SOW..

[ReggieMac]

Does anybody know if there is set amount that triggers a SOW request? I have played at RoyalPanda for almost a year and have deposited exactly £10000 (withdrew £9324) in that time, recently they asked me to submit evidence of SOW via 3 months pay slips and bank statements. Not something I am prepared to do so I have closed my account. I was just wondering if £10K was the trigger?

 

[pinnit2014]

Does anybody know if there is set amount that triggers a SOW request? I have played at RoyalPanda for almost a year and have deposited exactly £10000 (withdrew £9324) in that time, recently they asked me to submit evidence of SOW via 3 months pay slips and bank statements. Not something I am prepared to do so I have closed my account. I was just wondering if £10K was the trigger?

As far as i know, no....but i've seen some casinos on here say it is 10k for some reason.

Same here - Vera John have seen 12k from me this year and Redbet 11k and not had one. So either they're non compliant or it isn't 10

 

[brianmon]

As far as i know, no....but i've seen some casinos on here say it is 10k for some reason.

Same here - Vera John have seen 12k from me this year and Redbet 11k and not had one. So either they're non compliant or it isn't 10

Or it's just some arbitrary figure that each casino decides on

Or maybe they just use a RNG to produce it

 

[dionysus]

Or it's just some arbitrary figure that each casino decides on

Boss: Hey Mike, how many, oh, say, hamburgers would you say youve eaten?
Mike: Um, what, boss?
Boss: Hamburgers, man...how many hambers have you eaten?
Mike: Um. I dunno. 2000 maybe I guess
Boss: *scribbles furiously*...'set..threshold...at...2000*. K, thanks Mike.

 

[Reelsoffun]

All players should refuse giving any SoW documents.

I could not agree more, if we all refuse, it will force them to sort out this mess as they not going to sit there and let all their customers leave or not be able to play or they would go bust so they would have to get clarification from the UKGC

 

[Reelsoffun]

The Source of Wealth is mostly asked for UK players, in order to make sure there are players who're not playing if they're loaning funds, in debt, unemployed with no income, low salary, or on welfare.

So are you saying that anyone the is unemployed is not allowed to play at your casino or anyone else's for that matter?

And what happens in the event of an unemployed person making a deposit of £50 winning £3000 and not being able to or refuse to give SOW docs? you going to void win? close account?

And what happens in the event of an unemployed person that has made deposits of £100 and then fails the SOW if asked, because they have no income etc You going to return the funds? Yeah didnt think so THIS is why SOW should be done at deposit time its all just a great big ugly can of worms and the only real losers are the players AS usual.

I put it to all casinos not just yours that the reason its only done on WD is that they dont want to trigger it on deposit in case they have to refund / void it all.


Another reason it should be done at deposit time, before any betting has taken place surely? This would protect BOTH sides.

 

[paul7388]

The Source of Wealth is mostly asked for UK players, in order to make sure there are players who're not playing if they're loaning funds, in debt, unemployed with no income, low salary, or on welfare.

Seriously.

You will have very few players that are not in debt or have loans of some sort.

Also how can you stereotype against people on welfare . Some people on benefits especially enhanced ones for different reasons have more disposable income than your average paid worker.

I would seriously love to see you withholding winnings from a player for the reasons above. Any court would rule against you. Think it is really time you reread the guidelines from UKGC and actually followed the correct procedures.

This is from the casino that seemed to lose all players details when they transferred platform. The same one that needed another deposit from verified deposit method as they no longer had it and the same casino that has asked players to reverify accounts several times for no reason.

 

[colinsunderland]

Seriously.

You will have very few players that are not in debt or have loans of some sort.

Also how can you stereotype against people on welfare . Some people on benefits especially enhanced ones for different reasons have more disposable income than your average paid worker.

I would seriously love to see you withholding winnings from a player for the reasons above. Any court would rule against you. Think it is really time you reread the guidelines from UKGC and actually followed the correct procedures.

