Withdrawal held due to SOW

If a Casino finds out that a customer received as an example £10,000 deposited from 3rd party which they use to gamble with, that is considered as high risk and the casino would need to get proper information/documentation on that transaction to continue the business relationship. If not satisfied, report to NCA and they would inform how to proceed if balance was still available on customers account.
I don't dispute that, but at the same time you can't demand someone provide a third parties personal information. How does the GDPR work in that situation? Unless you have express permission from the third party, which you won't have if someone gets their friend's bank statements and sends them to you, you cannot legally process or store their information, which clearly you are doing if they are supplied as part of a SoW package.

I've seen cases where casinos have requested this sort of information for a one off £100 transaction, which is ridiculous, that isn't suspicious at all.
 
I don't dispute that, but at the same time you can't demand someone provide a third parties personal information. How does the GDPR work in that situation? Unless you have express permission from the third party, which you won't have if someone gets their friend's bank statements and sends them to you, you cannot legally process or store their information, which clearly you are doing if they are supplied as part of a SoW package.

I've seen cases where casinos have requested this sort of information for a one off £100 transaction, which is ridiculous, that isn't suspicious at all.
No you are right, you cant give that without the 3rd party's consent, so you get into a tricky situation. But in reality its simple, you dont need to supply anything to an online casino, they are just forced to terminate the business relationship with you and either refund you your balance or send the case over to NCA to decide. In rare cases when NCA decides that payment is not allowed to be refunded, usually its donated to charity with approval from NCA or held to be paid back to right the owner of the funds.

Also to point out. The casino itself is never allowed to keep the funds. So they have nothing to gain.
 
And what's wrong in playing for someone else? Provided that person is of age and isn't excluded?

With skype, discord etc it's easy to stream a slot stream to your friend having gone 50/50 on the deposit. I've known of this sort of stuff going on for ages (Twitch etc). Doesn't make you a launderer, nor somebody with a gambling issue!

I think we have to look at this sensibly, it's a fun pastime and it should be just that.
Well technically you would breach a bunch of terms....

The problem is that using 3rd party funds is not illegal per se, but we need to understand the source of those funds. We need to make sure and have enough evidence the funds are clean.

We had the same with Gaz237 - given that it was mentioned here in a topic. He provided all we requested but we noticed a transfer from a 3rd party which most likely was used on the site to gamble. However, he managed to proof easily where the funds came from. Problem sorted. Account fully verified.
 
No you are right, you cant give that without the 3rd party's consent, so you get into a tricky situation. But in reality its simple, you dont need to supply anything to an online casino, they are just forced to terminate the business relationship with you and either refund you your balance or send the case over to NCA to decide. In rare cases when NCA decides that payment is not allowed to be refunded, usually its donated to charity with approval from NCA or held to be paid back to right the owner of the funds.
Surely it's better from a business perspective then to employ a stance like the major UK bookie sites do. Utilise a lot more electronic verification methods and focus on 'clear and obvious' patterns of foul play. That way you're not driving away genuine players whilst still performing due diligence?
 
Surely it's better from a business perspective then to employ a stance like the major UK bookie sites do. Utilise a lot more electronic verification methods and focus on 'clear and obvious' patterns of foul play. That way you're not driving away genuine players whilst still performing due diligence?

Well that is not enough accordingly to the regulation for casino.

But please be aware, Sportsbook and Casinos don't have same AML regulation. A sportsbook don't need to collect SOW.
Im not sure exactly how they get around it, but I guess if you do 2 companies, one for sports and one for casino with different licenses. You take all deposits on the Sportsbook company and then you have two balances, then you do internal transfer to fund your casino balance. That would in theory reduce the risk and SOW wouldn't be required.

It can also be so that they simply will accept any fine coming their way to avoid all hassle with customers. The UKGC fines are very small compared to what the big bookies are making.
Like William Hill was fined a few years back for AML failings.
 
And what's wrong in playing for someone else? Provided that person is of age and isn't excluded?

