casinoplex demanded notary paper ,from a non bonus win , beware

[raul1]

guys here is info that cost me money . 1000 casheen try from a non bonus deposit

brought this email
his is Mai from the Support Team.

We would like to confirm that we are in receipt of your ID and proof of
address. Rest assured that the documents were saved in a secured file.

However, we are requesting you to send us a copy of notarized ID for us to
verify. Raul, once a legible copy is received, your account will be updated
accordingly.

Please note that you need to send the document via this address:

ID Verification
14/F Yuchengco Tower,
RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala,
Makati City 1200,
Philippines.

 

[Nifty29]

You seem to be having a lot of issues for a newbie....

 

[ksech]

You seem to be having a lot of issues for a newbie....

ditto that thought...

 

[mn001]

Casino should cover the cost of this.

Everything else is scam in my world.

 

[Jasminebed]

Casinoplex has a rep here at CM https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/members/

Try private messaging them with your details, perhaps an alternative can be found.

The email you received refers to "legible". If there were problems with your ID scan, perhaps another method of sending it short of notarized might be acceptable.

Contact the rep. I hope he can help you find an alternative.

 

[Nifty29]

Casino should cover the cost of this.

Everything else is scam in my world.

Why should the casino cough up for YOU to prove YOUR identity?

In your world, do you want them to pay for your drivers licence and passport as well?

99% of players have little or no trouble proving who they are...and most of the other 1% are scammers. If you don't have the required documents, or aren't prepared to pay for them like everyone else, then don't play online.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why should the casino cough up for YOU to prove YOUR identity?

In your world, do you want them to pay for your drivers licence and passport as well?

99% of players have little or no trouble proving who they are...and most of the other 1% are scammers. If you don't have the required documents, or aren't prepared to pay for them like everyone else, then don't play online.

It's not a case necessarily of the player not having the documents, it is the casino wanting a non-standard means of verifying them. The casino SHOULD cover the costs, but not up front. The player should be paid expenses ONLY if the casino got it wrong in it's initial refusal of the documents.

Many casinos do this anyway, as once they have verified the player, they want to keep them. It is the payment of costs up front that benefits the scammers, after all, they could simply accept the costs and then walk away knowing full well that they could not pass verification.

Whilst we may be asked to show our ID in "real life", we are NOT required to cover the costs involved in the business sending a copy to head office, asking a higher manager to "pop downstairs" to offer a second opinion, etc. ALL we are required to do is present the documents that we have, and as specified in the terms of service, this is done once the player scans them and emails them into the casino. ONLY scammers should be expected to pay the costs involved in dealing with their deception, innocent players mistakenly caught in the net should be compensated for the inconvenience.

Casinos seem to think they are banks, and most normal retail businesses do NOT go around asking for "notarised copies" of anything. The most inconvenience you will get is being asked to show ID before getting into an age restricted venue, or buy age restricted goods and services. Casinos are nothing more than an age restricted entertainment service, so must ensure that the player is old enough. They also have to know that the player is risking their own money, but this can be done through a proof of access to the originating account, and that it ties in to their declared details. Crediting (or deducting) a mystery micropayment which the player then has to supply details of demonstrates a current access to the underlying account, rather than merely access to stolen card/bank details. This is MORE secure than having a statement notarised by whoever the player chooses, as this still leaves the casino having to verify the notary in order to verify that the notarisation is legitimate.

Another oddity brought up is that the player is asked to send this document NOT to the casino, but to a contractor it uses to verify players' details and documents. This contractor in this case is NOT even in the same COUNTRY as the casino operates from in terms of it's gaming license, and this can make players feel there is "something dodgy going on" with said casino.

NO casino has EVER explained what is going on here, leaving players to speculate, and some to worry.

Sensitive information being forwarded to subcontractors has been a HUGE problem for many customers, as many data leaks have been traced to weaknesses in this chain of outsourcing, rather than the customer or business involved. So called "call centres" have been the biggest source of leaks, so much so that many companies have given up on the idea and brought these operations back "in house".

No player can know just how many copies of their information exist, and in which countries.

In this case, it seems that THREE different countries are all involved in storing and processing player information.

1) The licensing jurisdiction
2) Casino customer support centre (although this can be in the same country as the licensing jurisdiction, but this is rare given that many are merely jurisdictions of convenience, with little infrastructure or physical resources to house the main support centres).
3) Subcontractors, in this case player verification has been contracted out to a company, rather than being done "in house" by the casino management.

