Where does the $$$$ GO on KYC failure

[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.

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.

That was not the point I was making. There are not "a lot" of such cases as casinos / sportsbooks that do this will quickly be labeled scams and won't last. If there are, the majority of such complaints aren't being lodged here on this forum.

So they keep the funds including the coins you deposit?

No. Most casinos don't do this. I mean, if you lose, then yes, they will keep your deposit.

[Beparanf]

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?

There’s money obviously stay to the casino because user failed to complete the requirements or violate the casino ToS. The problem of this case is it’s very hard to prove who’s side is correct because the evidence can’t be displayed in public.

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 are sharing their games to casino for a fraction of profit. There’s no way they are liable for players money.

[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.

That was not the point I was making. There are not "a lot" of such cases as casinos / sportsbooks that do this will quickly be labeled scams and won't last. If there are, the majority of such complaints aren't being lodged here on this forum.

So they keep the funds including the coins you deposit?

No. Most casinos don't do this. I mean, if you lose, then yes, they will keep your deposit.

I know what you were getting at. But there are a lot more of these cases than you would suspect. I realize that Trust Pilot isn't the best source but some casinos do reply at Trust Pilot. I've logged all the Trust Pilot complaints and you would be surprised at the number of confiscations of both winnings and deposits.

[Mrbluntzy]

It's a criminal act if a casino deprives a gambler their deposit because of KYC problem, instead, they should not even allow customers to make deposits if the person has not yet passed their KYC. Some casinos will allow you to deposit and gamble and even win, but during withdrawals  that's when they will bring up KYC issues so that they can caused problems for the gambler. Some of the fake casinos are the ones that will claim the customers money for themselves but it's not meant to be so.

[acroman08]

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?

As far as I know, if the money is not connected to money laundering or other ilelgal activities, the casino can keep the funds(not including the initial deposit), but if they are connected to money laundering or other illegal activities, casinos are required to report it to authorities and from what I've read before, the authorities will confiscate the money. So yeah, casinos can confiscate the funds if the gambler only fails the KYC and the money has nothing to do with any criminal activities.

[Haunebu]

I know what you were getting at. But there are a lot more of these cases than you would suspect. I realize that Trust Pilot isn't the best source but some casinos do reply at Trust Pilot. I've logged all the Trust Pilot complaints and you would be surprised at the number of confiscations of both winnings and deposits.

These casinos know damn well that their reputation could go into the gutter in an instant if they took the deposits too which is why they usually only stick to confiscating winnings in a clever manner.

I noticed Betpanda actually confiscate the deposit too in a shady manner recently which is why I tend to advise to steer clear of such sites to be on the safe side.

[Slow death]

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?

The provider doesn't know that the player has funds withheld at casino X or Y, because it's up to the casino to decide what to do with its customers' accounts. The saddest part is that many casinos are only strict with KYC when the customer wins a lot of money or has been winning consistently. The casinos' argument is always "we detected suspicious activity and your account is under investigation."

Months or months later, they contact the customer to inform them that they were banned and all funds were confiscated because the casino's support team detected too many accounts. There are few cases in which the casino at least returns the person's deposit. With this type of accusation, it's almost impossible for the customer to prove their innocence.

[Rating Place]

I know what you were getting at. But there are a lot more of these cases than you would suspect. I realize that Trust Pilot isn't the best source but some casinos do reply at Trust Pilot. I've logged all the Trust Pilot complaints and you would be surprised at the number of confiscations of both winnings and deposits.

These casinos know damn well that their reputation could go into the gutter in an instant if they took the deposits too which is why they usually only stick to confiscating winnings in a clever manner.

I noticed Betpanda actually confiscate the deposit too in a shady manner recently which is why I tend to advise to steer clear of such sites to be on the safe side.

Believe me it doesn't. Check out scam accusations. Posters take the side of the casino blindly. I can show you tons of cases at Trust Pilot. The big casinos are above the law.