This is from the casino that seemed to lose all players details when they transferred platform. The same one that needed another deposit from verified deposit method as they no longer had it and the same casino that has asked players to reverify accounts several times for no reason.

and lied about a mailing list provider they used that was then hacked and customer details stolen, and who's head of legal department (Gig's legal department) gave me someone elses account details, then another member of staff tried to threaten me that if I didn't destroy them I would get in trouble

Their data security is extremely lax from what we have seen on here alone (let alone what we haven't seen), I wouldn't give them ANYTHING that I didn't want disclosing to third parties.

 

[Jasminebed]

Pretty much complying with a SOW request will not mean you never get another one.

If you have a pay or pension slip, easy peasy, just send it to them. Easiest way to get your cash.

If it is more difficult, as a business owner, or even someone like me, a landlord, the only proof I can provide is generated by me, i.e. rent recents, more than enough to satisfy Revenue Canada, and you really do not want to comply, just stand your ground.

The casino only has a couple of choices. Either report you to other government agencies for suspected Money laundering and/or fraud or just pay you without any documentation, and close your account for failing to provide the SOW info.

Honestly, even though I am no longer a Guts customer, I think the whole GiG group is a little over zealous.

Trustworthy, so I do not think it is so e dirty stalling tactic.

It has been a couple of years since I last played at Guts, but I do think they offer uploads rather than unsecured email.

 

[dionysus]

It has been a couple of years since I last played at Guts, but I do think they offer uploads rather than unsecured email.

they do

 

[Jasminebed]

It was Capt Rizk, who told me there was no acceptable way for me to prove proof of income from a tenant. I would hope that proof via tax returns would be satisfactory, for any kind of income. But not good enough for Rizk, same group as Guts.

I do not think they are using this as a delay tactic, even though I have had my own past issue with Guts.

I have seen other SOW request threads where I do think this may be a delay tactic.

My best advice is if it is easy for you to do, or you would like your withdrawal moderately quickly, comply. Or even if it is more work, if you want to stick with them.

If you refuse or fail to remit acceptable proof, Guts must either pay you or report you to relevant authorities.

 

[ReggieMac]

The Source of Wealth is mostly asked for UK players, in order to make sure there are players who're not playing if they're loaning funds, in debt, unemployed with no income, low salary, or on welfare.

I am interested in this statement, especially the part about "loaning funds", credit cards are actually "loaned funds" at the time of use but Casinos happily accept credit card deposits without question, just saying!

 

[Slottery]

Assume it was supposed to mean more that if you send bank statement where is showing several payday loans which are used for gambling, that would be alarming and that they want to decide behalf of you how much you are able to gamble depending your income (was it salary, benefit etc....).

As this group under same license and platform (mostly last one as they are all connected to that) could be assumed to be using these same lifetime triggers, everybody who get that triggered, make a note themselves about total thresholds (deposit+withdrawals) and if not willing to comply with these extended requests, just stop playing there before you get close to hit that number, if they use that 2000€ lifetime, deposit+withdrawals, can't see myself depositing there as that's totally nonsense and for sure not requirement by UKGC or MGA. Not sure how many WL:s are using MTS license but there are really big bunch of casinos who do and for some reason, GIG seem to be part in quite many topics around SOW requests where demands of documents requested have been quite extensive and getting your account approved taking long time and been really hard.

Would be quite interesting to see if for example OP on this topic would challenge casino about this by refusing provide SOW and make them report you for their suspects of of money laundering or what actually would be happen to your winnings if you don't comply with this request(especially if only questionnaire is not enough, which shouldn't be triggered if deposit pattern is like stated and got triggered from quite small freespin winnings which came from casinos no deposit gift, so isn't of casinos SOW in this case what should be checked? ) or really just state there that your SOW regarding them is these freespins given so you are not laundering money but take theirs and if they think you have RG issues, it's not really compliant to give you spins to play in their site

 

[pinnit2014]

Applying Net/Lifetime deposits as your sole reason for requesting documents to comply with AML reg's is probably the laziest form of seeking compliance with the reg's. Plus i don't think it does comply - upon investigation a casino will be asked for their risk assessment controls of player behaviour. Turing round and saying 'well we don't really do that, we just blanket request anyone above 10k' won't cut it - if you look at the Casumo findings on the UKGC's website they seem to take that view.

I honestly don't know how casinos having, presumably, people in their company who should be knowledgeable about all this think it's acceptable to follow this route.

