Kazakhstan already takes clients' gambling habits into account when assessing th

[mirakal]

A lot of countries that have a high gambling or freedom to gambling they have so much profit that comes from the gambling industry that they refuse to take further actions towards gambling behaviour where bad habits or not because they game beyond what is accounted for in the public ledger. I guess they believe with higher regulation gambling activities will reduce and profit making from such industry will be reduced. It’s a very good strategy for Kazakhstan tackling gambling.

There should be a balance , they cannot just think of profits while their people are struggling because of gambling, after all it will go back to the government, and it will create a mess. you know gambling addiction could lead to crime, so if the government keeps profiting but gambling addiction is no longer controlled then obviously they are not doing enough. so I say they need to maintain a balance as gambling revenue grows they need to provide facilities or education to treat and prevent gambling addiction.

[Free Market Capitalist]

What really blows my mind is that people think this only happens in Kazakhstan. The same thing happens to you, unless you live in a shithole. If you have a lot of deposits with bookmakers, don’t be surprised if they deny you a loan or give it to you at a much higher interest rate. It’s just a simple risk assessment.

Banks would give loans to individuals who have the capacity to repay it. It is not out of place for them to analyse the financial history of loan or mortgage applicants before giving out loans.

It's not that it's not out of place, it's just business as usual.

If any bank observes customer regularly sending money to gambling site, it may raise question regarding customer's financial capacity. Furthermore, it is reasonable for bank to assess how much money remain at customer's disposal after covering essential expense, and whether they will be able to meet their loan repayment obligation.
...
Even those with high income may attempt to chase loss and take on debt that exceed their financial mean. Banks should assess risk by taking holistic view, factoring in income, existing liability, repayment history and gambling related transaction.

That's the crux of the matter: banks take into account the risk involved in gambling. Even if someone manages their finances well, if they regularly deposit money at casinos, the banks know there's a chance they'll end up chasing their losses or going on a gambling binge where they lose a lot of money. They factor this in through algorithms.

[M47AK16]

Kazakhstan and Kazakh banks have begun analyzing clients' gambling activities and negatively impacting their credit history. The mechanism for this tracking is quite simple: If a person has made six or more payments to casinos or bookmakers totaling over 300,000 tenge in the past six months, their credit history is marked negatively.

Banks then resort to penalizing the client. For such borrowers, official income is taken into account when calculating solvency, and the maximum debt burden ratio is reduced to 0.25.
Thus, for Kazakh gamblers, losses may not end with casino losses.
In addition, banks are required to detect transfers to illegal gambling infrastructure and cryptocurrency platforms outside the authorized framework.
The government requires a fairly thorough review of payment histories and has a negative attitude toward gambling organizations, although it does not ban them. What do you think about the negative impact on your credit history when transferring funds to casinos?

As long as it is about the credit rating or score of an individual, I think they can and should reduce that when they find a client who is regularly involved in gambling. The reason is simple, they wouldn't want a gambler to take loans and use that money for gambling, and a positive or good credit score would allow the client to get loans from banks or other institutions regulated under the same institutions. To prevent this, they can reduce their credit score when they find them being regularly involved, and six months is a good enough period for that evaluation if you ask me. However, I don't think penalizing the clients for such behaviour is fair at all, because it's their money, they can do whatever they want with it as long as they are within the legal limits.

This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is such a great creation; no party to penalize you for doing something with your Bitcoin, no legal consequences for spending your own money, no inquiries or signing and submitting applications or documents for everything you do within your financial space. People often overlook this and consider Bitcoin only an investment asset or a store of value, when it can be used in so many ways to remove so many restrictions or stay away from unnecessary trouble that traditional banking channels will put you through even just for gambling.

[BitBakerr1]

A lot of countries that have a high gambling or freedom to gambling they have so much profit that comes from the gambling industry that they refuse to take further actions towards gambling behaviour where bad habits or not because they game beyond what is accounted for in the public ledger. I guess they believe with higher regulation gambling activities will reduce and profit making from such industry will be reduced. It’s a very good strategy for Kazakhstan tackling gambling.

There should be a balance , they cannot just think of profits while their people are struggling because of gambling, after all it will go back to the government, and it will create a mess. you know gambling addiction could lead to crime, so if the government keeps profiting but gambling addiction is no longer controlled then obviously they are not doing enough. so I say they need to maintain a balance as gambling revenue grows they need to provide facilities or education to treat and prevent gambling addiction.

You are actually correct, the major responsibility should be to protect their citizens and make sure that citizens are in a good mental and physical condition.
Gambling addiction can cause a lot of damage in the life of citizens, gambling addiction should be prevented if possible.

No matter the amount that the government is benefiting from any company once they discovered that the company may cause damage what they should do is stop them.

What they need to do is to make sure the citizens are informed about the harm of gambling addiction.

[Junii]

What do you think about the negative impact on your credit history when transferring funds to casinos?

