Unable to withdraw at Casumo - awaiting verification of documents

[Mouche12]

Exactly, and I wonder what the UKGC would say about any casino permitting deposits whilst players cannot make withdrawals during the SOW phase.

 

[Nordog]

During SoW account should be disabled for both deposit and playing. Would give the casinos an insentive to apply it only when needed, and speed up the process. Right now they see a potential gain by only limiting customers. Really no insentive to fullfill the check before you eventually gamble everything away, and thats just to lure you one more time.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yeah, but the problem is the casino is getting pulled one way by the UKGC and another by the players. They are told to do the SoW but each player is different in their finances and affairs and although most would be simple PAYE people, many are not, so to avoid sanction the casino has to err on the side of caution, be a bit over-zealous as they were in my case. I agree with you that being a forum member can help in these cases. Pissed-off? I was FUMING.

No they don't have to do any of that, they need to follow the law, thats all. It's not even a particularly complex law, it's been round years and years, just because Casinos decided they didn't have to follow it, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Solicitors, Banks, Accountants etc all have followed AML procedures for decades, and only in rare cases would you see the level of scrutiny that casinos seem to think they can do.

Lets not also forget, for an AML investigation like you were subject to, the casino has to consider you were at a high risk of being involved in crime. This is also done on a case by case basis, individually. So they suspected you were a criminal.

One thing that should be made clear is that if withdrawals cannot be processed during the checks, then deposits should be prevented too. It's illogical to allow one and not the other. Before the check is completed satisfactorily, then during this time the casino has not yet proven SoW to the standard required so deposits are not guaranteed to be safe at that stage. Like the withdrawals aren't deemed to be apparently.

SoW is the new EMSEB it seems - win, draw but no lose for the casino.

In my view, if they suspect that you are involved in crime, then accepting deposits is worse than allowing a withdrawal. If they have suspicion, then by taking your money they are, by default, happy to handle proceeds of crime. If they suspect you are a problem gambler, then they are happy to accept money from someone with a gambling problem.

Holding withdrawals to ransom, especially while still accepting deposits, is a disgusting, predatory type of behavior.

 

[ternur]

There's one aspect relating to these cases (which are often discussed in public) of which the player community is largely being kept in the dark. And that is the relationship between the operator and the licensing authority.

What's being communicated through the back channels between the regulators and operators? Do this and that or risk losing the licence? It might be a subtle indication of things to come or a direct statement of intention by the regulator. The operator is pretty much SOL in that case. And could result in these excessive applications of rules and regulations. Out of fear or compulsion.

Having said that, there also seem to be operators and cases to which this does not apply. A balanced legal risk management may have faults. Or the operator might need to improve their internal processes. I'm sure the larger operators have these issues adequately under control, but there a lot of operators. Some might even be careless to a certain point.

There's a reason why a legal department is often called a "department no". When in doubt, say no. Just to be on the safe side.

 

[colinsunderland]

just a little add on to this, from the UKGC ADR document

Account suspended due to failed identity checks/ refusal to comply with identity checks
We expect ADR providers to consider the dispute based on the gambling business’s actions and the available evidence from both parties. ADR providers may wish to consider the nature of the information that the gambling business is requesting the consumer to provide, and whether it appears to be reasonable/fair in accordance with the requirements of consumer protection legislation and money laundering regulations. The provider may also wish to consider the reasons behind and the timing of the request. For example, if a gambling business allows a consumer to continue to deposit funds while refusing to allow him or her to withdraw them, this might cast some doubt on the necessity of the checks.

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

 

[colinsunderland]

and theres also this one

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

Gambling operators are being reminded that if they only request identity documents when a customer withdraws their funds, they could be putting their business at risk of failing to meet their anti-money laundering (AML) and social responsibility requirements – and in turn breaching the conditions of their licence.

This comes off the back of a number of instances where we have found operators requesting customer identity documentation only at the point of the customer withdrawing funds. There may have been little or no engagement with the customer before this point – this is a practice that does not demonstrate that the operator is managing the money laundering and social responsibility risks to their business effectively.

 

[Louis]

I just want to confirm the fact that I can in no way approve or decline document requests.
I can however try to help anyone, who contacts me, with the process when I'm available in the office.

I would also like to confirm that we follow the all the UKGC guidelines and rules they've given us and set out due to the UK licencing.

 

[Supababe]

When I read the forum here about casinos that ask for proof of wealth (regardless of the ethical discussions about whether this should be done upon deposit or not) I can’t help remembering this video.

If you can spare the time to watch it all then it might just make you think.




Regarding the lost money it mentions, it isn’t beyond belief that it could have tried to enter the online casino industry.
What would a bank account owned by a trafficker look like? Deposits from many ‘other’ People perhaps? No ‘genuine’ source for the money to come from?
Good on the casinos for being responsible enough to take steps.