Videoslots withholding £7k balance due to source of wealth

[dkwyw]

Hi all.

I am with Videoslots in the UK. Been using for many months, fully verified and 5-figure deposits and withdrawals. Now suddenly and without notice they have blocked my account and refused access to my £7k balance. After chasing their CS several times I finally managed to find out my account has been suspended pending source of wealth requirements. It seems they sent an email from Mr Vegas by mistake instead of Videoslots. 🙄

I have told them I don't want to share such personal details but they are refusing to allow access to my funds saying they will just sit out the 8 week period before inviting me to push for independent resolution. It's already been 4 weeks since my withdrawal was refused and 2 weeks since I escalated the issue as a complaint.

I thought it was against UK guidelines to withhold available balance during a source of wealth process? Does anyone know what will happen when it goes to IBAS?

Any help or advice much appreciated.

@Team.Videoslots

 

[satchnz]

It is totally against UKGC guidelines to hold up a withdrawal request for SOW requirements if they could have reasonably requested this information earlier, and by the sounds of your post, they could have earlier. I don’t know why online casinos do this in the UK as it is blatantly obvious what they are doing.

 

[Scott1baird]

because they can get away with it.

 

[satchnz]

because they can get away with it.

That’s exactly it. The UKGC likes to make rules and regulations, but they have no intention of enforcing them unless they know they will receive millions in fine payments by doing so.

 

[L&L-Jan]

I thought it was against UK guidelines to withhold available balance during a source of wealth process? Does anyone know what will happen when it goes to IBAS?

Any help or advice much appreciated.

@Team.Videoslots

Not entirely true, it depends on the time frames. But casinos can hold the withdrawal.

Just provide the docs as thats gambling since 2020 and moving forward.

 

[Jono777]

I do agree with both sides of the coin on this matter

1) If a player is fully KYC verified / standard ID checks passed and has been for a while and the account activity is more or less the same as it has always been (player history etc) then pay the player in the normal T&C time frame.

2) If a player suddenly starts playing higher bets, making larger deposits and more often, the go ahead with the EDD

As stated many times by myself and others I strongly feel there is so many misunderstood terms and grey areas laid out by the UKGC and casinos are being super careful rather than risking huge fines and penalties.

 

[Scott1baird]

If a player is verified enough to make a deposit then they should also be verified for withdrawals aswell, if you want to make them do a SOW then it should only be allowed when the account does not have funds either available or in pending.

from the UKGC
Where a gambling business needs to ask their customers for more information they must do so at the earliest opportunity. They cannot demand that customers submit any additional information as a condition of withdrawing funds from their account if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier.

 

[Scott1baird]

I do agree with both sides of the coin on this matter

1) If a player is fully KYC verified / standard ID checks passed and has been for a while and the account activity is more or less the same as it has always been (player history etc) then pay the player in the normal T&C time frame.

2) If a player suddenly starts playing higher bets, making larger deposits and more often, the go ahead with the EDD

As stated many times by myself and others I strongly feel there is so many misunderstood terms and grey areas laid out by the UKGC and casinos are being super careful rather than risking huge fines and penalties.

point 2 can be so abused by the casinos, what would they determine a higher bet as we all like to raise the stakes when we have a higher balance.

 

[satchnz]

I really don’t get why people in the industry cannot understand that people don’t want to share their financial history with an online casino. The info requested is required to be sent via unsecured methods, and is given to someone who is probably not qualified to read or understand it. Then what happens with this info??

Getting back to the original question, an online casino simply cannot hold up a withdrawal due to SOW requirements if they could have reasonably asked for it earlier. Sure if the player’s deposit amount or frequency suddenly increases beyond what has been normal for that player, then the casino may not have had time to request SOW. But from what the OP has described, it seems as if there was nothing out of the ordinary, and the casino should have requested SOW after one of the earlier 5 figure deposits “over many months”. But for the casino to then lock an account with only a 4 figure balance just does not make any sense. Of course this all goes out the window if the OP hasn’t disclosed the full story.

 

[Jono777]

point 2 can be so abused by the casinos, what would they determine a higher bet as we all like to raise the stakes when we have a higher balance.

I maybe should have explained slightly better, was trying to be quick.

I referred to glaring changes, such as £25 deposits becoming £100 deposits and regularly. Also (90% of the time) 20p/40p/60p bets becoming £1/£2/£4 and these higher stakes being applied every session.

Agreed we all like to raise and try a few higher bets when in front (LMAO! these days - mission impossible) but these are a rare occurrence and would show in previous sessions as a (Semi) regular thing.

 

[aceking123]

Seems they have no problems whatsoever to taking the deposits......................... chin up old boy we think it's time to hold your withdrawal because we didn't have sufficient proof that your depositing is you, really just how convenient......

