Unable to withdraw at Casumo - awaiting verification of documents

[colinsunderland]

Well, the latest is this bollocks:

"Kindly be informed that your withdrawal has been cancelled .
Please send us all the required documents.
As soon your account is verified you can request a new withdrawal if you wish and we'll make sure to handle it as quick as we can!
Have a great day.
Kind regards, ****"

So 4 days after initiating it on Thursday, they've cancelled it. I've exhausted all documents available to me to supply for SOW.

So it's limbo. They will of course let me play it back and spunk it, which I will not.

I'm having my money held to ransom, despite making every effort to resolve this, I've now run out of stuff available to send them that's possible from my online banking. I'm screwed now.

Close the account, your balance has to be returned to you then (or them make a SAR if its AML, which I'm confident they won't with you already supplying so much info), make it clear you cannot and will not complete their SOW requirements so they cannot say they were waiting for more documentation.
What else are they wanting exactly?
If its AML they should have stated that in the initial request.

Edit: Just saw your reply, then account closure is all thats possible. Really think casinos pulling this shit should not be accredited. This shit being more the holding withdrawals to ransom than SOW stuff.

 

[dunover]

Close the account, your balance has to be returned to you then (or them make a SAR if its AML, which I'm confident they won't with you already supplying so much info), make it clear you cannot and will not complete their SOW requirements so they cannot say they were waiting for more documentation.
What else are they wanting exactly?
If its AML they should have stated that in the initial request.

Well unlike the FIRST time I did it, with the assistance of Live Chat in 45 minutes, the requests seem to change with each doc I supply. I was asked for one type of screenie on live chat, supplied it, then another request for screenie via e-mail, supplied it, then pdf's of certain things, supplied them. Now they want a pdf from an account which only offers csv or OFX docs. I have sent screenies of this one already.

Now the problem is partly their interface menu - if you put self-employed in, it then asks for documents which assume you are a company (you don't have to be) accounts from a professional (again you don't have to use one if you can do it yourself). So then begins a frustrating and prolonged e-mail exchange where alternative things are requested, which then get added to subsequently or rejected. If you could see what I have provided, in an instant you'd be able to see this proves everything beyond reasonable doubt, every transaction is traced through every account.

 

[Lobo]

Just close your accoung and request the balance, as mentioned above, and see what they say.
Btw, I said the same thing, but they replied (multiple times); sorry, we need doucments. They even did not wanna close my account.

I believe you can deposit more than €1000 a month, so Casumo is for sure not your type of casino with the stakes you play.
You need to be way under your monthly salary in your deposits to be safe at Casumo (warning to other players).

 

[dealer wins]

They need to be rogued and the UKGC needs to revoke their licence the way they behave with their customers money.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well unlike the FIRST time I did it, with the assistance of Live Chat in 45 minutes, the requests seem to change with each doc I supply. I was asked for one type of screenie on live chat, supplied it, then another request for screenie via e-mail, supplied it, then pdf's of certain things, supplied them. Now they want a pdf from an account which only offers csv or OFX docs. I have sent screenies of this one already.

Now the problem is partly their interface menu - if you put self-employed in, it then asks for documents which assume you are a company (you don't have to be) accounts from a professional (again you don't have to use one if you can do it yourself). So then begins a frustrating and prolonged e-mail exchange where alternative things are requested, which then get added to subsequently or rejected. If you could see what I have provided, in an instant you'd be able to see this proves everything beyond reasonable doubt, every transaction is traced through every account.

Luckily I've only had one SOW, that was from Energy, where my lifetime deposits were about £500 and don't think I had a singe withdrawal (in around 2 years - ooooo great money launderer me), so I just instantly closed my account, but they didn't have any money to hold hostage like Casumo do with you. The reason I didn't even attempt it was simple, I know I will struggle to provide what they want. I am not, under any circumstances, showing my affiliate income with where it came from, to a rival casino/affiliate program. Thats non negotiable. I'm not a Ltd company, which many casinos can't seem to understand, and I do my accounting myself, and as you say they want accounts signed off by professionals. I also have some money in a linked account from an inheritance that I cannot prove the source to a casino. Police could trace it easily enough if they wanted to prove it was legit, but I don't have access to the account it originally came from, it was set up solely to deal with the probate 10 years ago, and closed once the money was distributed. There was also no paperwork really to show what it was for at the time, let alone 10 years later.

All stuff like this does, is stops me playing at places. I used to deposit £100's/£1000's a week at Casumo, now, its barely anything. I deposited £30 Saturday as they had a £7k reel race on BoD, withdrrew £40. Can't remember ever withdrawing £40 from a casino, but just thought, screw that, if I get it up to a few grand, I'll get loads of shit, not worth the hassle!

