- Joined
- Aug 6, 2017
- Location
- midlands
A U.K. casino will often ask non U.K. residents for SOW but that same casino will not ask U.K. residents.
Poll Source of Wealth poll: How do the SOW requirements affect you?
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
So, my thoughts.
I don't have a problem with AML's. They are there for a reason, I was dealing with them over 20 years ago, and online gambling establishments have been requesting them for around that length of time, that I know of. They aren't new.
What is new, is the UKGC finally doing something about the casinos not following the law. Then the knee jerk reaction of non UK based license holders, who go over the top as they don't understand what are pretty simple regulations to follow. If they employed or paid for UK legal advice, they wouldn't do what they are. There is a reason Entain, Flutter et all don't do SoW checks on their customers every 5 minutes, and it certainly isn't that they are breaking any laws, they understand what they need to do. Yes there have been UKGC penalties against some of them, but there will always be mistakes, and considering the millions of players they have, there will be odd ones slipping through the cracks. If their approach was so wrong, then they would have been heavily sanctioned long before now.
Then you have the side where casinos LIE to customers, and say that they cannot pay your winnings before you supply the SoW documentation. Then customers have to fight to get paid. That is disgusting and any casino doing that should be sanctioned heavily as that is just theft. Obviously if the NCA have told them not to pay, then they won't be sanctions, but we have seen on here numerous times, accredited casinos too, telling that lie, then backing down after a fight. If the NCA had told them not to pay, then they couldn't back down, so what they were attempting to do, was steal player funds.
Then you have the massively over the top endless requests for documents, sometimes which the customer cannot supply, like, as an example, third party bank statements. I've just glanced through one of my online statements, in May I have had incoming and outgoing transfers from both my daughters, 4 friends and my sister. At certain casinos, if I supply that bank statement, the next request will be 3 months statements from them along with proof of ID. How the hell can I supply bank statements from other people, and more to the point, even if I did ask them, and they say no, then I cannot force them to do so. But the casino will then say they can't pay without them, effectively stealing funds. There is also the GDPR aspect of that, in that, without consent, they cannot legally process a third parties data.
It is all a complete joke, and it's going to destroy the industry, especially in the UK, and just leave the massive groups.
I don't have a problem with AML's. They are there for a reason, I was dealing with them over 20 years ago, and online gambling establishments have been requesting them for around that length of time, that I know of. They aren't new.
What is new, is the UKGC finally doing something about the casinos not following the law. Then the knee jerk reaction of non UK based license holders, who go over the top as they don't understand what are pretty simple regulations to follow. If they employed or paid for UK legal advice, they wouldn't do what they are. There is a reason Entain, Flutter et all don't do SoW checks on their customers every 5 minutes, and it certainly isn't that they are breaking any laws, they understand what they need to do. Yes there have been UKGC penalties against some of them, but there will always be mistakes, and considering the millions of players they have, there will be odd ones slipping through the cracks. If their approach was so wrong, then they would have been heavily sanctioned long before now.
Then you have the side where casinos LIE to customers, and say that they cannot pay your winnings before you supply the SoW documentation. Then customers have to fight to get paid. That is disgusting and any casino doing that should be sanctioned heavily as that is just theft. Obviously if the NCA have told them not to pay, then they won't be sanctions, but we have seen on here numerous times, accredited casinos too, telling that lie, then backing down after a fight. If the NCA had told them not to pay, then they couldn't back down, so what they were attempting to do, was steal player funds.
Then you have the massively over the top endless requests for documents, sometimes which the customer cannot supply, like, as an example, third party bank statements. I've just glanced through one of my online statements, in May I have had incoming and outgoing transfers from both my daughters, 4 friends and my sister. At certain casinos, if I supply that bank statement, the next request will be 3 months statements from them along with proof of ID. How the hell can I supply bank statements from other people, and more to the point, even if I did ask them, and they say no, then I cannot force them to do so. But the casino will then say they can't pay without them, effectively stealing funds. There is also the GDPR aspect of that, in that, without consent, they cannot legally process a third parties data.