 

[lord flashheart]

If a player is verified enough to make a deposit then they should also be verified for withdrawals aswell, if you want to make them do a SOW then it should only be allowed when the account does not have funds either available or in pending.

Sounds good in principle, but can also be completely retarded as what happened with my recent SOW with one company.

Hadn't used them for nearly a year, tried to deposit and and got told to contact customer services. They wanted SOW documents which consisted of the usual payslips / proof of earnings, but also "Last 3 months of banking statements showing deposits to them"
I pointed out that I'd never used my bank / debit card to deposit (used Paypal / Neteller) with them and hadn't made a deposit for nearly a year.
Didn't budge at all despite pointing out what they were asking for was impossible for me to prove - from the back and forth I had with them it appeared they wanted me to prove I could afford to spend £0 with them during the last 3 months.
Wouldn't allow neteller / paypal proof of deposits from my last transactions - were adamant it had to be my bank within the last 3 months. Absolute brainlets.

Also - payslips / proof of earnings wouldn't even justify previous play anyway depending on how financial circumstances change - could easily earn more money and have higher outgoings / cost of living.

UKGC are not fit for purpose and run by absolute idiots IMO

 

[dkwyw]

from the UKGC
Where a gambling business needs to ask their customers for more information they must do so at the earliest opportunity. They cannot demand that customers submit any additional information as a condition of withdrawing funds from their account if they could have reasonably asked for that information earlier.

Thanks, this is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping someone would share. I found the link to this for anyone else who might find this useful

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

I really don’t get why people in the industry cannot understand that people don’t want to share their financial history with an online casino. The info requested is required to be sent via unsecured methods, and is given to someone who is probably not qualified to read or understand it. Then what happens with this info??

Getting back to the original question, an online casino simply cannot hold up a withdrawal due to SOW requirements if they could have reasonably asked for it earlier. Sure if the player’s deposit amount or frequency suddenly increases beyond what has been normal for that player, then the casino may not have had time to request SOW. But from what the OP has described, it seems as if there was nothing out of the ordinary, and the casino should have requested SOW after one of the earlier 5 figure deposits “over many months”. But for the casino to then lock an account with only a 4 figure balance just does not make any sense. Of course this all goes out the window if the OP hasn’t disclosed the full story.

Full story has been disclosed. I've made around 50 deposits averaging £2.2k across the life of my account, with both total deposits and total withdrawals adding up to over £100k each. Since my account was last at zero I made a deposit of £2k which I turned into £7k then my account got blocked when I tried to make a withdrawal.

Thanks all for your help and advice so far.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Not entirely true, it depends on the time frames. But casinos can hold the withdrawal.

Just provide the docs as thats gambling since 2020 and moving forward.

They cannot hold indefinitely. As far as I’m aware (something the late Colinsunderland often pointed out), there’s a limited window which, once elapsed, puts the onus on the casino to either pay up or report the player.

You say people should provide the documents but don’t acknowledge that some people simply don’t feel comfortable giving such sensitive information to casinos. To some people they may even feel more comfortable having the qualified authorities check them over. For one, the authorities probably wouldn’t even pay a blind bit of notice to a £50 payment paid into an account by a friend, nor ask for third party statements!

Moving forward, I think all of these checks will become automated…which will make them much more player friendly. They already partially are in regards to UK based casinos anyway…and it already runs a lot more smoothly.

 

[lord flashheart]

They cannot hold indefinitely.

Surely SOW requests in this instance violate the law. Gambling debts are enforceable in the UK AFAIK

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Gambling debts are enforceable in the UK AFAIK

I think so. Seen a few examples on line with regards to this SOW scenario where the various casinos didn’t even bother to defend themselves.

Personally if I owned a casino, unless I had strong suspicion of fraud, I’d pay up and close the player account. Why drag it out??

 

[ReactZzHDx]

Videoslots are scum and scammers, don't trust them and dead ass customer service who only know how to say please way for 3 months. I have had a. horrible experience with them and I have all the evidence of them breaking the law, so if anyone wants to take them to court, I will help.

@Team.Videoslots you are all useless

they only care about taking other peoples money. all scum. Videoslots have ruined online casinos for me

 

[Scott1baird]

this was my wife from ages ago, declined as she refuses to send in any bank docs to any non UK based casino.

Withdrawal VISA PIQ

£20.00

2022-02-18 15:41:43

Declined

and no this isn't video slots.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

this was my wife from ages ago, declined as she refuses to send in any bank docs to any non UK based casino.

Withdrawal VISA PIQ

£20.00

2022-02-18 15:41:43

Declined

and no this isn't video slots.

