Rizk Source of Wealth Bullshit!

[dpp00]

all very disturbing this and gone right back to the same old problem of will i get paid,so instead of being a lovely moment when you cash out is now fraught,

with frustration and doubt, i haven't had any problem so far thank god but if im asked for anything it will be a big fat no,

1.because no one has a right to see my private financial info

2.i couldn't provide anything anyway don't have it, and just so not to leave you wondering my 4 brothers pay me an allowance to mind our mum

which just suits us,

getting back on track gonna be interesting to see how the casinos and are gonna deal with the new enhanced data protection act coming on the

25th off this month (may) cause its pretty clear from reading so far there not allowed to ask you for anything you don't want to give,

 

[Slottery]

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.

I bet many casino operators would be happy if UKGC would have that attitude or at least wouldn't make casinos "social responsibility" so extended that most of active players who constantly are making deposits and playing, have to proof that they are playing at money what is in UKGC:s opinion too much part of players income.

Understand if somebody have huge change in their deposit pattern (which might be euromillion jackpot, new job or what so ever), some new player from beginning start to spend "big" compare to what some "average" people could do but like mentioned in other topics, some who have really constant deposit/game play pattern years and years got triggered to send these documents because of life time deposits reach £X amount (don't remember which operator it was but was linked in some of these topics around this mess), which suggest that there is some guideline/demand from UKGC for that as i don't think casino itself would like to start request payslips from player who have been with them 6-7 years and no any changes to their activity (ok, some month played £150 more than life time average per month and made £1 spins instead of £0.40 but that's only randomly there and then), if somebody can play that amount monthly so many years, do casinos have be fortune tellers and assume that he/she might right now lost job or something else messed up finances right now when total deposits reached £x for lifetime.

My two cents to whole sh**ty story, this should have been planned really much better as it seems casinos are almost dark as players and don't have answers and have to do constant changes all the time when UKGC realize something new what kind of be "sign" of RG etc.... Then make clear guide lines for casinos, give some more time than week or two to casino make their part of planning how operationally handle this whole process and UKGC should have been all the time there to assist and advise what is compiling with their demands, what can and can't, should and shouldn't be done etc.... Now we are in situation that majority of affected players by this are understandably really pi**ed off, casinos loose customers and loads of time and money to try to compile with something they don't know what it is and UKGC is supporting process by publishing almost weekly some new story about casino being fined by not filling their responsibilities (haven't seen new one after LeoVegas and sorry, it was over week ago).

Who in earth can say that this process is well planned and executed? In private sector these persons in charge at UKGC could find their P45 in their mailbox with no time, but guess this instance can be counted as public sector and there is not always that important to do something proper and efficient way and at least not analyze or look back if something went wrong but that's gone already, let's just let it be....

 

[Chipkin9]

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?

Game, set & Match.

So there is no way Rizk are carrying out this SoW on Deeplay because they suspect ML. And again SoW should only be carried out in these circumstances where ML is suspected.

Here is the short truth of the matter. MT Secure Trade are abusing the UKGC rules to stall on payments and be as difficult as possible to players in the hope that they get frustrated and lose any winnings. They pull this shit on the KYC process as well and deny documents until you tell them they are breaching thier license.

MT Secure Trade know they can just hold peoples money hostage and if people complain to the UKGC/Ecorga MT Secure Trade can now just say they were following protocol.

Fucking disgusting all around!

 

[aceking123]

i Dont understand why any players here are defending the casino , its a damn mine field with casinos as it is. player clearly plays a lot makes a few good deposits , to which Rizk accepts & are all willing too , again we dont know how much but they have continued to take every single deposit made, so not at any point has the casino bothered to lock the account down, so THEY are HAPPY!

Bang a win decides to withdraw , bang please provide us with SOW , blood sweat wee & everything else ,its just bollocks & they have the player by them.

Im not bashing Rizk or the captain he does a great job , but even his hands seem to be tied on this, it is not fair on the player period & he should be paid with immediate affect period. lock the account then pursue what your require , both parties can then at least move on without a foul taste left from this kind of treatment.

Its not the first time we have had bullshit within MTsecure sites they seem to mess up a awful lot of things over the last few years & to be honest i have lost any faith in the group.

 

[goatwack]

This is the thing, no one would mind if these were genuine verification requests, but casinos astound in their hypocrisy with their selective actions.

Such as taking deposits, as mentioned. So if it is dirty money they seem quite happy to take it anyway! So this makes them complicit in fraud then? Because you can bet they won't mention any of this to the police or UKGC.

Just a complete farce

 

[ternur]

And again SoW should only be carried out in these circumstances where ML is suspected.

I disagree.

