I believe we have the right to know what are the reasons why they would decline the KYC that we passed especially if we did all we can and submit all the needed information to prove our identity. This part of the gambling site service is what I don't like the most. It's too wide and has holes if they want to abuse the system. All the reasons why we should stick with reputable names and avoid those who have chances to take advantage of it especially if we are planning to bet high amounts that will go beyond the amount of AMLA restrictions.
But let us also not forget, this is part of the security that they want to apply. What if there are people who are trying to take the money while it's not really theirs? Forgery. It's not that hard anymore in this era. Anyone could be anyone and take money from a fund that he doesn't really own.
Some gambling sites want to do the right thing but others do not. It's better to leave it to those who will investigate this kind of problem or just do the KYC as early as possible to avoid such things to happen.
Topic: How Confident Are You In The Reliability of the KYC system - page 9. (Read 928 times)
is part of what we agreed when we sign up to play in casinos but lately I've been reading a lot of complaints
about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
It becomes suspicious that a casino will decline KYC from many people even after they submitted all documents and met all the requirements. If I am these people I will be uncomfortable with what the details and documents I have submitted be used for. about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
KYC verification can fail due to some reasons, like fake documents being submitted or poor lightening for video verification (for casinos that go that far), but the actions of these casino's should be to try to ensure that the user sorts the challenge and pass the verification process.
Casinos that there are too many complaints about their KYC verification should be avoided.
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
Casinos can deny KYC documents for any reason or for no reason. If they want an excuse to not payout a big win, KYC the client and reject any documents they provide for whatever arbitrary reason. Introduce a third party (who picks the 3rd party? It won't be the player, it'll be the casino) and you have the same issue, except your trust is outsourced to the third party.
I decline to play on casinos that abuse KYC. Even if they're inclined to use a third party intermediary, that doesn't solve the problem.
But it looks like a casino that refuses KYC for withdrawal requirements when it's a big win and asks for some of these other, more difficult requirements because the casino has a small bankroll or can be called a new casino.
Not only you, I also will never play at a casino that abuses KYC.
Avoid casinos that use 3rd party intermediaries as they can cause you more problems without a quicker resolution.
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
Casinos can deny KYC documents for any reason or for no reason. If they want an excuse to not payout a big win, KYC the client and reject any documents they provide for whatever arbitrary reason. Introduce a third party (who picks the 3rd party? It won't be the player, it'll be the casino) and you have the same issue, except your trust is outsourced to the third party.
I decline to play on casinos that abuse KYC. Even if they're inclined to use a third party intermediary, that doesn't solve the problem.
In any case, KYC shouldn't be questioned, it's a very reliable form of verification to ensure that law enforcements can get a hold of you when shit hits the fan, and it's also a form of customer protection as a company that requires KYC is obliged to work in close relations with their respective government, if things don't go well for you, you can sue them in court and have them pay you for reparations.
That should be the case but in some cases, casinos are declining the KYC because they cannot establish the identity how can it be possible if you are the one playing and you submit all your documents then you are declined?
It's hard to accept for a player if he can't get his account verified even though all the documents needed are already submitted.
I already did KYC on government institutions and some sites and they accept it because it's really me and all the documents they requested are all submitted then how come casinos cannot?
KYC or
Reference: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
is part of what we agreed when we sign up to play in casinos but lately I've been reading a lot of complaints
about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
Take note, Casinos will ask or demand a KYC if there's a big winning involved, is this one of their ways to scam their players?
(don't want to make reference to any casino because other casinos could implement this).
Both parties the player and the casino can agree to do a mediation through third-party/parties. but do you think it has bad consequences if the third party proves the player is right in establishing his identity, then the casino's KYC is not reliable?
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
Is it really just isolated to getting a massive win? because if that's the case then I must say that's a massive scam lmao. Most casinos will ask for KYC upon deposit or withdrawal, not for massive wins, the latter is just barring you from getting your money, and is thus a form of scam (to me personally) even if the KYC went through and allowed you to withdraw your bankroll, cause that's a form of delay they take in order to either recuperate losses they incurred from giving you the win, or just an outright delay to make you forget that you won something considerable. Quote
Know Your Client (KYC) is a standard in the investment industry that ensures advisors can verify a client's identity and know their client's investment knowledge and financial profile.
Reference: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
is part of what we agreed when we sign up to play in casinos but lately I've been reading a lot of complaints
about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
Take note, Casinos will ask or demand a KYC if there's a big winning involved, is this one of their ways to scam their players?
(don't want to make reference to any casino because other casinos could implement this).
Both parties the player and the casino can agree to do a mediation through third-party/parties. but do you think it has bad consequences if the third party proves the player is right in establishing his identity, then the casino's KYC is not reliable?
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
In any case, KYC shouldn't be questioned, it's a very reliable form of verification to ensure that law enforcements can get a hold of you when shit hits the fan, and it's also a form of customer protection as a company that requires KYC is obliged to work in close relations with their respective government, if things don't go well for you, you can sue them in court and have them pay you for reparations.
KYC or
Reference: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
is part of what we agreed when we sign up to play in casinos but lately I've been reading a lot of complaints
about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
Take note, Casinos will ask or demand a KYC if there's a big winning involved, is this one of their ways to scam their players?
(don't want to make reference to any casino because other casinos could implement this).
Both parties the player and the casino can agree to do a mediation through third-party/parties. but do you think it has bad consequences if the third party proves the player is right in establishing his identity, then the casino's KYC is not reliable?
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
Quote
Know Your Client (KYC) is a standard in the investment industry that ensures advisors can verify a client's identity and know their client's investment knowledge and financial profile.
Reference: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
is part of what we agreed when we sign up to play in casinos but lately I've been reading a lot of complaints
about casinos on how they accept their players' KYC, is it possible that they can decline a person's credentials even though he swore that he submit all the right documents and even undergo a video call to establish his identity?
Take note, Casinos will ask or demand a KYC if there's a big winning involved, is this one of their ways to scam their players?
(don't want to make reference to any casino because other casinos could implement this).
Both parties the player and the casino can agree to do a mediation through third-party/parties. but do you think it has bad consequences if the third party proves the player is right in establishing his identity, then the casino's KYC is not reliable?
If the third-party proved that the casino is right but the player swore that he submit all the documents and is willing to do the extra mile to establish his identity, can we conclude that Casino's KYC procedure is different and we have the right to know how and what system they are using to decline our submission because we can be the next to suffer from this Casinos' KYC system?
Jump to: