Rizk - source of wealth request

interlog

Meister Member
webmeister
MM
Having already done the online tick that my source for gambling is legal they now want copies of payslips or other documents showing income.

I politely told them they are not going to have them.

Anybody else been contacted by them?
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
No but as I've mentioned in other threads, when they do ask, that is the day I will be closing my account, and they will politely be told to f off.

This is a complete minefield, reps refuse to answer questions about AML checks, and I honestly don't think any of them actually understand the law. Saying they can't talk about them due to the law is wrong too, but seems to be what most of them hide behind.

Was this random, or was it on a deposit or withdrawal? I can only see a VERY small list of reasons AML checks should be done on withdrawal, by small, I actually mean one or two reasons, which won't apply to 99% of customers.
 

goatwack

Hold me closer tiny dancer
CAG
It's those bloody EU laws again isn't it. And I thought we were leaving that corrupt 'special handshake' hellhole :p

We've even got Nigel 'd-head' Farage asking for another Referendum (sigh). I just want to make a £20 withdrawl goddamit, not be interrogated by the FBI :mad:

Tell me if I've gone off-topic :cool:
 

Vibroverb

Registered
They usually ask this upon withdrawal request, there was a thread about this from another company.
Turned out that player was asked to prove where the funds came from and that it was all legit, but his funds came from Casino winnings from another company, which further complicated things....Good luck OP
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
They usually ask this upon withdrawal request, there was a thread about this from another company.
Turned out that player was asked to prove where the funds came from and that it was all legit, but his funds came from Casino winnings from another company, which further complicated things....Good luck OP
And thats where they don't actually know what they are doing. IF something triggers further verification under AML's then the casinos' job is to find out if the funds deposited were legitimate. If they are shown to have came from a withdrawal from another casino, then thats where the questions should stop. They shouldn't then question where the deposit to a previous casino came from. They have discovered the deposit to them was legitimate, thats all they need to know.
 

nikantw

Ueber Meister
PABaccred
CAG
MM
The criminals definitely do >1000 deposits, min bets on any game or big low/0 risk bets on some games and withdraw every time after 1x - 2x wagering.
There is absolutely no AML reason to do extra security checks to people that don't fit that patern. Also 99% of the countries don't consider online gambling winnings as "clean", so nobody living in 99% of the world is doing ML in online casinos.
 

goatwack

Hold me closer tiny dancer
CAG
Getting sick of the masses paying for the misdeeds of a few, well, criminals. This namby pamby babying of grown adults is tiresome.

Casinos no doubt have had triggers to detect money launderers for aeons. No criminal mastermind is going to be washing £20 through the system, and even a few grand is a pittance and would be spotted a mile off because if they're anything it's predictable.

Same thing with E-cig regulations: can't have bottles over 10mg with nicotine, can't have tanks over a certain size, can't have colourful packaging, can't have food-based illustrations on packaging etc. You know, because think of the children. So now everyone loses out and we lose a little more autonomy.

F*ck off Brussels and your made up AML directives, you're a bunch of twats. Now I have to disclose my life's details to make your job easier due to your negligence and incompetence.

I want casinos to ask me this, I really do. Who wants to go first?
 

Mr Wild

Experienced Member
The UKGC is the issue.

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

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


Short summary:
The purpose of this letter is to summarise the findings of our recent compliance assessment activity which had a focus on remote casino operators’ approach to anti-money laundering and customer interaction. The findings set out in this letter are not comprehensive, but they give a clear indication of actions the Casino sector are required to take with immediate effect.

The compliance assessment focussed on the measures that a remote gambling operator should have in place to address the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing and, in particular, compliance with the following legislation and licence conditions:

• Licence condition 12.1 Prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing
• The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA)
• The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations).

In carrying out the assessments we also identified action that needs to be taken in respect of social responsibility (SR) code breaches. Due to the serious nature of the assessment findings, we have already started investigations into 17 remote operators and are keeping under consideration whether it is necessary to commence a licence review of five operators under section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act) with a view to exercising our regulatory powers under section 117 of the Act.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
The UKGC is the issue.

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

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


Short summary:
No the UKGC isn't the issue, the issue is that casinos and their staff haven't been following the law, thinking they will get away with doing what they like. Now the UKGC is clamping down on it, casinos are running scared and will be over zealous with what they do. A bit like what happened with advertising a few months ago, except this time they can't blame affiliates.
Another problem is that casino staff don't understand the law, and interpret it themselves, much like you did a while ago when, to justify not answering generic questions on AML's, you linked to the law on tipping off, which does not, in any shape or form, prevent any casino staff from discussing the regulations and requirements. I believe you have had recent training from something said somewhere else, so hopefully Videoslots will not be doing things wrong, like I am 100% certain, some casinos will.
 

