Comments Welcome Source of Income Requests

[goatwack]

So the crux of the problem is casinos' loose interpretation of what triggers AML requests, ie everyone that wins.

 

[pinnit2014]

Should be geared towards them monitoring changes in account activities as one of the risk indicators. But as that probably involves too much work, they’ve opted for ‘when they cash out’

 

[colinsunderland]

Please could you link us to where it says a Casino HAS to pay even if someone does not fill out SOW

It doesn't say that anywhere, but what it doesn't do is say they can. There are very limited circumstances whereby a casino can hold the money while any investigations by law enforcement are completed, but that would only be after a SAR was submitted .

 

[Tirilej]

It doesn't say that anywhere, but what it doesn't do is say they can. There are very limited circumstances whereby a casino can hold the money while any investigations by law enforcement are completed, but that would only be after a SAR was submitted .

It would be heaven for all that really are doing something dodgy if they just could refuse giving any information and get paid anyway. On to the next place.....

 

[Lincolnuk]

Okay so just had a read and apologise to @ternur that i missed the post completely. I read stuff from rag reports which is information taken from them sites but will agree they aint wrote 100% the way there issued most the time so i cant deny or confirm that the info was taken from this but some things sound the same to what i have read.

@goatwack I think you are very close to been correct in using the word interpretation between the 2 as they line up close to each other. Just having a quick read but not going into detail.

Player deposits £20 every few days at x site and as been doing so for months. one deposit reaches a win of XXX amount the player wishes to withdraw. As there are no triggers and no breaches the WD must be honoured. A SOW can be triggered at any point and may be triggered at this point due to the fact that the account is not viewed unnecessarily at other times. but the casino must always act fairly in this i.e Not place ransom on your WD as this would be unfair practise.

Then you get.

Player deposits £20 every other day at x site for months. Again he wins XXX and wants to WD but on closer view the casino notices that the player deposited £50 a day for 7-10 leading up to this. Now this could be innocent i.e player has a new job that pays a lot more than before or the player as had a really big win somewhere but due to the big increase in funds this in return would trigger a AML request backed up with a SOW and the casino has the right(And IMO should do) Withhold the WD until this is completed.

@pinnit2014 Agree it should be done by account monitoring but from experience i can tell you most accounts are not even viewed unless you are WD

 

[colinsunderland]

It would be heaven for all that really are doing something dodgy if they just could refuse giving any information and get paid anyway. On to the next place.....

Not at all. If the checks are done on deposit or while the account isn't being used, then best case scenario for them is money is returned to same place. That's not how money laundering works, nor does it allow criminals to use their illegally sourced money for entertainment .
There are very very limited circumstances it should be done on withdrawal, and I haven't seen a single case on here where that would apply.

 

[SpinUk]

Not at all. If the checks are done on deposit or while the account isn't being used, then best case scenario for them is money is returned to same place. That's not how money laundering works, nor does it allow criminals to use their illegally sourced money for entertainment .
There are very very limited circumstances it should be done on withdrawal, and I haven't seen a single case on here where that would apply.

Exactly - Money laundering is:

Placement- buying a car cash
Layering- selling a car through differant means e.g bank draft, or buying a differant car with those funds, then selling it. The more transactions the better. But this only works if the funds come back via a differant means.
Integration - buying legitimate shares/investments with the funds in the bank.

If the funds go back to the same place there is no money laundering advantage.

 

[goatwack]

I'm learning some very useful tips on how to best 'invest' my money, thanks guys

Err I mean money laundering is bad

 

[colinsunderland]

I'm learning some very useful tips on how to best 'invest' my money, thanks guys

Err I mean money laundering is bad

Much easier ways to do it than using a casino that only allows withdrawals to the same place it was deposited from. Use Videoslots, SkyVegas, WilliamHill, Coral instead, their system's are set up for money laundering . Or just go to any high street bookie and launder 10's of thousands per day through the FOTB's with no questions asked

 

[goatwack]

Much easier ways to do it than using a casino that only allows withdrawals to the same place it was deposited from. Use Videoslots, SkyVegas, WilliamHill, Coral instead, their system's are set up for money laundering . Or just go to any high street bookie and launder 10's of thousands per day through the FOTB's with no questions asked

We can't have anything disrupt the flow of FOBTs can we now

 