I was hoping not to pick on Sportsbet but to show proof https://trustpilot.com/review/sportsbet.io. There was a time when Sportsbet replied to Trust Pilot so I know the complaints were legitimate. They take both winnings and deposits.

[Su-asa]

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.

That's correct actually, using failed KYC verification to hold back gamblers money is becoming alarming almost everyday. But what makes it suspicious is allowing the gambler to withdraw his or her initial deposit. It shows that the casino do not want to pay the gambler the money he won, and for the gambler not to take it further, they have to pay back his initial deposit. Although sometimes gamblers too might be at fault for registering with wring KYC but it's obvious that casinos do the same (mostly the new casinos).

[Hispo]

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?

As far as I am aware it is the casino which keeps the money in the end when some user managed to get some money out their good luck and could not go through KYC in a satisfactory way.
Anyways, we should not normalize that practice some shady casinos do in order to keep the money and not to pay fair winners.

That is why it is often recommended to stick to casinos which have such a big liquidity and high reliability so they would not earn anything from putting their reputation at stake with shady practices like those ones, in my opinion.

Also, if one is interested in a casinos and one knows one is goin to gamble on it for a long time, it is advisable to complete full KYC requirements before even depositing any significant amount of money, once full KYC is fulfilled then there is no excuse for them to withhold your money.

[Rating Place]

Here's another recent one. BC.game stole deposits. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549320.0

Trust Pilot AI on Sportsbet.

Most reviewers were unhappy with their experience overall. A significant number of consumers express concerns about their accounts being blocked or restricted, often after winning, with accusations of "multi-accounting" without sufficient evidence provided. People report difficulties in contacting customer service, especially when seeking explanations or resolutions regarding account issues and withheld funds.

Many reviewers mention problems related to withdrawals, including unexpected KYC requests for small amounts and instances where deposits are not returned. Some users describe the platform as a scam, alleging that their funds were stuck or confiscated. However, there are also consumers who praise the platform for its user-friendly interface, fast payouts, and variety of betting options.

Based on reviews, created with AI

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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?

On kyc failure and the user not being able to access or withdraw their funds from the casino, the casino gets to keep this funds if the user has no choice but to forget about it, this is definitely why some scam casinos will boldly allow users from areas and countries they themselves put on their restriction list to sign up and successfully deposit money into the Casino, they allow the user to play games and as soon as the user wins and places a withdrawal request, they will ask him or her to complete kyc verification first, something the casino already know the user can not pass due to playing from a location the casino restricts, when the user can not pass the kyc verification, the casino refuses him or her withdrawal of the funds on the grounds that kyc verification was not passed, this fund automatically becomes that of the casino.

This is a strategy so many small casinos are using to scam unsuspecting victims.

[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?

On kyc failure and the user not being able to access or withdraw their funds from the casino, the casino gets to keep this funds if the user has no choice but to forget about it, this is definitely why some scam casinos will boldly allow users from areas and countries they themselves put on their restriction list to sign up and successfully deposit money into the Casino, they allow the user to play games and as soon as the user wins and places a withdrawal request, they will ask him or her to complete kyc verification first, something the casino already know the user can not pass due to playing from a location the casino restricts, when the user can not pass the kyc verification, the casino refuses him or her withdrawal of the funds on the grounds that kyc verification was not passed, this fund automatically becomes that of the casino.

This is a strategy so many small casinos are using to scam unsuspecting victims.

That's a good post although the big casinos are the ones that get away with it. The smaller casinos are the ones that can't afford to steal money since their reputation isn't good enough to overcome the bad press.

[Sling0]

Thanks for all the replies. I was assuming this was the case and also agree it has started to be more common in the last few years. I figured it would be good info for everyone to be aware of. I would question how it is even legally possible to have a gambler win at the casino and have the winnings confiscated by a middleman, but all countries probably different.

[viljy]

~
Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

The provider has no financial relationship with the clients. The provider has a financial relationship with the casino, meaning the provider's client is the casino. The provider is responsible for providing access to gambling and matching these games to the specified parameters (for example, RTP). The provider has nothing to do with any issues of identification, deposits, or withdrawals of gambling funds.

