thrills - account locked to provide source of funds. unresponsive and holding my cash

[Mr Wild]

The simple truth is that almost no gaming company have systems ready to handle the EU 4th Directive. Malta hasnt even published the requirements yet for its licence holders, only UK this summer.

We will be seeing more of these cases in the future, and it will take time for the gaming companies to adjust and creating customer friendly ways to handle these situations.

In the 4th directive any online casino in EU has become a financial service = bank, its ridiculous but the ugly truth.

 

[miksaxxx]

Totally understand that it doesn't seem good. But some certain details were kept hidden such as the registration day, deposits and withdrawal are on the same day, within the same hour actually. Our intention was protecting the player here, however, this post getting out of control since not everything given to you in the beginning. We would like to keep the rest of the conversations between the dedicated team and forgotlogin.

Thank you for your understanding on this.



We believe you are looking for the wrong GIG Our headquarter is in Malta

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

Thrillsrep

your headguarter is in usa. Did they lie in GIG guarter 3 2017.
UNITED STATES
10700 Stringfellow Rd., Suite 10
Bokeelia, FL 33922, USA
MALTA
GB Buildings, Penthouse
Watar Street
Ta' Xbiex XBX 1301
Malta

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

Old / Expired Link

lieng in oslo börs will not do anything good. If you dont know that your company HQ is in USA

 

[Casinomeister]

Hey guys and gals. Let's put down the torches and pitchforks. This is starting to look like a witch hunt where there are no witches. GiG is an upstanding company, it's no Affpower clipshot joint running out of cowboytown. They are trying to make an effort to explain what happened, and to come to some sort of understanding/resolution. This is the year of regulations and compliance from all around - even Malta is getting on the band wagon.

So please give this break and chill a little.

 

[Casinomeister]

And another thing, many of you experienced members are making a lot of assumptions here. You should know better - I have seen many-a-thread where senior members are getting riled up and then in the end given a 'told you so". Not meaning that there is anything dodgy going on, but someone is obviously doing their due diligence as far as I can tell. So have patience, and see how this turns out.

 

[dunover]

This is standard practice for big depositors and is required by the UKGC/IOM and MGA as part of the EU Money Laundering regulations. Don't worry, it takes a bit longer than standard KYC but Thrills aren't trying to fuck you over, they have a responsibility to do this and like most casinos it's prudent to do these checks at cash-out time, same as most do KYC at that juncture. Be patient, they'll pay you and they have a rep here to put your mind at rest.

 

[chiya]

This is standard practice for big depositors and is required by the UKGC/IOM and MGA as part of the EU Money Laundering regulations. Don't worry, it takes a bit longer than standard KYC but Thrills aren't trying to fuck you over, they have a responsibility to do this and like most casinos it's prudent to do these checks at cash-out time, same as most do KYC at that juncture. Be patient, they'll pay you and they have a rep here to put your mind at rest.

Yet again we come back to the fact that it's only required if you WD. Any casino will happily take any amount of money from you regardless of where it was obtained, but only when it's time to pay up they start to look into things and see that maybe they can get out of having to pay. I don't know how you can see this as acceptable behavior. Even if they're not doing this to find a reason to not pay, they're still doing this only after they're supposed to pay.

If you want to confirm your players are legit depositors and want to high roll as it were maybe you should think about adding a feature to your site where your deposit limit is X, and to have it waived you'll have to contact the casino and have them verify you for highrolling as it were. Better option than allowing them to play tens if not hundreds of thousands of euros without blinking an eye .. as long as they don't win.

 

[colinsunderland]

Actually I've just seen there is a provision where a withdrawal should be delayed, but its very specific. Just been re-reading the various documents on this. So if this case falls under that category then the delay is fair and I apologise to Thrills if that is the case here.

I will say though, I think this is going to be extremely rare that a casino would find itself in this situation, and 99.9% of the time the withdrawal should be paid promptly. This could be one of those rare occasions from what both the OP and Thrills have posted in the thread.

However I don't agree these checks or KYC should be done on withdrawal, the UKGC is quite clear on them being done as soon as possible.