Source of wealth is a enhanced due diligence measure. The UKGC demands license holders to engage in customer interaction and monitor their customers. It's a risk based approach and the casinos have to be able to prove their procedures are in place, they are effective and they are acted upon.

"Three licensing objectives support the whole basis of gambling regulation: that crime should be kept out of gambling, it should be conducted in a fair and open way; and children and other vulnerable persons should be protected from harm or exploitation from gambling. (UKGC)"

 

[Slottery]

i Dont understand why any players here are defending the casino , its a damn mine field with casinos as it is. player clearly plays a lot makes a few good deposits , to which Rizk accepts & are all willing too , again we dont know how much but they have continued to take every single deposit made, so not at any point has the casino bothered to lock the account down, so THEY are HAPPY!

Bang a win decides to withdraw , bang please provide us with SOW , blood sweat wee & everything else ,its just bollocks & they have the player by them.

Im not bashing Rizk or the captain he does a great job , but even his hands seem to be tied on this, it is not fair on the player period & he should be paid with immediate affect period. lock the account then pursue what your require , both parties can then at least move on without a foul taste left from this kind of treatment.

Its not the first time we have had bullshit within MTsecure sites they seem to mess up a awful lot of things over the last few years & to be honest i have lost any faith in the group.

No by any mean try to defend casinos, but understand also their situation middle of this unclear mess where even Captain seem not to get clear answers which kind of make it feel that it's not only casinos own trick to make players life more miserable, i just can't see that at least bigger operators would for purpose make player experience worse when they same time trying to make it better by adding new features and processes to their sites and spending quite a lot by doing it.

Stalling withdrawals from them is quite big myth, what's the interest for casino if one play it all back because documents sent were not something could be accepted, especially when we are now in topic of one of these casinos where you can lock your withdrawal not to be able to reverse it, casinos don't really make money by stalling withdrawals and pissing players off by doing that (maybe some small rogue ones, but haven't experience any such of behavior from operators who want to stay in business and competition).

For sure MTS haven't like many things way which is far from it could have been it's best (like almost all operators if using search function in this site), but i wouldn't start to wear foil hat yet that they try to confiscate anybody moneys, but have just messed things up without mean to do that. I'm quite sure that we gonna see same kind of topics about other big operators in business as well, this kind of way or UKGC punishment list.

If any casino will block your account because you don't wanna provide SOW, it don't mean that they don't pay you out, confiscating anybody money referring to that reason needs to have quite clear evidence about ML, what operators can do if you just refuse to provide required documents is just cease all business with you in network they are operating until these documents are provided and pay out your balance if there are no these clear evidence of ML or other criminal etc... activity. I would be interested to see any example where casino have confiscated all funds from account to itself just because of SOW not provided, when they cease business with you, they can't just put your balance to their own pocket.

 

[aceking123]

No by any mean try to defend casinos, but understand also their situation middle of this unclear mess where even Captain seem not to get clear answers which kind of make it feel that it's not only casinos own trick to make players life more miserable, i just can't see that at least bigger operators would for purpose make player experience worse when they same time trying to make it better by adding new features and processes to their sites and spending quite a lot by doing it.

Stalling withdrawals from them is quite big myth, what's the interest for casino if one play it all back because documents sent were not something could be accepted, especially when we are now in topic of one of these casinos where you can lock your withdrawal not to be able to reverse it, casinos don't really make money by stalling withdrawals and pissing players off by doing that (maybe some small rogue ones, but haven't experience any such of behavior from operators who want to stay in business and competition).

For sure MTS haven't like many things way which is far from it could have been it's best (like almost all operators if using search function in this site), but i wouldn't start to wear foil hat yet that they try to confiscate anybody moneys, but have just messed things up without mean to do that. I'm quite sure that we gonna see same kind of topics about other big operators in business as well, this kind of way or UKGC punishment list.

If any casino will block your account because you don't wanna provide SOW, it don't mean that they don't pay you out, confiscating anybody money referring to that reason needs to have quite clear evidence about ML, what operators can do if you just refuse to provide required documents is just cease all business with you in network they are operating until these documents are provided and pay out your balance if there are no these clear evidence of ML or other criminal etc... activity. I would be interested to see any example where casino have confiscated all funds from account to itself just because of SOW not provided, when they cease business with you, they can't just put your balance to their own pocket.

Yer i agree to a certain point , point is the player has been stalled the player has not been paid & the player has sent in some docs & still the player has not been paid again, but they have taken another deposit , so im taking you see this from the casinos side , well i do not, i see this as it is , none payment to player but he could of still deposited until Captain sorted that out.

 

[Chipkin9]

I disagree.

Source of wealth is a enhanced due diligence measure.

