I had a mg casino do that to me. My deposit was instadebit when i went to withdraw i used instadebit they told me up to 3 weeks. Also if i used moneybookers or c2pay would be 3 days. So i asked them to use one of those, answer was no had to be means of deposit. Waited longer then 3 weeks for them to put it into my moneybookers account. So that was a casino i never went back to. Right now slotsplus i used instadebit to deposit but cant wr with that method so now its going to ewallet so will see how long that takes.
Rushmore last nite i sent docs in this am email bounced back resent guess what
money is already in my ewallet account. Now thats a casino i will do business with at least your not waiting weeks for your winnings.
There was also a thread awhile back about how one casino (forget which one) totally ignored the withdrawal method (even though they deposited via that ewallet) and processed the funds into a closed C2P account.
....and they wonder why players assume they are being jerked around, lied to, or victim of stalling tactics.
It's quite clear, either the rules say "must be back to method of deposit" or they don't. If the same casino tells player A this rule, yet jerks player B around by saying this rule is NOT available, then there is some mistruth in what players are being told.
I have often seen this "must be back to method of deposit" rule described as being "out of our control" by casinos, with them citing (mainly) the good ol' FATF agreements on the prevention of moneylaundering.
So, what of those cases where casinos themselves breach these so called rules that require refunds back to the deposit method, are there no repercussions from their licencing jurisdiction, if not, why not - could it be these "FATF rules requiring refunds back to deposit method" simply do not exist, and that casinos are just making up these rules and making these statements to shift the blame onto another body that probably could not care less about online gambling.
Despite the casinos believing FATF rules require them to insist on paying back to deposit method (apart from Minivegas, who seem to believe they can pick & choose whether and when they obey "international laws"), many contributors have not found any trace of this being a specific requirement under the FATF agreements, which themselves are subject to occasional change.
The USA DoJ believes that ALL withdrawals are contrary to "anti-moneylaundering rules", whether back to original deposit method or not, so even different countries cannot agree on this.
Casinos should quit lying, and admit these are THEIR OWN RULES, not those of some faceless international organisation. If they were PROPERLY regulated, many would be snowed under with legal action due to unfair consumer practices, and a good many would go in favour of the PLAYER, and may well involve compensation, not just return of winnings as is currently the case with self regulation, and the various volunteer advocate services.
A land casino took some players to court for "cheating" at Roulette. In a way, they were, but not in an illegal manner. They were using a remote sensing lazer device and concealed computer to achieve a margin over the house. The casino was taken for a sizeable sum, but actually LOST the case, even though they had PROOF of the device. It seemed they got off on a technicality, as there devices did not "interfere with the outcome" of the game in any way. It seems that an English court holds a far different view of what is "fair" or "unfair" in a relationship between a business and a retail consumer of the product - this view being that businessess cannot rely on so called "F U Clauses", and even the rules they DO spell out have to be "fair" given the somewhat unequal relationship between business and individual "Mr Average" consumer.
In the context of this thread, the "F U Clause" in question is that casinos can decide NOT to obey their own rules on returning refunds back to the method they came from - yet they can do this on an "F U Clause" basis, without having to explain, or even try to come to an agreement that causes less inconveniance to the player. I am more convinced of this "conspiracy" explanation because in many cases where a player has been told a refund to his chosen method, the method of their deposits, is quitel simply not possible, the "impossible" is suddenly achieved shortly after the player makes a big fuss, such as posting or submitting a PAB.
Come on, either something is "impossible" or it isn't. If something is only "impossible" UNTIL someone lights a fire under your a$$, then you are lying about it being "impossible" in the first place.
