CASHMO.co.uk have cash deposit 1x wagering term.

[gfkostas]

Hello all,

I have been playing for a while with them over their phone app and it has been an entertaining experience. I have mainly been using their constant "no deposit-free spins" sms offers that I get bombarded with since I deposited £10 I think.

I've been trying my luck with their free spins offers with 0 result thus far but i had some fun so it doesn't really matter. What I just came to find out is that all those numerous no deposit-free spins bonuses that I've used had wagering requirements (which is normal) but regardless of my balance always ending at £0 or £0.01 said requirements remained and accumulated over a period of time which amounts now stands in the thousands. I made a small deposit today to play, got some free spins, won around £2 from them and realized the wagering is at over £2500 making it impossible to ever win unless I deposit and risk big.

I talked to live chat support and was told about this accumulation which can be removed but only IF you request it with a £0 or £0.01 balance. Since my balance isn't there I can't have it removed and my current deposit is held hostage of past wagering requirements accumulations. I would't mind at all their x40 deposit wagering being applied ONCE per bonus without accumulation.

I find this to be a completely insidious and pathetic practise to ensure players lose their deposits and forcing them to deposit big in order to clear any possible winnings they may already have.

Anyone playing over there be aware about this. Never had a withdraw with them so am unsure of that aspect too. This practice should not be allowed!
You reckon I could complain to the UK gaming board as they are licenced.

See Related Threads:

• First Time Cashing Out....
• Help I'm an Easy2Win.Bet Spammer
• Casumo Bank Transfer
• Casumo. How Long Does a Withdrawal Take?
• CASHMO.CO.UK??

 

[thr0b]

Definitely. Your deposit should be treated as cash - they can't hold cash to ransom for a bonus.

 

[dunover]

I take it you mean 'Cashmio' or is 'Cashmo' one I haven't heard of? Either way sticky bonus wagering is RAF and shouldn't happen as you have the right in the UK to withdraw cash funds whenever you want, if you have deposited cash.

 

[gfkostas]

No idea. I play at cashmo.co.uk. According to their system my allowed withdrawable funds is 0 regardless of my recent deposit until I meet their wagering requirements. My deposit has been essentially lost. There is cashable credit and bonus credit. My deposit did not appear as cashable credit and is therefore held ransom to past bonuses. Unless I am a liar who is trying to get back the huge amount of a £5 deposit!!
It's not about the money, it is the practise that bugs me. I consider myself lucky this isn't £1000 I usually deposit elsewhere.

 

[brianmon]

I take it you mean 'Cashmio' or is 'Cashmo' one I haven't heard of? Either way sticky bonus wagering is RAF and shouldn't happen as you have the right in the UK to withdraw cash funds whenever you want, if you have deposited cash.

One of those 'dodgier' mobile sites Mfortune, Pocketwin Etc
Probably doing what they can to save up for the £2.2M penalty the got handed



In Touch Games Limited
Principal address
Fountain House
Great Cornbow
HALESOWEN
B63 3BL

The Commission carried out an investigation into InTouch Games Limited, which identified weaknesses in its anti-money laundering and social responsibility controls.

The investigation found breaches of:

• Licence condition 12.1.1(1)
• Licence condition 12.1.1(2) and 12.1.1(3)

The investigation also found a failure to comply with:

• Social responsibility code provision 3.4.1

In line with our Statement of principles for licensing and regulation, InTouch has agreed a regulatory settlement consisting of:

• A payment in lieu of a financial penalty of £2,200,000 which will go to a gambling harm related charity to address the risk of harmful gambling,
• An agreement to publication of a statement of facts by the Commission, and
• A payment of £14,565 towards the Commission’s costs.

 

[gfkostas]

Are there anymore casinos out there with an accumulating bonus wagering UNTIL you request it and ONLY with a £0 or 0.01 balance?

 

[gfkostas]

I have to correct my original post. Your deposit is held ransom to a x1 wagering requirement. I was under the wrong impression when I saw my withdrawable credit as 0. What was holding my deposit ransom wasn't the bonus wagering requirements. You are unlikely to win anything unless you remember to ask them to remove all past wagering requirements and this cannot happen once a deposit takes place as balance needs to be 0. What sort of a dodgy rule is this?

