Resolved what a friday, SOW at Kwiff during withdrawal

[TeamKwiff]

Hey @steveyboy

In our recordings, we can see that an email was sent to your email address registered with us, as already mentioned before it would be great if you could get back to our agents via email on how you want to proceed. If you do not agree to comply your account will be settled according to paragraph 6.108 of The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos Fifth edition (Revision 2) February 2021 and this will be the least satisfying solution.

 

[steveyboy]

Hey @steveyboy

In our recordings, we can see that an email was sent to your email address registered with us, as already mentioned before it would be great if you could get back to our agents via email on how you want to proceed. If you do not agree to comply your account will be settled according to paragraph 6.108 of The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos Fifth edition (Revision 2) February 2021 and this will be the least satisfying solution.

thats threat number 2. and as for the email you keep going on about i never got one hence why i checked inbox and verification so what is your inbox for, so lets see what happens with your threat of money laundering. and by the way i am not a terrorist.

 

[nfehily]

@kwiff. Not making a very good first impression are you? Bbf should be interesting.

 

[mcgameboy]

Oh well, it looks like Kwiff is the latest Maltese clip joint to avoid.

Was considering signing up to this casino last week. Looks like I dodged a bullet.

 

[TeamKwiff]

It is one thing to seek help with unresponsive or unreasonable operators, but another one if providing false or incomplete information not willing to cooperate.
There is a big difference between threats and following relevant guidelines.
We think there is no further assistance needed here, all relevant information and solutions were provided.

 

[steveyboy]

It is one thing to seek help with unresponsive or unreasonable operators, but another one if providing false or incomplete information not willing to cooperate.
There is a big difference between threats and following relevant guidelines.
We think there is no further assistance needed here, all relevant information and solutions were provided.

might now be time to do a PAB max

 

[kennygamerboy]

All I can say is... WOW

 

[gonzo fonso]

I played there a few weeks ago put two £50 deposits in,anyway somehow with the free book of dead spins managed to withdraw £100 no SOF we're asked,funny how some UKGC sites never ask so its the casino and not always the UKGC

 

[jasonuk]

Hey @nfehily

That is correct, and we do not want to accuse anybody of providing false information but quoting our T&Cs, UKGC guidelines and throwing numbers around, we need some context here and believe the provided information is generic enough not to disclose personal information or transaction details.

Well this is clearly aimed at me, so I'll step up to the plate... If you can point out where I have misunderstood or provided false information, I am more than happy to correct it.

Going through the observations I have made between the two threads:

Firstly, this was framed by you as an affordability check - multiple members including myself questioned why this would impact a withdrawal. As a community, we have seen multiple operators exploit documentation checks as a way to stealth-reverse - so combined with observations from other CM members and wider feedback about being being asked for documentation at or close to the time of withdrawal, it was quite reasonable to highlight the UKGC's attitude to such behaviour and that if it applied here it may not be compliant.

Secondly, the discrepancy regarding the UKGC CDD guidance hasn't come from me - your terms and conditions mention "Additional verifications will be mandatory if you pay or stake in casino games and/or slots a total of two thousand euro", and your customer representatives are telling customers incomplete or inaccurate information in open forums (e.g. in the case of Bobby Robinson on TrustPilot, the customer highlights that they won more than £2,000 on the sportsbook - which is likely to trigger CDD - but the representative states that they have "exceeded €2,000 in total spend" which the customer refutes.

I highlighted the CDD guidance overall because it's likely to be relevant to the conversation given the deposit sizes mentioned by the OP, as demonstrated that you have now pivoted from "affordability check" (Monday) to "Regular CDD" (today). RG and AML are not the same, and there has been concerted efforts in recent years by the industry to separate the two.

Hey @steveyboy

In our recordings, we can see that an email was sent to your email address registered with us, as already mentioned before it would be great if you could get back to our agents via email on how you want to proceed. If you do not agree to comply your account will be settled according to paragraph 6.108 of The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos Fifth edition (Revision 2) February 2021 and this will be the least satisfying solution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the

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

(albeit the third revision) has paragraph numbers, but I'm guessing it'll be linked to section 6.17, which discusses a number of CDD scenarios - while pending, on success and on failure to complete.

As section 6.17 provides some mechanisms for the return of player funds if CDD cannot be completed, I can understand why "the least satisfying solution" could be construed as a threat by the OP:

D.5.6 kwiff reserves the right to refuse to transfer funds to you if kwiff reasonably suspects fraud, money laundering and/or any other form of illegal or suspicious activity and to report such details as kwiff considers necessary to the relevant authorities.

It is one thing to seek help with unresponsive or unreasonable operators, but another one if providing false or incomplete information not willing to cooperate.
There is a big difference between threats and following relevant guidelines.
We think there is no further assistance needed here, all relevant information and solutions were provided.

(highlight mine) You may want to reconsider the phrasing of that - there is a world of difference between a fraudulent customer providing false, incomplete or misleading information (and player fraud is a banning offense on CM) versus a legitimate customer refusing to provide any tier of additional Due Diligence information.

 

[steveyboy]

Well this is clearly aimed at me, so I'll step up to the plate... If you can point out where I have misunderstood or provided false information, I am more than happy to correct it.

Going through the observations I have made between the two threads:

Firstly, this was framed by you as an affordability check - multiple members including myself questioned why this would impact a withdrawal. As a community, we have seen multiple operators exploit documentation checks as a way to stealth-reverse - so combined with observations from other CM members and wider feedback about being being asked for documentation at or close to the time of withdrawal, it was quite reasonable to highlight the UKGC's attitude to such behaviour and that if it applied here it may not be compliant.

Secondly, the discrepancy regarding the UKGC CDD guidance hasn't come from me - your terms and conditions mention "Additional verifications will be mandatory if you pay or stake in casino games and/or slots a total of two thousand euro", and your customer representatives are telling customers incomplete or inaccurate information in open forums (e.g. in the case of Bobby Robinson on TrustPilot, the customer highlights that they won more than £2,000 on the sportsbook - which is likely to trigger CDD - but the representative states that they have "exceeded €2,000 in total spend" which the customer refutes.

I highlighted the CDD guidance overall because it's likely to be relevant to the conversation given the deposit sizes mentioned by the OP, as demonstrated that you have now pivoted from "affordability check" (Monday) to "Regular CDD" (today). RG and AML are not the same, and there has been concerted efforts in recent years by the industry to separate the two.


Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the

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

(albeit the third revision) has paragraph numbers, but I'm guessing it'll be linked to section 6.17, which discusses a number of CDD scenarios - while pending, on success and on failure to complete.

As section 6.17 provides some mechanisms for the return of player funds if CDD cannot be completed, I can understand why "the least satisfying solution" could be construed as a threat by the OP:



(highlight mine) You may want to reconsider the phrasing of that - there is a world of difference between a fraudulent customer providing false, incomplete or misleading information (and player fraud is a banning offense on CM) versus a legitimate customer refusing to provide any tier of additional Due Diligence information.

thanks for that what a good read. i will never disclose my bank details to any casino as its not that i do not trust them its when hackers get into there site no matter how good they think there security is they will still get in. just ask nasa someone got into there data, and its going on all the time. i have had hundreds of messages and spam emails from casinos where do they get my info from who knows.

 

[steveyboy]

Hey @satchnz you are right. A lot of different topics get mixed up in this thread.

We obviously do not want to solve AML cases here, we just offer help and try to be as transparent as possible, which is not always as simple as it seems due to certain factors.

But some facts about this case, it was not the first deposit of £200 from @steveyboy but there were 10 in total in different sizes.
Regular CDD was requested before the withdrawal.
No further communication has happened between @steveyboy and our teams in the relevant channels.
The case can't move forward without coming back to us and some cooperation.

has you have put i made 10 various deposits i will let you know it was 5 at£100 and 5 at £200 because i thought you were a good casino got that wrong, and in another reply you stated false information supplied, now that i do not understand as i have not supplied anything, your casino must have done a credit check and that was ok. so what is the false information you are saying i supplied

 

[satchnz]

Hey @satchnz you are right. A lot of different topics get mixed up in this thread.

We obviously do not want to solve AML cases here, we just offer help and try to be as transparent as possible, which is not always as simple as it seems due to certain factors.

But some facts about this case, it was not the first deposit of *snip* from @steveyboy but there were 10 in total in different sizes.
Regular CDD was requested before the withdrawal.
No further communication has happened between @steveyboy and our teams in the relevant channels.
The case can't move forward without coming back to us and some cooperation.

Something just doesn’t sit right for me, but I agree with others that any details about your customer or their transactions should not be disclosed here, unless the customer themselves reveals the info. I could never be a customer of your casino I’m afraid.