Naok777

Experienced Member
F*ck off Brussels and your made up AML directives, you're a bunch of twats.
Nothing to do with Brussels or even Westminster for that matter, but everything to do with casinos being overzealous in the application of the AML laws, creating too many false positives.
Essentially Casinos err on the side of caution to the point where everyone is a suspect.
Then combine that with the fact that employees are always required to take the companies side or get thrown under the bus at the first hint of trouble and you arrive at the mess we are in.
 

goatwack

Hold me closer tiny dancer
CAG
Nothing to do with Brussels or even Westminster for that matter, but everything to do with casinos being overzealous in the application of the AML laws, creating too many false positives.
Essentially Casinos err on the side of caution to the point where everyone is a suspect.
Then combine that with the fact that employees are always required to take the companies side or get thrown under the bus at the first hint of trouble and you arrive at the mess we are in.
I thought it stems from the Eu's 4th AML Directive, which the UK casinos are getting into a tizzy over.....as we are still part of the EU
 

Vibroverb

Registered
I really cannot see this stopping once the UK leaves the EU, so I'd say it's not Brussels' fault. I don't think Online Casinos will change much, if at all. Maybe the Little Britain slot will be played more...
 

TradaCasino

Official rep for Trada Casino
I thought it stems from the Eu's 4th AML Directive, which the UK casinos are getting into a tizzy over.....as we are still part of the EU
Even when the UK leave, they will have to implement the equivalent of the 4th AML directive. They won't disregard money laundering directives just because they were drawn up by the EU, they'll likely copy the EU directive or enforce one that's even stricter.

I don't see these additional checks ever going away. They do serve a purpose, its just that at the moment casinos have different ways of interpreting when it should be requested. This is what seems to be causing the upset, because if Casino A requests it, and Casino B does not - the assumption is that Casino A is just being intrusive and nosy. In fact Casino A just have stricter Risk Rating (determined by their compliance/fraud team)

Rachel.
 

aceking123

Well-Known Member
PABnononaccred
CAG
MM
Even when the UK leave, they will have to implement the equivalent of the 4th AML directive. They won't disregard money laundering directives just because they were drawn up by the EU, they'll likely copy the EU directive or enforce one that's even stricter.

I don't see these additional checks ever going away. They do serve a purpose, its just that at the moment casinos have different ways of interpreting when it should be requested. This is what seems to be causing the upset, because if Casino A requests it, and Casino B does not - the assumption is that Casino A is just being intrusive and nosy. In fact Casino A just have stricter Risk Rating (determined by their compliance/fraud team)

Rachel.
Thats all fine & dandy Rachel but what about the 3k in spent in your casino , why wasnt i ever questioned & its all going to be the same thing , this shall be pointed at late stage & 99% sure when the withdrawal is made same old thing , now im not suggesting your casino would do this , purely becasue your a great casino but you can see many many others using this as a tactic to prolong & in some cases not pay.
 

TradaCasino

Official rep for Trada Casino
Thats all fine & dandy Rachel but what about the 3k in spent in your casino , why wasnt i ever questioned & its all going to be the same thing , this shall be pointed at late stage & 99% sure when the withdrawal is made same old thing , now im not suggesting your casino would do this , purely becasue your a great casino but you can see many many others using this as a tactic to prolong & in some cases not pay.
Thank you for saying we are a great casino, but I would ask for this document if you reached the relevant threshold.

A lot of players are upset because casinos don't tell them the exact reason or activity that led them to requesting source of income. All sharing that information would achieve is to show the real fraudsters and money launderers exactly what activity to avoid in order to circumvent additional checks and requests.

Rachel.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Thank you for saying we are a great casino, but I would ask for this document if you reached the relevant threshold.

A lot of players are upset because casinos don't tell them the exact reason or activity that led them to requesting source of income. All sharing that information would achieve is to show the real fraudsters and money launderers exactly what activity to avoid in order to circumvent additional checks and requests.

Rachel.
But there isn't supposed to be a 'one size fits all' threshold. It's supposed to be that you have reason to suspect someone may be involved in money laundering. Not that everyone might be because over a lifetime of an account they have hit £xxxxx

I can see very very few reasons for triggering a source of income investigation on withdrawal either.

If you ask me for source of funds and I blank out all my affiliate income, leaving nothing, what would happen then? As I'm not going to give you sensitive business information like that.
 
Top