With that said is this cash deposit ransom still legal? You can see my live chat with them in the image attached.

 

[misstrouble]

This is actually where my colleague played and who have them his losses back when he gambled it away.

 

[Jono777]

Knew something rang a bell as I just read it and this thread was it!

Article in tonight's Express & Star newspaper (local W-ton paper) about this group winning TWO awards at the recent IGaming event in Madame Tussauds

 

[dunover]

I have to correct my original post. Your deposit is held ransom to a x1 wagering requirement. I was under the wrong impression when I saw my withdrawable credit as 0. What was holding my deposit ransom wasn't the bonus wagering requirements. You are unlikely to win anything unless you remember to ask them to remove all past wagering requirements and this cannot happen once a deposit takes place as balance needs to be 0. What sort of a dodgy rule is this?

With that said is this cash deposit ransom still legal? You can see my live chat with them in the image attached.

Well this means the thread needs correcting as 1x wagering to prevent money laundering is pretty normal, although you could argue that with the UKGC wanting cash access at all times, even 1x is wrong, yet without 1x wagering it would make for easier money laundering, which the UKGC also want to eradicate - catch-22 for the casinos!

 

[colinsunderland]

Well this means the thread needs correcting as 1x wagering to prevent money laundering is pretty normal, although you could argue that with the UKGC wanting cash access at all times, even 1x is wrong, yet without 1x wagering it would make for easier money laundering, which the UKGC also want to eradicate - catch-22 for the casinos!

I don't get that. If it is going back to the same account then how does it make money laundering easier?
Deposit £100 from a card, get £100 back to same card doesn't = money laundering

 

[dunover]

EDIT - Thread corrected to represent the actual issue at hand.​

 

[dunover]

I don't get that. If it is going back to the same account then how does it make money laundering easier?
Deposit £100 from a card, get £100 back to same card doesn't = money laundering

Numerous ways which I won't go into in detail, but peer-vs-peer games, use of vouchers, depositing with non-refundable methods (used to be done with Mastercards, card balance is paid with cash at the bank then used to deposit and withdraw to a different bank account in same name) etc. A bank account filled with hundreds of gambling transactions even with the same source in itself can obscure the original source of funding unless forensically checked.

Now it would be difficult for a casino to specify that some of their tens of deposit methods need a turnover in the terms, so a blanket amount is applied to all. Banks also do not check cash deposits of under a few thousand so you can launder money into the same account as you gamble with, and you only need a few decent withdrawals and you've covered your tracks ostensibly. The casinos know more about the ways and means than we do and therefore you can believe with some degree of certainty there's a good reason for it.

And what if the casino was run by crooks itself?

 

[colinsunderland]

Numerous ways which I won't go into in detail, but peer-vs-peer games, use of vouchers, depositing with non-refundable methods (used to be done with Mastercards, card balance is paid with cash at the bank then used to deposit and withdraw to a different bank account in same name) etc. A bank account filled with hundreds of gambling transactions even with the same source in itself can obscure the original source of funding unless forensically checked.

Now it would be difficult for a casino to specify that some of their tens of deposit methods need a turnover in the terms, so a blanket amount is applied to all. Banks also do not check cash deposits of under a few thousand so you can launder money into the same account as you gamble with, and you only need a few decent withdrawals and you've covered your tracks ostensibly. The casinos know more about the ways and means than we do and therefore you can believe with some degree of certainty there's a good reason for it.

And what if the casino was run by crooks itself?

I get that, what I dont get is how a 1x turnover makes it harder?
Deposit £100
£48.5 black
£48.5 red
£3 zero
withdraw £97 minimum.

I don't believe its to stop money laundering at all, in fact the only casino I know that is UKGC regulated (away from the UK Bookies who seem to do what they want) where you could successfully money launder is Videoslots. I think its more so casinos hope you lose and not withdraw. The fact that some will let you withdraw without the wagering as long as you pay a fee says it all to me.