It is all a complete joke, and it's going to destroy the industry, especially in the UK, and just leave the massive groups.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
I don't know which country you are from, but UK landbased do do them, when they feel there is a risk, or possible responsible gambling issues.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Colin, I agree with everything you’ve said...the issues summarised nicely and it has been highlighted why the current system needs to be improved with regards to how some casinos handle it.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Location
- UK
Sick and tired of them, playing less because of them, thinking of just saying to fuck with UK market and playing on a Bitcoin casino with a VPN, and not have to deal with it anymore.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
As has been stated many times previously the easy way to solve all this, is for Casinos to ask for all requirements before the player can deposit.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in. They don’t have to do that by law and I wonder why? AML should surely be stamped out from the beginning, not when a player has deposited 10k.
The argument is, (from the Casino’s side) if that was law then it would deter players from joining so the law, (which as I have pointed out above, doesn’t make any logical sense) let’s them do checks at certain points and I wonder why?
Well, that way it allows everyone to have their cake and eat it. It makes it look like governing bodies are doing their bit correctly by implementing rules and reg’s. It makes it look like Casinos are doing their bit, whilst of course ensuring that players are not put off from signing up, which of course would lead to a loss in tax revenue for the government so plenty of hidden (not very well) agenda and ulterior motives going on here. Wheels within wheels folks, that’s all it is.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in. They don’t have to do that by law and I wonder why? AML should surely be stamped out from the beginning, not when a player has deposited 10k.
The argument is, (from the Casino’s side) if that was law then it would deter players from joining so the law, (which as I have pointed out above, doesn’t make any logical sense) let’s them do checks at certain points and I wonder why?
Well, that way it allows everyone to have their cake and eat it. It makes it look like governing bodies are doing their bit correctly by implementing rules and reg’s. It makes it look like Casinos are doing their bit, whilst of course ensuring that players are not put off from signing up, which of course would lead to a loss in tax revenue for the government so plenty of hidden (not very well) agenda and ulterior motives going on here. Wheels within wheels folks, that’s all it is.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2018
- Location
- Isle of Bute Scotland
Not once been asked for a Sow from any UK casino. The only one I got requested was from ABC and that was just the mandatory £1400 withdrawal limit. Which was held against me till it was completed.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
You cannot do a AML SoW before a customer makes any transactions. How can you evaluate risk before you see how they do anything?
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
Why can you not do SOW?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
How can you? It is meant to ensure funds deposited are legitimate. If you haven't deposited, what is there to check?
A responsible gaming SoW would maybe be possible, but certainly not one for the money laundering act.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
Well instead of asking post deposit where did the funds come from? Ask pre deposit, where are they going to come from?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Because thats asking someone to predict the future and wouldn't solve anything. How would that work? Show a bank account with £1000 and the casino decides you can play with that. Then you deposit £500 in a different casino, win £10000, and once you hit the £1000 the first casino said you could deposit, you can't deposit more unless you go through another SoW, which defeats the object of the first one.
Or you do the same, then spend the grand, and pay in a grand in your illegal earnings, use that in the casino instead. They would have to do a SoW on every deposit in that case.
Or the current system where you make transactions and (this is what they should be doing) if they feel you are a high risk of being involved in illegal activity, then request a SoW and check the funds you have used were legitimate.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
You have to show payslips to prove your earnings or where the £1,000 has come from. SOW is different to AML (isn’t it?) but I see how the 2 are very connected. SOW is primarily to see if gambling is an affordable commodity or so I thought and secondly that the funds are legit.
Perhaps I am wrong there. Either way, don’t you think £10k is a very large amount to accept before checks are done?
Perhaps I am wrong there. Either way, don’t you think £10k is a very large amount to accept before checks are done?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Location
- United Kingdom
'Affordable' is wholly up to an individual and is their own personal choice. Its also not unusual for couples to have different bank accounts so what is showing in one bank account doesn't show how much somebody has available to spend. If a person is depositing roughly the same amounts,I tend to stick to between £10-£30 then why do they need to provide any more proof than they already have?