Correct. They should definitely be carrying out AML on people they suspect of ML; not on people they know are not involved with it. That is due diligence and MT Secure Trade would be complying with the UKGC rules if they done this.

As I stated before the Casino have practices to differentiate between the 2 and carry out the proceedure should they feel a customer is a risk of being involved in criminal activity; that is due diligence.

In Deeplays case they have every bit of information about him and they know for certainty if he is a possible ML or not. If they know he is not; then why the request from him?

As I also said this is nothing but an abuse of the written UKGC rules.

The UKGC demands license holders to engage in customer interaction and monitor their customers. It's a risk based approach and the casinos have to be able to prove their procedures are in place, they are effective and they are acted upon.

They do; and casino's do monitor thier customers. Should a casino suspect criminal proceeds are being used on thier casino, then it is of course pivotal that these checks are carried out. But as we have been informed Rizk have been allowing larger deposits; so the evidence suggest that Deeplay is not suspected of using criminal proceeds, because if he was they would not have allowed larger deposits as they would be facilitating in Money Laundering. Therefore again; why the SoW for Deeplay?

"Three licensing objectives support the whole basis of gambling regulation: that crime should be kept out of gambling, it should be conducted in a fair and open way; and children and other vulnerable persons should be protected from harm or exploitation from gambling. (UKGC)"

Nothing about Deeplays situation is fair or open; Rizk even stated they won't "discuss specifics". Hardly fair or open. If they have grounds other than AML to carry out this SoW they need to inform Deeplay of why. In fact other than ML suspicion, there are no grounds to ask for this SoW.

 

[mack341]

I was wondering in regards to money laundering would it be possible for the UKGC to produce a specialist software program which they would provide to all the casino's, and the program analyses and tracks, with certain parameters etc.., all of the casino's customers actions e.g. deposits, method of deposit, games played, stakes used, etc..

And the program itself rather than the casino staff identifies any suspicious behaviour, so its all automated with no human error, and because it was a software program it would be working all the time in the background and so could trigger an alert at the time of a deposit.

I think if the UKGC are really serious about keeping crime out of gambling they need to assist the casinos in a practical way rather than just issuing guidance and fines. Plus once the software was created it could be updated and tinkered with as required.

 

[Chipkin9]

Customer risk

2.21 Determining the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by a customer, or category of customers, is critical to the development and implementation of an overall risk-based framework. Based on its own criteria, a casino should seek to determine whether a particular customer poses a higher risk and the potential impact of any mitigating factors on that assessment.

Therfore, before implementating a SoW request the casino must determine beforehand if the customers activity indicate whether or not he is a high risk of being involved in funnelling criminal proceed through the casino.

As we know Risk must not suspect Deeplay of this, since they have been accepting his deposits no problem.

It's only when we see the player cashing out that Risk want to ask for his source of income; which is nothing short of abuse of the UKGC criteria.

 

[Slottery]

Yer i agree to a certain point , point is the player has been stalled the player has not been paid & the player has sent in some docs & still the player has not been paid again, but they have taken another deposit , so im taking you see this from the casinos side , well i do not, i see this as it is , none payment to player but he could of still deposited until Captain sorted that out.

That agree 100% that if withdrawals are not processed, deposit shouldn't be accepted either and that's the way operators hopefully are urging to go (regarding this particular topic, Captain promised that they have automated process coming where once SOW triggered, deposits or any game play can't be made, but seems that they are not there yet). As said earlier, i'm quite sure we going to see loads of speak around this topic around many operators and how they are able to compete with these regulations which in some point for some players can't really be seen necessary as somebody mentioned that total amount of deposits were triggering this from some operator with no difference if these are done within week or 5 years.

I just don't see that as stalled withdrawal if provided documents are not suitable to accept and from casinos side they might get pile of shite from UKGC by approving documents which are not filling requirements. For sure way to get paid (if not willing to provide documents demanded and therefore knows that don't want to play in that network anymore because it's coming from all sites, it's just simple self-exclude yourself and they have to refund your balance asap, like in LeoVegas case, lacking to refund self-excluded players fast enough their balance costed them quite many quids) or if want to keep playing in network, then just have to accept their demands of documentation, which hopefully will be rather sooner than later more standardized like normal KYC process pretty much is now (there was quite fuming around that as well at the time and this is of course much more sensitive information than picture of your passport or card certain numbers covered).

 

[Harry_BKK]

Therfore, before implementating a SoW request the casino must determine beforehand if the customers activity indicate whether or not he is a high risk of being involved in funnelling criminal proceed through the casino.

As we know Risk must not suspect Deeplay of this, since they have been accepting his deposits no problem.

It's only when we see the player cashing out that Risk want to ask for his source of income; which is nothing short of abuse of the UKGC criteria.

Have to defend Rizk on this one.

The Captain acknowledged that their current procedure is not the best and they are in the process of changing it, so the SOW request is not triggered (only) on withdrawals as it happens now.

 

[Chipkin9]

Have to defend Rizk on this one.

The Captain acknowledged that their current procedure is not the best and they are in the process of changing it, so the SOW request is not triggered (only) on withdrawals as it happens now.

In the meantime it's ok for them to be shafting legitimate players. And I mean those others going through it who haven't got a platform to do anything about it?

Well, I'm definitely not ok with a casino abusing what the AML system was designed for; whereby they can just say "We are following protocol", when in fact they are not.

It's just another means in the casino's eyes to try and "legally" hold onto players' funds as long as they can. People can argue against that as they wish, but in my view it's the dirty truth of the matter.

I'm all for criminals getting thier commuppence btw, but casino's know what's what, and should not be asking for SoW from legitimate players.

 

[interlog]

Have to defend Rizk on this one.

The Captain acknowledged that their current procedure is not the best and they are in the process of changing it, so the SOW request is not triggered (only) on withdrawals as it happens now.

They are taking their time though. I had the same happen in January of this year.

How long does it take to change? I bet if deposit facilities suddenly stopped working a fix would be in place within hours!

Very poor show by Rizk casino if you ask me.

 

[Deeplay]

Well still waiting for answers here. edit just had a quick note from Crizk he is still checking things and will keep me informed.

 

[paul7388]

Well still waiting for answers here. edit just had a quick note from Crizk he is still checking things and will keep me informed.

Well since it is same group.

Just got an email from Guts. Had to laugh as not even deposited there in over a year since all the crap with having to reverify the account and the new team here not even bothering to answer the reason why like they said they would.

Anyway here is the email. Which shows they will be asking for brief details of everyone regardless of whether you deposit loads or zero lol.
Hi paul,


We hope you’re enjoying all that Guts has to offer. But now, we need to talk about some serious stuff for a bit.


We take your protection very seriously. We’re committed to adhering to strict industry regulations, and we continuously endeavour to maintain a fun and safe gaming environment for all Guts players.


Soon, we’ll ask you, and all our players, a few questions to do withKYC (Know Your Customer) and Anti-Money Launderingregulations, as part of our Source of Wealth Questionnaire.


Once you get a notification requesting you to fill in the Source of Wealth Questionnaire, you’ll have account access, butgameplay, deposits and withdrawals will be restricted until it’s completed.


Finally, it’s very important you send us accurate information.


We’re aware some players filled in a similar questionnaire recently, however all players will still be required to complete the newer, updated version.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I just got a similar request via email from Guts, after providing docs numerous times.

When did playing slots become such a ballache/hassle?

Think I’m going to call it a day with gambling, they’ll only ask for the same or more docs 2 or 3 months down the line..,

 

[Jono777]

Just got same email but see Paul beat me to it

Important thing is it mentions a big forward step in that, as discussed DEPOSITS will be blocked to.

Nice move UKGC, now for the three steps backwards

 

[Chipkin9]

Same from Guts.

This is what should be sent to suspected ML's. Not every single player on thier database.

MT Secure Trade casino's are going about this in entirely the wrong way; and I'm pretty sure Guts have just slashed thier own player base by a small percentage.

They played themselves

Edit: From another perspective it's good that it was preemptive and not on withdrawals only. Still.

 

[Deeplay]

This is the problem they are requesting information they have no legal right to under UK law and are offering ZERO protection in the way of how such documents (if they were sent) would be handled ... and again I say who in there right mind would sent sensitive financial data via email ? I think we the age of "SoW" is now upon us and expect many more threads on this in the coming weeks and few months.

 

[Slottery]

Dunno is GIG overreacting or have consulted UKGC and came conclusion that step to ask these is so small that better to ask them almost everybody at once. Even though really wonder why not to mention that RG part there as it's clearly part of this as every single player just can't be recognized high risk ML.....

Would make much more sense to add RG part there which would help them to take care and monitor player behaving if they ask this kind of information as can't see any other reason for this. Anyway, wouldn't deposit a dime to MTS atm, hard to believe it's only Guts and other ones wouldn't follow once tried out with one that it's working. As Captain mentioned in other topic:

I completely understand that some people will object to filling out the simple questionnaire and that other people will refuse to submit the documents as requested. So yes that absolutely will hurt us and every other casino that implements this properly and may even drive players to unlicenced casinos or those in less well regulated environments thus completely negating the original UKGC intentions. But this is the way that we HAVE to operate moving forward whether players/operators/affiliates agree or not

 

[Harry_BKK]

This is the problem they are requesting information they have no legal right to under UK law and are offering ZERO protection in the way of how such documents (if they were sent) would be handled ... and again I say who in there right mind would sent sensitive financial data via email ? I think we the age of "SoW" is now upon us and expect many more threads on this in the coming weeks and few months.

