Where does the $$$$ GO on KYC failure

[Sling0]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

[Rating Place]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

Providers aren't involved in anything financially. The casinos are keeping the money. There are some crypto casinos that have been doing more of this lately. You'll see them in scam accusations. It's much more rare outside of the big crypto casinos. Sports players should be wary. Anyone that these sportsbooks deem a winner, where they know the chances of getting their money back is slim, is at high risk of having money confiscated.

[nutildah]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

[Ziskinberg]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

If the money came from them directly, and they decide to confiscate it, then they can keep it. However, if it's a deposit from a gambler and they later find out that the gambler violated the Terms of Service, they can freeze the account and hold the money, but they can't just claim ownership of it. That money should be surrendered to the regulators or the government.

[Charles-Tim]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

On the scam accusation board, I have seen people that posted before that the money was given back to them but if they won, the gambling site will remove the amount won and only allow the gambler to withdraw just the amount that was deposited.

But also some people complained that they were not allowed to withdraw, the money was seized. I also do not like this about some gambling sites.

That is the reason I prefer to recommend sites like Stake.com (or Stake.us for United States users) that allow people not to be able to deposit unless they have been verified first. To have issues before verification is better than those sites that will allow you to deposit and ask for verification when you want to withdraw.

[john_egbert]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

Yep, usually it's relevant for the withdrawals only, not for the deposits too..

[michellee]

Yes, casino keep those funds that players are winning. If they are legit casinos, they will not keep it especially if that player already filled the requirement. But if that is scam casinos, you will not get your money and will not care about you.

It is why they must make sure they playing gambling in a legit casinos. Research will be better before they choose the casino to playing gambling because that can make them stay away from the scam.

We have many good casinos here so we can just use them to playing gambling. We don't have to try new casinos our there that we don't know much.

[Obim34]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

Casino keeps the money, gamblers don't know but casino with KYC has a lot to be careful about. Before playing in one, must first read and understand the rules, complete verification process and make sure there is no error that will lead to question, because they won't freeze the account on a normal win until hitting a large profit.

Accusations and complains don't matter most, concerns are feedbacks from the casino if they plan to solve the situation. On your question, it's a must for deposits to be returned, if the host are decent enough it would be accounted to the providers.

[nutildah]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

Yep, usually it's relevant for the withdrawals only, not for the deposits too..

WTF are you talking about, this makes no sense man

[Charles-Tim]

Yep, usually it's relevant for the withdrawals only, not for the deposits too..

WTF are you talking about, this makes no sense man

I think he meant what I posted about also. I remember when I wanted to bet on bet365 many yeas ago, it required verification. I took me tough time before I was able to get verified because I did not have necessary identity card I needed for the verification at the time. This makes me think that some people will try but they will not be able to get verified and just not make use of the site to bet. This is different from gambling sites that will let you be able to deposit without verification but if you win, you will not be able to withdraw without getting verified. Sometimes you can be over 18 but not have the right document.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

It is not the duty of casino game provider to monitor which casino is been accused of scam or neither preventing it's users from having access to funds simply because they failed to provide the necessary documents to complete KYC, but, it is the duty of the Game provider to provide a conducive atmosphere for the smooth gambling process of both users and the casino owners. Because according to research, it is well known that the primary duty of a casino provider is to provide smooth integration to host games, and likewise provide data encryption, fraud protection, and anti-hacking systems. Including providing  tools for casinos to monitor player behavior, Revenue tracking, game performance and fraud detection. While the owner of the casino has full control over deposit and withdrawal.

[gunhell16]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

I have seen many casinos do something similar to what you are asking here op. Regarding your question about what happens to the funds of accounts that are frozen by casinos, the simple answer is obviously that the funds of the account that is banned from their casino belong to them.

Because they have access to our accounts, they just give the players authorization to access their accounts. There are only two types of casinos in any business like this and these are the good and bad casinos and of course the scam casinos are the ones that often freeze accounts with large funds and theirs is the fund that will be left in the account that is banned, there are other casinos that only freeze accounts because they discover cheating activity.

