UK fines online casino for only asking KYC from winning gamblers

[Coin_trader]

Blockchain technology has the ability to completely change how we play and win in the gaming business. The ability to conduct anonymous transactions using blockchain technology frees participants from having to go through the customary KYC procedure. This might do away with the need for casinos to request personal information from successful gamblers, which is something that many players dislike. But holding a big anonymous gambling blockchain-based cant easily be shut down, like the silk road as long as the government think that it is illegal

Blockchain technology also offers a transparent and safe means to trace transactions, which may help stop fraud and cheating. Additionally, it gives participants total control over their money, which might lower the chance that it will be lost or stolen. Players will have a safer and more equitable gaming experience thanks to blockchain.

No matter how decentralized the blockchain is. Players always casino license before they play at a casino so that they can trust which is ironic since the license can be only acquired by a centralized company. There is a lot of casinos that offers a decentralized gaming experience but most of them didn't have that many players due to unappealing games and user won't trust anonymous devs due to many scams on crypto.  Admit or not but we can't do a complete decentralized ecosystem on gambling because it involves a lot of trust in unknown developers that they will not run our money when we do deposit.

I'm not against KYC on casinos but they should have at least use trusted KYC services that can guarantee the safety of our data. I really doing KYC at an unknown casino.

[rahmad2nd]

In fact, there are many such practices especially fiat-based online casinos. but I'm not sure, can give the answer. regarding the issue of fines by England, let it be their decision. especially if the casino only wants to harm its users.

But apart from that. actually it is very important, before we actually play, register, deposit for the first time, at the casino that will be played to get used to reading the ToS first. if the casino does not meet the criteria we want, we can look for another casino that is more comfortable for us to use. cases like this are commonplace, so before we have problems like what happened to the Casino Fiat Estonia. it's a good idea for us to register for KYC first, if indeed it is required and that also makes it easier for us when we want to make withdrawals later.

[jrrsparkles]

If those new regulations are passed they will affect not only fiat casinos but cryptocurrency casinos will have to eventually follow them as well, do you agree with this idea? Would you like to see casinos to be fined more often for the practice of only asking for personal information from winning gamblers or do you think this will have a harmful effect on their finances?

For KYC casinos, it would be good if people that are signing up should do KYC before they can deposit.

It is a very good idea but it would be good for punters to always read casino ToS before they register and they should provide necessary documents for KYC, they should do KYC before they deposit.

Many gambling sites are doing this to cheat their customers, it is common everywhere.

It is good idea too but many feels its too much to give their KYC details for like they want to try the casino with small amount and in future they will actually play there or not that is why casinos usually ask for KYC when the withdrawal request comes for big amounts, and of course casinos maybe using this as a tool to stop paying the actual winnings from their customer on many cases.

However if they make some regulations and make the KYC as mandatory even for the deposit then it won't really affect at all for the casino either its fiat or crypto but clear lot of confusion and wrong accusations against them.

[erep]

It just proving the casino doesn't want to pay the winnings to the gamblers or they're lack of bankroll, so they're want to prevent from gamblers to win and they can confiscate the money if the gamblers don't want to submit their KYC. But it's a fiat casino which mean they will deposit the money through their bank accounts, the casino can easily recognize the real name and the bank accounts of the gamblers, they can directly contact the banks in order to get the personal information.

I guess they're want to crosscheck to prove if the gambler submit different identity or not.

I don't think there is any specific difference from that case, crypto casinos also always ask for KYC verification after the user reaches the withdrawal threshold or after high winnings, even they add the rule in certain conditions because the KYC rule was never in the terms and conditions rules. So there is no other choice but to comply with the regulations to complete KYC and wait for the withdrawal process of the big win you get from the casino.

[Lanatsa]

It just proving the casino doesn't want to pay the winnings to the gamblers or they're lack of bankroll, so they're want to prevent from gamblers to win and they can confiscate the money if the gamblers don't want to submit their KYC. But it's a fiat casino which mean they will deposit the money through their bank accounts, the casino can easily recognize the real name and the bank accounts of the gamblers, they can directly contact the banks in order to get the personal information.

I guess they're want to crosscheck to prove if the gambler submit different identity or not.

I don't think there is any specific difference from that case, crypto casinos also always ask for KYC verification after the user reaches the withdrawal threshold or after high winnings, even they add the rule in certain conditions because the KYC rule was never in the terms and conditions rules. So there is no other choice but to comply with the regulations to complete KYC and wait for the withdrawal process of the big win you get from the casino.

Would be a no brainer for someone to do so because if we do tend to look at on the situations on which people do even submit kyc on to those traditional transactions that we do IRL which means that if ever we

do able to hit up big on a casino then complying out those KYC verification or requirements wouldn't really be that much of an issue.Unless to those people who do really value their privacy would definitely make

out some reaction and making it a big deal.For terms and conditions statement then this is why its really that relevant on reading up because everything would be stated there and possible
make some screenshot to avoid the risk for the team to make out some alterations.

[ChiBitCTy]

I'm all about freedom and less government ( the side of me that sides Republican here in America) but I'm not sure it makes any sense to have KYC only if you win.  If they are going to require KYC, then to me it only makes sense to make it a requirement from the start so you know that you are going run in to at some point.  By not requiring KYC up front, I feel like it's a bit misleading, and therefore doesn't really make sense.

[KTChampions]

I wonder who will strain and pass the KУC after he lost a lot of money? Is there a tax break or something like that for losing at a casino?
In my opinion, if a casino requires a KУC, then it should take place before the player wins or loses. If the player was allowed to make a bet, then everything is OK and there can be no further questions after winning.
As for crypto casinos, I hope that in any case, unregulated projects will remain and some completely decentralized projects will appear.

[Agbe]

Op thanks for bringing this to the forum. I am very much Happy for this fine. Casinos were just dupping customers illegal. KYC would have been asked in the day of registration but they would not because they know what they are doing. And the worst part of the whole thing is that when they asked you for KYC and there is slide mistake in the ask documents they would not pay you again. And you win is also lost. I will want them to implement this policy very well.

[goaldigger]

Op thanks for bringing this to the forum. I am very much Happy for this fine. Casinos were just dupping customers illegal. KYC would have been asked in the day of registration but they would not because they know what they are doing. And the worst part of the whole thing is that when they asked you for KYC and there is slide mistake in the ask documents they would not pay you again. And you win is also lost. I will want them to implement this policy very well.

This is actually what’s happening in some crypto gambling site, they are just requiring KYC if you’re going to withdraw at least a decent amount and if you can’t provide with the documents, you chance of not getting the money is very high. Unfortunately, you can’t do anything about this aside from raising your concern on every social media platform, maybe that can get the attention of the site. KYC should really asked in the registration and let the gambler decide if they will still continue with the registration or will look for alternatives.

[Johnyz]

I'm all about freedom and less government ( the side of me that sides Republican here in America) but I'm not sure it makes any sense to have KYC only if you win.  If they are going to require KYC, then to me it only makes sense to make it a requirement from the start so you know that you are going run in to at some point.  By not requiring KYC up front, I feel like it's a bit misleading, and therefore doesn't really make sense.

We’re actually talking about a fiat casino here and that’s why the government acts on this right away because of the complaints, that casino should not be trusted as all because of their misleading terms and regulations. If this happened to crypto casino, it will be hard for the casino to be fined. Anyway, I agree that every casino should inform everyone about their KYC policy, they have to make it clear and asked for a KYC in the registration to avoid confusion. Level 1 KYC is fine during the registration, the site can just asked for another KYC if they are already talking about big money.

[rhomelmabini]

If those new regulations are passed they will affect not only fiat casinos but cryptocurrency casinos will have to eventually follow them as well, do you agree with this idea? Would you like to see casinos to be fined more often for the practice of only asking for personal information from winning gamblers or do you think this will have a harmful effect on their finances?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/18/tonybet-fined-regulator-online-betting-id-checks-terms

I think I agree with that idea and it's fair considering most crypto casinos are practicing this way. I'm not saying everytime they do this they'll be fined but for sure leaving an example by the regulators will make other casinos to wonder and not do the same. I don't think it's all disadvantages on both parties, it should be implemented first before saying it will have harmful effects.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I wonder who will strain and pass the KУC after he lost a lot of money? Is there a tax break or something like that for losing at a casino?
In my opinion, if a casino requires a KУC, then it should take place before the player wins or loses. If the player was allowed to make a bet, then everything is OK and there can be no further questions after winning.
As for crypto casinos, I hope that in any case, unregulated projects will remain and some completely decentralized projects will appear.

But unfortunately, as we can see, the opposite is the case here, one thing i can tell you is that this casinos know what they are doing for sure, they know that asking new registrants to pass KYC verification immediately after registration before they are allowed to deposit or play on the casino will definitely keep some potential users of that casino away, So they just allow gamblers to sign up, deposit and gamble, lose and win, but at the instance when the gambler wants to withdraw their winning, at this point, the casino owners know that the gambler would do anything to have his or her money, they would then ask for KYC..
Things should never be this way, Casinos should learn to add some good conduct to their principles. 

[Oasisman]

One fairly common complain among gamblers is they are allowed to make a deposit at casinos and lose their money without any issue, but if they happen to win and they want to make a withdrawal then they are hit with a KYC request almost immediately, Tonybet a fiat Estonian casino was fined more than 400,000 pounds for this practice and it seems the regulators are now interested in making reforms to the laws and force casinos to also make checks on those gamblers which have lost a lot of money.

If those new regulations are passed they will affect not only fiat casinos but cryptocurrency casinos will have to eventually follow them as well, do you agree with this idea? Would you like to see casinos to be fined more often for the practice of only asking for personal information from winning gamblers or do you think this will have a harmful effect on their finances?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/18/tonybet-fined-regulator-online-betting-id-checks-terms

I'm not sure if the casino included that in their TOS, because if not, they'll definitely going to be sued for such a tricky way of dealing with KYC.
Though it should never be like that in the first place. If they want to implement a KYC with their online casino, they should require it for their clients before they make a deposit. Or option B, they could at least set a range of how much the client should spend on betting or holding in his account before it triggers the KYC compliance.
Casinos like this did it on purpose, of course with their own gain, as some clients may not bother to comply with KYC, especially with low winning amounts.