[Lincolnuk]

Im very alarmed at some peoples knowledge on how to Launder money

 

[colinsunderland]

Im very alarmed at some peoples knowledge on how to Launder money

I have a genuine reason for knowing, I'm a drug dealer
Nah seriously I've worked with defence teams in the past on cases that have involved allegations of money laundering, so obviously you need to know how it works to be able to prepare legal arguments

 

[Lincolnuk]

I have a genuine reason for knowing, I'm a drug dealer
Nah seriously I've worked with defence teams in the past on cases that have involved allegations of money laundering, so obviously you need to know how it works to be able to prepare legal arguments

I was hinting for tips .

I tried putting it through the washing machine but it thinks there sock and only give half back

 

[Spikie]

I am technically employed , but own ltd company director so payslips are lower than total income , as dividend income taxes are also paid through corporation tax calculations, but paid throughout the year .

No way they are getting bank statements . Accounts getting closed if that happens.


Payslips and bank statements are only a small portion of wealth information, how long before they want pension, property , income trusts etc . as information?


Why can’t they just base a decision on personal identification and a soft credit search ?

Banks and credit companies don’t need much to lend you vast sums of money, so why would a casino want more for depositing a few hundred every now and again ?

Also the new data protection regulations need to be adhered to so can’t see how sending personal information all over the place is going to help.

it would be better if a credit rating agency could just provide a judgement or score as a paid service to a casino , just as credit companies do.

 

[goatwack]

With the new Data Protection laws one'd assume safeguarding customers' personal details would be paramount. We have every company on the planet kindly requesting one consents to subscribing again.

So with that in mind you'd think flouting deeply personal financial information would be a major no- no. Surely just a matter of time before the two conflict....

 

[dpp00]

have to say still in shock at the antics being shown by casinos especially at the moment to deeplay

as a result i haven't deposited at rizk or guts today cause im concerned i wont get paid if i was lucky/ and i wont be until i see the resolution of these cases

(which i wrongly presumed would be sharpish)

and then it would want to be pretty reassuring before i return and that's an IF.

 

[dunover]

It's the usual mess. The UKGC is technically a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non Governmental Organization) and was created to administer the UK gambling sector. It cannot pass laws or act in any way to breach rights under existing laws. It issues directives which should be in line with various bits of UK/EUSSR legislation such as advertising, age restrictions, money laundering, fair contracts etc.

The problem is that of inexperience and lack of legal knowledge which leads to vague and often unspecific guidelines for licensees. You can see examples of this in that it took them 10 years to simply apply fair advertising to casinos, and only now is gradually ensuring fair terms in accordance with existing laws and regulations in other sectors such as the financial one.

Money laundering is a complex issue and if you check out the UKGC directives to summarize they simply say one thing - the casinos must ensure they know the source of a player's funds when accepting a higher than average amount of turnover. There is NO fixed or stipulated threshold for this (unlike the 2100 euro KYC one) and little guidance so each casino acts on instinct or its own private criteria which differ across brands and therein lies the problem.

We've witnessed erratic thresholds, inconsistent proof between casinos regarding how many and what sort of statements they require and when they ask, although it seems that to ensure the player provides the info and doesn't simply fail to complete the request and disappear never to play there again they are DELIBERATELY targeting the requests on occasion of a withdrawal. This pressurizes or almost blackmails the player into doing it and taking away their choice of walking away at that juncture!!

Surely the amount of DEPOSITS (along with suspicious deposit/withdrawal patterns) will be indicative of a launderer? So why always ask a player when they win, even after losing a big succession of deposits beforehand as it's obvious that if they've lost a large amount over time that they certainly ain't laundering cash - a real launderer will ensure little margin between running deposits and withdrawals and certainly won't bust deposit after deposit. Criminals expect to pay 10-20% to launder large amounts of money so a player deviating from that net figure will almost certainly not be up to no good....

 

[goatwack]

It seems the UKGC and the EUSSR (snigger) are under the impression that laundering filthy dosh through slots yields a 96% success rate.

They obviously have never played Bonanza then

 

[colinsunderland]

It's the usual mess. The UKGC is technically a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non Governmental Organization) and was created to administer the UK gambling sector. It cannot pass laws or act in any way to breach rights under existing laws. It issues directives which should be in line with various bits of UK/EUSSR legislation such as advertising, age restrictions, money laundering, fair contracts etc.

