Bitcoin Forum

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/bet365-to-pay-gbp582-120-for-regulatory-failures

And these are the specific violations.

---

If we look at what's happening now, a lot of gamblers are complaining about casinos being strict with KYC requirements. Sometimes, even long-time clients are asked for more than just basic documents, like proof of income or bank statements. But this isn’t abuse, they’re just doing their job. If they don’t comply, they could face huge penalties or even lose their license.

Take Bet365, for example ....it’s a massive casino valued in the billions. You can see more about it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Coates

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

Them being minitored by license providers does not really make everything perfect or private. The thing there is just that if one doesn't want their information to get out, they should just completely avoid KYC casinos.
 
Even if the casino themselves don't officially share your details with others, some staff can sell those data to a third party with the company's awareness.

Secondly, we have also had cases of hacks where casinos databases were compromised and customer information was exposed to the hacker. Such data can now be sold on the dark web. How can regulators prevent this once's?

Well, you can go to that direction, however, how safe it is gambling in a non-KYC casino? is it safer than regulated casinos?


This really happens in real life, and it can’t be fully prevented. However, regulators have issued directives to casinos to improve their security systems to minimize these risks. In my opinion, if a casino is reputable or well-known, they’ll definitely make sure their data security is top-notch. If they fail and there’s a data leak followed by complaints, it could mean big penalties for them, or worse, they could get shut down. So, in a way, regulators are creating a deterrent, making sure casinos do their job properly since their entire business is on the line.

---

This is what will happen in a while with cryptocurrency casinos, in years I hope. In the end they will be more controlled and it won't be enough with just a Curaçao licence, plus they will ask for full KYC from the moment of registration, before depositing a satoshi.

It is clear the direction we are going, we better enjoy the last few years of what little freedom is left in this space.

Indeed, we are gradually losing it all to the regulators, just as the name implies they want to keep tabs on everyone's spending and how they make that money.
 
I thought the vision for crypto casinos from the onset was to avoid this government control.

It will come to a time when, even for one to make use of a Google search engine, we might be asked to submit our document for verification in order to state the reason for using the internet. There is nothing like privacy and freedom again, which is totally ridiculous.

As the gambling industry is increasingly constrained by unreasonable government regulations, it is not surprising that crypto casinos will also suffer a similar fate where users need to provide various documents just to deposit on the platform. This is unreasonable and very funny, because they are very strict with AML in the gambling industry, while in other industries such as banking or investment firms, they turn a blind eye and let them do practices that are arguably much worse.

This isn’t exactly true, AMLC is way stricter in the banking and finance sectors. The thing is, we just weren’t used to it at first because crypto gambling started without KYC. In the early stages, we thought of crypto as something completely separate.. like the term “decentralized” meant no government could control it. But now, we’re seeing major changes, and slowly everything is becoming regulated. We can’t really do anything about it unless we take a risk with decentralized casinos, but let’s be real, the scam rate there is way higher.

But do you not notice that the government are going for something small? Also the government do not like to do what will let a company to collapse if the company is not a scam or doing something that is very bad like a hard drug selling site for example. This is not the reason I will use a reputed casino. I am using a reputed casino because people rate them good, not because of any regulation.

I don't see any customer care here, and this is just part of the strategy that is very popular among regulators now. Take control of everything, including customer funds and a full check of their existence, as well as all casino income. Saying that someone can rely on the confidentiality of the data we provide also sounds naive. How many stories do we see about the sale of millions of people's data with their cards, addresses, and phone numbers? If someone needs someone's data, then in our time this is not a problem; the only question is who we can become interested in this.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/19/business/national-public-data-admits-hackers-stole-social-security-numbers/

For social responsibility it just looks (or sounds) like a bunch of gibber to me, social interaction isn't a yes/no question so I'd say trying to set a metric for it sounds meaningless, if I understood that correctly. I'm also pretty confused why they give a damn about why the casino would give interactions that aren't "meaningful". It's a casino, it's for people to have fun lol. If they don't have fun they can just leave.