 

[Mr Wild]

You might be able to point to this article to help to get your funds out

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

"When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for. However, if you have asked to withdraw funds from your account, the company must not demand that you provide additional information as a condition of releasing those funds, if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier. "

 

[dunover]

You might be able to point to this article to help to get your funds out

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

"When the gambling company is checking your identity for another reason, it can freeze your account until it has confirmed who you are. There is no time limit on how long it can do this for. However, if you have asked to withdraw funds from your account, the company must not demand that you provide additional information as a condition of releasing those funds, if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier. "

Yes, which they could have as I made the 2k threshold way before this withdrawal attempt.

 

[Lobo]

wow, after just €2k?
Casumo most have made som major adjustments to their SOW-process recently.
Probably thousands of poor souls out there strugling with the same...

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes, which they could have as I made the 2k threshold way before this withdrawal attempt.

Theres no set threshold for AML checks, but common sense tells you, if they are going to do it, unless you have deposited and withdrew to a different account without wagering, or playing red/back to wager the minimum needed, then any SoW should be done either on deposit, or ideally after a withdrawal. It seems to me that casumo are targeting people after they have withdrew.

Shall we have a side bet on if the rep comes in to make a comment on this policy and explain why they are, contrary to UKGC advice, holding withdrawals to ransom?

 

[dunover]

OK, in my case @CasumoLouis has told them that he is satisfied with the docs and the integrity of the account and it has been fully SoW and ID verified so is back to normal, and the withdrawal has now been processed.
Thanks to him for the help, but be aware that unlike a PAYE person, or somebody with a simple source of funds like an inheritance or lotto win etc., if you are self-employed this is a very arduous process and you are also restricted by what type of bank accounts you have and whether they have tools to download up-to-date statements in pdf format. One of mine didn't and caused more aggro.

Ironically it's established me as a Casumo player as I daren't deposit elsewhere in case I go through it all again, which I couldn't take!

So sorted eventually. Phew!

 

[Lobo]

Glad it was solved, @dunover.
You are a staff member at casinomeister.com. The trainees at accounting become aware of that, and I think that had some say in the decision

 

[colinsunderland]

Glad you got it sorted out, but it does raise the question, if what you supplied was enough to verify you, then why was the verification department asking for more? Knowing you from a forum shouldn't be enough to over ride a legitimate AML (or RG) SoW investigation, so the obvious thing to take from that, is that they didn't actually need the information they requested. How many other people, who don't have access to a rep, are sitting there being told they can't have their money due to the verification department wanting documents that are impossible to provide.

 

[Borgie]

Glad you got it sorted out, but it does raise the question, if what you supplied was enough to verify you, then why was the verification department asking for more? Knowing you from a forum shouldn't be enough to over ride a legitimate AML (or RG) SoW investigation, so the obvious thing to take from that, is that they didn't actually need the information they requested. How many other people, who don't have access to a rep, are sitting there being told they can't have their money due to the verification department wanting documents that are impossible to provide.

Also as an affiliate is it good to be trying to get people to sign up
somewhere where it seems the withdrawal funds will be held to ransom as soon as they get the opportunity !

 

[Lobo]

Also as an affiliate is it good to be trying to get people to sign up
somehwere where it seems the withdrawal funds will be held to ransom as soon as they get the opportunity !

Casumo should atleast be labeled as a grey zone casino.

 

[Nordog]

This is not acceptable from casumo. If a casino like casumo cant follow the regulations on when to ask for these stuff, how on earth can ukgc expect anyone to do it? I hope Casumo gets a hefty fine for doing this stuff over and over again.

 

[Slottery]

Theres no set threshold for AML checks, but common sense tells you, if they are going to do it, unless you have deposited and withdrew to a different account without wagering, or playing red/back to wager the minimum needed, then any SoW should be done either on deposit, or ideally after a withdrawal. It seems to me that casumo are targeting people after they have withdrew.

Shall we have a side bet on if the rep comes in to make a comment on this policy and explain why they are, contrary to UKGC advice, holding withdrawals to ransom?

Waiting a day when common sense landing to some online casinos and their SOW checks... My family been quite long living so maybe will see that day..

These thresholds and some other "rules" and "regulations" what some reps here have been referring are bit mysterical as can't find some anywhere even been reading all regulations around this area when SOW was actually implemented (been existing for ever but no casino were doing it before like two + years ago...) and all implemention guides and help manuals UKGC/MGA/SGA/DGA have been providing for operators since but maybe just too stupid to find these certain "regulations"

Would really be welcome that regulators would provide very clear guide lines like for KYC procedures to when and how complete these checks to players who are no flagging any higher risk in their behavior, now when all casino operators are implementing their own processes.... we see what have happened at least with some operators what we read here. If all would know these demands and all casinos also what in minimum to ask and when, it would be bit less confusing.