The problem is that of inexperience and lack of legal knowledge which leads to vague and often unspecific guidelines for licensees. You can see examples of this in that it took them 10 years to simply apply fair advertising to casinos, and only now is gradually ensuring fair terms in accordance with existing laws and regulations in other sectors such as the financial one.

Money laundering is a complex issue and if you check out the UKGC directives to summarize they simply say one thing - the casinos must ensure they know the source of a player's funds when accepting a higher than average amount of turnover. There is NO fixed or stipulated threshold for this (unlike the 2100 euro KYC one) and little guidance so each casino acts on instinct or its own private criteria which differ across brands and therein lies the problem.

We've witnessed erratic thresholds, inconsistent proof between casinos regarding how many and what sort of statements they require and when they ask, although it seems that to ensure the player provides the info and doesn't simply fail to complete the request and disappear never to play there again they are DELIBERATELY targeting the requests on occasion of a withdrawal. This pressurizes or almost blackmails the player into doing it and taking away their choice of walking away at that juncture!!

Surely the amount of DEPOSITS (along with suspicious deposit/withdrawal patterns) will be indicative of a launderer? So why always ask a player when they win, even after losing a big succession of deposits beforehand as it's obvious that if they've lost a large amount over time that they certainly ain't laundering cash - a real launderer will ensure little margin between running deposits and withdrawals and certainly won't bust deposit after deposit. Criminals expect to pay 10-20% to launder large amounts of money so a player deviating from that net figure will almost certainly not be up to no good....

That is exactly right. Any money laundering won't be done by playing slots tbh, I'm sure we've all had sessions where we have lost the whole deposit in minutes. I deposited £50 at Verajohn, £50 at Casuno, £50 at Videoslots then another £50 at Casumo again last night. The first 3 deposits were completely gone in under 15 minutes. I withdrew £1100 from the last one. However, that was luck, and no good for money laundering at all.

What confuses matters is that they have lumped in proceeds of crime. However, for most transactions, this shouldn't be an issue. If, as an example, you are working on the fiddle and getting paid cash in hand, to play at say Casumo, you have to put your money in the bank to be able to deposit. Therefore there is a trail if the DWP ever look at you. They have the resources to check your bank account if they so wish (and have reasonable suspicion), so if the bank don't think theres anything wrong with the incoming funds (who also have to adhere to the same rules) and the DWP haven't checked, then why should a casino based outside the UK? The reason I mentioned Coral in an earlier post is that I can walk down Coral now, pay £1000 over the counter, its in my online account within seconds, and I can then withdraw it with no wagering at all required, and it be in my bank account by about 12pm tomorrow. That £1000 I made last week for my fiddle work is now legit winnings from a bet I had this afternoon, if I'm ever asked about it.

Any casino who asks for this on withdrawal & refuses to return funds on refusal are thieves. It is as simple as that. I have asked more than one rep for any link to any law or guidance stating they can do this. Not one has replied. Not a single one, thats because it doesn't exist. Captain Rizk stopped replying in the other thread, and there were plenty of questions in there that weren't account specific that could have been answered. By ignoring genuine questions it just shows that what they are doing is wrong. Even if people don't understand the law, which is understandable as they are never written in plain English, they can see when reps are hiding from answering questions. Hopefully people make their own minds up about that sort of deceitful behavior.

Funny how the casinos expect everything to be done, and done quickly, yet I'm still waiting to find out who M T Secure Trade has shared my details with 2 weeks after asking.

 

[dunover]

That is exactly right. ****cut for visibility****Any casino who asks for this on withdrawal & refuses to return funds on refusal are thieves. It is as simple as that. I have asked more than one rep for any link to any law or guidance stating they can do this. Not one has replied. Not a single one, thats because it doesn't exist. Captain Rizk stopped replying in the other thread, and there were plenty of questions in there that weren't account specific that could have been answered. By ignoring genuine questions it just shows that what they are doing is wrong. Even if people don't understand the law, which is understandable as they are never written in plain English, they can see when reps are hiding from answering questions. Hopefully people make their own minds up about that sort of deceitful behavior.