Ridiculous over £20. It’s not small piffling amounts like this that the directive was designed for. It’s why applying arbitrary cumulative limits as the sole trigger for checks (like most Maltese casinos seem to do) doesn’t work. The trigger should be the warning which spurs the MLRO into looking deeper into the account, not something which triggers an outright SOW request. If the threshold has been met and there’s no sign of suspicion then that really should be that.

As I can see, most of the fines doled out by the UKGC have been the result of obvious and clear failings…5 and 6 figure amounts over a short timeframe. That’s the sort of play that should ring alarm bells.

 

[Scott1baird]

Ridiculous over £20. It’s not small piffling amounts like this that the directive was designed for. It’s why applying arbitrary cumulative limits as the sole trigger for checks (like most Maltese casinos seem to do) doesn’t work. The trigger should be the warning which spurs the MLRO into looking deeper into the account, not something which triggers an outright SOW request. If the threshold has been met and there’s no sign of suspicion then that really should be that.

As I can see, most of the fines doled out by the UKGC have been the result of obvious and clear failings…5 and 6 figure amounts over a short timeframe. That’s the sort of play that should ring alarm bells.

It's still sitting in her account, she can't play it out nor withdraw it.

 

[DesiCasinosIndia]

Theres seems some confusion yes.

First, many players i see (and i also see casinos telling players wrongly) that they are “fully verified”. In reality, it only means “fully verified for now”.

If a players spending behaviour changes, and the income profile no longer matches the spend, the casino is obliged to request documents to discharge any AML concerns. Casinos dont have a choice. And they also could not have request it sooner. The only way to request it sooner is to seek all docs (edd included) up front at the start which no casino will do. And no player will want to provide.

In this case, it will go to ADR (IBAS) and i’m fairly sure you will be told to provide the docs. (Unless videoslots can provide no reason for seeking the docs of course)

 

[Kroffe]

Theres seems some confusion yes.

First, many players i see (and i also see casinos telling players wrongly) that they are “fully verified”. In reality, it only means “fully verified for now”.

If a players spending behaviour changes, and the income profile no longer matches the spend, the casino is obliged to request documents to discharge any AML concerns. Casinos dont have a choice. And they also could not have request it sooner. The only way to request it sooner is to seek all docs (edd included) up front at the start which no casino will do. And no player will want to provide.

In this case, it will go to ADR (IBAS) and i’m fairly sure you will be told to provide the docs. (Unless videoslots can provide no reason for seeking the docs of course)

But what is happening is that these request seem to happen only at withdrawals, never at deposits.
So making the big deposit is fine, and if you lose it thats fine, no documents required.
Hit a big win and make a withdrawal and suddenly they are required.

So yes, they could have asked for it earlier and should have asked for it earlier.
If they flag a big deposit/deposits as something that might need an AML check, then lock the account at the time of deposit and perform those checks, not when/if a player gets lucky and makes a withdrawal.

If they can accept the deposit without asking questions they can also process the withdrawal coming from said deposit without asking questions.

 

[Kroffe]

They cannot hold indefinitely. As far as I’m aware (something the late Colinsunderland often pointed out), there’s a limited window which, once elapsed, puts the onus on the casino to either pay up or report the player.

I think the advice was 'close your account and they have to make a decision within x amount of time'.
Unless i remember wrong thats what many people did during the 'downfall' of Casumo when they started holding money hostage while asking for SOW documents.
And i think everyone was paid after waiting a while.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

But what is happening is that these request seem to happen only at withdrawals, never at deposits.
So making the big deposit is fine, and if you lose it thats fine, no documents required.
Hit a big win and make a withdrawal and suddenly they are required.

So yes, they could have asked for it earlier and should have asked for it earlier.
If they flag a big deposit/deposits as something that might need an AML check, then lock the account at the time of deposit and perform those checks, not when/if a player gets lucky and makes a withdrawal.

If they can accept the deposit without asking questions they can also process the withdrawal coming from said deposit without asking questions.

Also some casinos are asking for this stuff upon a threshold being reached, nothing to do with a change in spending habits nor any player profile bunkum. that is how it is meant to work...but looking at complaints on this forum that is blatantly not how it's working in many cases. Hence someone above having £20 frozen in their account.

Anyway, thread has been on a tangent somewhat and descended into general SOW gripes that have been done to death elsewhere on the forum (edited post as to not clog it up further). As far as the original poster is concerned, we don't have the full picture. I've been with VS for a while and have never had an issue and believe them to be trustworthy. Then again, I've never ever come close to having a 7k cashout

 

[justdoit]

if you high bet player best go to Crypto casino and play no need for anything to share , every UK casino is going to ask for Sow