As for AML, it sounds like they just went with having as light KYC as possible (and bad documentation it seems) and got hit for it. I don't really think there's any that's going to hit gamblers or change, pretty sure most casinos are already enforcing strict KYC anyway. At least I don't think anything going to change.

Bet365 is a billion-dollar company, yet they were only fined less than a million. With the list of violations mentioned in the OP, as found out by regulators, I’m honestly not surprised that Bet365 keeps having violations, it’s just pocket change for them. For smaller casinos, this kind of penalty would definitely hurt more, but I guess the fines also depend on the size of the company.

Also, Bet365 operates either in the US or UK, so they might have a different license provider compared to the usual ones like Curacao or Malta. I was surprised too that there’s still something called "interaction" mentioned. I’m wondering what that even means, like, is it some kind of chat where they check on how much gamblers are winning or losing? It’s not exactly clear from the details provided.

Proof Of Income or Bank Statements? In my personal opinion, that's not OK. If the casino puts a person under a classification of "suspicious", then they should merely let the user withdraw all of his money after standard KYC and close his/her account.


That does NOT protect the user from information leaks and hacks. We users should be aware of the risks.


They should probably hire those people from centralized cryptocurrency exchanges.

This doesn't apply to Curacao license casinos, they only ask the application and license fees, that's all.

Is there any gambler in this forum get restricted to gamble/ limit your account from Curacao license casinos due to lose too much? I haven't find it, only gamblers who won where their accounts gets limit.

People shouldn't worry to submit KYC if they've submit KYC in centralized exchanges, both of them are the same thing.

If we look at it though, it comes from UK gambling, they are very strict as far as handling KYC and other pertinent documents submitted to any services under their regulatory law. So it doesn't just include gambling industry per se, but almost everything under the umbrella.

As for smaller casinos, well there have been a lot of fly by night and scammy sites already so I wouldn't be sure if they have the license in the first place or if they are really complying with the law or regulation in the first play.

Definitely, stick with the casinos that we have been playing for many years and we will all be good.

And because the issue of gambling is still hot here with us, I rarely gamble now. For someone like me who only gambles a little, I don't prefer to go through KYC processes in any gambling platform, especially in crypto casinos, even if they say it's becoming the standard. I still don’t like it because we are here in crypto for decentralization and anonymity. So, for me, this process is still inconvenient and burdensome. That’s why I no longer play on gambling platforms that have started requiring KYC.

I am happy bet365 is fined at least one time as they are very selective in how they operate, they have limited my account because one time I made it from 100 dollars to well over 3500 dollars quite some years ago. They frozen my account without a decent explanation for me only to learn soon after that they had it a standard procedure to freeze many accounts for this reason. Now in here it is another case yet this type of casino deserves the worse, I am happy that crypto casinos were open soon after and I never looked back. The crypto casinos are giving us good options as they only require KYC only when you hit it big and they frozen your account when you clearly have broken the rules in most of instances.

I doubt that any casino will normally want to ask their gambling customers to submit any form of KYC, they know that people don't like to submit their private details unnecessarily. So we can't blame them for making the KYC demand when they think that it's necessary because they want to protect their businesses from the regulators sanctions. It's now left for the gamblers to choose casinos that they think are reputable enough for them to submit their KYC requirements to because as it is KYC requirements have come to stay. Governments everywhere wants to monitor and control how cash flows in their economies and the gambling industry is not an exception.

even with reputable casinos(no offense to them), I'd still be worried when submitting KYC, though it doesn't happen often there are still cases of information leaks or security breaches that expose gambler's personal information that was submitted to the casino.

For people who scared of KYC, you can just gamble on DGbet.fun, it has no KYC rule at the moment. 8)

When the regulator force the casino to have KYC rules, it's true the casino have no choice except to ask it in order to survive. But, sometime there would be always a new casinos/bookies popped out and didn't ask KYC.

So, for people who want to gamble on free KYC casino should follow up with the new casinos.

I kinda not have probs passing a reputable casino's KYC but that doesn't mean I trust that my informations would be kept safe from third-party.

