Forum Forum Home Bandit’s Posts Today’s Posts

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

Why is argyl doing it again ? it = ignoring basic facts to defend the industry. has a really biased viewpoint and maintains what is written by the industry is exactly what happens when in fact, we know it isn’t.

“SOME” casinos take the living piss while others simply don’t. That’s not the law. That IS corruption in the industry. I have made this perfectly clear. KYC is being abused to cause problems and delay payments. FACT.

Taking the money for a new TV at Argos and then DEMANDING identification if the TV stops working is generally fucked up.

Going on to LeoVegas and depositing £1000 with your debit card to then give up and withdraw £300 to be told “you must go out and purchase a form of ID that will range between £15 and £88 to get your withdrawal processed” is fifteen shades of bollocks. Strangely enough, the debit card is enough to go to the bank and withdraw thousands without having your gum swabbed. Last I recall I wasn’t piss tested at the ATM.

KYC when they want money back. KYC is not a gambling addict by accepting everything they have until they withdraw.

Industry regulation that is sporadic and only on withdrawals.

I’ve shared my own experiences playing and withdrawing online which differ from yours. I don’t know why you interpret someone else having a different opinion or experience to you as a personal attack, it isn’t.

I’m not biased towards casinos at all, I’ve just never seen any remotely convincing evidence that they’re out to shaft you. Funny how I’ve always stuck to bonus terms, verified my ID (via a very simple email process on over a dozen casinos, none of which took more than 24 hours to complete) and never had a problem withdrawing amounts ranging from £50 to £5000 at a time.

Writing “FACT” in capitals after a statement does not make it a fact, or any more of a compelling argument. As I’ve said before, I don’t doubt for a second a casino will cheerfully revoke your winnings if you’ve been found to breach terms, but the requirement to verify your identity and the source of wealth for your deposits is not their decision. Now that actually is a fact and one you’re free to check with the Gambling Commission, by all means please don’t take my word for it. Casinos objected to the recent KYC source of wealth measures being introduced – why would they do that if it was something that gave them a smoke screen with which to withhold players’ money?

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-gambling-businesses/Compliance/General-compliance/AML/How-to-comply/Anti-money-laundering-compliance-advice.aspx

https://www.gamblingmetropolis.com/what-are-online-casino-kyc-procedures/

As I say, the reason I know about the reality of AML and KYC procedures is because I work in the financial industry where we are subject to the very same bureaucratic rules in scrupulous annual audits and the penalties we face for not complying with them.

You claim the regulator is not independent or doesn’t take action against casinos, but this simply isn’t true, as shown by the numerous compliance cases and fines they’ve levied against online casinos in recent years.

For you as a player, this is not complicated, it’s really really simple: if you can’t show photographic ID, proof of address, proof of card ownership or you’re not willing to show the source of your income you use to make deposits, don’t play, because you’re setting yourself up for tears later on when you try to withdraw.

[Haz40 WANTED $1,167 Outlaw]

Casinos may of objected to new rules regarding source of wealth but they are certainly using it to their advantage the best they can. They clearly objected because they knew there was and is potential to lose customers.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Exactly, KYC annoys players, the casinos don’t want it. Guess who’s never going to come back to a casino again and deposit and lose all their salary and winnings? Someone who tried to withdraw and couldn’t, that’s who. Casinos want you to be able to withdraw because they know many players are going to redeposit and pump those winnings back in a day or two later. It’s not in their financial interest to try and keep you from doing that.

[Haz40 WANTED $1,167 Outlaw]

I get that completely and sorry there is a but. When my lass was asked for bank statements she withdrew 5 amouts. 4 were round £100 to £200 and one was for 2k. In fact the first withdrawal was 2k. The 4 other withdrawals were approved and in the bank within 24 hours. The 2k withdrawal was pending for 3 days been available to reverse until proof of earnings were submitted. Why were the other withdrawals approved yet the biggest wasn’t even though the 2k withdrawal was made first. Fortunately the money was received eventually but why did they approve further withdrawals? My guess is the obvious. It was a hell of a lot more money than the other withdrawals.

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

I took my ID to a William hill Shop, years ago & asked the manager to get me to a online manager to process my details & to make sure I was 100% validated. Told them me and my lawyer don’t do Copies of ID and that under no circumstances are they allowed to hold any photos off my ID.. Data breaches have been prevailing ever since & I believe No casino should be allowed to hold onto photos off said Id’s.

William Hill also gave me notification of these said changes years ago & Allowed me time to either withdraw all funds or get verified.. Online they are the best company in my opinion for allowing me these options.

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

Oh yeah I had to take ID to the shop everytime I cashed out over £100 to there Paysafecards option in shops. I done this as I didn’t take my debit cards out when gambling in the bookies.