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
Not sure that’s true? If you submitted a bank statement that showed you were regularly making deposits from an overdraft facility, even if yourself and the bank were okay with it, a Casino following RG and DD would close your account.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
I agree with Johnny. We are far too nanny state these days. It SHOULD be up to an individual to manage their finances accordingly, not have them micromanaged by others. If a bank has agreed a credit facility with an individual then the relationship is between that individual and the bank. You have to pay it back the same whether you spend it on a pack of cigs and 2 bottles of vodka or a session on Gems Bonanza!
Gambling is meant to be treated as a form of entertainment...so what's the difference between someone going the cinema and paying out of an overdraft and someone making a casino deposit out of an overdraft? If they are both for entertainment purposes there is no difference!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
The difference being tobacconists and off-licences do not have an obligation to fulfil, in asking whether it’s affordable, whereas Casinos do. I am not for it by any means but if that’s the law, then.......
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Well yeah this is why we're discussing the absurdity of the whole thing (even if the RG issue is digressing somewhat from the original discourse)!
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
They get confused, but as you mentioned AML in your first post about it, I presumed thats what you were meaning. Usually the checks that casinos use to withhold winnings are AML. If your brother sends you £50, then that shouldn't be an affordable gambling issue, it could be a ML issue though, particularly if there were loads of deposits.
RG should really look at your balance, income, outgoings, then make a decision on what you can afford
AML should look at where the funds originate.
They are separate checks, or should be anyway.
Regarding the £10k, thats why there shouldn't be hard limits. If a casino has done an RG affordability check and saw you won £10 million on the Euromillions a month ago, then £10k is nothing, and should not trigger an AML check.
On the other hand, if you are on benefits and hit £10k, then it might.
However, I've had some accounts for almost 20 years, I was one of the first Bet365 customers. I don't use them very much as I got limited pretty quickly lol, but am probably close to around £10k in deposits and withdrawals. Do you think £10k turnover is a large amount over 20 years? It's about £9.60 a week, and bear in mind, all the limits casinos stick on accounts are turnover, not deposits. So if you deposit a tenner and (somehow) win £10k, then it will trigger the check, do you think it should?
Thats why it should be risk based, not hard limits. Someone who deposits £10000 the day they open an account, plays it through once on roulette then withdraws 95% of it 2 hours later is clearly more of a risk than me at Bet365, yet we would be treated the same if all casinos used that hard limit.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
I sent Casumo, every bit of SOW they asked for. My withdrawals over 4 years were about £500 above my deposits at around 11 odd thousand. None of my money was or is laundered and my bank statements for the 3 months I sent showed more money withdrawn than deposited.
In all honesty, they would have probably got that bit of profit back quite quickly and more but they closed my account. The only reasons (and they didn’t and wouldn’t say why) could have been that, I wasn’t the type of customer they wanted OR because the amount of cash flowing through the account (even though I was winning) was deemed irresponsible.
In all honesty, they would have probably got that bit of profit back quite quickly and more but they closed my account. The only reasons (and they didn’t and wouldn’t say why) could have been that, I wasn’t the type of customer they wanted OR because the amount of cash flowing through the account (even though I was winning) was deemed irresponsible.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
They are notorious on here and pretty sure they have been taken off the accredited list for giving people the run around with withdrawals etc.
Don't think we can really look to that lot for business advice and tips
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Location
- Uk
I am sure they have but even though I was winning, it still appeared irresponsible as I had as many as 500 deposits a month at 15 plus Casinos. My withdrawals covered it plus a bit but most of that money was just being recycled. Looks dodgy as hell on the face of it but it was nothing more than the explanation I have given.They are notorious on here and pretty sure they have been taken off the accredited list for giving people the run around with withdrawals etc.