 

[dunover]

Glad you got it sorted out, but it does raise the question, if what you supplied was enough to verify you, then why was the verification department asking for more? Knowing you from a forum shouldn't be enough to over ride a legitimate AML (or RG) SoW investigation, so the obvious thing to take from that, is that they didn't actually need the information they requested. How many other people, who don't have access to a rep, are sitting there being told they can't have their money due to the verification department wanting documents that are impossible to provide.

I think it was more a 'balance of probability' thing. That is was realistically impossible for me to have made it all up.

 

[dunover]

Glad it was solved, @dunover.
You are a staff member at casinomeister.com. The trainees at accounting become aware of that, and I think that had some say in the decision

That would have had no bearing, other than in the same as any other CM member, I could ask their rep for assistance.

 

[colinsunderland]

I think it was more a 'balance of probability' thing. That is was realistically impossible for me to have made it all up.

Maybe, however doesn't change the fact, someone not a member of a forum, wouldn't have been paid yet. Nor does it change the fact they were holding your withdrawal to ransom, despite what the UKGC states.

 

[chiya]

Pdf's of an ISA account which doesn't have a facility to download pdf's like my current accounts do, and those I have supplied.
I've simply run out of possibilities now. To be honest, if I did have this then it would never be enough, the goalposts would move and it would be something else.

You could've just converted the CSV to PDF and called it a day. What else can you do when PDF cannot be downloaded.

 

[nutnut]

I think it was more a 'balance of probability' thing. That is was realistically impossible for me to have made it all up.

The fact the rep is the one that approved it makes it a mockery and actually proves even more how much of a piss take it all was.

As Colin says if this was a non member he still be waiting.

Im glad it's sorted for you, but my opinion doesn't change on them. They're as rogue as they come imo from my view point.

 

[paul7388]

Glad you got paid Dunover but to be honest if they were giving you the runaround until the Rep gave it the okay then it was only because of who you are. Does not look good for them if a Mod from here is getting messed about.

But after seeing this happening to others then it makes you wonder how many people not members of forums are getting the same aggro. You even said yourself that the Rep from here sorted it all.

So think the focus in first place should be why people are getting all this crap on withdrawing. Fact a Rep is sorting out members problems does not make any difference at all to the fact it is happening in first place. What about the people that will be getting the same hassles as yourself but do not have forums for help.

 

[dunover]

Glad you got paid Dunover but to be honest if they were giving you the runaround until the Rep gave it the okay then it was only because of who you are. Does not look good for them if a Mod from here is getting messed about.

But after seeing this happening to others then it makes you wonder how many people not members of forums are getting the same aggro. You even said yourself that the Rep from here sorted it all.

So think the focus in first place should be why people are getting all this crap on withdrawing. Fact a Rep is sorting out members problems does not make any difference at all to the fact it is happening in first place. What about the people that will be getting the same hassles as yourself but do not have forums for help.

Mod has nothing to do with it from my point of view. Everyone else is entitled to contact a rep for assistance too and believe me it was only after exhausting about every document and downloading tool I had in various places that it did get sorted after 4-5 days - just.

To put things into perspective, due to my status as self-employed and effectively a freelancer and having accounts and incoming money from here there and everywhere, I am what you might call a basket case when it comes to a simple SoW, especially as I do my own accounting and haven't chosen to avoid tax by becoming a registered company.

In fact, the first time I went through this grief, I wasn't a mod and it took an hour and was comparatively easy. This time, I spent 5 or 6 hours in total on it over 4 days and it was purgatory. Go figure.

 

[paul7388]

Mod has nothing to do with it from my point of view. Everyone else is entitled to contact a rep for assistance too and believe me it was only after exhausting about every document and downloading tool I had in various places that it did get sorted after 4-5 days - just.

To put things into perspective, due to my status as self-employed and effectively a freelancer and having accounts and incoming money from here there and everywhere, I am what you might call a basket case when it comes to a simple SoW, especially as I do my own accounting and haven't chosen to avoid tax by becoming a registered company.

In fact, the first time I went through this grief, I wasn't a mod and it took an hour and was comparatively easy. This time, I spent 5 or 6 hours in total on it over 4 days and it was purgatory. Go figure.

Yeah i know. But like you just said everyone is entitled to go to a Rep. You admit Rep sorted it. He would probably have done it for any member here but fact you are a Mod would give him more reason to get it sorted.

But all this is irrelevant . You were pissed of with the process . So are others. That is what should be getting looked at. If things are being done right then there should be no need for a Rep to be involved. Also goes back to the whole what about those that are not members on here. They have no Rep to sort things.

 

[dunover]

Yeah i know. But like you just said everyone is entitled to go to a Rep. You admit Rep sorted it. He would probably have done it for any member here but fact you are a Mod would give him more reason to get it sorted.

But all this is irrelevant . You were pissed of with the process . So are others. That is what should be getting looked at. If things are being done right then there should be no need for a Rep to be involved. Also goes back to the whole what about those that are not members on here. They have no Rep to sort things.

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.

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.

 

[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.