 

[dunover]

I get that, what I dont get is how a 1x turnover makes it harder?
Deposit £100
£48.5 black
£48.5 red
£3 zero
withdraw £97 minimum.

I don't believe its to stop money laundering at all, in fact the only casino I know that is UKGC regulated (away from the UK Bookies who seem to do what they want) where you could successfully money launder is Videoslots. I think its more so casinos hope you lose and not withdraw. The fact that some will let you withdraw without the wagering as long as you pay a fee says it all to me.

Is that how you do it?

 

[colinsunderland]

Is that how you do it?

no obviously not cos if it goes back to the same payment method then its not clean money . The point is, is how does having a 1 x wagering make it harder? A 3% (max) loss is nothing to people money laundering, the going rate is usually 20% min, so I genuinely can't see how losing 3% would be any kind of deterrent to someone doing it (even assuming every casino used the Videoslots way of calculating where a withdrawal goes to)?

 

[dunover]

no obviously not cos if it goes back to the same payment method then its not clean money . The point is, is how does having a 1 x wagering make it harder? A 3% (max) loss is nothing to people money laundering, the going rate is usually 20% min, so I genuinely can't see how losing 3% would be any kind of deterrent to someone doing it (even assuming every casino used the Videoslots way of calculating where a withdrawal goes to)?

Or a 4% loss if you make it look better and play slots lol

 

[colinsunderland]

so it doesn't make it harder then

 

[goatwack]

Videoslots is good for money laundering you say?

 

[The Reel Story]

If this is anything like MFortune, you can go to live chat and request a refund. They will manually process your deposit back in to cashable credit for you.

 

[gfkostas]

The threads topic isn't to my liking or appropriate. I would like it changed to "Insidious bonus wagering requirement tactic"

I am puzzled as to why nobody seems to comment on their ridiculous wagering accumulation that you are not informed about.

 

[LV BET]

I get that, what I dont get is how a 1x turnover makes it harder?
Deposit £100
£48.5 black
£48.5 red
£3 zero
withdraw £97 minimum.

I don't believe its to stop money laundering at all, in fact the only casino I know that is UKGC regulated (away from the UK Bookies who seem to do what they want) where you could successfully money launder is Videoslots. I think its more so casinos hope you lose and not withdraw. The fact that some will let you withdraw without the wagering as long as you pay a fee says it all to me.

Opposite betting will actually lead to your account getting closed after you do it a certain amount of times So it's not a steady way of "Laundering" especially if the Payments team is vigilant about the way they do their gameplay checks..

Also the withdraw without wagering as long as you pay a fee should lead to a permanent account closure so that it is not repeated at the same casino

 

[colinsunderland]

Opposite betting will actually lead to your account getting closed after you do it a certain amount of times So it's not a steady way of "Laundering" especially if the Payments team is vigilant about the way they do their gameplay checks..

Also the withdraw without wagering as long as you pay a fee should lead to a permanent account closure so that it is not repeated at the same casino

Not at all casinos

 

[Slottery]

Opposite betting will actually lead to your account getting closed after you do it a certain amount of times So it's not a steady way of "Laundering" especially if the Payments team is vigilant about the way they do their gameplay checks..

Also the withdraw without wagering as long as you pay a fee should lead to a permanent account closure so that it is not repeated at the same casino

Would assume that not many who have huge amounts to launder are not that simple that would keep repeating it in same casino

That's one thing in AML where some players sometimes wondering their AML checks, it don't need to be huge or even very big amount if there are some triggers to suggest suspicious behavior. Instead of trying to make 10k£ clean in one place, would make it more easier to split it to 20 places not to keep low profile. That's why players might get these checks even though total amounts are not big but small rivers etc...

 

[LV BET]

Would assume that not many who have huge amounts to launder are not that simple that would keep repeating it in same casino

That's one thing in AML where some players sometimes wondering their AML checks, it don't need to be huge or even very big amount if there are some triggers to suggest suspicious behavior. Instead of trying to make 10k£ clean in one place, would make it more easier to split it to 20 places not to keep low profile. That's why players might get these checks even though total amounts are not big but small rivers etc...

As my CS would say.

Thank you for understanding