Funny how the casinos expect everything to be done, and done quickly, yet I'm still waiting to find out who M T Secure Trade has shared my details with 2 weeks after asking.

Nobody has the right to seize YOUR money and not return it if they have no conclusive evidence that it isn't yours or that you are not entitled to it, including the Police. Yes, they can confiscate cash from your house if they search it but it MUST be returned if there is no evidence of a crime or they cannot prove it is unlawfully obtained. Suspicion is not enough - the onus is on the authority to prove their suspicions, not you to prove your own innocence and that is a major underlying tenet of anybody's rights in a democracy. In order to meet your rights under the law, the casino should simply pay you and then refuse to accept any further bets if you do not comply with the process and maybe then report you to the UKGC or other authority.

Neither the law nor the UKGC gives them any right to retain money that is contractually yours without evidence or authority. So again I say, pay the player and then refuse to do business with them thereafter, but do NOT keep their money - that is not the intention of the UKGC nor their suggestion as it contradicts common law.

 

[colinsunderland]

Actually, little known fact, the police can seize cash of £1000+ if they have a suspicion to think its been illegally obtained. They do not need to charge you with anything. It then goes to court, who decides if it should be returned, but basically the onus is on you to prove it is legitimate. Yep, here in the great UK we are now guilty until proven innocent.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Given that this is a "talk to the hand" issue when it comes to player vs casino, and the ADRs won't touch it, the ONLY option (other than the sledgehammer of court proceedings) is to involve the ICO. Although the casinos are administering the RG and AML directives at the behest of the UKGC, they cannot do so in a manner that breaches the DPA (until the 25th May) and the GDPR beyond this date. Whilst they can make reasonable requests of the player, they CANNOT demand the handing over of third party information as they have done with Dunover, and presumably many others. Whilst Dunover is sticking to his guns, what about all the other players who WILL send casinos this level of third party data via EMAIL because their money has been held to ransom by the casino and they are just getting "talk to the hand".

It will probably need the ICO getting involved to put the brakes on this stupidity, no amount of arguing by players seems to be making a difference. Unlike court action, involving the ICO is FREE. The "chargeback and walk away" option means that the player will probably ruin their chances of ever playing online again, unless of course the ICO rules that such "chargeback blacklists" are illegal where they feature the details of players who have correctly used the procedure to ensure their consumer rights are upheld.

 

[mack341]

Out of all the 'impartial' government ombudsmen, the ICO seem to be okay, could this end up as a battle between the ICO and the ukgc?

BTW does anybody know when the moderation for new member's messages ends? No its okay i don't intend to spam casino links its just makes me feel i'am under heavy suspicion as i thought after your first three messages the moderation isn't required.

 

[pinnit2014]

I think if a so called chargeback blacklists was presented it would be regarded as illegal as well as unethical (the two aren’t always the same). It’s absolutely no different, as I mentioned before, to construction companies operating the list of ‘disruptive’ union members, sharing it amongst themselves to hinder employment.

Presume no casinos would like to comment on the existence of such a thing?

 

[pinnit2014]

Out of all the 'impartial' government ombudsmen, the ICO seem to be okay, could this end up as a battle between the ICO and the ukgc?

BTW does anybody know when the moderation for new member's messages ends? No its okay i don't intend to spam casino links its just makes me feel i'am under heavy suspicion as i thought after your first three messages the moderation isn't required.

Plus the fact the ICO come with the power of a punitive sanction: a very big and expensive stick, if used to it’s fullest

 

[Dwyer]

I do wonder about all of this, and where it comes to an end.

I have been gambling recently on Bitcoin casinos. Yes usually licensed god knows where. And yes usually not a great deal of recourse should something go badly wrong.

But choose a reputable one, and its actually kind of....perfect. Instant deposits, instant withdrawals. No bank, or middle man to hold your money. No paypal, no skrill. You are solely in control of your money. Nobody can seize it or freeze/ otherwise make demands. Its a currency you can easily exchange to sterling/ euros. Deposit to your wallet using a Bitcoin ATM/ withdraw your winnings from the Bitcoin ATM. Or spend the coin online, many places take it now.

My main point here is......I see why the government/ banks are terrified of Bitcoin now. They have no control, at all. And if i was Mr. money launderer, I would only use Bitcoin. Its completely anonymous.