Because you talk with much confidence as though you're sure about how much the confidentiality of our privacy is 100% intact with these casinos. There are situations that may arise that would prove this wrong but let not go there.

As an old time gambler prior to registering an account with a centralized casino i should have had it in mind that i must pass KYC immediately or after and  shouldn't be taken to be an offense or that the casino is stepping beyond boundaries when they require certain documents from me. But this doesn't give liberty to casinos to request for KYC recurrently even for specific docs that have already been summited before. Doing that can be irksome for me.

I am generally in favor of low regulation and low taxes but I have to admit that the gambling industry has not been very fruitful historically by regulating itself.

In the end it will be like in the current fiat gambling rooms that give you a report of what you win or lose in each year, and they send it to the tax office as well, although it does not appear in the tax return and you have to fill it in. I think that in the future cryptocurrency casinos will be the same.

One of the permanent things in the world is “tax,” so it’s never going away. Governments want to maximize their tax revenue as much as possible. Since regulations are starting to cover crypto casinos, it’s likely that the same tax rules will apply as they do to fiat casinos, or taxes on crypto might even be higher since it’s new. This could also be a way for them to encourage people to stick with fiat casinos, which are easier to regulate in terms of transaction inflows and outflows.

As for reporting, I can’t relate too much because even though gambling is legal in our country and we’re supposed to declare our winnings and pay taxes, the lack of enforcement means we don’t really pay. So, in short, we can enjoy gambling without worrying about legal accountability and just focus on trying to win (which is still tough enough as it is).

These large fines are reflective of the fact that these are large casinos, smaller casinos would receive smaller fines because less customers would be affected. This is actually a tiny and almost insignificant fine in comparison to the profit that bet365 has made over the last year and can easily be absorbed as a business expense. These are also likely to be related to technicalities that were broken rather than a systemic problem with all customers, so this just proves that even the largest companies are susceptible to make mistakes.

"At the moment". How much could users deposit and withdraw within a 24-hour period during different days of the week? Can you be confident that a user from BitcoinTalk could deposit more than $10,000, and if he/she wins some bets and doubles his/her money, he/she can withdraw everything without raising any warnings for that user?

I have nothing against the casino, but you can't say such things without actually knowing what would happen. Because I believe that when transactions are more than $10,000, that's when services start to mark them for some probability of money laundering.

Are you really trying to compare a big fiat bookie like Bet365 with small crypto casinos, that have only a Curacao license?
I don't think that a small crypto casino with a Curacao license would be monitored by the UK gambling regulators.
The small crypto casinos are flying under the radar of the regulators, even if they do require KYC verification.
You can't convince me, that submitting your ID for KYC verification is completely safe, just because some casino is being regulated.
Even the biggest companies in the world are facing data breaches and data leaks. The fact that you submitted your ID card to a big and regulated casino doesn't mean that your personal info is 100% safe.

Bet365 has existed since 2000 and just at 2022 the commission compliance assessment for bets was just to discover this social regulatory outbreaks of the bet365? Hmm... Sometimes this regulatory commissions operates sentimentally especially when the Casino (s) is no more complying with the back deals (briberies) even while now meeting up with the approved requirements.

But on any case, it is socially and financially unhealthy if such a casino as bet365 has not been involved to moderate their customers with sanctions on risk probabilities on bets and not being concerned about having their customers on track in both identify captions in both source of funding their bet accounts.

It is assumed they are only cared about making the morning without undermining the social risks and source of customers funding on their sites which was supposed to help influence possible conducts of bettors within the societies but they failed with the compliances.

You have AML/KYC in financial institutions and that is strict too.

The need for KYC is from the side of the casino, there are bad people among the entire crowd and they are doing things to avoid the law and hence the issues that arise with accounts being flagged from the casino and casinos being charged for not complying with regulatory frameworks by the governments.

Again governments are taxing the operators for their gains.

This does not change anything for the gambler, unless they want to stop gambling which solves all the problems right there. In no place is your private data completely safe, so just accept it and then play.

For me this means that there is no safe place for money like keeping them close to yourself as possible. Casino with or without license. Casino that cares for AML and KYC, or the one that does not bother about it. Everywhere a gambler can get into troubles. This case is another warning and call, that people should pay extra attention when choosing place to gamble, and dont run to a place that offers lots of bonuses. Also people should be more cautious about their money.

Submitting KYC is fine to a certain extent, it's when they start asking for proof of funds that aggravates me. Maybe I don't use banks or maybe I don't have a job considered legit and I win $50k. They then have the right to take my money from me due to some bs in the KYC process?

Obviously I am not advocating for money laundering, but there has to be a different way other then invading my privacy.

So it was about submitting KYC. Yes, I agree with that, for a business to continue its services it must also follow the rules especially if it's about money.

I thought the issue would be, why are small gambling sites not being punished by these cases? Why Bet365? Probably because they are a large company and they can pay that much unlike how it goes with small betting sites where they will just be shut down.
I bet they are being monitored every day so that whoever government jurisdiction they are in will have money again once they make a mistake. Unlike the mountain amount of small gambling sites that are advertising in social media which are probably not being monitored because they will get nothing from them. It's unfair for them and yet it continues.

I think it really depends on the jurisdiction where they operate or where they got their license. For example, bet365 has a license from the "UK Gambling Commission," which I believe is quite strict when it comes to penalties. However, based on the penalties they’ve received, it seems like they were for minor offenses.

On the other hand, smaller gambling sites or casinos often get their license from Curaçao eGaming because it covers all types of gambling games on their platform. Aside from being affordable, I don’t think their oversight is as strict, especially in terms of player protection. This makes it attractive for many casinos to get their licenses from them, as the rules tend to favor the operators.

Well it was more important I guess to send the message that they want the casinos to do their jobs properly in terms of implementing KYCs. I mean that's its entire purpose, after all, to prevent money laundering and if not done well can lead to quite a big issue for both the casino and the provider of their license.

Also from what I looked up, the license provider of bet365 is BGC (British Gambling Commission) so I guess it's no surprise why a 2022 assessment was judged that strictly. I mean if it was anything else they probably would've just gotten a slap but this is about AML issues.

CZ and Binance were fined millions of dollars due to AML issues, but this one is relatively small, less than 1 million. It almost feels like a minor accomplishment by the agency just to show they’re doing their job and avoid suspicion. You know, corruption can be everywhere, and if a billion-dollar company has some influence over the agencies regulating them, we can't really expect this to reflect the full extent of the violations.

Very weird and provocative comment to be honest, are you working for a dishonest casino, are you a scammer advocate actually? Because if you read more carefully what you've quoted from your own link you will see that
Do you know many crypto casinos doing that sincerely? But above all, which ones with a bad reputation prevent customers to deposit before successfully passing a complete KYC procedure?
In addition it's a judgement from the UKGC, but most crypto casinos are incorporated overseas, they have nothing to do with UK jurisdictions.

Bet365 may have registered with "Uk gambling commission", for easy advertisement in the country. Specifically, to control how her citizens gamble, the commission watches over the activities of casinos they've licensed. And they wouldn't allow gamblers in the Uk to play safely on casinos licensed in other countries, to see that every gambler is regulated. Therefore, people in the Uk would prefer playing on casinos that works with the gambling commission. 

I don't understand your question. It’s possible that you might not have fully understood the findings of the regulator...



The findings about 'undertaking financial sanctions' are part of the procedures Bet365 was supposed to follow, but they failed, which is why they were fined or included in the findings.

Just to clarify so we don’t get lost, let’s first define what 'Financial Sanctions Checks' are.


They also have a list where you can see the individuals or entities on the sanctions list, and it’s possible that Bet365 wasn’t checking this list before approving players and accepting their deposits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-sanctions-list

What does it mean? Nothign really!
The inquiry was in 2022, the fine was delivered in April this year, have you seen anything changing?

There  was an article on this and how frequently those fines happen:
so this case was more of nothing burger, compared to the fines bet365 gets periodically for their practice, just last month:
Bet365 ordered to refund $519K to customers who it paid less than they were entitled on sports bets (https://apnews.com/article/sports-betting-bet365-gambling-new-jersey-3a6c8f58f348b8848c290eb23f5f74b1)


Bet365 is a British company, based in the UK and owned by a British citizen, there is no second motif there, they actually owned physical gambling shops around the country since the 70s.

@Russlenat
Thanks for those additional informations but it doesn't change anything unfortunately. In order to be able to check if a customer belongs to such lists, casinos need to do a KYC for at least knowing the name, the birth date and the location of the customer. They also need to ask for a passport or an ID card in order to be sure that the customer didn't give random false informations about his identity for registering. And do you know many crypto casinos doing that honestly? Usually you just need to give an email adress and a username to be able to open an account and to make your first deposits.

Bet365 is different. I think they haven’t fully adapted to being a crypto casino yet, so their rules are still based on fiat casino regulations. That’s why regulators are so strict. In fiat casinos, you need to go through KYC before you can play, which requires submitting documents to prove your identity. If someone fakes their info or documents, at least the casino still has a name they can check against the sanctions list. If the name isn’t on the list, the account is free to gamble.

I agree that choosing a reputable casino is a must. Not all of these casinos will be safe from regulatory punishments and penalties and much worse if they'll be closed down for breaching some rules and it's hard for the smaller ones and the aspiring casinos that are entering the industry.
But big casinos could also just keep on doing these breaches when they can easily pay the fine even if there are some offense levels of it.

I know bet365 and they're really known but I haven't gambled there yet. And being a gambler, this won't affect me since first, I don't play there and I haven't tried it yet. Most casinos nowadays do ask for KYC and the regulators are all over them and that's why they need to be strict as well.

Plus if that becomes an "industry-standard" and normalized, then it could also be used against the users to not give them their coins/money. This is probably true with those smaller casinos that might not have enough liquidity to let the user withdraw all of his money if he won a jackpot.

The situation would be, the user already gave the casino his I.D., which should never been given in most cases, and the casino also all of his/her coins - deposit and the profit.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess we should be ready for any possible requirements the casino might ask since we’re gambling in a regulated casino. All their requirements are based on the rules of their regulators, and a reputable casino wouldn’t risk their business by asking for unnecessary documents or compliance from gamblers when it’s not needed.

Source of funds is part of the requirements now. Let’s say, for example, you deposit $10 and manage to turn it into a big amount like $10k, they’ll likely trigger that requirement. You’d just need to show where the original $10 came from ---maybe your bank account and declare that as savings, or anyhing that are the list. We might not like it because it feels like an invasion of privacy, but this is the trend now, and we know it’s all about AML compliance.

The issue is not really declaring where funds came from. The issue is the USA doesn't consider bitcoin as currency but a property and until you cash out bitcoin it has 0 value and is not taxed. So if I gamble I am not depositing from my bank, but using bitcoin I have been paid for doing a job or from a signature campaign payment. I have seen stories of casinos asking kyc and denying sig campaign payments as valid declaration of funds. That IMO is bullshit and not a reason to confiscate a person's funds.

I believe they are denying such source because they don't know such information. Also, the source of income for them is like not the regular job people have. So they are not considering it as valid source of income. However, for forum users, it is like their bread and butter already. And people outside of the forum don't understand about it.
Also, I think you will only incur such problem if you will play on a site that is not running legit. But if you are playing on top casinos found in the forum, and win like 50k, they will surely give it. They may ask for some credentials but I don't think they will go to the extent of invading your privacy.
Make sure also to be updated with your country's laws and regulation when it comes to crypto holdings. They may have some rules that you are not aware of. If you have significant amount, better keep up with those protocols.

I wonder why I have to provide the casino with proof/justification of my income? It's starting to remind you of banks and other financial institutions where you have to constantly prove that your money is your money and you didn't steal it.
I understand the point of this: so that criminals don't deposit money and then after wagering don't legalize it as "winnings". But what prevents the casino from simply providing information that the payout to such and such a client is 95% of his deposits (which means he will still have to deal with the tax office).

These regulators will always target the established casinos because they know they are the best ambassadors to send the message even if it won't really hurt them financially.

And btw what they are asking for is almost impossible to do, profiling all it's customers and labelling them who is high risk and whatever wtf...I wouldn't be surprised if casino's deliberately made the gaming experience hell for everyone just to try paint the picture that they are complying with their regulators, which will certainly negatively affect their revenue for sure.

Some people do not want to release their personal information to casinos not because they are hiding anything but because it can enter the hands of third parties. There have been reports of casinos experiencing hacks that will lead to people's data exposure. There are also cases where casinos sell or give out customers' information to third parties for commercial purposes. Reputable casinos have lesser chances of messing up with customer's data but sometimes issues might be out of their control. Most casinos ask for KYC, so if you want to gamble you will have to submit it or stop gambling. And I don't think they will ever stop asking for KYC because the government is closely watching them.      

It is essential to follow the rules for the services you are using because you won’t be able to use them if you aren’t going to do them. If one of them is submitting a KYC for regulatory purposes, you should do so. I think it is more important that the service you are using in gambling is compliant and reputable.

It is better to gamble in a legitimate casino than a small one where you could be scammed.

While reputable casinos are better without a doubt, to think you should not worry about sending your information to them is a mistake, even governments have been hacked before and a lot of confidential information has been lost, so it is a mistake to think that a private company can do an even better job at securing our data, personally I am against sending that information to anyone unless you absolutely have to, and online casinos are not a service I cannot live without.

It is very sad that those who take KYC they can sell to their party even if the site/company does not share the details yet the staff may do that and that is why it is risky and that's why we have to think twice with whom we have to share the kyc document and with we have not.

Adapted into what???
Bet365 is a full fiat bookie, it offers no crypt deposits whatsoever and they don't plan on doing this either!


AML checks don't mean that they need only to know where those funds come from, they need to verify you earned them in a legit traceable way. I can get someone to transfer me every month $1000 and claim that as side job, I won't pass a real AML check either unless I show them an invoice with my registered tax id number on it, same goes for your job and my signature earnings, do you issue invoice for that?

 

In that case, you’ll need to route your funds through exchanges first, and then you can send it to the casino, as long as what you're doing isn't illegal. That’s the only solution I can think of since you can simply say that the funds are for trading. It would be easier to justify if you're trading at the same time. I doubt the casino would ask where your Bitcoin came from once it’s in the exchange, since the transaction is just between the casino and the exchange. But if it came from a non-custodial wallet, that might be harder to justify.

Sometimes we can't be too careful on how we go about with our private information; it's not just at the casino, but with any organisation that's due to ask for it, we just have to have it in the back of our minds that the moment we hand our private information over to them for a shake of verification, they are no longer private.

If I'm not mistaken, in many countries there is a tax-free minimum, where no one cares where you earned an extra 1-2 thousand dollars.
But overall it's an extremely annoying situation when you have to prove to everyone that your money belongs to you and taxes have been paid on it.

If the fund came from a bank account then the bank manager also asks to provide KYC and wants to know the source of the fund and it is the easiest way to make them foolish by saying it came from outsourcing income. And if it came outside of the bank then no one will ask like that.

Depends, there are levels for zero tax and there are countries where even if it's not a taxable event you still have to declare the income.
But still, it doesn't change the AML check, they don't care if you have paid tax on that income, for example, you can pass checks of PoI with rent income and no casino will care if you have paid taxes on that profit, as long as you have a payment slip from youtube you're set even if your government hasn't seen a dime from that!
You can prove those one thousand $ are earned legally, that's it!


Depends on the bank, as I said here in Europe you can't fake these that easily with some banks, transactions have special codes so almost every trainee can distinguish between wage /deposit /one-time payment / foreign transfer.
Do you have money from frelancing? Good, show the invoices!

At least, we can choose the casino by ourselves and don't have to register on certain casino if we find that the casino require us to do KYC which we always try to avoids. There are no coercion from the casino to us to register on their casino and doing KYC because we have our own choice to select the casino. That is why we must ensure to use reputable casino when playing gambling because they can take care of their customer document from any deviations that occur. Besides that, we must be careful and always responsible with what we do related to chose the casino to playing gambling so when it comes to KYC, we must make sure everything that casino can handle properly.