I had 1 arsehole who had to see the 2 parts off me license to payout.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Haz40 wrote:

I get that completely and sorry there is a but. When my lass was asked for bank statements she withdrew 5 amouts. 4 were round £100 to £200 and one was for 2k. In fact the first withdrawal was 2k. The 4 other withdrawals were approved and in the bank within 24 hours. The 2k withdrawal was pending for 3 days been available to reverse until proof of earnings were submitted. Why were the other withdrawals approved yet the biggest wasn’t even though the 2k withdrawal was made first. Fortunately the money was received eventually but why did they approve further withdrawals? My guess is the obvious. It was a hell of a lot more money than the other withdrawals.

Obviously I can’t answer definitively on this particular case, but in general based on normal casino behaviour, there are a few things which could have been at play here:

1. The larger withdrawal was off a small deposit, or a single very big win and was being security checked to ensure its legitimacy and that it wasn’t the result of a fault or manipulation. This is normal, in fact you will generally find the bigger the size of the withdrawal the longer it takes to be verified by the casino back office.

2. The smaller withdrawals were processed then the larger withdrawal pushed the total withdrawals on the account over the verification threshold. There is an amount you are allowed to withdraw in aggregate before casinos are required to conduct these checks on you. In this scenario, the casino is trying to do right by you by releasing as much of the money to you as it’s legally allowed to before requiring you to undergo verification checks.

3. The fact that 5 withdrawals were made at around the same time triggered an automated flag on the account for AML checks, blocking the back office staff from approving it until verification had been entered. I can tell you that sort of thing happens in the financial industry too – part of my job is building and maintaining software used for client accounts and we’ll have directives from the regulator which mean if X, Y and Z happen, we have to make the software embargo transfers and withdrawals until checks have been carried out, so there’s nothing the people on the helpdesk can do about it. “Computer says no” – it says no because our lawyer’s interpretation of the regulator’s rules were that we had to make the computer say no in that situation. We can’t risk a customer support agent trying to be helpful inadvertently causing us to break the law and get a massive fine.

[Mr Mr B WANTED $395 Blocked]

Typically 0.1% interest. So at that rate your funds are earning them all of about 35p per day. There used to be a rule that you didn’t have to pass on interest to clients until it was over about £20 which in your case would take about 8 weeks.12 Apr 2017
solicitors holding money for interest? – MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5632904

Assuming it’s the same for any company holding funds, obviously, the more they delay, the better. Sure, silly things to talk about when John want’s to withdraw £24 that he won from a email giving 10 free spins on Starburst.

But what about when millions of people are withdrawing hundreds and thousands….

Seems legit to me.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

Typically 0.1% interest. So at that rate your funds are earning them all of about 35p per day. There used to be a rule that you didn’t have to pass on interest to clients until it was over about £20 which in your case would take about 8 weeks.12 Apr 2017 solicitors holding money for interest? – MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5632904

Assuming it’s the same for any company holding funds, obviously, the more they delay, the better. Sure, silly things to talk about when John want’s to withdraw £24 that he won from a email giving 10 free spins on Starburst.

But what about when millions of people are withdrawing hundreds and thousands….

Seems legit to me.

I have no idea whether casinos are making interest on the money they hold in the client funds account, but if they are it means a £3k withdrawal pending for 3 days (which is way, way longer than average for a withdrawal of that size to be approved) would net the casino a whopping 2.5 pence in interest.

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

#NotAcharteredaccountant

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

#NotAComercialbanker

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

#NotAEconomist

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

When you look into the Boeing fiasco Agryl53 and realise that most often TheLaw is not something they respect due to $’s cost, this is the same for most all business I’m afraid, including mine because I don’t buy the best tyres or have a roll cage installed for extra safety due to the expense.

You may never suffer or see why I should, but I’m legally covered, and have a union with high powered Lawyers to fight any case I may encur.

A lawyer will argue his case to defend any client in any litigation for the benefit of his client only, using the bare essentials or stretching of the Law on what that Law says to their benifit, its definitely a Skill to do so.

No matter what you post in regards to Rules of the profession they are there to be challenged & are quite literally in a daily basis.

As seen in Stevie post, they are using a technical rule of a new card, which can & will be argued in court in the future.

So yeah the Lawyers have worked out with the Chartered Accountants that it’s a win win policy, that is technically legal.

Its a form off gaslighting that you & the company’s are engaged in, Imo. If you were a Lawyer you’d understand that rules mean nothing until their ruled against in the Supreme Court of the UK.

[St Stevie25 WANTED $254 Outlaw]

As far as I know The Supreme Court of the UK has never argued these casino rules or policy’s….But your welcome to look for yourself.

https://www.supremecourt.uk

[Malkychamp WANTED $486 Outlaw]

I wouldn’t go as far as to say they are corrupt i have always get my withdrawals in the end ? but i would agree they can sometimes stall or stretch out the process

[Author]

Posts