Don't think we can really look to that lot for business advice and tips
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Yeah I get you. This is it, most gamblers will recycle funds...very few just take the withdrawal and never deposit again lol.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2012
- Location
- liverpool
Being in the UK and only using the big UK sites i had never been asked until a few weeks ago. on logging in to Betvictor i was greeted with a message asking for job and salary, Was easy to complete but has put me off depositing there again incase of more intusive questions. I have had the account for over a decade and deposit no more than 100 monthly
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Location
- UK South west
Been playing for 8 years on probs 100+ sites never been asked for SOW once I don't think
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
"I don't like the intrusiveness and play at casinos that DO NOT require SOW." 34% so far - which goes to show that the UK (and MGA market as well) is hemorrhaging. Regulators and compliance folks need to come to terms with reality and find and another solution to "protect players from harm" - this obviously is not working.
You are not protecting anyone from harm when you are driving 34% of your player base to unlicensed offshore clip-shot-joints. Casinos like Red Lion Casino, Bronze Casino, Cozyno, et al, that target problem gamblers are thriving in this market of over-handed protectionism.
Online casinos should be mimicking their brick and mortar brethren - where are the SOW requests there? Much of this has to do with the rare occurrences (but widely publicized) accounts of people who had tragically delved into their corporate business accounts, kids' college funds, retirement savings, etc. and lost it all. I sincerely understand the grief and the need to prevent these horrible episodes, but this is like cutting off your nose in spite of your face. Source of Wealth requests are just not working to solve this.
I personally would never submit any source of wealth docs. The only entity that gets this info from me is the federal tax office, not some online business where all I want to do is chill out and play some slot games or video poker.
It needs to be made clear that all players have a choice whether or not to submit SOW docs. Just because you're in the UK doesn't mean that you have to abide by any source of wealth requirement - a 5 second Google search will solve the issue for anti-SOWers. And these players are the ones who will be placing themselves into harms way. They have a choice between the reputable BGO casino which is properly run and abides by the regs of the UKGC, or skip it and click the link to
It is a fact, and we have the screenshots to prove it, that those offshore entities PREY on these players. Players who admittedly are on Gamstop are welcomed with open arms at these despicable websites. These casinos have no right or any need to require any source of wealth. All they want is action at their crooked slot games, and another round of Champagne at lunch time. It's a rogue casino operator's dream come true.
You are not protecting anyone from harm when you are driving 34% of your player base to unlicensed offshore clip-shot-joints. Casinos like Red Lion Casino, Bronze Casino, Cozyno, et al, that target problem gamblers are thriving in this market of over-handed protectionism.
Online casinos should be mimicking their brick and mortar brethren - where are the SOW requests there? Much of this has to do with the rare occurrences (but widely publicized) accounts of people who had tragically delved into their corporate business accounts, kids' college funds, retirement savings, etc. and lost it all. I sincerely understand the grief and the need to prevent these horrible episodes, but this is like cutting off your nose in spite of your face. Source of Wealth requests are just not working to solve this.
I personally would never submit any source of wealth docs. The only entity that gets this info from me is the federal tax office, not some online business where all I want to do is chill out and play some slot games or video poker.
It needs to be made clear that all players have a choice whether or not to submit SOW docs. Just because you're in the UK doesn't mean that you have to abide by any source of wealth requirement - a 5 second Google search will solve the issue for anti-SOWers. And these players are the ones who will be placing themselves into harms way. They have a choice between the reputable BGO casino which is properly run and abides by the regs of the UKGC, or skip it and click the link to
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
. It's their choice, not the MGA's or the UKGC's.It is a fact, and we have the screenshots to prove it, that those offshore entities PREY on these players. Players who admittedly are on Gamstop are welcomed with open arms at these despicable websites. These casinos have no right or any need to require any source of wealth. All they want is action at their crooked slot games, and another round of Champagne at lunch time. It's a rogue casino operator's dream come true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Location
- Malta
For those of you asking for the MGA rules:
Google for MGA's Implementing-Procedures-Part-II_Remote-Gaming.pdf if you want to read it in full, but the essence for KYC and SOW is as follows:
Each Licensee is required to present their own Customer Risk Assessment procedure during the license application procedure. This is what varies from Licensee to Licensee, which then affects if you as a player will fall into the Low, Medium or High Risk bucket. In this Risk Assessment, the casino uses things like Deposit amounts, Deposit Frequency, Games played, Game play patterns, Payment methods used, Withdrawal patterns etc to come up with a Risk Level for each player.