Many a gambling site requires KYC documents but those are not bad. If we avoid all the gambling sites as well as currency exchange sites who require currency exchange then we might have no good sites where we can deposit and exchange or gambling.

Demand and supply logic, there are people who need to gamble and there are obviously people who need to exchange crypto vs fiat. As long as this difference exists, there will be such sites that help us do so and the KYC thing will exist because of money laundering events.

At least you can be sure that the casino will not operate anything illegally if they are making you undergoing KYC and is trusted in the market. Even then if you are not comfortable sharing your private details, dont forget that those "private" info is already out there considering the poor database security of the government websites and databases.

Now if you really want to stay away from all that, you would have to stop gambling which would not be the case if we are in this section of the forum. ;D

There are many Web3 exchanges that you can easily exchange your coins without KYC. Also there are still P2P decentralized exchanges that you can exchange coins like bitcoin and monero. There are instant exchanges that do not require KYC and you can use Tor with some of them. But casinos can be very different because almost all of them are centralized and many of them make KYC mandatory. Those that do not make KYC mandatory make it mandatory for withdrawing high amount of money.

It means very little to gamblers, maybe the edge case scenarios will face slightly more restrictions and they may reject a few more people for failure to pass KYC type rules. However gambling companies see these fines as a cost of doing business, they can often make far more money by operating in a grey area and waiting for the regulator to wake up, than they would by adhering to the laws in the strictest possible way. If you consider the owner of this site walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in profits last year, you can understand that this fine is a drop in the bucket compared to their wider profitability and will barely impact them at all.

For a billion-dollar company like Bet365 to receive a fine of less than $1 million, it shows they are quite compliant. When regulators investigate, they will always find something, but in this case, it’s a minor non-compliance that doesn’t impact their license or reputation as a casino. Considering they operate in a country with strict legal standards, it’s safe to say Bet365 is doing well overall.

However, they shouldn’t take this lightly, as big problems often start small. They should make sure to comply fully, and maybe next time there won’t be any violations found--though that might be a challenge to achieve entirely.

For a giant like the company we are talking about it is indeed a drop in the bucket, but fines like that can lead to ruin smaller casinos with fewer resources, even if the fine was proportionately lower.

But KYC for everything like some services are imposing to little gamblers in order to be able to withdraw in the cases that there is no doubt that there is nothing shady behind and the amounts are ridiculous is more dangerous IMO than being more permissive, not only because someone in the staff can go over the dark side and sell the personal data, but also because good faith leaks could also happen due to negligence, or attacks on vulnerabilities that would have been overlooked.

If the regulations between the Bet365 casino and the government or private licensing party are already in operation and there is an agreement between Bet365 and the supervisory party, if there is a violation it is normal for them to get a fine, But what about the users who suffer losses, do they get their rights as well as the regulatory oversight authorities do.

This is apart from KYC measures, that is another matter, casinos and users, we understand that this regulation is intended for the public interest, on the basis of security and discipline of users and casinos, If fines are imposed on the Bet365 casino for violations of rules or laws, but users who feel disadvantaged do not get a sense of security and peace, for me it is useless.

It's possible that in the future it will happen again, a fine of £582,120 but the users who are harmed could reach double that fine, the casino really isn't at a loss, even though the source mentions money laundering, but I'm not sure about that.

You have spoken really well, that amount of money may not seem to be huge to many of us, specially if we try to compare it to the amount of money that crypto exchanges are usually fined for any legal misconduct, but then, we all should know that crypto exchanges earn far more money than gambling casinos, and for a gambling casino to be fined this amount of money, it's really a huge one, several smaller casino will lose their license and or close down if fined such an amount.

I've said this a couple of times on this forum and as it regards to kyc that, passing kyc on gambling casino will become more strict, and as well more difficult as time goes on, specially with the growing regulations on online casinos since the covid-19 incident that have brought about a major boost and popularity of online casinos.