Casino operators must comply with the requirement to verify the identity of the customer,
any person claiming to act on behalf of the customer and, where applicable, any beneficial
owner before the establishment of a business relationship or the carrying out of the
transaction.

The Regulations, however, permit casino operators to complete verification during the
establishment of a business relationship if:

• this is necessary so as not to interrupt the normal conduct of business
• there is little risk of money laundering and terrorist financing occurring, but
• only provided that the verification is completed as soon as practicable after contact
is first established with the customer.

That doesn't mean months after a customer joins and then manages to make a withdrawal!

 

[miksaxxx]

Thrillsrep , where is HQ ?

And this op thing has gone over 12 days now.

It should be easy from one payments" fraud and anylyst" worker to do it somekind of resolution ?

Before GIG handled this asap ( one week ).

This is getting out of hands. Op dont get christmas and Thrills wont get also.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I find these new regulations problematic. Many, especially Dunover, know my "source of wealth", and so do Microgaming because they took them all away some 3 years ago However, with the passage of time, and the fact that some of these "wealth generators" ditched their UK players some while ago, accessing proofs back to 2009 could be difficult. I did have this "source of wealth" question from Neteller a while back, even though it should have been obvious to them because 95% or more of my transactions with casinos went through them, so they could see from their end that everything added up, and that the source of everything was three very big wins. In the end, they just wanted me to formally declare this to be the case in an email. They did not want me to SAR every single casino I had ever played at, Neteller, and my bank for a statement record of all transactions right back to 2004, the year I made my first foray into online casinos. The idea that casinos interpret this new directive as a requirement to go back to "transaction zero" is worrying, as it would be something myself and most other players would not be able to manage, the records simply won't be retievable.

There is a need for some common sense guidance from these regulators, such as saying that once the trail links back to another regulated entity (such as a previous casino withdrawal), it is up to that other regulated entity to have done the AML review, and that the current entity does not need to delve into the trail prior to this event.

This isn't just going to be a problem for casinos, it could become a problem for the economy as a whole because if the rules are too demanding, the legitimate economy will seize up with "red tape", and this will create the problem that AML is trying to solve by pushing people away from using Fiat currency and into the more lightly regulated cryptocurrency community, where they WILL be exposed to organised crime, who also use these cryptocurrencies for their internal dealings with other syndicates.
As for casinos and regulators, it could drive players away from properly licenced operators to the unlicenced ones who don't have to obey any regulations, but will not seem so rogue to players who have seen their money confiscated by a regulated casino on top of jumping through the hoops, whereas rogue casinos simply decide who to pay, but will usually pay under pressure if they can be convinced that doing so is in their business interests.

 

[forgotlogin]

quick update this is finally resolved and got my money today please change to Resolvrd

 

[funnymunny]

Yet again we come back to the fact that it's only required if you WD. Yet again we come back to the fact that it's only required if you WD. Any casino will happily take any amount of money from you regardless of where it was obtained, but only when it's time to pay up they start to look into things and see that maybe they can get out of having to pay. I don't know how you can see this as acceptable behavior. Even if they're not doing this to find a reason to not pay, they're still doing this only after they're supposed to pay.

For reference, the extended KYC & DD required under the new laws can cost easily in excess of £250 per player for the 3rd-party reports, let alone the time required internally to source the players information, review the case, communicate with the player, etc... If casino's did these checks / incurred these costs at point of deposit, I dare say you could kiss goodbye to most bonuses, free spins, Christmas gifts, etc.

As for different handling of the same law at different casino's, this is like pretty much any other business sector... Different companies have different appetites to risk (so will have their deposit / withdrawal threshold triggers set differently). Please also remember that these laws aren't prescriptive, so different companies also have varying procedures. The way one company deals with certain situations is likely to be different from another company in the same industry (even if they are licensed by the same Regulator). Because the laws leave room for interpretation, you can be pretty certain that individual lawyers will take different views on what is required, how, and when.

I appreciate this isn't the best situation, but hope this info helps.



Great news @forgotlogin - glad it all worked-out in the end.

 

[Nate]

quick update this is finally resolved and got my money today please change to Resolvrd

Awesome - Thanks for the update

Nate