Google for MGA's Implementing-Procedures-Part-II_Remote-Gaming.pdf if you want to read it in full, but the essence for KYC and SOW is as follows:
Each Licensee is required to present their own Customer Risk Assessment procedure during the license application procedure. This is what varies from Licensee to Licensee, which then affects if you as a player will fall into the Low, Medium or High Risk bucket. In this Risk Assessment, the casino uses things like Deposit amounts, Deposit Frequency, Games played, Game play patterns, Payment methods used, Withdrawal patterns etc to come up with a Risk Level for each player.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Exactly. There is absolutely nothing in that customer journey flow chart that suggests hard limits should be used. Customers should be placed into low/meduim/high risk group when assessed then a decision on if a SoW is required should be made. We see time and time again, casinos doing SoW on players who are, clearly, low risk.
100% agree here. Any request for personal info is an immediate closed account from me. I have a couple of accounts that I've had for years, so I'll probably never ever try anyone else's offering from now on. In these days of ID theft they want me to send personal and sensitive info to some corporate grunt on the end of an email address who I don't know from Adam and with the added icing on the cake that many are offshore? It ain't happening. I did networking and security in the enterprise for thousands of users for 14 years and I don't trust anybody. Dear casino's, give me proof that you're running AD with endpoint control and DLP and even then I probably won't trust you.
The AML excuse is laughable when billions were laundered through all the major banks last year. For an online casino it really can't be that difficult to detect ML through patterns. It seems that rules are only for the little people these days.
Some of us are old enough to remember when we lived in a free country without nanny and every tom, dick and harry prying and spying into everything we do.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Therein lies the issue. When you’ve got someone as experienced as Mark getting it wrong, how can we expect anything better elsewhere.
Some casinos are using ‘thresholds’ as a hard and fast trigger to ask for these documents rather than doing a personalised assessment of player risk...as you’ve said above.
With the power Mark has at BGO you’d hope he’d read everything said in this thread and endeavour to tweak things there for his player base. If these companies can’t find a balance then there’s only one direction they’re heading in ultimately (it won’t be up).
Ultimately the the thing that really angers me is that, as we’ve seen on this forum, some casinos are targeting low risk players with these intrusive checks then denying cash outs. This is nothing other than scumbag behaviour and I’d love to see the UKGC penalise these outfits severely.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
No offshore entity should be asking for source of wealth documents. If they do ask for it, that info will probably be sold on the dark web.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
I've pretty much given up, I rarely play and when I do, go to OLG, as shitty as it is
Too much information required. Barrages of 'but UKGC says' and I dont even bloody live there.
We came into some estate $ and I dont really feel like being haunted and passing over estate docs.
I have the $ otherwise I wouldnt be playing - it's mine to burn
Too much information required. Barrages of 'but UKGC says' and I dont even bloody live there.
We came into some estate $ and I dont really feel like being haunted and passing over estate docs.
I have the $ otherwise I wouldnt be playing - it's mine to burn
I’m not sure I’m “getting it wrong”, I’ll openly admit I’m not an expert in this area which is why my first few hires at BGO were for AML and compliance, but I think it’s unfair to say “there are no financial thresholds on the flow” when there is clearly a “has the player deposited €2k” decision tree at the top of the chart!
This is what I was (perhaps badly) trying to explain. There needs to be some kind of trigger to instigate the initial check. Whether it’s €2k total deposits as this case, £10k losses, £500 or more single deposit etc, just something for the (often manual) process to start. Depending on the risk appetite of the operator, they will be different depending on where you play. Likewise the outcome of the risk score will be different.
