what if all refused to acquiesce to SOF & SOW

[Flatzem]

what if all players decided not acquiesce to the SOF & SOW ?

what happens then, does the industry grind to a halt and gets forced to do away with these

because they sure are not used at land-based but online they want to impose them.

[Afi4wins]

40 minutes ago, Flatzem said:

what if all players decided not acquiesce to the SOF & SOW ?

what happens then, does the industry grind to a halt and gets forced to do away with these

because they sure are not used at land-based but online they want to impose them.

Interesting idea, but I guess not everyone would agree to do it.

For me, if the casino insist on seeing my SoF or SoW documents, I'd tell them "go fly a kite" and I'd close my account. No hesitation at all! 

[cocopop3011]

Yeah I agree with the above, some players will always be willing to send off everything required to get their cash. 

Maybe you should start a SOW protest and strike  

[Hellridah]

SOF & SOW is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard of unless your a government department none of that really should come into question 

only a revenue department really has legal juristicion to demand such documents : the average joe which is what we are dealing with here should 

not be asking for it end of story . 

 

And most players will tell them where to go is the whole idea of coming to the caribbean to do business they want to play around with that 

we will win and they will loose . 

[Flatzem]

14 minutes ago, Astaroth said:

SOF & SOW is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard of unless your a government department none of that really should come into question 

only a revenue department really has legal juristicion to demand such documents : the average joe which is what we are dealing with here should 

not be asking for it end of story . 

 

And most players will tell them where to go is the whole idea of coming to the caribbean to do business they want to play around with that 

we will win and they will loose . 

from what I read is that if a casino asks for such documents and you say NO, some of them will hold the cash out hostage, while others will payout and then close your account.

[OliverCooper]

Nice idea, but it's really impossible to implement. Not everyone at all will agree

[Hellridah]

1 hour ago, OliverCooper said:

Nice idea, but it's really impossible to implement. Not everyone at all will agree

I beg to differ I think you will find most will have trouble disclosing that type of information snap of a finger I mean help me out here guys 

do you really want some random dudes knowing your business half way around the world ? its just common sense really . 

[cocopop3011]

On 8/26/2022 at 4:41 PM, Astaroth said:

we will win and they will loose . 

I'm actually not sure we ever will and if anything, especially in the UK, I think things will get stricter!

[Hellridah]

3 hours ago, cocopop3011 said:

I'm actually not sure we ever will and if anything, especially in the UK, I think things will get stricter!

I know what you mean Coco I'm just saying that players are more than likely to avoid having to risk such requirements 

having to prove ones financial position to a foreign entity for something like this is just not appealing to the average joe 

or the high rollers for that matter : and for rogue casino's just looking for a way to deny winnings its ammunition to be 

exploited . 

 

I consider such requirements to be questionable at law even in the united kingdom I think if it was tested at common law 

there would be resistance to having such requirements needing to be exposed to "Verify" ones identity or a withdrawal 

at the end of the day as my Law Lecturer once told me "Anyone can make rules but the Judiciary rules what is legal and what 

is not legal ". 

Many gamble overseas for various reasons and many choose to do business in those Island nations for various reasons "tax" being 

one of them or the lack thereof : I can't understand in this day and age why people want to constantly change things old saying 

when the tool isn't broken don't fix it .

 

Ultimately the end result will simply be players will be aware of such requirements and hesitate to be subject to agreements 

which compel them to disclose such documents . 

 

Thank you for your time . 

 

-Tane 

[Hellridah]

On 8/26/2022 at 2:14 AM, Afi4wins said:

Interesting idea, but I guess not everyone would agree to do it.

For me, if the casino insist on seeing my SoF or SoW documents, I'd tell them "go fly a kite" and I'd close my account. No hesitation at all! 

 

On 8/26/2022 at 1:31 AM, Flatzem said:

what if all players decided not acquiesce to the SOF & SOW ?

what happens then, does the industry grind to a halt and gets forced to do away with these

because they sure are not used at land-based but online they want to impose them.

Do we know currently which Juristicions currently have this rule in place I'm about to brief a following . 