 

[kennygamerboy]

Either way you're deposits are peanuts In the grand scheme of things this casino is a BIG ONE TO AVOID

 

[jasonuk]

has you have put i made 10 various deposits i will let you know it was 5 at£100 and 5 at £200

Appreciate the additional information, as others have rightly pointed out it's for you to provide and entirely optional.

So if those are all of the transactions (i.e. lifetime deposits), then £1500 / €1737 wouldn't trigger the primary threshold trigger - however

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

does mention at least three other options that may apply a CDD check:

• If the "collection of winnings" (e.g. cumulative withdrawals) similarly exceeds €2000
• If an "occasional transaction" (whether single or linked) in either direction exceeds €1000 - a possibility given the above deposits exceed that amount.
• If they feel that the documents collected to date are inadequate, or question the veracity or accuracy - the good old fashioned "we can do it because we want to" cop-out.

So now that it has been clarified as a CDD check rather than an affordability check - I'm curious if the rep has used any language that would steer to one of those three ?

Something just doesn’t sit right for me, but I agree with others that any details about your customer or their transactions should not be disclosed here, unless the customer themselves reveals the info. I could never be a customer of your casino I’m afraid.

Of note that was the one theme I didn't bring up in the BBF thread originally, because it's important not to put too much weight on reviews and the loudest complaints / reviews can often be the most suspect ones. But for a bit of fun, let's look at the gems their representatives have come up with...

• "You are a matched bettor with a popular abuse site"
• "We can see from your account that you only come onto the site to play for bonuses and promotions"
• "We did not close your account - we self excluded you"

And then more relevant to this thread...

• "Currently your account is due some extra security checks due to some red flags raised by your withdrawal"
• "If you refuse to provide this information then your deposit prior to this will be refunded." - a similar threat to the one above, perhaps they accuse every customer of being a money launderer? ?

It should be noted that the CDD mentions:

if funds are to be repaid, then the amount repaid should consist of all funds owed to the customer at the point that the threshold was reached, plus all deposits made at that point and thereafter

so while there is some ambiguity regarding additional winnings after the threshold was reached, to add to the "doesn't sit right" vibe I'm wondering if refunding deposits is a commercial decision rather than a regulatory one?

 

[steveyboy]

Appreciate the additional information, as others have rightly pointed out it's for you to provide and entirely optional.

So if those are all of the transactions (i.e. lifetime deposits), then £1500 / €1737 wouldn't trigger the primary threshold trigger - however

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

does mention at least three other options that may apply a CDD check:

• If the "collection of winnings" (e.g. cumulative withdrawals) similarly exceeds €2000
• If an "occasional transaction" (whether single or linked) in either direction exceeds €1000 - a possibility given the above deposits exceed that amount.
• If they feel that the documents collected to date are inadequate, or question the veracity or accuracy - the good old fashioned "we can do it because we want to" cop-out.

So now that it has been clarified as a CDD check rather than an affordability check - I'm curious if the rep has used any language that would steer to one of those three ?


Of note that was the one theme I didn't bring up in the BBF thread originally, because it's important not to put too much weight on reviews and the loudest complaints / reviews can often be the most suspect ones. But for a bit of fun, let's look at the gems their representatives have come up with...

• "You are a matched bettor with a popular abuse site"
• "We can see from your account that you only come onto the site to play for bonuses and promotions"
• "We did not close your account - we self excluded you"

And then more relevant to this thread...

• "Currently your account is due some extra security checks due to some red flags raised by your withdrawal"
• "If you refuse to provide this information then your deposit prior to this will be refunded." - a similar threat to the one above, perhaps they accuse every customer of being a money launderer? ?

It should be noted that the CDD mentions:

so while there is some ambiguity regarding additional winnings after the threshold was reached, to add to the "doesn't sit right" vibe I'm wondering if refunding deposits is a commercial decision rather than a regulatory one?

hi 1, never took bonus 2, still waiting for rep to answer last message where i asked what false info have i supplied if hes calling me a cheat hes wrong i have never supplied anything to kwiff, but rep has now gone silent. and still not been paid. 3, and i closed my account myself. and i asked rep what is cdd never answered that either.

 

[TeamKwiff]

Hey guys,

We really appreciate your input and we love the dedication of @jasonuk really great research done on the regulations and we will forward the feedback from this thread to the relevant teams to improve in the relevant areas.

Sorry that not always the relevant teams can get involved here and we can confirm that we are not perfect. You are right @jasonuk there were some terms mixed up. We requested the ID & POA from the customer mentioning that we do affordability checks from time to time the only relevant question about that was to specify his occupation, not to prove it.

