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.