Agree that we most probably will see a lot more of these threads.

Seems to me the UKGC is on a regulatory overkill mission, nothing unusual when you put public servants in charge since the governments always think people need a "nanny". It will get to the point where one regulation will regulate the previous regulation which in itself regulated a regulation that would have been already sufficient regulation to take care of the problem if they would have issued clear instructions.

Am I happy that I do not live in the UK.

For the record, I deposited and lost between 2000 - 2002 some EUR500K (embarrassing, I know, but the proceeds were coming from share dealings during the first Internet bubble) at primarily one casino group and was never asked to do KYC, let alone SOW. They didn't give a "toss" where the money was coming from and since that attitude is in my view in the DNA of gambling companies, I do not think much has changed since. Today, the UKGC is throwing regulation after regulation at them and they just don't have the expertise (to say it politely) how to handle it.

 

[goatwack]

I'm going to have to find another way to mask my criminal ways.....for those times I think of depositing that tenner for a quick burst of Gemix.

Washing those 10p bets has just got much harder

 

[dpp00]

ya same here got the email from guts so will have to see whats asked, as mentioned any requests for anything other than usual,

passport/ utility bill/ maybe signed declaration, anything else will be met with a no thanks bye

 

[goatwack]

Yep, I too can say I got the email. Which in itself is fine and dandy....problem is Guts' information request will be different to say, Rizk's.

So some want a questionnaire whilst others want your firstborn's blood. Maybe casinos can work together and find a uniform way of dealing with this with some correspondence and teamwork.....

 

[Jono777]

Yep, I too can say I got the email. Which in itself is fine and dandy....problem is Guts' information request will be different to say, Rizk's.

So some want a questionnaire whilst others want your firstborn's blood. Maybe casinos can work together and find a uniform way of dealing with this with some correspondence and teamwork.....

Funniest thing I've read all millennium matey

 

[goatwack]

Funniest thing I've read all millennium matey

Worst part being, I was trying to be serious

 

[theapple]

fun part is this was reported back in january and they said they are working on it, trying to make it better. almost 5 months later we get "we know its not perfect, but we are working on it" response.

guess if it was related to deposits it would be done in a couple of days tops, hours even. But since its something that only affects cashouts for now, casinos arent in a hurry to sort it out.

 

[aceking123]

You guys are given incorrect advice , this email of SOW &AML is being dealt with under one roof hence anyone playing at these sites should only need to do this once , but i cannot disclose to where this info has come from, you should not receive it either if your accounts is locked or blocked, i have spoken to Captain in PM about this already i have the emails from Rizk & guts to back up these comments my accounts have been locked prior to them sending out this , it should of never been sent as accounts are not in use.

My accounts shall remain closed, no hard feelings to the casinos but ive asked several times to show me where the uk law requires me to produce these docs, it doesnt & every casino has not bothered replying to that question.

So make of it what you shall but i can see its going to affect many many players & a big drop for these casinos.

 

[colinsunderland]

My accounts shall remain closed, no hard feelings to the casinos but ive asked several times to show me where the uk law requires me to produce these docs, it doesnt & every casino has not bothered replying to that question.

So make of it what you shall but i can see its going to affect many many players & a big drop for these casinos.

I've asked the same, more than once, and still waiting for an answer too.

 

[09237653]

Also got the guts email despite the fact i have not played there in yonks, tbh if i wanted to launder money i would pick a better way than 20p bets on viking runecraft.

 

[Harry_BKK]

So GiG is blanket suspecting all their players of laundering money? We went now from "only in suspicious cases" to "everyone is a suspect"!

Who on earth gives a casino group the legal authority to send the SoW request to ALL players, regardless if there is any suspicious activity?

This is turning into "SOWGATE"! I would consider taking some legal advice on this and maybe have a lawyer send them a letter.

Next thing we know, our UK friends will be confronted with a SOW request at a supermarket check-out when they buy too often expensive booze! Would sound like: "Ooy, where do you get your mullah from? Did you just take it out from your washing machine after doing the extra long laundry cycle?"

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maybe it's time to take this to the ICO. They seem to be demanding that players disclose data belonging to third parties, not just the players themselves. It is not the remit of the player to determine whether or not they supply, say, individual payments coming in from individual clients, without the express permission of these clients. This is going to be a thorny question for any player who is self employed and is paid by individual customers, as opposed to having a monthly salary paid by their employer.

Maybe the ICO and UKGC need to get together and ensure that ALL regulations are complied with, or we could see a situation where in complying with what they think the UKGC requires of them, the casinos will end up getting a fine from the ICO for a Data protection offence.

Far more clarity is needed, for example, by redacting the names of third party clients but showing the individual payments coming in to, say, Paypal, it may satisfy both data protection regulations with regard to not disclosing identifiable data related to third party clients, yet still show the amount of money coming in and going out, and thus the profit the player is taking from their business from which it can be determined whether or not they are gambling within their means.

WH probably got fined because they were waiting for withdrawals before triggering the checks, but these players may never have submitted a withdrawal because they were true "problem gamblers" to the extent they used their firm's money when their own ran out, forever chasing the high but never stopping to withdraw.

 

[colinsunderland]

Maybe it's time to take this to the ICO. They seem to be demanding that players disclose data belonging to third parties, not just the players themselves. It is not the remit of the player to determine whether or not they supply, say, individual payments coming in from individual clients, without the express permission of these clients. This is going to be a thorny question for any player who is self employed and is paid by individual customers, as opposed to having a monthly salary paid by their employer.

Maybe the ICO and UKGC need to get together and ensure that ALL regulations are complied with, or we could see a situation where in complying with what they think the UKGC requires of them, the casinos will end up getting a fine from the ICO for a Data protection offence.

Far more clarity is needed, for example, by redacting the names of third party clients but showing the individual payments coming in to, say, Paypal, it may satisfy both data protection regulations with regard to not disclosing identifiable data related to third party clients, yet still show the amount of money coming in and going out, and thus the profit the player is taking from their business from which it can be determined whether or not they are gambling within their means.

WH probably got fined because they were waiting for withdrawals before triggering the checks, but these players may never have submitted a withdrawal because they were true "problem gamblers" to the extent they used their firm's money when their own ran out, forever chasing the high but never stopping to withdraw.

But Paypal transactions shouldn't be requested by a casino. Paypal are subject to the exact same rules casinos are, therefore if I withdraw money to my bank account from Paypal, then deposit it to a casino, then the casino could be shown the bank transaction, but also should expect Paypal would do SOW checks if there were questions of the legitimacy of the funds, therefore, that money, from a casino point of view, should be viewed as clean. For example

Money paid to player by Paypal. Paypal must be satisfied that the sender was legitimate. Paypal must be satisfied the player was receiving the funds legitimately.
Player withdraws to bank, bank must be satisfied the player was receiving the funds legitimately.
Thats 3 times the money has passed through financial institutions without triggering AML concerns. How many times does a linked transaction need inspecting before it is classed as legitimate?

What will Rizk ask for next, details of Deeplays clients, so they can request SoW from them individually, I mean, they could be paying him with money gained from drug dealing. Its ridiculous, far too intrusive and not in-keeping with current legislation.

As regards the Guts emails, if it is for a quick Q&A form then I think that is legitimate and can't be challenged. The guidelines do state this is allowed, it is when they ask for all the extra paperwork that should only come into play if you are at a high risk of being involved in criminal activity.

I think its pretty disgusting that the casino won't answer questions which aren't specific to this case, nor would put their security measures at risk. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions on this subject from about 2 weeks ago, before this started. Nothing at all is being answered in this thread by the rep, and as far as 'in discussions with the player to try to resolve it' comments, thats bullshit, there are probably hundreds of other players not members on here, going through the exact same thing. Clearly Rizk have something to hide. The emails sent by Rizk are clearly saying 'do as you're told, or we will keep your money', and while Deeplay may get his money eventually due to the publicity on here, how many customers are they not doing it for? Considering how this thread has gone, they should be removed from the accredited list and put in the pit. Other casinos who steal money from players are, and no matter how this is spun, this is exactly what they are doing, or, at the very least, are attempting to do.

 

[Deeplay]

Well still no answers. Crisk has said he is working on it. Not laying blame with him personally at all.

But im still without my money, my account at Rizk is still closed off to me. Paypal do so many checks to verify where income originates from in the UK im just beyond words right now at the way I have been treat in this from Rizk. Compliance has not even answered any of my emails since they locked me out of my account. No follow up, nothing zero. Maybe thats because the rep here has been trying to work things out , im not sure.

If they had felt there was something amiss with my deposits which came from my UK Bank card linked to my UK Bank Account of which they hold copies (back and front ) they should not have let me deposit. Yet they have taken my money, then closed me down along with withholding my withdraw. I am shocked that this kind of behavior comes from accredited casino here.

And to reitirate this is not aimed at the Rep here in any way. I understand there is only so much that he can do and seems very genuiine in wanting to resolve this. But they are wider implications here on how this whole process is set up.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well still no answers. Crisk has said he is working on it. Not laying blame with him personally at all.