With skype, discord etc it's easy to stream a slot stream to your friend having gone 50/50 on the deposit. I've known of this sort of stuff going on for ages (Twitch etc). Doesn't make you a launderer, nor somebody with a gambling issue!

I think we have to look at this sensibly, it's a fun pastime and it should be just that.

I think you find reason already from many casinos T&C:s that you should play with your own money and details and nothing else. Of course bonus abusing would be nice if accepted, never use your own identity but some friends who still have all welcome bonuses available.

If gambling is fully 3rd party funded, it's high AML risk for quite obvious reasons, if i keep transferring you money all the time and you deposit and play, you quite soon find out in first SOW that it's not ok.

If casino have option that you can collect player pools, that's different thing and already visible there who all are participating but you just playing behalf of me is just not ok, ask from casinos you play and guess they advise pretty much same.

If you play together with somebody, don't just be that stupid that you let it be visible in your statement but use at least different method to receive funds and deposit, then you might be able to do that longer.
 
we are allowed to play on mga casinos. I rather play here with cashback and bonuses then on swedish licens. no cashback, no bonus and max 5000sek deposit a week.

Wouldn't make much noise of it if you wanna keep some places who have decided to allow deposits from regulated countries :)
 
I think you find reason already from many casinos T&C:s that you should play with your own money and details and nothing else.
Well of course. But what I'm saying is that if two friends are talking online and one fancies a deposit and the other wants in, what is wrong with the deposit being split? Where's the bonus abuse there? Once the person transfers in to the depositors account, it becomes the depositors money to do what they like with. It has left one legitimate account into another. They are no longer the sender's funds.

I'm just saying, this happens. It happens on a small scale in the remarkable thread where money is sent from one person to another with the sole aim of gambling it up.

Like I say, gambling is a fun pastime yet it's getting to the point where casinos are making people feel like they're part of an organised crime ring.
 
These rules are not really made by casinos but by regulators. Also collusion is against most of casinos T&C:s so if doing it, better not let it show in your statement or it's then own fault if not getting paid.
 
Well that is not enough accordingly to the regulation for casino.

But please be aware, Sportsbook and Casinos don't have same AML regulation. A sportsbook don't need to collect SOW.
Im not sure exactly how they get around it, but I guess if you do 2 companies, one for sports and one for casino with different licenses. You take all deposits on the Sportsbook company and then you have two balances, then you do internal transfer to fund your casino balance. That would in theory reduce the risk and SOW wouldn't be required.

It can also be so that they simply will accept any fine coming their way to avoid all hassle with customers. The UKGC fines are very small compared to what the big bookies are making.
Like William Hill was fined a few years back for AML failings.
As far as I'm aware they do have the same regulations under the law. If they suspect any hint of criminality then they have to undertake due diligence, the same as any other organisation dealing with financial matters.
I thought you were launching a sportsbook over a year ago, why don't you do that and save all the SoW requests if that is the case?
 
As far as I'm aware they do have the same regulations under the law. If they suspect any hint of criminality then they have to undertake due diligence, the same as any other organisation dealing with financial matters.
I thought you were launching a sportsbook over a year ago, why don't you do that and save all the SoW requests if that is the case?
I think the difference between the Maltese casinos and the UK ones is that the Maltese ones are setting these arbitrary thresholds to trigger SOW rather than doing it on an account by account basis. I would imagine the big UK bookies have designated personnel monitoring accounts rather than a generic department that solely deals with accounts once the arbitrary threshold has been met. That's the feeling I get anyway.

Someone with a £50 a week deposit limit set is highly unlikely to be a launderer nor a problem gambler yet under the system a lot of Maltese casinos operate, once the deposit threshold had been triggered, the customer would be expected to send in sensitive documents and have their withdrawal held for little reason at all.

That's the difference between how the UK & Maltese systems operate.
 
Last edited:
I explained in this thread here how AML regulation work in UK including attaching a link to the regulation itself.

Videoslots refusing payment
Yes - this.