If anything, all of this serves to do one thing only.....some punters will move onto Bitcoin casinos, as will the criminals (if 90% of them are not already doing so tbh), and they have the exact same problem, but magnified many times over.

 

[t4llek]

It's the usual mess. The UKGC is technically a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non Governmental Organization) and was created to administer the UK gambling sector. It cannot pass laws or act in any way to breach rights under existing laws. It issues directives which should be in line with various bits of UK/EUSSR legislation such as advertising, age restrictions, money laundering, fair contracts etc.

The problem is that of inexperience and lack of legal knowledge which leads to vague and often unspecific guidelines for licensees. You can see examples of this in that it took them 10 years to simply apply fair advertising to casinos, and only now is gradually ensuring fair terms in accordance with existing laws and regulations in other sectors such as the financial one.

Money laundering is a complex issue and if you check out the UKGC directives to summarize they simply say one thing - the casinos must ensure they know the source of a player's funds when accepting a higher than average amount of turnover. There is NO fixed or stipulated threshold for this (unlike the 2100 euro KYC one) and little guidance so each casino acts on instinct or its own private criteria which differ across brands and therein lies the problem.

We've witnessed erratic thresholds, inconsistent proof between casinos regarding how many and what sort of statements they require and when they ask, although it seems that to ensure the player provides the info and doesn't simply fail to complete the request and disappear never to play there again they are DELIBERATELY targeting the requests on occasion of a withdrawal. This pressurizes or almost blackmails the player into doing it and taking away their choice of walking away at that juncture!!

Surely the amount of DEPOSITS (along with suspicious deposit/withdrawal patterns) will be indicative of a launderer? So why always ask a player when they win, even after losing a big succession of deposits beforehand as it's obvious that if they've lost a large amount over time that they certainly ain't laundering cash - a real launderer will ensure little margin between running deposits and withdrawals and certainly won't bust deposit after deposit. Criminals expect to pay 10-20% to launder large amounts of money so a player deviating from that net figure will almost certainly not be up to no good....

This is the point, they will surely keep their hands wide open to any incoming deposits , oh but u requested a cashout? fu my friend lets see where that money came from because now it is important!! just a huge cluster**** .

 

[Harry_BKK]

Out of all the 'impartial' government ombudsmen, the ICO seem to be okay, could this end up as a battle between the ICO and the ukgc?

BTW does anybody know when the moderation for new member's messages ends? No its okay i don't intend to spam casino links its just makes me feel i'am under heavy suspicion as i thought after your first three messages the moderation isn't required.

Send Brian (Casinomeister) a PM to check. Usually, only the first few posts are moderated.

 

[mack341]

Thanks Harry, I wondered how I could get it checked, not every post is getting moderated only some I'll PM Brian tomorrow then.

 

[dionysus]

Thanks Harry, I wondered how I could get it checked, not every post is getting moderated only some I'll PM Brian tomorrow then.

You can also now flag Bryan to a specific post by adding an ampersand before his name thusly - @Casinomeister

 

[The Dude]

Checking...
It should only be the first 3 messages.

 

[mack341]

Checking...
It should only be the first 3 messages.

Thanks Brian, just like to say I'm really enjoying the forum and the whole casinomeister site is top notch.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Out of all the 'impartial' government ombudsmen, the ICO seem to be okay, could this end up as a battle between the ICO and the ukgc?

BTW does anybody know when the moderation for new member's messages ends? No its okay i don't intend to spam casino links its just makes me feel i'am under heavy suspicion as i thought after your first three messages the moderation isn't required.

I think this is the only way to resolve this. The casinos say they have no choice but to stick to the regulations, but in some cases they are demanding that players supply the personal details of third parties, yet according to the ICO this is against the DPA, and only "law enforcement agencies" can legally demand data outside the remit of the DPA, such as the police demanding access to a suspect's banking and tax data. A casino compliance team is NOT a "law enforcement agency", even if it seems to act like one in the view of players.

Where a player DID supply personal data of third parties, and the casino accepted it, it could be a "ticking timebomb" for said casino in that should anything go wrong, an unrelated third party would be the one contacting the ICO about their data having leaked from a company that had no legal right to have had it in the first place. They may find out when an unscrupulous employee sells the data to an equally unscrupulous affiliate who then uses it to send spam.