Falke wrote on 07/03/2021 at 14:53: We should list all the casinos that require such here and then avoid them all together.
There is a limit somewhere. You already send sensitive data for Verification, but then seriously demand a very precise proof of income, that sometimes even goes so far that family members must bring proof of where they got the money that they lent, etc. Seriously, where is the limit of what one is willing to accept?
And in most cases it is nothing more than extortion. You Deposit 10k and lose without any problems. Then you win 1k and suddenly that is demanded? If one would approach it logically, they would have to get back the complete deposits of everyone who can't prove where he got the money from.
Or does it mean that the casino keeps money that they have to assume is illegal in case of suspicion? What does that make the casino then?
I have looked at the MGA license regarding the CDD procedure and 2000 € again
seen and there it is so that from a transaction of 2000 € or but several
small amounts add up to the total and can lead to the CDD check
Interesting is the period, which can be flexible and from one meeting, over a
half a year, a year and probably even longer. That means for most
deposits made will i-wann get to the point where they reach 2000 € and
of all things, maybe when you have deposited 50 or 100 and wonder
why you fall under the CDD check and have to disclose your financial situation
must. That is why a listing here will be of limited, if any use, because only
the individual knows how much he has deposited in casino/gambling hall xy. The 2000 limit
are fixed in the MGA license paper
It is quite logical that they do it on a whim, if you win they want to have it all if you lose you are the best customer they don't like to force anything on you
If I Deposit through my bank and my bank allows the deposit, then it is not money laundering.No bank would ignore amounts of money that are not properly allocated.There would be on the part of the bank already a report out.So that is already times to exclude.Conspicuous are when players deposit too often with Paysafe, because these can be bought with black money.But even that would have to be verifiable, which is very difficult.Whether I have assets or whether I completely gambled away my income is not a casino what is important that I have no debts to the casino, the transfers are capped at short notice, which can also be possible.As already mentioned by many players, casinos that require such documents other than the usual, you should turn your back, I personally have never followed these requests.persistence and plausible explanations, the casinos must pay out whether with or without unnecessary documents.
Let's say so I want to Deposit 100 euros and from this point the rejection must come and the documents are requested so it would be right and serious
However, you can deposit at most casinos that just cracks and no one is interested but if you win a fraction of his money back then they suddenly need that and from this point would actually have to Blacklist a casino because it is uninteresting at this time point because it is money from the casino where you won the request would have to come with the deposit where you win the money so again is just a tactic of the casinos that a few their win again verzocken has nothing to do with rules
evopower140 wrote on 10.03.2021 at 10:31 am: That would be no problem if the Ocs were serious!
Let's say so I want to Deposit 100 euros and from this point the rejection must come and the documents are requested so it would be right and serious
However, you can deposit at most casinos that just cracks and no one is interested but if you win a fraction of his money back then they suddenly need that and from this point would actually have to Blacklist a casino because it is uninteresting at this time point because it is money from the casino where you won the request would have to come with the deposit where you win the money so again is just a tactic of the casinos that a few their win again verzocken has nothing to do with rules
Exactly so it looks! And if Gamblejoe does not do that, we have to put the casinos on the blacklist. Where is problem!
There is no problem, provided that you assess the case correctly. If not, then
there is. After all, the idea of blacklisting casinos was born out of a case where the casino was
a case where the casino had a right to MGA license when it comes to extended verification
about the extended verification. 25k Deposit is already an address...... ...
and those who are prompted at 50€ may also have reached the 2000 limit.
So we can't know unless the player knows exactly how much he has
deposited at Casino xy and that will probably be the problem.
Proof of income/assets
Nobody has liked this post so far
Who starts with the listing?
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
CashOut, 
Falke, 
NoBonusUser, 
NoSkill_NoKill
Platincasino
Vera Johns
Wildz
Caxino
These are the ones where I wanted it to be really bad at Wildz, but they pay out and then want the proofs
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Nobody has liked this post so far
seen and there it is so that from a transaction of 2000 € or but several
small amounts add up to the total and can lead to the CDD check
Interesting is the period, which can be flexible and from one meeting, over a
half a year, a year and probably even longer. That means for most
deposits made will i-wann get to the point where they reach 2000 € and
of all things, maybe when you have deposited 50 or 100 and wonder
why you fall under the CDD check and have to disclose your financial situation
must. That is why a listing here will be of limited, if any use, because only
the individual knows how much he has deposited in casino/gambling hall xy. The 2000 limit
are fixed in the MGA license paper
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
CashOut, 
NoBonusUser, 
NoSkill_NoKill
Rizk 8 K in minus 2020 no check
Mrgreen 4 K minus 2020 no check
Wildz 10 K in plus check
So someone has to explain this to me
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
sippi
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
NoBonusUser
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
moody, 
NoBonusUser, 
NoSkill_NoKill
Let's say so I want to Deposit 100 euros and from this point the rejection must come and the documents are requested so it would be right and serious
However, you can deposit at most casinos that just cracks and no one is interested but if you win a fraction of his money back then they suddenly need that and from this point would actually have to Blacklist a casino because it is uninteresting at this time point because it is money from the casino where you won the request would have to come with the deposit where you win the money so again is just a tactic of the casinos that a few their win again verzocken has nothing to do with rules
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Liked this post:
NoBonusUser
Exactly so it looks! And if Gamblejoe does not do that, we have to put the casinos on the blacklist. Where is problem!
This post has been translated automatically
Proof of income/assets
Nobody has liked this post so far
there is. After all, the idea of blacklisting casinos was born out of a case where the casino was
a case where the casino had a right to MGA license when it comes to extended verification
about the extended verification. 25k Deposit is already an address...... ...
and those who are prompted at 50€ may also have reached the 2000 limit.
So we can't know unless the player knows exactly how much he has
deposited at Casino xy and that will probably be the problem.
This post has been translated automatically