Poll Source of Wealth poll: How do the SOW requirements affect you?

How do the SOW requirements affect you?

  • I don't like the intrusiveness and play at casinos that DO NOT require SOW.

    Votes: 60 37.7%
  • I don't like the intrusiveness but still play the same at casinos that require SOW.

    Votes: 16 10.1%
  • I don't like the intrusiveness but still play at casinos that require SOW - but play less.

    Votes: 20 12.6%
  • I don't mind. I play the same.

    Votes: 9 5.7%
  • I don't mind, and I play more now.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I've never been asked and I am in the EU/UK

    Votes: 37 23.3%
  • I've never been asked and I am outside the EU/UK

    Votes: 17 10.7%

  • Total voters
    159

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
It's been a little over two years since we had our first Source of Wealth poll, so it's about time that we did this again since in my opinion it has affected players behavior and with which casinos they join.

So please participate in this poll and let us know your thoughts about SOW, how it's conducted, the benefits and the pitfalls. Thanks!!

I think it will be interesting to compare how you felt about this two years ago.
 

helenakp

Ueber Meister
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Location
MK
Hey @Casinomeister i think you should add i been asked and i am not in the EU/UK.

High Roller asked for my SOW which they shouldnt as i am not in EU/UK even asked their rep and he told me i should do that,well on what grounds?
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Yeah, they are all bound by the same reg's so all do require it in theory, maybe the top one's should say only play at those who interpret the reg's with a degree of common sense (a la Willy Hill, Sky, Unibet) :p

SOW's pretty much UK bookie type casino's V MGA ones IMO
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Hey Meister i think you should add i been asked and i am not in the EU/UK.

High Roller asked for my SOW which they shouldnt as i am not in EU/UK even asked their rep and he told me i should do that,well on what grounds?
The AML Directive?

SOW isn't just a UKGC 'requirement'

Were High Roller part of the old MT Secure Group? They were awful for it when i played there
 

johnnymcc1966

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Location
United Kingdom
Interesting poll! If I was a U.K. player I would be dubious playing anywhere that didn’t ask for SOW though. Let’s see what the poll says.
There is a difference between asking for live photos(BGO casino) and Bank Statements versus supplying Passport,Driving Licence,Utility Bills etc( which I always comply with and other players I've spoken to also happily comply with.)
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
Interesting poll! If I was a U.K. player I would be dubious playing anywhere that didn’t ask for SOW though. Let’s see what the poll says.
Why? Plenty of UK based casinos don’t constantly pester low rollers for intrusive requests unlike the Maltese bunch...probably because they understand how to complete a proper risk assessment on player activity.

A casual UK player is more likely to play at a casino that doesn’t want a DNA sample in order to make a £50 deposit. Simple as that.

For one moment put yourself in a player’s shoes and imagine how it feels to constantly wonder whether you’re even going to get paid out just because you’ve hit a streak of luck after depositing your own hard earned cash. There’s no way on earth you can spin this into it being good for the player.
 

Mark_BGO

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Location
Gibraltar
Why? Plenty of UK based casinos don’t constantly pester low rollers for intrusive requests unlike the Maltese bunch...probably because they understand how to complete a proper risk assessment on player activity.

A casual UK player is more likely to play at a casino that doesn’t want a DNA sample in order to make a £50 deposit. Simple as that.
Simply because there are regulations which say that SOW is required once certain thresholds are hit. You’re correct that many casual players may go under the radar but eventually you’ll hit it even if £50/month player.
 

Mark_BGO

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Location
Gibraltar
There is a difference between asking for live photos(BGO casino) and Bank Statements versus supplying Passport,Driving Licence,Utility Bills etc( which I always comply with and other players I've spoken to also happily comply with.)
Live Photos? I think that may be enabled as part of the Jumio verification? If not it would be good to understand what you mean.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
I didn't know there was a threshold? AFAIK each request should be based on a risk assessment of the player, changes in the risk profile; not 'when they hit 10k': i might be wrong but i was under the impression there is no 'SOW at 10k' etc

Because if that's the case then Sky, Unibet, William Hill, Bet365 must all be in non compliance across their entire customer base
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
Simply because there are regulations which say that SOW is required once certain thresholds are hit. You’re correct that many casual players may go under the radar but eventually you’ll hit it even if £50/month player.
There isn’t a radar to go under and there isn’t a cumulative threshold that is hit. This is a complete fallacy. A customer is either deemed a high risk through deposit levels/patterns of play or they are not. If there was a set threshold you wouldn’t see different casinos trigger checks at different amounts, it would be uniform.