[Rating Place]

~
Now isn't the provider just as liable to pay the player their winnings as the host platforms?

The provider has no financial relationship with the clients. The provider has a financial relationship with the casino, meaning the provider's client is the casino. The provider is responsible for providing access to gambling and matching these games to the specified parameters (for example, RTP). The provider has nothing to do with any issues of identification, deposits, or withdrawals of gambling funds.

One correction would be that odds providers can profile players and can auto limit sharp players for the sportsbook. Obviously the book can override those limits. They can also warn the sportsbook of possible multi-accounts. Each book is different as some do all the profiling in house. Some even make their own odds.

[Cantsay]

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’m not referring to those shitty casinos that usually do this kind of thing to keep users funds deliberately; but what I have seen is that they’d calculate to see if the user is on the winning side if he is then they usually keep the entire thing as some kind of reimbursement for the winnings the user have and then just let them go with their initial deposits and if it’s true that the user isn’t able to complete kyc genuinely then I think that kind of treatment isn’t cruel… It only becomes cruel when the casino or provider deliberately refuses to verify the account when the user submits a legit document but for a fake document or incomplete documents then it is okay.

[Odusko]

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?

On kyc failure and the user not being able to access or withdraw their funds from the casino, the casino gets to keep this funds if the user has no choice but to forget about it, this is definitely why some scam casinos will boldly allow users from areas and countries they themselves put on their restriction list to sign up and successfully deposit money into the Casino, they allow the user to play games and as soon as the user wins and places a withdrawal request, they will ask him or her to complete kyc verification first, something the casino already know the user can not pass due to playing from a location the casino restricts, when the user can not pass the kyc verification, the casino refuses him or her withdrawal of the funds on the grounds that kyc verification was not passed, this fund automatically becomes that of the casino.

This is a strategy so many small casinos are using to scam unsuspecting victims.

That's a good post although the big casinos are the ones that get away with it. The smaller casinos are the ones that can't afford to steal money since their reputation isn't good enough to overcome the bad press.

Most especially those big casinos that have fraudulent intentions already, the majority of time those small casinos have no time to walk away with players founds since their aim at that point is to build a reputation and also build strong communities to sustain their operations, but not same with a scam bug casinos example of them is 1xbit and the rest their are known global casinos but yet steal from players.

[Hispo]

It's a criminal act if a casino deprives a gambler their deposit because of KYC problem, instead, they should not even allow customers to make deposits if the person has not yet passed their KYC. Some casinos will allow you to deposit and gamble and even win, but during withdrawals  that's when they will bring up KYC issues so that they can caused problems for the gambler. Some of the fake casinos are the ones that will claim the customers money for themselves but it's not meant to be so.

Ironically, if the casinos is somewhat regulated and have earned the trust of regulators, then in those situations in which they decide to withhold the money from their gamblers for some KYC problems (alledgedly), then in the eyes of regulators the casino and the staff behind it is doing a great job, as they are stopoing bad people from laundering money or wiring money through the casino to commit illegal activities.
Regulators most of the time do not seem to care about specific cases in which funds are being taken from gamblers because there is an alledged problem with documents, the most important thing for them is keeping a data base of all gamblers possible for their taxing purposes and other things related to governance.

[Smartvirus]

Thanks for all the replies. I was assuming this was the case and also agree it has started to be more common in the last few years. I figured it would be good info for everyone to be aware of. I would question how it is even legally possible to have a gambler win at the casino and have the winnings confiscated by a middleman, but all countries probably different.

There is no middleman in gambling, not except you are placing bets through someone else’s account which is not legally recognized by the casino or gambling platform and that is usually against the terms of service, should you be found out, then funds and won bets would be confiscated.
It is the casino that confiscate bets and not any third party. At most, what could come from a third party in this case, the game providers is the flagging for suspicion. Which might arise from observed behaviors with similar account from a different casino.