From an AML side of things it’s a lot easier than affordability and as a number of posts have suggested in this thread, they can be mixed up. There have been issues in the past where AML and affordability have been independent of each other, while that makes things easier process-wise it can lead to problems. Eg a customer may have no risks from AML but if they are constantly in their overdraft or there is evidence of debt on the statement they send to satisfy AML, those can’t be ignored.
There’s a huge opportunity for a casino to get this right and I’m trying to make BGO that casino. We’re quite far away from that though I’ll admit and processes, policies and internal mindsets need to change. In the meantime I’ll apologise in advance for any cumbersome requests for docs!
Mark
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Great reply Mark, I appreciate it.
I certainly see it from your perspective, the whole thing puts you between a rock and a hard place- and obviously a lot of us are going to be partisan one way or another (yourself from an operator perspective and us from a player perspective).
You're a great rep and a decent person it seems so I have no doubts that your establishment is in good hands with you.
Regards
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Location
- United Kingdom
My experience of BGO is that they arent that great,better than some but worse than a good few. The mentioned £10 bonus for a £10 deposit is a 65x bonus on a limited amount of slots at 100%(a not great selection,including some but not anywhere near all netent slots.)For example Jack and The Beanstalk is not included yet Gonzo's Quest and Guns N Roses are. I think this is pretty poor. I also took a break from BGO and upon returning they wanted a live photo from my video camera rather than simply a copy of my Driving Licence or Passport,what the hell is that all about? Anyway,BGO has a hell of a lot of work to do to catch some customers back from those who it has lost. Does it still have a maximum cashout too? I was gutted when I realised I wasnt getting £200 of my balance when I won about £450 a year or so ago due to this cap. I'd previously won about £1k on BGO before these types of rules were implemented.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
That figure is when you have to do enhanced KYC checks, at that point you should be assigning each customer into one of the three risk categories. The £2000 has nothing to do with carrying out an AML check.
In the first set of guidance from the UKGC on the subject of AML checks, it specifically stated that the documents supplied for this check MUST NOT be used for any other purpose. I would have to refresh my memory to be sure, but I think the current guidelines have changed that slightly to 'unless you obtain customer consent prior to the request'.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
To be honest Colin, I think this is what is confusing a lot of operators. They're confusing assigning risk with carrying out the checks. As I've said, this will be of detriment to the casinos that do this in the long run as they'll shed players- something Brian alluded to further up. Why lose a customer to these checks when they're generally not necessary in the first place for low risk customers?
A hell of a lot of due diligence can be carried out behind the scenes by looking into the individual casino account; deposit levels, playthrough, betting styles etc. This is the role of a MLRO worth his salt...not blindly blanket requesting documents at a 'trigger'. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can blindly request documents; the role is more nuanced than that however.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Location
- Kent
The thing is though Mark,and we keep coming back to this,is why is it that you can play at casinos like Novibet,Unibet,Sky Vegas and NEVER get asked for SOW documents regardless of your level of deposits,losses or cashouts.If the regulations are there then every casino operating in the UK has to abide by those same regulations.If not them surely they run the risk of heavy fines from the UKGC and i don't recall any stories of the casinos i have just mentioned incurring such fines.It must boil down to the interpretation of the regulations rather than the regulations themselves.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Because those places have risk management that works. A launderer would stick out like a sore thumb to a casino and most likely so would other fraud. Those places will do SOW checks but not on low risk customers as there’d be little point (as has been touched on a bit ago). As Colin said, they will do their due diligence behind the scenes and assign you a risk level after x amount of deposits.
The UK bookie sites have been doing SOW for years, before it became such a notorious thing for the casual player.
On the other hand, some Malta based casinos just seem to be sending blanket SOW requests at arbitrary thresholds and mainly at cash out attempts. Which is poor as the MLRO should be going on a player by player basis and that’s what I’d be paying my MLRO to do.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Just to show this has always been a 'thing' well before the Maltese gang started with it, from 2014.