But im still without my money, my account at Rizk is still closed off to me. Paypal do so many checks to verify where income originates from in the UK im just beyond words right now at the way I have been treat in this from Rizk. Compliance has not even answered any of my emails since they locked me out of my account. No follow up, nothing zero. Maybe thats because the rep here has been trying to work things out , im not sure.

If they had felt there was something amiss with my deposits which came from my UK Bank card linked to my UK Bank Account of which they hold copies (back and front ) they should not have let me deposit. Yet they have taken my money, then closed me down along with withholding my withdraw. I am shocked that this kind of behavior comes from accredited casino here.

You shouldn't have to wait hours, let alone days, for answers. If what they are doing is legal and in line with legislation as they claim, then they should be able to answer in minutes as it will be there in black and white for them to copy and paste straight over to you.
They haven't, because they can't. It's that simple.
I feel for Captain Rizk as he is stuck in the middle of this clusterfuck, and it's clearly not his fault, nor do I think he likes it from his earlier comments.

 

[Deeplay]

I feel for Captain Rizk as he is stuck in the middle of this clusterfuck, and it's clearly not his fault, nor do I think he likes it from his earlier comments.

Agreed nothing but polite and professional through out! And he sadly is taking the rap for this right now but I suppose it goes with the job being on the front line in the forums.

 

[mack341]

This SOW request knightmare hasn't happened to me yet, [I play slots mainly at whill, coral, ladbrokes, skyvegas, betfair and now unibet as stan james is no more]. Out of those i'd expect unibet to be the most likely to spring a SOW request out of the blue if I were to have a big win there, and I have decided to reduce deposits there as a result.

If you boil it down, a casino is refusing to pay a loyal customer his money unless and until he provides them a large amount of confidential and private financial information, where is the protection of the customer's rights in all of this?

On many issues and disputes with casinos I believe you can launch a PAB via CM, but I doubt the casino would agree to it in these SOW situations so this valuable player protection is removed.

 

[Harry_BKK]

As regards the Guts emails, if it is for a quick Q&A form then I think that is legitimate and can't be challenged. The guidelines do state this is allowed, it is when they ask for all the extra paperwork that should only come into play if you are at a high risk of being involved in criminal activity.

Sorry but what guide lines? Those from the UKGC (are they making now laws too?)? Or from the Justice Department who adopted the EU directives on AML?

I highly doubt that a blanket questionnaire which is preemptively issued to combat criminal activities, plus that it could lead to further, deeper investigations, is legally allowed or that it is covered by a consumer / privacy / criminal etc law. Because if your answers don't tick all the right boxes they will start to investigate deeper. Hence, it smells of "broad suspicion" against all online casino punters.

But I will ask my lawyer to check that, although he is not in the UK but it should give a general impression.

I would compare this when a rape crime in a village is investigated and the police is issuing an order for all males from the village to undertake a DNA test. They can do that for the village but not for the entire UK.

 

[interlog]

@Deeplay et al

Back at the start of the year when I was in a similar situation, I did eventually get paid despite me not sending in the documents. Customer services wouldn't change their mind either, as this email was testimony of:

Hi Mark,

I am sorry but we are not allowed to send any winnings until this documents have been sent in and approved due to our responsible gaming rules the UK Gambling Commission has set for us.

So without this document, we will not be able to help you out. It´s just to make sure that you are playing with your own funds and that gambling does not affect your personal life in a bad way.

So these rules are really here for your own security. So please send it in so that we can move forward with your withdrawal. Otherwise, we're at a stalemate here.

Best regards,

The Captain came good and intervened resulting in the payment.

I am confident you will be paid too eventually.

 

[itsover2014]

My biggest worry with all of this is how securely will this super personal information be stored. This is way beyond a passport or bank card what if they suffer a huge hack :/

 

[ternur]

In light of this situation and the earlier one with VS, I genuinely believe this has to more to do with direct instructions from the UKGC. My understanding is that they have strict demands on their license holders and failure to follow these will jeopardize the licence in the UK. I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

It should be noted, that part of KYC and CDD is the knowledge of customer wealth and the origin of funds. This requirement is part of the AML legislation and in itself does not mean the casino is suspecting a customer of ML. They need to investigate this to be able to do the risk based assessment of the situation. The bottom line here is the casino has to curious about their customers and they must be able to prove that they really do know their customers. <- A clear swift from what it used to be.

Social responsibility and RG is based on this same assessment. The UKGC is pushing casinos hard in this regard. It should also be noted, that there is a difference between source of funds and source of wealth. The latter has more to do with RG in gambling situations.

Compliance with both of these are legal requirements and directly part of holding a UK license.

