February 25 at the Casinomeister forum, a player complained that Casumo was refusing to withdraw his money. He noted that several months ago he had already successfully passed the verification of sources of income. But the documents were requested again, after he began to play more than usual.
He sent proof of income, after which he was asked about expenses. The player said that he has no regular expenses, as he lives with his parents. And he was asked for the parent's lease agreement or mortgage agreement and proof that the utility bills come in their names. The player refused and was told that he would not receive his money otherwise.
Moreover, the support service noted that even if he closes the gaming account, the money will not be returned to him. This will be possible only if he provides the necessary documents. One of the users, referring to the rules of the regulator, said that the casino is obliged to pay money when the account is closed, even if the verification is not passed. The player closed the account, but nothing has changed from this. The casino continues to say that the money will not be withdrawn without documents.
Can the casino ask for parents' documents?
Opinion was divided. Most of the users expressed themselves categorically against such measures and call Casumo scammers. Recently, they often complain about too demanding checks. Forum participants believe that documents not related to the player himself cannot be requested.
Others believe that this is a forced measure, which is explained by the fact that the UK regulator is very demanding on casinos. And here it is the lack of specific guidelines from the UK Gambling Commission that is the cause of the problem. The same is the case with casino and YouTube streamers.
The regulator does not give specific guidance on what they consider acceptable and what is not. And they simply punish operators if they consider that institutions have not made enough efforts to prevent money laundering. And Casumo knows first hand how severe the punishment can be. At the end of last year, casinos were fined almost £6 million for this.
It is logical that they are trying with all their might to avoid a repetition of the fine. As noted by some forum members, the casino is better off overdoing it when checking players than exposing itself again to the blow.
Are the demands so baseless?
In this particular situation, there is not enough information to argue that the operator is not rational in requesting such documents. Indeed, as some users noted, we do not know what income is indicated in the documents that the player sent. If there is little income, then there is reason to think about third-party and possibly unrecorded income.
Perhaps that's why they want to eliminate the need for the player to pay rent. As stated in their letter, this would significantly change the situation with whether the player could afford the amounts spent on the casino or not. Otherwise, when there are checks, casino employees will not be able to explain why they did not investigate the discrepancy between the player's income and expenses.
In the operator's guide, the regulator says checks are required when a user deposits, wins or spends €2,000. Moreover, the amount does not apply to a one-time payment. And the player just reported that recently he was withdrawing and replenishing more than usual and won about 2,000 pounds.
Representative comment
A Casumo spokesman noted on the forum that he could not provide information on specific cases, saying only "I assure you that there is always a reason" for checking sources of income. He added that if players are unhappy, they can seek arbitration from the UKGC or other bodies. He also pointed to the rules of the casino, according to which they have the right to withhold players' money.