The way players are requested to send the documents DIRECT to the subcontractor is what stands out in this case. Many other operators would rather such arrangements stay low key, and tend to ask players to send their documents to the casino support centre, who then forward them to whatever contractors are being used to carry out the verification. I recall many Microgaming casinos contracted this out to Proccyber, but this was barely apparent to players as they were discouraged from interacting directly with Proccyber, but were asked to do everything via the casinos' own CS.

It was actually possible to log into Proccyber with your casino and card details and see your card transactions there, along with some additional descriptors that didn't make it to your statements in either the card account, or casino Cashcheck. I did this a few times, logging into Proccyber and viewing a little more detail about which casino transactions went to, something that isn't shown on the card statement where only the name of the processor is shown. It seemed that many of these processor names showing on my card statement went via Proccyber with casino deposits. I did this a few times when my card statements appeared to be wrong. Checking more thoroughly showed that there were almost no actual errors, but that confusion had resulted from transactions taking quite some time to be posted, thus making them show up in the wrong order on my card statement, and with no way of knowing which item belonged to which casino.

 

[rainmaker]

.

My view on this is quite clear. I would never use a casino that requires documents to be sent to the Philippines. We have seen it several times before, and it looks like this is something that smaller Playtech casinos have as a procedure in certain cases. I might be wrong, but I do not recall seeing larger Playtech based casinos like Bet365 and Centrebet demaning documents to be sent to the Philippines.

 

[vinylweatherman]

.

My view on this is quite clear. I would never use a casino that requires documents to be sent to the Philippines. We have seen it several times before, and it looks like this is something that smaller Playtech casinos have as a procedure in certain cases. I might be wrong, but I do not recall seeing larger Playtech based casinos like Bet365 and Centrebet demaning documents to be sent to the Philippines.

The problem is that you can never KNOW which casino might ask for this to be done. Remember also that other casinos may STILL use this same company, but don't tell PLAYERS about it by asking some to send their documents there.

It is possible that the bigger brands like Bet365 still use this contractor to verify players, but forward the documents themselves from their support centre, rather than asking players to post them directly. It is also puzzling that so MANY of the "smaller Playtechs" managed to come to the SAME decision when deciding which company they would use. It seems they had no real say in the matter, and that this is the ONLY company that playtech casinos are allowed to use. This seems odd given that they are all supposedly INDEPENDENT, and Playtech have stated that they are "simply the software supplier", and do NOT themselves "handle players" in any way, not even to the extent of having access to their data.

It does not matter how players rate the Philipines alongside other countries used by casinos when handling their accounts, it is just so ODD that a large number of independent casinos, related ONLY by their use of the same software, have decided in unison to use a company based OUTSIDE their core market region (which is Canada, the EU, etc). Most other companies (not necessarily casino related) seem to outsource to India and a few other similar places. I do not recall the Philipines being mentioned as a location being used for such outsourcing UNTIL we came across this issue with Playtech casinos. It was once thought that Playtech themselves were based in the Philipines, and this was simply a Playtech subsidiary company, but this was set straight by Playtech saying that they do NOT have "offices in the Philipines".

This can mean only one thing. These smaller Playtech casios are NOT "independent" at all, but are being operated as "white labels" by this company in the Philipines, who handle many of the "back office" operations like player verification, leaving the "owners" with the tasks of marketing and providing capital. This seems similar to the way Rival set up many of their operators, who turned out mostly to be skilled at marketing, but NOT so skilled at running a casino, hence many got themselves into trouble, and some went bust and had to be taken back by Rival, who sometimes passed the white label to a new set of investors.

There seem to have been many Playtech casinos that have run into trouble, some simply vanishing with players' money, whilst other Playtech casinos have had no such problems, some even becoming accredited. It seems there are two types of Playtech casinos, and the smaller "white label" ones present the highest risks to players.

Maybe this "send ........ to this address (Philipines)" request is one way to tell which type of Playtech an individual casino is, with such a request indicating a "white label" operation as opposed to a fully independent one making all it's own decisions, including it's own decisions on which companies to use for outsourcing some functions.

 

[deucebag]

.
We have seen it several times before, and it looks like this is something that smaller Playtech casinos have as a procedure in certain cases. I might be wrong, but I do not recall seeing larger Playtech based casinos like Bet365 and Centrebet demaning documents to be sent to the Philippines.