Negative impact just because a person has made six or  more payments does not make sense if a person consistently sending money to casinos and losing the big portion of his income in casino then negatively impact make sense but if he/she has the ability to paid there debts on time then negatively impact is unfair because self exclusion option is available in most casinos if someone is vulnerable to loses and also the perspective and reason behind gambling of every one is different.

[angrybirdy]

What do you think about the negative impact on your credit history when transferring funds to casinos?

Negative impact just because a person has made six or  more payments does not make sense if a person consistently sending money to casinos and losing the big portion of his income in casino then negatively impact make sense but if he/she has the ability to paid there debts on time then negatively impact is unfair because self exclusion option is available in most casinos if someone is vulnerable to loses and also the perspective and reason behind gambling of every one is different.

It cannot be the presence of six or more payments in connection with gambling that leads to any negative impact on the financial standing of a person. The real issue lies in whether or not gambling impacts the finances of an individual or his ability to repay debts. If a person loses a lot of money and does not meet his financial obligations, there might exist some justification for the negative impact on his finances. But in case a person takes risks occasionally and recovers all his money, he should not be blamed for it.

[bakasabo]

This is a measure that should be used in other countries where gambling is regulated/permitted. It provides financial protection for both the gambler and the bank, preventing further debt and default. How many stories do we know of people taking out loans to gamble? I've read many. If this had been done here in Brazil, perhaps they wouldn't be blaming online gambling for the high level of debt among the population.

You suggest it should be used in other countries, but why then most of people prefer gambling online and avoid KYC. This system is not going to work if everyone keep (or try) gambling anonymously. But do you actually like when someone look in your wallet and dictate how you should spend money? If they monitor money spend on gambling, then they do same with other categories of expenses and nothing stops them from restricting how much you should spend on liquor for example.

[sompitonov]

It cannot be the presence of six or more payments in connection with gambling that leads to any negative impact on the financial standing of a person. The real issue lies in whether or not gambling impacts the finances of an individual or his ability to repay debts. If a person loses a lot of money and does not meet his financial obligations, there might exist some justification for the negative impact on his finances. But in case a person takes risks occasionally and recovers all his money, he should not be blamed for it.

While this system might not necessarily be a bad thing, it is crucial that it functions exactly as intended without the introduction of further changes that could too drastically impact a person’s life. Ideally, it would be best if players with a gambling addiction could be easily identified and prevented from continuing to play however, I suspect this could lead to other, less obvious problems. For instance, such individuals would almost certainly find ways to keep playing by creating new accounts, for example since the urge to continue in hopes of winning back their losses is extremely powerful.

[Floxynice]

They didn't put into consideration that different gamblers earn differently. Some of them earn very high amounts, while some earn very low income. The first error with their approach is using 300,000+ tenge which is approximately $664 as a criteria to know who is credit worthy or not.

Hmm, your concern is valid. Even if any high income gambler and low income borrower make gambling payment of same amount, their financial situation are not same. Furthermore we cannot simply assume that any high income make someone’s gambling expenditure sustainable.

In my view categorizing risk solely based on number of payment and total amount will lead to false positive. Some individual may gamble using only their disposable income. Conversely others might spend smaller amount but do so by borrowing money to chase loss.

Looking solely at transaction data you will not be able to tell which of these two situation has occurred. Therefore, if regulator aims to reduce over indebtedness then it is crucial to consider verified income, existing debt and repayment obligation. besides these it is still highly logical to use gambling transaction as an additional indicator of risk.

Yea you are right. The best approach they should adopt is to assess the gamblers or borrower's overall financial situation. If they go by my recommendation, they will get more information about the gambler than just the criteria that they have put in place which limits their knowledge and gives false results as well.

This is a measure that should be used in other countries where gambling is regulated/permitted. It provides financial protection for both the gambler and the bank, preventing further debt and default. How many stories do we know of people taking out loans to gamble? I've read many. If this had been done here in Brazil, perhaps they wouldn't be blaming online gambling for the high level of debt among the population.

There's no doubt that this method helps to provide financial protection to both the gamblers and the bank, but how then does the measure adopted differentiate between those who are only gambling for fun and have no challenges with their overall financial situation, from those gamblers who are truly not fit to borrow? That measure taken is flawed.

[Emjay24]

If any individual chooses to spend their own money on entertainment or gaming, by what right do bank or government get to pass judgment or establish criteria based on such choices? idk.

Subjecting people’s personal financial transaction to this kind of surveillance is gross violation of privacy.

Are you from the said country?

From what I read, the impact is on your credit history, which applies to your ability to obtain loans and not your own money or earnings par say.

Maybe the government is trying to curb the growing rate of gambling addiction in the country as they may be sensing that most people borrow a lot just to gamble and it's impacting their financial status. I don't blame any country government when they take up measures to curb addiction. If you go into the streets, you'll shed years at how gambling addiction has ruined several lives.