There is no justification for a £50 a month player to ever face a SOW because they are close to zero risk.
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
I didn't know there was a threshold? AFAIK each request should be based on a risk assessment of the player, changes in the risk profile; not 'when they hit 10k': i might be wrong but i was under the impression there is no 'SOW at 10k' etc

Because if that's the case then Sky, Unibet, William Hill, Bet365 must all be in non compliance across their entire customer base
Exactly, I’ve just replied to him above.

No wonder we’re seeing what we’re seeing when these operators don’t even grasp the law.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Exactly, I’ve just replied to him above.

No wonder we’re seeing what we’re seeing when these operators don’t even grasp the law.
SOW'ing at arbitrary thresholds flies in the face of the AML Regulations: why have a massive section on the importance of risk assessing if it's really 10k and that's your lot? Makes no sense and is contradictory.

I've asked casino's, MGA surprise surprise, to tell me exactly where it says this and not one has shown me

By default, it's a made up amount/policy, per casino, that they try and palm off as being 'a rule'
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
SOW'ing at arbitrary thresholds flies in the face of the AML Regulations: why have a massive section on the importance of risk assessing if it's really 10k and that's your lot? Makes no sense and is contradictory.

I've asked casino's, MGA surprise surprise, to tell me exactly where it says this and not one has shown me

By default, it's a made up amount/policy, per casino that they try and palm off as being 'a rule'
Yeah and imagine being a casino rep and putting a laughing reaction to a reply when they’re the one in the wrong.

Incredible.
 

Mark_BGO

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Location
Gibraltar
Yeah and imagine being a casino rep and putting a laughing reaction to a reply when they’re the one in the wrong.

Incredible.
I thought it was funny. If you spent a day in the shoes of a UK facing casino operator you’d realise why. No offence intended, apologies if I shouldn’t have laughed!
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
I thought it was funny. If you spent a day in the shoes of a UK facing casino operator you’d realise why. No offence intended, apologies if I shouldn’t have laughed!
No offence taken. I know you know your stuff but surely you know arbitrary limits are useless and nothing but a blunt tool. Sound for RG checks but about as useful as a cat flap on a submarine for AML purposes (especially on a cumulative basis).

Someone who deposits 10k over 5 years is not the same risk as someone who does it in 2 months. The threshold system, however, says they are. That’s the obvious flaw in what you’re telling us.
 
Last edited:

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
I also think SOW is too intrusive, and usually casinos only request this when you WIN BIG. That is how it has been for me. Low rollers who deposit a few hundred a month should not be asked this. Only the normal screenshots of passport, utilitybill etc.
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
I also think SOW is too intrusive, and usually casinos only request this when you WIN BIG. That is how it has been for me. Low rollers who deposit a few hundred a month should not be asked this. Only the normal screenshots of passport, utilitybill etc.
I think that’s what riles people the most. Happen to have a big withdrawal from a meagre deposit and this obstacle is thrown in the way. Which to me says it’s nothing to do with player protection/thresholds/due diligence etc and is everything to do with the casino chancing their arm at a stall or not having to pay out at all. Plenty of examples on here of people having to fight to get money owed to them.

If the player is suspected then why let them play with suspected dodgy money in the first place?

Seeing more and more stories online about people taking court action against casinos to get their money and the casino representatives are not even bothering to turn up to the case. That tells you all you need to know about how confident they are (nt) of their legal standing. The UKGC will simply have to re-evaluate the whole thing at some point IMO.
 
Last edited:
Top