Large or small has nothing to do with it. The ones you mention are sportsbooks who do their own anti-fraud stuff such as ID verification. It seems pretty much all the pure casinos, including the largest and oldest like Europartners, use Playtech's verification service in the Philippines. They have this notarized copies clause in their terms.

 

[rainmaker]

Large or small has nothing to do with it. The ones you mention are sportsbooks who do their own anti-fraud stuff such as ID verification. It seems pretty much all the pure casinos, including the largest and oldest like Europartners, use Playtech's verification service in the Philippines. They have this notarized copies clause in their terms.

Yes, sorry about the confusion. When I said "large casinos", I meant large companies. Those sportsbooks companies are many times larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos.

As I said, it is for me completely unacceptable to send documents to the Philippines and I do not understand that players think this is OK. But I have only used sportsbooks with Playtech casinos so what do I know

 

[deucebag]

Yes, sorry about the confusion. When I said "large casinos", I meant large companies. Those sportsbooks companies are many times larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos.

Again, size has nothing to do with it. You apparently know nothing about the size of Playtech's own casino operation.

 

[rainmaker]

Again, size has nothing to do with it. You apparently know nothing about the size of Playtech's own casino operation.

Well, you need to explain what you mean, so please feel free to educate me ?

 

[Nifty29]

Again, size has nothing to do with it. You apparently know nothing about the size of Playtech's own casino operation.

Was that really necessary? You could have educated rather than insulted.

Kudos for taking the low road.

 

[rainmaker]

Was that really necessary? You could have educated rather than insulted.

Kudos for taking the low road.

Yes, I agree. It was unnecessary.

All I said was that I do not think that larger companies like Bet365 and Centrebet asks their players to send documents to the Philippines, while smaller Playtech casinos do. And this members starts to says something about that size don`t matter and that I don`t know anything about Playtech's own casino operation. It really makes no sense when he don`t give any further explanation. But I guess it is easier to just throw out some statements.

 

[raul1]

its a policy of plex ,they pay after hard times

its the only one that asked me for notary

 

[raul1]

little for my deposits

only one that asked notary , and i have a passport , driving , utillities, this is simply

a policy that means to tires people

 

[mn001]

Why should the casino cough up for YOU to prove YOUR identity?

In your world, do you want them to pay for your drivers licence and passport as well?

99% of players have little or no trouble proving who they are...and most of the other 1% are scammers. If you don't have the required documents, or aren't prepared to pay for them like everyone else, then don't play online.

I dunno what country you live in. In my country a passport, driver licence or identification card is a valid form of identification. Everyone here have one or more of those. That´s enough to prove my identity by law. If the casino want anything more than this, like notarized documents they have to pay for it. I can't understand how you think here.

 

[Nifty29]

I dunno what country you live in. In my country a passport, driver licence or identification card is a valid form of identification. Everyone here have one or more of those. That´s enough to prove my identity by law. If the casino want anything more than this, like notarized documents they have to pay for it. I can't understand how you think here.

Casinos only ask for notarization if they suspect fraud, and in most cases they're right. It doesn't mean a few honest players don't get caught in the net, but we should be blaming the fraudsters not the operators.

Often when operators say notarization, they will accept certification which is free. It makes sense to have some certified copies on hand just in case, considering it is part of the terms of use for these casinos.

I don't see any reason why operators should bear the costs.

 

[jetset]

I would hope that the casino would accept a verification of identity in the form of a copy certified as true and accurate and signed off by a police officer or a magistrate and appropriately identified with a date/address stamp. In many countries that service is free for the convenience of residents.

 

[deucebag]

Yes, I agree. It was unnecessary.

All I said was that I do not think that larger companies like Bet365 and Centrebet asks their players to send documents to the Philippines, while smaller Playtech casinos do. And this members starts to says something about that size don`t matter and that I don`t know anything about Playtech's own casino operation. It really makes no sense when he don`t give any further explanation. But I guess it is easier to just throw out some statements.

Yes, you would be the first one to know it is easier to just throw out some statements without checking the facts.

Playtech's company structure is quite muddy, and the William Hill joint venture don't make it any clearer. The casino operational company of Playtech, PT Turnkey services, has about 800-900 employees and had €90 million in revenues. This is not a small company. I don't believe either Centrebet or bet365 are "many times" bigger than that.