Look at the circumstances, clearly that would ring alarm bells and would be a high risk customer, so the law has been there for years, just the overseas casinos decided they didn't have to follow it, got caught, got fined, and now shit themselves. The UK bookies are doing things the same as they always have, following the rules, and thats why almost never do you see a 'normal' player get hit with a SoW from them.
Of course, some casinos are clearly using them to steal customer funds, like Videoslots who lie and state they won't payout if you don't supply everything they ask for, despite MrWild saying, by law, they have to.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Look at the circumstances, clearly that would ring alarm bells and would be a high risk customer, so the law has been there for years, just the overseas casinos decided they didn't have to follow it, got caught, got fined, and now shit themselves. The UK bookies are doing things the same as they always have, following the rules, and thats why almost never do you see a 'normal' player get hit with a SoW from them.
Of course, some casinos are clearly using them to steal customer funds, like Videoslots who lie and state they won't payout if you don't supply everything they ask for, despite MrWild saying, by law, they have to.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Location
- North West
Yep and this is why the Maltese casinos will eventually lose their UK player base. People will simply go and play where they get the least hassle.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Yep, this poll shows 50% of players have stopped playing, or reduced spend because of this.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
After my titanic struggle with Cas*mo I simply close accounts now or exclude when the SoW comes around. As a self-employed person with earnings coming in from numerous different places I just cannot face the aggro of proving myself innocent each time. My desire to gamble is far outweighed by my desire to avoid this bollocks I went through once before.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2018
- Location
- Southport
My approach now.
Might be less games at Sky - but distinctly less hassle.
No SOW, very quick withdrawals and OK bonuses... not too shabby really.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Exactly, I do the same, don't even think about it, as soon as I get one, I reply to the email with 'please close my account'
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
That should have been one of the options in the poll IMO - I suspect many people do the same. So I cannot check any box in the poll myself...
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
And the things they ask for make it almost impossible to comply, plus the fact you send what they ask for then days/weeks later they ask for more, it can take well over a month at some places. They almost all want certified accounts too, like HMRC accept my accounts, why the hell should I pay hundreds to get an accountant to do them just to give my money to a casino. Not a chance. They want to pay for the accountant fees, they are welcome and I'll get them done
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2021
- Location
- Malta
Hi there.
An interesting area for discussion and, in my opinion, problematic, both for players and the entire online gambling industry as a whole. A lot of information has been provided here, let me share my thoughts. I can understand players frustration when they receive a request from an online casino to provide financial information. But I also understand operators where SoW requests are becoming more commonplace. Online casinos have to oblige to many different rules, guidelines and regulations. These rules may vary significantly depending on the operator's license where the 'stronger' the license is the stricter the verification procedures are. I cannot share the details, since a team of professionals from the casino security department is engaged in such a check. They assess the risks associated with each player and consider each such case individually according to both an AML and a Responsible Gambling perspective.
But I'm confident that SoW checks are primarily aimed at preventing crime out of gambling to provide a safe environment for players and should be carried out with all due respect to customers.?
An interesting area for discussion and, in my opinion, problematic, both for players and the entire online gambling industry as a whole. A lot of information has been provided here, let me share my thoughts. I can understand players frustration when they receive a request from an online casino to provide financial information. But I also understand operators where SoW requests are becoming more commonplace. Online casinos have to oblige to many different rules, guidelines and regulations. These rules may vary significantly depending on the operator's license where the 'stronger' the license is the stricter the verification procedures are. I cannot share the details, since a team of professionals from the casino security department is engaged in such a check. They assess the risks associated with each player and consider each such case individually according to both an AML and a Responsible Gambling perspective.
But I'm confident that SoW checks are primarily aimed at preventing crime out of gambling to provide a safe environment for players and should be carried out with all due respect to customers.?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Almost the same as number one though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll
