose your licence.
All this is real bs and goverments are using normal companies as their AML police. Operators have complained even filed law cases against regulators, but nothing is working. Maybe it will be different if they get 1000s of player complaints about this.

It's not what you're doing. It's how you're doing it.
Holding deposits and withdrawals to ransom is unethical, and possibly illegal.

If you require information from a player ask for it at login, as other casinos appear to be doing.
Don't have your systems set to make the request straight after a deposit, or before a withdrawal.

This. I’ve been one of the MT Secure Trade’s biggest supporters since the days of Ben Clemes and the Guts inception, and in all honesty Rizk and the VIP are normally spot on.

But, and its a big but, who on earth made the executive decision to hold the deposits to ransom.

That’s why you are getting the heat that you are, and it all could have been avoided had you taken the ethical route of doing so on log-in or attempted deposit.

 

[Deeplay]

The current "gig economy" means that a significant number of WORKING Brits will struggle with SoW, as the jobs involved are not "salaried" but more akin to self employment or individual short term contracts. THIS is where the "third party data" problem comes in, as some of these jobs involve direct payment from individual clients, rather than payment to a company which then pays a salary to the worker.

Agreed! And no im not calling out Rizk on this one, that situation is resolved no matter what my thoughts on that are. But in the wider sense many work in the Gig Economy me included , and earnings can vary wildly from one year to the next from week to the next and so on. And the GiG economy is growing at a ridiculously fast rate with the likes of Fiver / Etsy ... and this will be problematic for many especially if they are in the first year of trading or even 2. Sure you can show your tax return ... but that has so much private information on it ...

The whole landscape of online gaming is changing, and the way the UKGC are going there wont be an industry left at this rate. Not in the UK, or it will make people more inclined to play at clip joints. Personally im sick of the whole thing and aint gambled in almost 4 weeks because of the hassle. Next few days I return to Video Slots ... will see how they do things. But in the end I do see that the UKGC has the casinos by the bollocks and in turn casinos have the player by the bollocks especially if getting hit with SOW on withdraw. A better system has to be found for everyones sake.

 

[bigbear]

Exactly, I win/lose upwards of £10000 a week on Betfair alone, and have not been asked for SOW shit from them. Yet deposit a few quid in a casino to have a bit of fun (or stress) with Raging Rhino and they want intrusive documents.!!

This example highlights perfectly why so many people are up in arms over this.Is it the regulation or the interpretation of the regulation? You would assume the former,in which case why is it that every reputable UKGC licensed casino are not all asking for the same proof in respect of Source of Wealth.I have made a number of deposits and withdrawals over the past few weeks at two respected UKGC licensed casinos which have all gone perfectly smoothly and with SoW not beem brought up on a single occasion.So are these solid,well-respected casinos risking their licences by not going down the SoW route? Somehow I think not.

 

[nikantw]

....Is it the regulation or the interpretation of the regulation?...

It’s the regulation that pretty much says: “Everybody is guilty, even if proven innocent. And it is your job to prove them guilty, not mine.”

 

[The Dude]

Can players not group together and fire back at these casinos with threat of legal action for demanding information that they are not entitled to ?

Like a class action suit, based on regulations that do not permit personal information to be shared about willy nilly with companies that have no right to see unrelated transactions?
..

As mentioned a number of times, you need to bring the fight to the UKGC and the MGA. But these decisions have been made - and you'll be told that it's for your own good.

Thanks for the warning. I haven't seen anything about that, but then I know I will be getting the same request very soon...

I think I mentioned this in a newsletter from a few years ago.

....And come next year, those players who reside in the EU will be getting a rude wake up call. After April 2016, casinos licensed and or operating in the EU will be required to ask where their players funds are coming from. So you, as a player, will be sending in not only your IDs and phone bills, but declaring what your occupation is and what is your source of income. Some players may not have an issue with this, but I have a feeling that many will. It's far too intrusive - many gamblers are protective about their identities. It's another example of a ridiculous nanny-state that we're in.

In the same newsletter I made this observance:

...Another frustration - one that I can relate to: regulators that don't understand the nuts and bolts of the industry. Most regulators are hired in from other jobs: ex-cops, human resources, lawyers. They have no clue about casino management, player expectations and behaviors, casino marketing, bonuses, casino math, etc. And this industry is twenty years old? So far, there is one jurisdiction that can boast of having people who know this business and players more than anyone else -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. More on this later.

Meister Mail ~ 25 November 2015 - EIG, BAC, MiGS Report

 

[Tirilej]

I think I mentioned this in a newsletter from a few years ago.

Not that it would start from June this year, and that was what I was thanking him for letting me know