BTW I agree with your criticism of notarized doc thing. In many countries it is costly, and i even if you can get it for free, it is a hassle.

 

[threescatters]

It is unacceptable to ask a player to snail mail documents to the phillapenes (sp), regardless of the situation.

 

[mn001]

The casino SHOULD cover the costs, but not up front. The player should be paid expenses ONLY if the casino got it wrong in it's initial refusal of the documents.

That's exactly what I meant aswell. My english is not the best....

I can't understand how some people here thinks it's ok and have no problems paying notarized copies themself. If a casino wanted notarized copies of lets say, my passport, drivers license, bank statement, creditcard copy and utility bill it would be around $50 per stamp. Around $250 in total. No way I should cover that cost if it's not paid back when they process the cashout. (And if they don't add a good comp afterwards aswell they will never see me again.)

If they are unsure about my identity the casino have two options. Ask me to get documents notarized with them covering the costs within a few days maximum or visit me at my home checking the documents for free.

 

[rainmaker]

Yes, you would be the first one to know it is easier to just throw out some statements without checking the facts.

Playtech's company structure is quite muddy, and the William Hill joint venture don't make it any clearer. The casino operational company of Playtech, PT Turnkey services, has about 800-900 employees and had €90 million in revenues. This is not a small company. I don't believe either Centrebet or bet365 are "many times" bigger than that.

BTW I agree with your criticism of notarized doc thing. In many countries it is costly, and i even if you can get it for free, it is a hassle.

As I said. Several of the sportsbook companies are many times larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos and I still do not feel educated enough to believe something else. Playtech as a company have a market value of about ("only") £700 mill. This reflects ALL of their revenues combined. Some of these sportsbooks companies even have a market value way above Playtechs total market cap. I am not saying that Playtechs own casino operations are small, but I said that most of the pure Playtech casinos are small compared to these sportsbook companies.

My advice is that people should stick with the major sportsbooks if they want to play Playtech games.

 

[deucebag]

As I said. Several of the sportsbook companies are many times larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos and I still do not feel educated enough to believe something else. Playtech as a company have a market value of about ("only") £700 mill. This reflects ALL of their revenues combined. Some of these sportsbooks companies even have a market value way above Playtechs total market cap. I am not saying that Playtechs own casino operations are small, but I said that most of the pure Playtech casinos are small compared to these sportsbook companies.

This discussion is kind of silly, but whatever. A quick google told me the market cap for Centrebet is $197 million. Which is around the same as the purchase price for PT Turnkey Solutions. Certainly not way above Playtech's total market cap.

 

[rainmaker]

This discussion is kind of silly, but whatever. A quick google told me the market cap for Centrebet is $197 million. Which is around the same as the purchase price for PT Turnkey Solutions. Certainly not way above Playtech's total market cap.

Yes, this is silly

I did not necessarily referred to Centrebet. But Centrebet as a company are also much larger than most of the pure Playtech casinos (estimated). You know that most of Playtechs licensees are rather small, while the top 5 accounts for a very large part of their revenue. As for bookmakers, you have for example the William Hill company that are worth about twice as much as the whole Playtech company.

Anyway, my only original statement was only that I do not think major sportsbooks ask for documents to be sent to the Philippines. They are large enough to deal with these things themselves. And to send documents to the Philippines are unacceptable in my opinion. As for the casino in this thread (Casino Plex), they have a monthly withdrawal limit of €7000 which is terrible low and certainly gives us an indication about their size. But let us end this silly and derailed discussion.

In general, people should be aware when playing Playtech. Many small dodgy Playtech casinos out there.

 

[deucebag]

Yes, this is silly

I did not necessarily referred to Centrebet.

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

 

[rainmaker]

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

C`mon dear member. You know what I mean. That was one example I used earlier in the thread (btw, Centrebet are being acquired by Sportingbet)

 

[vinylweatherman]

ID Verification
14/F Yuchengco Tower,
RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala,
Makati City 1200,
Philippines.

That's an odd looking address too - it is supposed to be a business address, yet there is no company name, and the ONLY specification is "ID verification", which is a DEPARTMENT within a company.

I would have expected an address of the form:-

ID Verification
Acme customer support services
14/F Yuchengco Tower,
.........

The rest of the address is fine in terms of format, but if this is where notarised documents are being dealt with, I want to know the NAME of the company concerned, not just the fact that it has gone to the "ID verification department" of whatever unnamed company has leased a few offices in Yuchengco tower.