As for casinos needing more guidance around this. We have public sector bodies up and down the land on shoestring budgets and limited staff who can apply any of their duties with the correct degree of proportionality (albeit on differing scales), yet some casino's are banding around the 10k as if it's set in stone (possibly wrong here so if anyone has reference, like above, mucho grassyass )

 

[aceking123]

so what are the views of players & casinos when you reply asking for details & links to back up the casinos claims???

i have quizzed a couple over this & one just closed the account, i had sent a valid email to support only last month & i clearly stated that they could close the account down if anything was suspect or suspend the account until i had sent those items in , i was sent a e mail stating someone would be getting in touch nothing happened until i made some 2k in deposits. since then i had to a temp block on the account for six weeks.

So they've had the chance to suspend the account or lock it until i sent in required docs, but choose not too only take the deposits , they have only now blocked the account until they've received the docs, again pretty straight forward here they knew what they was doing & did this after another load of deposits went through the system, they have been given the chance on a test to prove that by me asking them to lock the account & if in doubt suspend the account until they have got required stuff. They choose not too , so this shows they are not adhering to what players are asking.

 

[Slottery]

Risk assessment can be carried without any action, if player is classified as low risk player and then these amounts could be automatically trigger SOW request (based on casino rep post earlier in this topic) which don't really make sense or i'm just stupid, if you categorize somebody to be low risk player from RG and AML point of view, there is no change in deposits, gaming or other patterns (deposit methods, amounts, game played, stake used and many others...) and then with exact same pattern you trigger XX€ amount in 5 years (which suggest you are low roller with nothing suspicious on your account), you still are now demanded to fill up SOW and possible with some payslips, bank statements etc....

I'm pretty sure that this is not what UKGC/MGA are looking from. Some operators just take easy way out to make sure not get fined after reading these horror stories from UKGC site, but as many of us have been reading these, cases have been quite no brainers to pick up, yes, if somebody loose £10k in month, that is quite much above for what average person could/should spend on gambling and then there is clear ground to request SOW and documentation as proof do you have that money and where it's coming for, but especially this OP:s case don't make sense simple person as me, even casinos rep replied to it with reply what for quite sure is not correct (somebody could ask from UKGC is it mandatory practice that when somebody hit 2000€ lifetime deposits+withdrawals, SOW need to be done or you break regulations, i can make little bet that answer is no, if that have happen within few years without any reason to raise players risk level).

Operators really should put bit more pressure to UKGC (and now MGA getting there too bit behind) and send them some example cases like they post in their sites where casinos are fined. This would be one example and i believe that they would find many other things what could be questioned from authorities "What if player have done X, Z, Y within C time period, do we by your regulation request SOW?". Now these are just made how operators think is correct but hard to believe that license providing authorities wouldn't give you answer if you send them some particular study case and few of them, different scenarios.

 

[ternur]

I am interested in this statement, especially the part about "loaning funds", credit cards are actually "loaned funds" at the time of use but Casinos happily accept credit card deposits without question, just saying!

If the industry really would take responsible gaming seriously, credit cards would not even be an option to deposit. Easy to gamble beyond your needs. I've said this before, the operators and even the regulators should not be the ones to make decisions on how players use their funds.

Anti money laundering is a different thing.

 

[colinsunderland]

If the industry really would take responsible gaming seriously, credit cards would not even be an option to deposit. Easy to gamble beyond your needs. I've said this before, the operators and even the regulators should not be the ones to make decisions on how players use their funds.

Anti money laundering is different thing.

The UK are looking to ban credit card use for gambling from next year

 

[colinsunderland]

so what are the views of players & casinos when you reply asking for details & links to back up the casinos claims???

Casumo told me someone would get back to me after they discussed my situation at a meeting the next day. That was last March. Must be a long meeting....

Captain Rizk told me he could see no solution to my particular situation, which at least was honest, I closed my account 5 minutes later given their tendency to do it on withdrawal.

Another rep for one of the major casinos on here was made fully aware I can't & won't supply SOW documents that they ask for. I said to close my account if that would be a problem in the future, they didn't so presumably they won't ever ask, if they do, and attempt to hold onto any winnings, then it will get interesting!