Other casinos can learn from this and try not to make the same mistakes that bet365 made that caused them to be fined.

regulators are also protecting the users, like this news.

Bet365 ordered to refund $519K to customers who it paid less than they were entitled on sports bets (https://apnews.com/article/sports-betting-bet365-gambling-new-jersey-3a6c8f58f348b8848c290eb23f5f74b1)

These regulators are different from the usual license providers that casinos commonly use, which often focus mainly on paperwork requirements and fall short of ensuring gambler protection. In short, those providers are usually just in it for the money.

A casino should always comply whatever regulations are framed by the regulatory body or else they will face fines like that often which is why casinos are being vigilant with their strict verification standards or else they will face money laundering case on them and the fine depends on various factors. For us it's not really a big concern and we are already used to KYCed then as long as we don't breach their terms have nothing to do worry about it.

I think before a fine is been thrown on casino, they look at what they are earn or perhaps there is an average money a casino do make if they judge by the numbers of players or they simply ask them of their revenue generated withing the period of the offense committed otherwise I don't see any many casino function after they slap that lawsuit amount on their head, there must be some sort of measures for casino to comply otherwise many  will died and wouldn't have money to sort it out.

Perhaps the KYC anti money laundering is improving but the history has never been a good for the crypto industry because it defeated the purpose of privacy and what is casino if there is no privacy for the players. Back then people that owns Bitcoin protect and value their privacy and because they want to increase their hold of Bitcoin, the send to casino to bet to make more Bitcoin and still want to maintain their privacy but regulations is fast changing and doesn't want to do that anymore, so people who still want to gamble just had to use them.

Casino owners do not really have any other option but to cooperate with the authorities, after all the investment they have put forward on their casinos is not something that can be given up easily even for them, so if a government pass a new law forcing them to implement stronger KYC policies, they will implement them even if this means alienating some of their customers, as they prefer to lose them than the alternative, which would be to lose their whole business.

They probably do not want to make it bigger than it is. If they try to resist, then they might just pay a bigger fine or worse be nitpicked by the authorities and get investigated for things they do not want to. It is always better to just comply at the first warning or first penalty. Even small-scale casinos would want to comply at the very first breach even if it might cause them. I do not think anything good can come out of trying to escape regulatory policies. They probably also do not have the resources to defend themselves if the casino is a small scale.

So Bet365 not using any more of their resources to try and outsmart the authorities might be a good thing for them as they will probably save more money doing this. I do not think the changes they will be implementing is that drastic, anyway and would not affect their customer rates as much.

They can’t outsmart the authorities, as the regulators’ findings are clear. Bet365 likely won’t be bothered by paying £582K, as that’s a small sum for them--probably less than their daily income. The issue was "social responsibility failures," which are minor shortcomings in their implementation, and that's why the fines are relatively low.

KYC is not a new thing, so this must not be the latest issue and for me, I don't find KYC that strict because I'm only/usually being asked by my name and mobile number. If it was an advanced one then it can include an ID and a selfie.

What I consider strict are the wagering requirements of the bonuses that are offered by the casinos. This is not new either but this issue can likely remain even in the future because it may seem impossible for the casino to lower their wagering requirements as that can backfire them. Anyways, for those who are being asked more than the KYC requirements that I listed earlier, maybe they did something unusual?

I think winning a big amount can be an unusual thing too. At first, we blame the casino for this but after doing a research about these KYC's, we are now aware that this doesn't came from them. It make sense because their goal is supposed to give more convenience, as that can make their business more fruitful.

Small casinos are still small, so they may get exempted for this, though they may need need comply for something like legality or having a license, for them to operate with a peace of mind. Most gamblers play for the profit, so obviously they are always making sure that the casino that they play is reputable because if not, they won't get paid if they win and they may not even win at all.

You are right and I agree with you that the KYC document might be shared with a third party for the weak database and/or the data might be shared anywhere the data is submitted for a job or anything else. If we are afraid about the KYC document then we have to stay away from everywhere where we need to share KYC documents.