Yup, that's what they're saying in the Terms, your WR would be 500.
Why would ANYONE play there?! They would probably argue "money laundering" or something, but that's just rubbish.
Take your money elsewhere...
EDIT: Turns out they DO quote AML in their T's & C's. This is a blatant lie - anyone who plays there is wasting their time and money.
Also, i notice in the other thread that a 1x wagering requirement is alive and kicking on some casinos - the justification is that they have costs etc... I'm sorry, but i see no justification for this - the RTP of the games (i.e house edge) pays for the casino. If you're a good casino, with good games, then engagement and retention of players is how you pay for your costs...
I'd also say, if there are any CM accredited casino with 5x wagering of a cash deposit. They should be removed from the accreditation list.
It's just a dishonest and/or desperate attempt to claw back as much of any winnings, a player might have been lucky enough to get.
They're either greedy or have financial problems.
The thing I've never understood about this money laundering business, is if a casino insists that winnings are paid via the same method as the deposit. Which most, if not all the decent ones do.
How can you launder money?
Rogue casino term. Into the pit they go...The minimum withdrawal amount is £10.
The maximum withdrawal amount is £1500 per week and £3000 per month for all games. In the case of you winning a Slots Progressive Jackpot, you will be paid £10,000 each week.
Players who withdraw a sum of money that is 2 times or more greater than their lifetime deposits across the site will only be able to withdraw their winnings at a sum of £1000 per week. The remaining amount will be placed back in the player's account until such time that they are eligible for a further withdrawal. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All Progressive wins are exempt from this clause...
Ok, the good folks at the MGA have pointed me to the "4th AML Directive" -- formally DYou do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.-- which appears to be the guiding document for matters of this nature.
Looking through that I find the following in Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 2:
Member States shall require that the total turnover of the financial activity does not exceed a threshold which must be sufficiently low.
The Directive also allows operators to go beyond the basic threshold and apply more stringent procedures if they see fit:
Article 5 : Member States may adopt or retain in force stricter provisions in the field covered by this Directive to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, within the limits of Union law.
It should also be noted that the Directive gives operators the freedom to completely waive such procedures where they deem the case to be "low risk" insofar as money laundering goes.
In other words the operators have a lot of latitude: everything from waiving turnover requirements completely to applying requirements beyond the basic threshold.
It's important to keep in mind that the underlying goal of all of this is the detection, assessment and prevention of criminal money laundering and the financing of terrorist activity. Your average player deposit -- especially if they later withdraw back to the same source -- hardly qualifies as either and as such it's hard to imagine how punitive procedures as a matter of course are justified. And given that the casino using such punitive practices across the board will certainly profit from said practices I'd say that any attempt to justify should be seen for what it is: self-serving BS.
And that takes us right back to the beginning IMO: 1x turnover is totally reasonable; 5x turnover (or worse) is not at all reasonable and is certainly not a "requirement" of AML guidelines.
Vote with your wallets folks: if a casino is cramping your style insofar as minimum turnover of no-bonus deposits goes then tell them so, pull your money and find some place that is not padding its bottom line with what are essentially Terms-enforced losses.
In the case of you winning a Slots Progressive Jackpot, you will be paid £10,000 each week.[/B]
Is that even allowed? The jackpot money is pooled and paid out from all of the casinos that have that slot up right now, right? Or something along those lines anyway. So if you win 5M on Mega Moolah, the casino just takes that as a "loan" for themselves and pays you out 10k a week? Like wtf? You'd have to wait ten years to even get the full sum? In ten years, the casino might not even be operational anymore.