[Afi4wins]

8 hours ago, Astaroth said:

 

Do we know currently which Juristicions currently have this rule in place I'm about to brief a following . 

If I'm not mistaken bro, this stupid SoW requirement first came from the UKGC Licensing guys, so casinos under them were the first to implement it. However, matters went further abroad like a wild fire when MGA followed suit, including certain Curacao licensed casinos too! ABSURD!!!

[Hellridah]

2 hours ago, Afi4wins said:

If I'm not mistaken bro, this stupid SoW requirement first came from the UKGC Licensing guys, so casinos under them were the first to implement it. However, matters went further abroad like a wild fire when MGA followed suit, including certain Curacao licensed casinos too! ABSURD!!!

Well end of the day the word will spread in a similar fashion every term and condition will be screened going forward . (I'm checking case law to see if there have been any rulings) . 

[Afi4wins]

34 minutes ago, Astaroth said:

Well end of the day the word will spread in a similar fashion every term and condition will be screened going forward . (I'm checking case law to see if there have been any rulings) . 

Hope you'll find something bro, although I haven't heard of any such cases before.

[Hellridah]

7 hours ago, Afi4wins said:

Hope you'll find something bro, although I haven't heard of any such cases before.

One thing I find curious is how such requests do come later after many deposits if the United Kingdom Gambling Commission was serious about persuing AML and Terror funding 

they would stipulate a requirement of providing the source at the commencement of contract between player and casino ; requiring it "down the track" is somewhat nonsensical

as is tasking casino's to basically play revenue department . 

 

It must really bother operations having to goto such lengths to ....enforce such measures on such a scale ...such measures could be reflected in dollar terms quite the expense I would 

imagine .  

[Afi4wins]

9 minutes ago, Astaroth said:

One thing I find curious is how such requests do come later after many deposits if the United Kingdom Gambling Commission was serious about persuing AML and Terror funding 

they would stipulate a requirement of providing the source at the commencement of contract between player and casino ; requiring it "down the track" is somewhat nonsensical

as is tasking casino's to basically play revenue department . 

 

It must really bother operations having to goto such lengths to ....enforce such measures on such a scale ...such measures could be reflected in dollar terms quite the expense I would 

imagine .  

In the very first place and instance, UKGC should make their ruling absolutely clear...that the requirement for SoF and SoW should only be directed to suspect gamblers, not to everyone. not to random players, not even to players who only make small deposits all the time!

Being ambiquous allows casinos to invoke this ruling at their own freewill, for their own specific reasons, and basically allowing them a valid reason to delay payouts.

[Hellridah]

6 minutes ago, Afi4wins said:

In the very first place and instance, UKGC should make their ruling absolutely clear...that the requirement for SoF and SoW should only be directed to suspect gamblers, not to everyone. not to random players, not even to players who only make small deposits all the time!

Being ambiquous allows casinos to invoke this ruling at their own freewill, for their own specific reasons, and basically allowing them a valid reason to delay payouts.

Forgive me if I'm wrong ....but the words "Witch hunt" do come to mind I think the spectrum of the requirements needs to reconsidered as the percentage that are actually being sort 

number in the few and innocent folk are being caught in the storm needlessly : isn't it enough the world languishes with the effects of covid19 must we further add insult to injury 

introducing such draconian measures . 

 

And you'll forgive me if i use a movie quote I once watched [clicking finger] what was it again ahh yes Dune "The Spice Must Flow" . 

[OliverCooper]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:03 PM, Astaroth said:

I beg to differ I think you will find most will have trouble disclosing that type of information snap of a finger I mean help me out here guys 

do you really want some random dudes knowing your business half way Around the World ? its just common sense really . 

I understand what you're talking about. So let`s believe that a large number will support.

[Hellridah]

Also there is a question of law regarding Sof SoW requests being requested : 

 

The UKGC only has legal effect over citizens of the united kingdom anything outside of the kingdom 

is not subject to its rule and in similar fashion the MGA ruling only has power over Malteese citizens located

within its borders anything outside is not subject to its laws this is my interpretation of things from a legal 

stand point . 

So from a contractual point of view such demands on anyone outside of those two countries would be deemed 

to be unreasonable and illegal as a point of logic . 