[chaser15]

Isn't it good instead that the fiat casino mentioned in the topic was only asking KYC from winning gamblers if they won an amount? Usually, fiat casinos ask for KYC right from the start of the registration and it's the usual system in fiat casinos, at least the way I have known it as I also played in online fiat casinos here.

Of course, if that kind of regulation was applied to crypto-casinos, as long as KYC is not mandatory or something can be compared in crypto exchanges, I'm fine with it as there's no choice in the first place but to accept that kind of regulation in the crypto-gambling industry.

[harizen]

I'm all about freedom and less government ( the side of me that sides Republican here in America) but I'm not sure it makes any sense to have KYC only if you win.  If they are going to require KYC, then to me it only makes sense to make it a requirement from the start so you know that you are going run in to at some point.  By not requiring KYC up front, I feel like it's a bit misleading, and therefore doesn't really make sense.

But for sure, crypto-gamblers don't want that idea. There are lots of lurkers who maybe just want to test the site and if KYC will be a thing from the start, it will discourage them to try that site. For me, the current and most setup by crypto-casinos today where KYC would just be asking for big winnings should be the best option instead of asking it from the start.

Although, it doesn't really make sense to ask KYC for big winnings as "why it should be" if in the end, that winning is a legit one and no associated cheats or whatever, we just have to follow that terms or find another site that will suit our own criteria.

[Darker45]

But how many crypto casinos are there that are registered in Estonia? Most are Curacao-licensed, I suppose.

I'm in favor of this, although this doesn't really interest me. I suppose that Tonybet has it in its ToS that they reserve the right to require a player to submit KYC anytime. The only problem here is that they only require it when a player wins. The regulators prefer that even those losers should also submit KYC. Things are now becoming even worse.

What I'm really interested is when casinos are fined because they are only looking for and pointing out violations when a player wins big, but when he/she signed up, made a deposit, played a lot and is losing big, there's no problem. It seems they are using it as a way not to pay up.

[Yogee]

Isn't it good instead that the fiat casino mentioned in the topic was only asking KYC from winning gamblers if they won an amount?

Sometimes it's also nerve wrecking when the casino holds your winning for hours or days before they release payment due to KYC review but that's not the main concern. The problem here is that casinos may deny your withdrawals due to some failure in KYC. You don't have to worry about all that when you've been approved or denied from the start.

[xSkylarx]

One fairly common complain among gamblers is they are allowed to make a deposit at casinos and lose their money without any issue, but if they happen to win and they want to make a withdrawal then they are hit with a KYC request almost immediately, Tonybet a fiat Estonian casino was fined more than 400,000 pounds for this practice and it seems the regulators are now interested in making reforms to the laws and force casinos to also make checks on those gamblers which have lost a lot of money.

If those new regulations are passed they will affect not only fiat casinos but cryptocurrency casinos will have to eventually follow them as well, do you agree with this idea? Would you like to see casinos to be fined more often for the practice of only asking for personal information from winning gamblers or do you think this will have a harmful effect on their finances?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/18/tonybet-fined-regulator-online-betting-id-checks-terms

This is only implemented in the UK, even though the owner is from Estonia but his casino is based in the UK. If they were based in the UK, they would follow it once it was approved whether it was a fiat casino or a cryptocurrency. This is also good as we can prevent problems once we win, but if the casino is legal, then I think it would be easy to get KYC approved. One of the pros of having KYC at the start is that you don't get into any trouble, like winning big you can easily get it.

[QueenVera]

This is really bad and unfair to the casinos and this regulatory bodies must have to understand that they casinos ate only trying their best to balance their regulations along side with the demands of the customers who most times don't care how the casino would go about giving them what they want.
I feel the casinos are the ones suffering from the regulations implemented to avoid fraudulent acts and money laundering because while the government is wanting the casinos make sure their customers do KYC, the customers are on the other hand, customers are not willing to do KYC and now leaving the casino fustrated at the end.
The UK government should understand that in bid to balance this whole situation, oneof the best way to go about this so as to avoid cheating is for the player to provide KYC after winning a certain amount because the player will be eager to do KYC after winning just to claim their winnings.

[Wexnident]

I'm surprised it's taken them this long to consider it illegal though and something worth investigating (perhaps it's just that a case has only now been brought against them).

Eh, I reckon most online casinos would just use the excuse of issues would only arise if they were to ever win since, well, that'd be the only case where any problem found would be a problem for them. And don't most casinos word it instead like KYC on withdrawal, instead of KYC upon winning? Basically the same but I reckon they can use that as some sort of defense for these types of cases.

I do hope in general they just tell the customers to KYC at signup maybe if they were to make it a necessity in the first place. I don't think it'd make that much difference no?