There are probably 2 or 3 reps on here, past and present, who will/would actually discuss this type of thing, without making things up.

 

[pinnit2014]

If the industry really would take responsible gaming seriously, credit cards would not even be an option to deposit. Easy to gamble beyond your needs. I've said this before, the operators and even the regulators should not be the ones to make decisions on how players use their funds.

Anti money laundering is different thing.

I know where it's coming from but to be honest I'm always wary of things like that - shall we ban their use in McDonalds due to to rising obesity etc? All that would happen is some people would do cash advances at the ATM and then deposit it into their bank (which is likely part of the ATM). But yeah, i can see where people will use it 'spur of the moment' things during a tilting session and it would cut down on that.

 

[aceking123]

Well here you go , it seems none of them know or are willing to clarify things. Im sick of getting no response but the casinos are all to happy to keep taking deposits, so this year im going to make proper complaints to correct channels.)

 

[ternur]

I know where it's coming from but to be honest I'm always wary of things like that - shall we ban their use in McDonalds due to to rising obesity etc? All that would happen is some people would do cash advances at the ATM and then deposit it into their bank (which is likely part of the ATM). But yeah, i can see where people will use it 'spur of the moment' things during a tilting session and it would cut down on that.

Yes, it's a slippery slope for sure. It's just that with gambling the use of anti money laundering tools in many cases relate to responsible gambling. The risk assessments, profiling of players and their playing habits, the need to know your customer ... the list is long.

McDonalds don't care who you are or if you're obese. If you have a accepted payment method to purchase their product, they will sell it to you. But the casinos are forced to make decisions if you can afford to use your funds to gamble. It's a legal requirement to casinos, while that kind of scrutiny is not required from McDonalds.

I see it as the dual morality standard of the (regulated) gambling.

 

[ternur]

The UK are looking to ban credit card use for gambling from next year

That's how it is in Finland. You can't gamble with a credit card on the games offered by the Finnish monopoly. Gambling is the only legislative restriction of using a credit card here afaik.

 

[nikantw]

Would it be so hard to ask each player to get a PIN from a UKGC page, then casinos check that PIN on registration and send monthly trafic to UKGC?
Doesn't it deserve the extra trouble and cost (they have lots of income from the taxes)?

It does solve all the problems.

 

[Slottery]

That's how it is in Finland. You can't gamble with a credit card on the games offered by the Finnish monopoly. Gambling is the only legislative restriction of using a credit card here afaik.

Isn't that the country where you can play slots in almost all the supermarkets, petrol stations etc.. and use your card to it? Can they really make a difference if it's debit or credit card or as many cards are, both where you just have your limits depends between your card provider and you? Finland really when read articles about gambling monopoly are really happy to add slot machines everywhere and let you use your card (as said before, not sure how well they can make difference if it's credit or debit one you use and if combined, how they know when you go to credit?).

Many normal people without problems with gambling are using cards for playing as it quite easy method to deposit and withdraw, when amounts start to be more concerning, there should be alarm bell if player is spending much more than average and ask your SOW and possible proof for that, as long you use same card for deposits and withdrawals, there should not be any AML concerns but high spending, RG concerns could arrise.

 

[ternur]

Isn't that the country where you can play slots in almost all the supermarkets, petrol stations etc.. and use your card to it? Can they really make a difference if it's debit or credit card or as many cards are, both where you just have your limits depends between your card provider and you? Finland really when read articles about gambling monopoly are really happy to add slot machines everywhere and let you use your card (as said before, not sure how well they can make difference if it's credit or debit one you use and if combined, how they know when you go to credit?).

Only the debit part of a card with debit/credit combination is allowed to be used for gambling. Also the membership in their loyalty program can only be registered using a debit (part of the) card.

It's nonsense if you ask me. When the player can just as easily transfer funds from credit to debit and therefore use these funds to gamble anyway.

The Finnish monopoly uses mandatory deposit, play and loss limits and in the near future it will be mandatory for the player to verify their indentity before playing (either with their loyalty card or a debit card). Even with those supermarket slot machines.