Same old tricks from the casinos. The rules are perfectly clear. Either pay up or submit a SAR. If a SAR is submitted then HM Customs and Excise have 30 days in which to prosecute or instruct the Casino to give the money back - this can be extended to 60 days in extreme/complicated circumstances - think drug cartels and 7/8 figure amounts as those are the circumstances where it is extended.


Now, I can tell you there would not be a single Casino in the the UK that has submitted more than a couple of these in a calendar year - if that - due to the work involved, the authorities that need to be notified and most importantly the red flags that come into play when applying for re-licence to trade as a Casino.

Yet still we have same old tricks attempted by the usual culprits, thinking they have Carte Blanche to withhold funds as they see fit.

You are well within your rights to demand a chargeback from your bank for the £500 and you will likely get it as well.
I explained in this thread here how AML regulation work in UK including attaching a link to the regulation itself.

Videoslots refusing payment
 
Now, I can tell you there would not be a single Casino in the the UK that has submitted more than a couple of these in a calendar year - if that - due to the work involved, the authorities that need to be notified and most importantly the red flags that come into play when applying for re-licence to trade as a Casino.

I do believe several companies submitted over 100s of SAR's in the UK. The top 3 companies in Malta all submitted over 100 during 2019.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Gambling companies in UK submitted over 4000 SAR's between April 2018 to March 2019 together, that amount is probably higher during 2020.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
I think the difference between the Maltese casinos and the UK ones is that the Maltese ones are setting these arbitrary thresholds to trigger SOW rather than doing it on an account by account basis. I would imagine the big UK bookies have designated personnel monitoring accounts rather than a generic department that solely deals with accounts once the arbitrary threshold has been met. That's the feeling I get anyway.

Someone with a £50 a week deposit limit set is highly unlikely to be a launderer nor a problem gambler yet under the system a lot of Maltese casinos operate, once the deposit threshold had been triggered, the customer would be expected to send in sensitive documents and have their withdrawal held for little reason at all.

That's the difference between how the UK & Maltese systems operate.

Which casino requested SOW on £50 deposit?
 
Which casino requested SOW on £50 deposit?
Energy requested SoW from me on under £100 deposits in a 2 year period. Not just a request of what my income was, a full SoW, payslips, bank statements etc. That was after a £20 deposit, my first one for about 6 months.
There was another requested it on lifetime deposits of around £1000 (about 3 year old account), and I was in profit there. They said it was RG related, so they thought I might have a gambling problem with an average of £7ish a week, of which I didn't actually lose anything. Never reversed or anything either. Yep, that makes sense. Needless to say, both accounts were closed instantly.
 
There was another requested it on lifetime deposits of around £1000 (about 3 year old account), and I was in profit there. They said it was RG related, so they thought I might have a gambling problem with an average of £7ish a week,
:laugh: :laugh:

This just highlights the issue perfectly. Absolutely 0 justification to request such information.

Just goes to prove that at some casinos, they don't even take time to look at the account history before hitting you with such requests. Backs up my assertion above about arbitrary limits. As you can see from your example, this is NOT the way to go about business.
 
Anybody using 3rd party funds should be banned and have every penny confiscated.

if you do not have the means to fund gambling yourself at the first point of contact then you have no business placing a wager anywhere.

not only is it embarrassing anyone should use a third party to spin a slot it throws up red flags all over for the casino whom rightly have money laundering and source of wealth to consider, not to mention KYC and the rules they must adhere to.
 
Anybody using 3rd party funds should be banned and have every penny confiscated.

if you do not have the means to fund gambling yourself at the first point of contact then you have no business placing a wager anywhere.

not only is it embarrassing anyone should use a third party to spin a slot it throws up red flags all over for the casino whom rightly have money laundering and source of wealth to consider, not to mention KYC and the rules they must adhere to.
Don't be naive mate, it happens. A tad harsh.

I've seen community deposits on Twitch (non affiliated). It halves the liability (loss) for both parties and adds an element of fun. Doesn't mean the individual doesn't have the means to fund their own gambling or are a launderer!

A lot of assumptions are made about people and their circumstances where gambling is concerned!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top