As stated already in the BBF thread we do not want to comment on thresholds and the construction of these but a fun question for you @jasonuk imagine you are the head of compliance of an operator and sitting down with auditors asking you how it comes that you have shedloads of customers which stopped playing after depositing €1999 and you never asked any of them for any documents, how would you explain that and how would you solve this?
No real need to answer to that but just to give it some thoughts

Many thanks to all the members who were following this thread understanding that we are operating in regulated markets for quite a while and we want to offer our services to responsible customers who want a solid product plus the security and safety of a legal platform for their entertainment. You are very welcome at kwiff!

And we have a big favour to ask everybody who is not interested in the above, please stay away!

You may ask why?

It is quite costly to run a fully regulated operation and we want to focus on customers who understand that point and that AML and RG are not just acronyms to confuse the customer but we have people doing quite a job to make it as safe and frictionless as possible.

 

[satchnz]

And we have a big favour to ask everybody who is not interested in the above, please stay away!

No one suggested for a minute that they weren’t interested (or supportive) of RG and AML. We are, however, interested in how these things are implemented by casinos as there are enough stories about how casinos have used this process to stall withdrawals.

I’d also point out that it was you who introduced confusion into this thread by first declaring that the checks were for affordability, then you pivoted to AML.

We just want to know that casinos are doing things fairly. It doesn’t feel like this is the case for this scenario hence why you received a few passionate responses.

 

[steveyboy]

Hey guys,

We really appreciate your input and we love the dedication of @jasonuk really great research done on the regulations and we will forward the feedback from this thread to the relevant teams to improve in the relevant areas.

Sorry that not always the relevant teams can get involved here and we can confirm that we are not perfect. You are right @jasonuk there were some terms mixed up. We requested the ID & POA from the customer mentioning that we do affordability checks from time to time the only relevant question about that was to specify his occupation, not to prove it.

As stated already in the BBF thread we do not want to comment on thresholds and the construction of these but a fun question for you @jasonuk imagine you are the head of compliance of an operator and sitting down with auditors asking you how it comes that you have shedloads of customers which stopped playing after depositing €1999 and you never asked any of them for any documents, how would you explain that and how would you solve this?
No real need to answer to that but just to give it some thoughts

Many thanks to all the members who were following this thread understanding that we are operating in regulated markets for quite a while and we want to offer our services to responsible customers who want a solid product plus the security and safety of a legal platform for their entertainment. You are very welcome at kwiff!

And we have a big favour to ask everybody who is not interested in the above, please stay away!

You may ask why?

It is quite costly to run a fully regulated operation and we want to focus on customers who understand that point and that AML and RG are not just acronyms to confuse the customer but we have people doing quite a job to make it as safe and frictionless as possible.

instead of asking members to stay away do your job and answer the questions i put forward about false info, or are you just ignoring me. and its now 7 days and still no payment of withdrawal.

 

[TheAddict]

I think they'll be doing themselves a favour, not you.

 

[steveyboy]

I think they'll be doing themselves a favour, not you.

what do you mean???

 

[nfehily]

The front on this rep! Keep digging mate haha.

 

[jasonuk]

Sorry that not always the relevant teams can get involved here and we can confirm that we are not perfect. You are right @jasonuk there were some terms mixed up. We requested the ID & POA from the customer mentioning that we do affordability checks from time to time the only relevant question about that was to specify his occupation, not to prove it.

So if we're back to an affordability check - as stated in post #12 - then the subsequent questions remain, why is a withdrawal being held?

Additionally, if this isn't a CDD check, the tone of post #26 (which cites the CDD legislation) and post #30 (which infers possible fraudulent behaviour) would be considered out of line by many.

It really unsettles people when the story keeps changing...

As stated already in the BBF thread we do not want to comment on thresholds and the construction of these but a fun question for you @jasonuk imagine you are the head of compliance of an operator and sitting down with auditors asking you how it comes that you have shedloads of customers which stopped playing after depositing €1999 and you never asked any of them for any documents, how would you explain that and how would you solve this?
No real need to answer to that but just to give it some thoughts

Having seen how the Responsible Gambling legislation has played out in the UK in recent years (and discussed at length on CM), I fully appreciate that dishonest actors can and will take full advantage of well-meaning rules, particularly those with rigid limits - and as a player community we have seen the full spectrum here from fraudulent players to malicious operators.