And their slot payouts are horrible. No wonder they are raking in over a billion EUR every year. Their purpose is to make profit, so their games are available everywhere. There are lines of (especially) old people in every supermarket waiting to feed their pensions into these machines.

The Finnish monopoly system is a form of legalised robbery by the state and they justify it by distributing their profits to common good. It's like a twisted form of secular penance by the state. It should be abolished imo.

 

[Wononrhino]

My personal opinion...

I think the whole things smells of corruption. We are at the mercy of those who when they see fit (most likely when you have been fortunate enough to win a sizeable sum) will do everything they can to withhold, stall, forfeit your winnings.

Note how it only happens on withdrawals.

Online casinos are always happy to take your money by whatever means of payment, no questions asked, on the condition that you keep losing, never withdraw and smile while you are doing so. Remember, when the fun stops, stop. Don't ever stop having fun whilst losing your wages, your Wife, your home, your dignity, your very sanity, or you will be pulled aside and made to feel guilty and banned for being a problem gambler....reverse phycology.

Please remember casinos state it's a form of entertainment. When you see your life savings dwindle away in front of your very eyes just keep saying to yourself 'it's only entertainment' if you say it lots of times you will begin to believe it.....

You see, most, if not all gamblers are problem gamblers. They have all at some point spent too much, chased losses, borrowed money etc. They are probably struggling financially and dreaming of a big win to change their circumstances. Casinos know this and use great advertising and subliminal messages to get you to depart with your cash

Gambling is addictive by nature...fact.... Casinos know this and entice you with free spins much like giving an alcoholic a free drink. They are happy to give you a percentage back when you are losing or a bonus with ridiculous wagering terms because they know that the longer they keep you playing the more you will want to play and become addicted.

Don't be fooled with all the rep talk. Open your eyes and smell the coffee. It's a losers game. A no win situation.
The only winner is the casino. They know this also. All these rules and regulations would make any sane person run a mile.
The intrusiveness is shocking.

Rant over..... if you think what I have said is nonsense then that's fine....you are entitled to your view.

Happy days everyone.

 

[lockinlove]

Seriously.

You will have very few players that are not in debt or have loans of some sort.

Also how can you stereotype against people on welfare . Some people on benefits especially enhanced ones for different reasons have more disposable income than your average paid worker.

I would seriously love to see you withholding winnings from a player for the reasons above. Any court would rule against you. Think it is really time you reread the guidelines from UKGC and actually followed the correct procedures.

This is from the casino that seemed to lose all players details when they transferred platform. The same one that needed another deposit from verified deposit method as they no longer had it and the same casino that has asked players to reverify accounts several times for no reason.

Its true.

My dads cousin is on disability because of his heart. He gets approx $1200 a month and is in housing which he pays approx $300 a month for rent, $50 phone bill $200 in groceries. Hydro and water are covered in the rent. He basically has $500+ in disposable income. There arent many families around who make 50k+ a year who have that much.

Same with welfare. They get what $700 a month plus $500 a kid in child tax credits. Housing costs $300 a month. They have about $500+ in disposable income after everything.

Yet casinos and others look at these people like they cant afford a thing.

SOW is ridiculous. You get $100 as a bday gift, go buy a prepaid because you want to have some fun. The casinos says no you cant afford it. LOL. You know things are getting bad when casinos/commissions are acting like the moral police.

Its like going to see a movie with 5 people and they refusing you because they know its about $200 to see that movie and you shouldnt be using it on that because they made the decision you cant afford it

 

[colinsunderland]

Shall we do some odds for if the Guts rep comes back after that comment

1/20 Don't see them in the thread again
1/2 Claim they didn't mean it like they wrote it (however clear it was)
5/1 Claim the UKGC force all casinos to do it (like some casinos say they are told to use thresholds)
10/1 Claim their account was hacked because of a third party mailing list provider they have never used
25/1 Claim Aliens took over the GIG office for a day
100/1 Claim a new rep has taken over the account and they have no idea why the previous one wrote what they did, as GIG would never profile customers in this way
150/1 as the 100/1 but the following day someone open a PAB because GIG withheld their winnings as they are on benefits.

 

[goatwack]

I fancy a punt on the 25-1 shot, seems like something they'd say

 

[Slottery]

Isn't that after all simply to know players financial situation when decided it's needed (based on several risk factors)? No comment how much it is casinos business but seems they want to be in safe side and some have chosen to take it to really extreme level why we have these topics...

But at least that should be ok that if you take deposit which trigger you to request SOW, you will pay out winnings, if there are no valid reason to think you are laundering money. If trigger is that withdrawal, same thing, if they suspect somebody laundering money you should have quite strong ground for that but if it's just some threshold decided, pay that money and prevent further deposit.

If they think you might play too much and are worried about that, same could apply, if they already took your money, how in earth if they are worried and want to take care of vulnerable players not to play too much it help that you take deposit and don't want to pay to that possible problem gambler his winnings that he could pay that rent what he used for playing and trigger SOW to prevent further deposit before it satisfies them or you have agreed to add limit what they think is suitable for your incomes.

These two reasons i have heard SOW is used and my very limited common sense says as above, suspects of money laundering or terrorist financing could be only reason not to pay out withdrawal before SOW is completed. As this is now really new thing anymore (been around over year), maybe there would be place for sull review of process for some operators if not all as this was really just thrown to them and all tried to figure out something to get process in place asap to be compliant and results we can see.....

 

[Guts]

Sorry for coming back a bit late, Aliens took over the office yesterday for a day.

The information provided earlier is correct. SOW is related to both AML and RG. AML because of the obligations brought in by the 4th AML directive and RG because we need to check on our players' affordability - Something the customers need to understand is that for 10 people we "bother" with these requests, there are thousands who did not reach any threshold and who are not being asked anything apart from basic KYC. We only ask these things when we believe that they are required. It is easy for customers to feel "targeted" but we are simply fulfilling our legal obligations.

The UKGC has good guidelines at this link:

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

Also, we have the right to ask for any type of documentation at any time if we believe that it is needed in order for the relationship with the customer to keep on going. This is part of the regulation and also part of our T&Cs. This can be found in the T&Cs of all main online operators.

That being said, we are aware that the process is not perfect and that it may create frustration on occasion and we are not against discussion and trying to iron things out where needed. This is also still quite a new process for us as well and we are still in a learning phase. This is still a work in progress and we are expecting for some severe improvements in the future.

 

[colinsunderland]

Sorry for coming back a bit late, Aliens took over the office yesterday for a day.

The information provided earlier is correct. SOW is related to both AML and RG. AML because of the obligations brought in by the 4th AML directive and RG because we need to check on our players' affordability - Something the customers need to understand is that for 10 people we "bother" with these requests, there are thousands who did not reach any threshold and who are not being asked anything apart from basic KYC. We only ask these things when we believe that they are required. It is easy for customers to feel "targeted" but we are simply fulfilling our legal obligations.

The UKGC has good guidelines at this link:

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

Also, we have the right to ask for any type of documentation at any time if we believe that it is needed in order for the relationship with the customer to keep on going. This is part of the regulation and also part of our T&Cs. This can be found in the T&Cs of all main online operators.

That being said, we are aware that the process is not perfect and that it may create frustration on occasion and we are not against discussion and trying to iron things out where needed. This is also still quite a new process for us as well and we are still in a learning phase. This is still a work in progress and we are expecting for some severe improvements in the future.

Thanks for replying
However, nothing on the link you gave gives any thresholds, nor does it mention them, apart from the one for CDD, can you point me to anywhere that states you should be using thresholds to establish risk for AML purposes? The link I posted suggests the opposite.

What about the other statements you made? To make sure players aren't in debt, aren't on benefits etc? I will pretty much guarantee there is nothing issued by the UKGC stating you should stop people playing in those circumstances. Presumably you have blocked all credit card deposits now? As a deposit from a credit card is both borrowing money and debt?
You really should put something in your terms and conditions stating that if you are on any kind of benefits, or say, have a mortgage, you cannot play at Guts. Is that GIG policy or just something Guts have decided on? Is that a sanction or something the UKGC have gave you as it certainly does not apply to other casinos?

Just to remind you what you said

The Source of Wealth is mostly asked for UK players, in order to make sure there are players who're not playing if they're loaning funds, in debt, unemployed with no income, low salary, or on welfare.

This is something the UKGC has ruled which we need to follow in order to be able to operate in the United Kingdom.

 

[nikantw]

"The UKGC has good guidelines at this link: Outdated URL

Also, we have the right to ask for any type of documentation at any time if we believe that it is needed in order for the relationship with the customer to keep on going."

There is where we focus the problem (not a simple "not perfect"). You don't have the right or at least you shouldn't have the right to do anything you believe.
Especially not without any reasonable risk factors and definitely not at the withdrawal stage.

It is unreasonable to give thousands of casinos the right to do anything they want, simply because of a $20 deposit per week.
This is happening now ($20 per week will hit an x deposit limit at some point).

 

[Slottery]

Sorry for coming back a bit late, Aliens took over the office yesterday for a day.

We only ask these things when we believe that they are required. It is easy for customers to feel "targeted" but we are simply fulfilling our legal obligations.

Just to be curious and as OP brought this public, in this case when you gave the player no deposit free spins and the player was lucky enough to get some winnings to withdraw, did you believe that he/she is laundering money or that he/she have gambling problem?

- AML is quite hard if you are giving him spins to get money, or then there is something really hard to understand behind of this logic and would be nice to understand it.
- RG if you think player have problems with gambling, is it bit unethical to encourage player to come to your site and play?

In first post by you were mentioned that all who reach 2000€ threshold lifetime, you are obligated to request SOW, you've been in business quite a long time, so it's hard to believe that only one percent (you mentioned 10 to be asked and thousands not so even less than percent) are reaching lifetime threshold of 2000€ which you do if you deposit 50€ monthly 3 years and 4 months (assume that active players make more withdrawals and deposits which is making lifetime total threshold way faster to reach that limit even player haven't lost to you much in 3 years but been lucky and won time to time, withdraw and deposit again).

As you said, it's very true that you have right to ask documents from anybody at any point when you think that it's needed, but this OP:s case and what you mentioned of 2000€ lifetime threshold are not really make sense, are they?


edit: Ps. in link you posted, 2000€ threshold really suggest more that you need collect KYC and below that when you need to complete ecnhanced due diligence checks.

 

[brianmon]

Yeah, I deposited at VS almost every week last year, by debit card, and was forced to withdraw to Neteller every time I made a withdrawal request.
Because I'd made most of my deposits, the previous year via Neteller

Actually, I've just realised something...

My bank often issues new debit cards. I've used at least 3 different ones at VS, last year alone.
All the cards are attached to the same, one bank account. BUT the last 3 digits of the long number changes each time.
AFAIK most cards don't change the long number when reissued, they only change the dates and CVS number

I've probably had 10+ different cards during the time I've been playing at VS. But only one Neteller account.

So, if VS's accounting system is balancing deposits from Neteller against each separate card (based on the full 16 digit card number), rather than the one Visa account (based on the first 13 digits 'identification' number).
Then the way my bank issues replacement cards so frequently, each card might never balance out the Neteller deposits, and I'll have to withdraw to Neteller forever.

Maybe @Team.Videoslots can comment on how their system works. And also check that they're compliant under these circumstances

 

[Steviedoo]

I was asked by Betat to send SOW documents, which I refused, and told them to close my account, which they haven't done.

Apparenty this was for responsible gaming reasons. So, why is my account still open, and why are they constantly sending me 100% deposit bonus offers?

It doesn't seem very responsible to me

ha!
they asked me for SOW and i refused and asked them to close my account which they promptly did...might have to do with the winning streak i was on for 7 days straight.

 

[colinsunderland]

@Guts any response to the questions raised above?

 

[colinsunderland]

Hi Colin,

I don’t have any links I can share but I’ll see what I can find when back in the office.

With regards to SOF & SOW it’s not quite the same and they will usually be required at different times.

SOF - source of funds, proof of where the cash came from e.g. making sure the deposit method belongs to you.

SOW - making sure you earned the funds deposited legitimately.

As I said above policies vary in different businesses and with no strict guidance it can often vary depending on other influences such as RG. It’s a challenge for sure but ultimately it’s in place to help prevent fraud and protect players.

Mark

Did you manage to find any links that you could share please Mark?