[CryptSafe]

As we all know, casinos are always looking for means to get funds for the running and maintenance of their casino, so they can take advantage of every available means of securing funds, hence the majority of them do kyc because they know not every gambler would scale through their KYC process. They know that gamblers would definitely deposit and ply  and for those who  do not read ToS,  they are always  the victims of this act by casinos.  As for the $$$$ aspect of it, I believe the casino keeps it if the gambler does not meet the kyc condition spelled out by the ToS before registering with the casino. They keep  it for themselves and that is mostly where they get their excessive profit from.
This is why gamblers should propely take time to read ToS of casinos before registerring with them so that they would have knowledge before hand if they fit in for the requirements of the casino before registerimg or not. This ignorance of not reading ToS has caused a lot of issues with gamblers and casinos not releasing winnings and deposits as a result of failure by gamblers to fufill kyc requirements vefore hand,

[Odusko]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

KYC can be best approached before you have a withdrawal issue, what that means is that you have time to verify your account before you encounter any issues on the casino, but if you already have a KYC verifications demands triggered, you may not be allowed to even withdraw your deposits in most cases.

[cabron]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

KYC can be best approached before you have a withdrawal issue, what that means is that you have time to verify your account before you encounter any issues on the casino, but if you already have a KYC verifications demands triggered, you may not be allowed to even withdraw your deposits in most cases.

So they keep the funds including the coins you deposit?  I have seen complains but they usually allow users withdraw the amount they deposit when they can't pass the KYC. Even the users who has multiple accounts are allowed to withdraw the money they deposited. It would be unfair not to. And this is the easiest to ruin the reputation of the casino.  People are always cautious about this and they screenshot evidences.

[Haunebu]

Good question op! I don't think that the casino providers should be held liable in these cases since their client is the casino and not the customers themselves. Whatever happens on the site should be sorted out between the casino and customers basically.

Several popular crypto gambling sites have resorted to using these unethical tactics due to which some legit victims lost their winnings and deposits(rare). Greedy fools!

[goldkingcoiner]

Good question op! I don't think that the casino providers should be held liable in these cases since their client is the casino and not the customers themselves. Whatever happens on the site should be sorted out between the casino and customers basically.

Several popular crypto gambling sites have resorted to using these unethical tactics due to which some legit victims lost their winnings and deposits(rare). Greedy fools!

A casino cannot keep the deposit, and as far as I know they have to return the initial deposit, even if there were losses (but do not quote me on this, because I am not 100% certain).

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

If the money came from them directly, and they decide to confiscate it, then they can keep it. However, if it's a deposit from a gambler and they later find out that the gambler violated the Terms of Service, they can freeze the account and hold the money, but they can't just claim ownership of it. That money should be surrendered to the regulators or the government.

There should be some sort of third party that monitors and decides on whether or not there was a TOS violation, failed KYC or something else. The casino should not be allowed to make these decisions by themselves as it makes exploitation of their users too easy and far too unchecked.

It seems strange that there are no further regulations in this area and casinos can just do as they like, because they have a Terms Of Service that favors them in basically every situation.

[Odusko]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

KYC can be best approached before you have a withdrawal issue, what that means is that you have time to verify your account before you encounter any issues on the casino, but if you already have a KYC verifications demands triggered, you may not be allowed to even withdraw your deposits in most cases.

So they keep the funds including the coins you deposit?  I have seen complains but they usually allow users withdraw the amount they deposit when they can't pass the KYC. Even the users who has multiple accounts are allowed to withdraw the money they deposited. It would be unfair not to. And this is the easiest to ruin the reputation of the casino.  People are always cautious about this and they screenshot evidences.

Some fraudulent casinos have held on to gambler's deposits and winning severally, most especially when the gambler make a big winning, before the issues arise, this is what make them to be fraudulent if not by right, they are not allowed to keep players deposit, but yeah unethical character is always exhibited by the bad actors.

[pawanjain]

Just a question for some if you have the answers. I see sll the scam accusations towards the casinos for holding funding and/or blocking accounts on KYC failure. So is the casino keeping these funds that players are winning? And is this why there is such an up surge in the KYC bs everyone has been dealing with? Obviously the providers aren't aware of the scam accusations and KYC denials so safe to assume they are clueless on the payout? Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

It's obviously the casino owners who are keeping the money to themselves. Although they are morally liable to pay the money but they have their reasons not to pay the money as well.
They can come up KYC excuses and end up freezing your money and this is exactly why we have to be sure what exchange we are using to gamble our money on.
We already have reputed sites like BTCGOSU where we can see casino reviews which helps us determine which site to we can choose to play.

[Rating Place]

It does seem to be the case that a lot of the time, a casino / sportsbook will use KYC as an excuse to keep winnings, but more often than not they will at least let the player withdrawal their deposit. Its important to distinguish this ("winnings" as opposed to "winnings + deposit") because keeping a player's deposit due to "KYC failure" is a big no-no, and shouldn't be normalized in this industry.

This is a great point and the thing that bothers me the most. There are a lot of cases where sportsbooks are taking both winnings and deposits.