[Fiekie247]

Well if I have $10 000 waiting for me, I'd sow of sof and provide whats neccesary, but for $100 or $200? - Not a chance

Besides most casino do not have the relevant staff, with relevant experience/qualifications most probably holding these positions, hence UKGC issued hectic fines to Videoslots, Casumo, Daub Alderney which was not directly SOW, but failing on SR, AML which forms part of  player protection and money laundering. And Videoslots and Casumo are reputable brands if we are being honest here.

Question - Why do they get hit with the fines? Not following regulations? Not the right people to do the job? Lack of skill in the department? - Which makes it hard for a player ( Myself included) to provide that information to casinos.

Besides if its a hectic amount I won, I am sure I will do whats neccesary to get my withdrawal, but for small amount, no ways.

Its the same as visiting friends, when you enter an Estate or Complex with many houses, Security normally ask for you drivers license - When I ask why, or what is being done with that information because my ID / Social Security number are being taken, then they tell me - they are just doing their job. How can you do your job or record that information when you cannot even explain what is being done with that information?

Honestly all Casino should rather just do KYC before first deposit from the get go and not surprise players at a later stage with SOF or SOW. I have never gotten SOW by any casinos except for Casumo once which I provided my salary slip and bank statement, after which my withdrawal of 1000 euros was paid 24 hours later. That happened in 2018 if I am not mistaken.

[Hellridah]

10 minutes ago, Fiekie247 said:

Well if I have $10 000 waiting for me, I'd sow of sof and provide whats neccesary, but for $100 or $200? - Not a chance

Besides most casino do not have the relevant staff, with relevant experience/qualifications most probably holding these positions, hence UKGC issued hectic fines to Video Slots, Casumo, Daub Alderney which was not directly SOW, but failing on SR, AML which forms part of  player protection and money laundering. And Videoslots and Casumo are reputable brands if we are being honest here.

Question - Why do they get hit with the fines? Not following regulations? Not the right people to do the job? Lack of skill in the department? - Which makes it hard for a player ( Myself included) to provide that information to casinos.

Besides if its a hectic amount I won, I am sure I will do whats neccesary to get my withdrawal, but for small amount, no ways.

Its the same as visiting friends, when you enter an Estate or Complex with many houses, Security normally ask for you drivers license - When I ask why, or what is being done with that information because my ID / Social Security number are being taken, then they tell me - they are just doing their job. How can you do your job or record that information when you cannot even explain what is being done with that information?

Honestly all Casino should rather just do KYC before first deposit from the get go and not surprise players at a later stage with SOF or SOW. I have never gotten SOW by any casinos except for Casumo once which I provided my salary slip and bank statement, after which my withdrawal of 1000 euros was paid 24 hours later. That happened in 2018 if I am not mistaken.

As I see it they can't ask for it the rule doesn't have legal effect on people outside those countries and they can't establish proximity becasue this is all over the internet from a material point of view : in a nutshell its not upto the casino's to chase this they could basically tell whoever its not our legal right to ask them for documents and they would be well within their rights to do so . 

I'm a gambler and I'm telling you if this went to court it would be thrown out they don't have any legal reason to ask its not even a case of a binding contract / offer and acceptance 

they just don't ...lol...have the right legally to ask for it .  

 

[cocopop3011]

46 minutes ago, Fiekie247 said:

Well if I have $10 000 waiting for me, I'd sow of sof and provide whats neccesary, but for $100 or $200? - Not a chance

I agree, I think it's a small price to pay for $10K and I would oblige if it meant I got my money haha. But yeah doing it for much smaller cashouts is a headache.

[Hellridah]

15 minutes ago, cocopop3011 said:

I agree, I think it's a small price to pay for $10K and I would oblige if it meant I got my money haha. But yeah doing it for much smaller cashouts is a headache.

But the thing is they can't hold it against your unless your from those two nations look I hate to be that monkey wrench but it would have come along at some stage anyway

there's also privacy issues the whole thing is draconian shouldn't be allowed to exist I heard brain fog is a thing with long covid so nothing in the world surprises me these days .