I agree that I should have said may not rather than wouldn't in "So if those are all of the transactions (i.e. lifetime deposits), then £1500 / €1737 may not trigger the primary threshold trigger" - I included appropriate conditionals elsewhere but missed that one.

It is quite costly to run a fully regulated operation and we want to focus on customers who understand that point and that AML and RG are not just acronyms to confuse the customer but we have people doing quite a job to make it as safe and frictionless as possible.

It's not an easy job, and I hope you can appreciate that it's not the nicest experience for the customer either - but those are the rules of the sandpit we all have to abide by. Given we have conflicting observations on when the RG/CDD request was made (and is something borne out by external reviews also), it may be prudent to investigate when the internal systems triggered the RG/CDD check versus when the first opportunity the customer could have seen it - the bigger that delay (particularly across a withdrawal boundary), the more painful and problematic those interactions can become.

instead of asking members to stay away do your job and answer the questions i put forward about false info, or are you just ignoring me. and its now 7 days and still no payment of withdrawal.

I agree, the previous reply on Wednesday afternoon was "We think there is no further assistance needed here, all relevant information and solutions were provided." - so if the rep still has nothing to add then it sounds like you are at a stalemate, then as you suggested a couple of days ago it may be worth seeing what @maxd thinks and perhaps it's PAB time?

In my eyes, the one question they need to answer pretty sharpish (if they haven't done so already) is what exactly happens to your funds if you continue to refuse? They've already cited parts of the CDD regulation despite this now being an affordability check again, so will they cash you out or will they refund your deposits or will they cite some T&Cs and try and confiscate the balance? Additionally, is there a smaller set of documentation (e.g. a pure identity check) that will satisfy this before closure? As a long-standing member from the UK, I'm assuming you would not be refusing a request for identity documents alone in this scenario?

 

[steveyboy]

So if we're back to an affordability check - as stated in post #12 - then the subsequent questions remain, why is a withdrawal being held?

Additionally, if this isn't a CDD check, the tone of post #26 (which cites the CDD legislation) and post #30 (which infers possible fraudulent behaviour) would be considered out of line by many.

It really unsettles people when the story keeps changing...


Having seen how the Responsible Gambling legislation has played out in the UK in recent years (and discussed at length on CM), I fully appreciate that dishonest actors can and will take full advantage of well-meaning rules, particularly those with rigid limits - and as a player community we have seen the full spectrum here from fraudulent players to malicious operators.

I agree that I should have said may not rather than wouldn't in "So if those are all of the transactions (i.e. lifetime deposits), then £1500 / €1737 may not trigger the primary threshold trigger" - I included appropriate conditionals elsewhere but missed that one.


It's not an easy job, and I hope you can appreciate that it's not the nicest experience for the customer either - but those are the rules of the sandpit we all have to abide by. Given we have conflicting observations on when the RG/CDD request was made (and is something borne out by external reviews also), it may be prudent to investigate when the internal systems triggered the RG/CDD check versus when the first opportunity the customer could have seen it - the bigger that delay (particularly across a withdrawal boundary), the more painful and problematic those interactions can become.


I agree, the previous reply on Wednesday afternoon was "We think there is no further assistance needed here, all relevant information and solutions were provided." - so if the rep still has nothing to add then it sounds like you are at a stalemate, then as you suggested a couple of days ago it may be worth seeing what @maxd thinks and perhaps it's PAB time?

In my eyes, the one question they need to answer pretty sharpish (if they haven't done so already) is what exactly happens to your funds if you continue to refuse? They've already cited parts of the CDD regulation despite this now being an affordability check again, so will they cash you out or will they refund your deposits or will they cite some T&Cs and try and confiscate the balance? Additionally, is there a smaller set of documentation (e.g. a pure identity check) that will satisfy this before closure? As a long-standing member from the UK, I'm assuming you would not be refusing a request for identity documents alone in this scenario?

another great read, but they are still not answering my question of false info being supplied when i have not supplied them with anything, that is slander as far as i am concerned. and as for pab have sent max that i wish to start a pab as rep is just ignoring me now. instead he is asking members to pass this post by WHY.

 

[Webzcas]

FYI @maxd is off now until Sunday, but I have flagged this thread to him.

 

[satchnz]

another great read, but they are still not answering my question of false info being supplied when i have not supplied them with anything, that is slander as far as i am concerned. and as for pab have sent max that i wish to start a pab as rep is just ignoring me now. instead he is asking members to pass this post by WHY.

All the best with your PAB mate. What a messed up situation.