I don't see any problems with the questionnaire, even if it's blanket requested from all UK customers. For example, banks here in Finland did a similar thing years ago. I believe every single customer was presented with such a questionnaire when they logged in to their bank accounts. Similar discussions took here at that time too.

I have personally had to deal with similar issues regarding my own clients (naturally in a small scale, but the underlying principles are the same). The fact that I find troubling is the legal requirement of policing clientele. The current legal framework in pretty much everything related to money in anyway, is shifting the investigation requirement from goverment officials to businesses and entrepreneurs.

I'm confident that GIG/Rizk are doing this based on a clear and careful legal consideration.

 

[pinnit2014]

My biggest worry with all of this is how securely will this super personal information be stored. This is way beyond a passport or bank card what if they suffer a huge hack :/

Certainly for KYC I think it’s stored for 5 years after account closure or last transaction. Can’t see SOW being any different. Which for most will mean forever.

Probably good idea to ask details of their ISO27k accreditation, penetration testing and vulnerability scanning in return for supplying those

 

[Deeplay]

My biggest worry with all of this is how securely will this super personal information be stored. This is way beyond a passport or bank card what if they suffer a huge hack :/

And it is exactly questions such as the above which have gone so far unanswered by Rizk Casino. All I was told is I had to email in all manner of private documents to an email address. No idea who at the other end would read them, just send them off into the void. Where is the consideration for identity theft which has been rife in the UK the past fews, along with so many security data breaches ... but as of yet no answers. Under UK Law provision has to be made and clearly outlined how personal information will be treated and stored.

Even when on the phone when im speaking to say my bank or another financial institution who ask for private financial information they read me a full transcript of data protection, explaining exactly how my private information will be treated.

Rizk casino provided me with NO such information! Yet have requested highly personal private documentation , and at the same time holding me to ransom now by locking down my casino account and withholding payment of winnings which legally belongs to me.

 

[Slottery]

They really can't confiscate anybody balance from account if refusing send requested documents, most they can do is cease business relationship with you and pay your balance, if you want your account to be open and continue play in network, then you need to provide what they are asking for, but just impresing "f*ck off, self exclude me from your network and give me my money" will work for sure unless money is "dirty" and in that case they have to fill official report it and not just put it own already full pockets.

If want to comply with these requests and keep playing in network who ask these details (might be quite many shortly as responsible gaming is clearly part of this even for some weird reason it's not mentioned there....), would assume that providing P60 would be ok where you whole years net income can be very clearly seen and much more simple and bit less private and detailed than sending many months bank statements, payslips and especially for private business, customer details.

Don't matter how bad way this process have been executed, nobody should not be in any danger to loose their balance to casino from account if not providing documentation requested, that would be very sure criminal activity from casinos end.

 

[dealer wins]

Hi Mark,

I am sorry but we are not allowed to send any winnings until this documents have been sent in and approved due to our responsible gaming rules the UK Gambling Commission has set for us.

So without this document, we will not be able to help you out. It´s just to make sure that you are playing with your own funds and that gambling does not affect your personal life in a bad way.

So these rules are really here for your own security. So please send it in so that we can move forward with your withdrawal. Otherwise, we're at a stalemate here.

Best regards,

I have read it all now. You know what, its time to avoid any casino that asks for preditory SOW shit in the UK, they dont deserve my business anymore!!

 

[Jono777]

Thing is how can they decide whether players can afford to gamble or not, well not properly anyway. Sure they can flag potential problem gamblers, big deposits regularly, never withdraw etc

BUT!

Take me, part time work with some other household income, all bills up to date, rent, car insurance etc always paid on time. No debts to speak of, gambling for 14 years online and not sold my soul yet....

However if they take a look at my wage slip, they could possibly say, he can't afford it, well I actually can as my wages are pretty much disposable income, bills are covered from other (legal) sources and there aren't too many outgoings. Also over the years a jammy git so withdrawals from small deposits have often funded many a future session by limiting myself and making my winnings stretch/last.

I could be wrong but will the day come when the UKGC or casinos start to ask for full income / expenditure breakdowns, right down to how many loaves of bread we buy in a week

 

[Borgie]

I want to know one way or another can they keep the money if you won't give documents. If they can then all UK players really need to think carefully about playing in future. If they can't or aren't prepared to provide all this proof then their monies can be stolen at any time.

 

[Jono777]

I want to know one way or another can they keep the money if you won't give documents. If they can then all UK players really need to think carefully about playing in future. If they can't or aren't prepared to provide all this proof then their monies can be stolen at any time.

I feel a big sit down meeting with several platform directors (GIG/EM etc etc) chaired by the UKGC themselves is needed to form a full understanding of EXACTLY what is required and WHEN.

I strongly feel that the source of this problem is a total misunderstanding by operators of what is being asked of them.