I would also like to know why almost EVERY Playtech casino uses this company, yet Playtech say they are "just the software supplier" and do NOT interfere with their licensees in the operation of their casinos.

There is something deeply disturbing about this whole "Playtech thing", and I have often gotten into arguments about it, and been "put straight" by those with contacts within the Playtech organisation. I am not satisfied however, since despite having been "put straight", things keep cropping up that are inconsistent with what I have been told.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited
14/th floor Tower 1. RCBC Plaza, Ayala Ave cor. Gil Puyat Ave. Makati City 1200.
Tel: (632) 756-7800

It's like pulling teeth

Why the goddam secrecy, what's wrong with a simple list of tennants under "retail and tenant directory"

14/F is simply the 14th Floor of tower 1.

This is a prime piece of "real estate", and houses many international companies and even embassies. Once inside, security should not be a worry, after all, the embassies wouldn't be there if they had doubts.

What this DOES mean is that you ARE sending your documents to a "call centre", rather than the casino. No doubt many companies use the services of Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, notably the majority of the stand alone Playtech casinos.

Although no sign of Playtech there, the same tower houses a couple of their "partners" and companies where a "mutual interest" exists, mainly directed towards the Asian markets. It seems this document verification centre is the only time us "western" players come into contact with the "Philipines connection" with Playtech, and in a situation where we are already feeling negative about our experience because we feel this is the start of a "screwing over". Asian players may well have many contacts with support companies, even operators, through their own Playtech branded casinos.

Emphasis Services Limited (ESL)
43/F Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza6819 Ayala Ave. cor. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City
Makati, NCR
Tel: (02) 887-2525
Fax: (02) 844-3098
Business Type: Lotteries, Casinos, Horse Racing, Gambling

This company provides gambling services directed towards the Asian market, and gets a guest appearance in the Playtech annual report 2008.

NOTE 18 – RELATED PARTIES AND SHAREHOLDERS
Parties are considered to be related if one party has the ability to control the other party or exercise significant influence over the other party’s making of financial or operational decisions, or if both parties are controlled by the same third party.

Tech Corporation, Oriental Support Services, Gamepark Trading Ltd and 800pay Ltd are related by virtue of a common significant shareholder. Emphasis Services Limited (‘ESL’), AsianLogic Limited (‘ALL’), S-tech Limited, Uniplay International Limited and Six Digits Trading Limited are related by virtue of the former chief executive officer and current director interest in those companies. WH Online and Laserstorm Services Ltd are associates of the Group.

Asian Logic also appears here, which is another company marketing to the Asian players.

There is a Philipines connection to Playtech, but an indirect one, and primarily intended as a vehicle to service the Asian market. It is careless to both keep this at arms length from the main "western" markets, yet blow it by telling "western" players out of the blue to "send notarised documents" to one of their Asian market partners, rather than to partners set up to service "western" players.

The "white label" aspect is probably down to companies like Asian Logic and Emphasis Services Limited putting a number of Playtech casinos into the market. Although directed mainly towards the Asian player, this is the internet, and if the casino supports their language, there is no reason for these casinos not to take on "western" players alongside their Asian ones.

 

[rainmaker]

Yes, I also saw the the "call centre"-connection when I searched this up. Of course, who does not want to send their personal info to a call senter in the Philippines

I can understand that players may want to send their documents in order to get their winnings paid out. But I would have closed my account immediately when I had recieved my funds. I would never continued to use a casino with such a bad practice.

 

[Nifty29]

You mentioned Centrebet specifically.

Time to move on. It's getting quite pathetic.

 

[Maax]

Hi,

I had the same problem as the TS. Was asked to send in my usual documents and also this "We request for the notarized physical copy of your ID to be sent via regular
or express mail...".

I was kinda surprised by this since it never happened in 9 years in any other casino. Of course I was mad, since this would cost me about $50 to get these documents and sending it to who knows who. And the waiting period alongside that.

So, I sent a PM to the Plex-rep they got here, and he said he was gonna check on this. A day passes and he can see that my ID and the address I entered in the casino dont match up. Strange, since I have never had this issue elsewhere, using the same address on all other casinos. Anyway, he requested that I sent in the usual documents to him and also a screenshot from my MB-account, so he could check this for me again.

Lo and behold, today I have received my withdrawal of $650! I requested this payout last thursday, so I must say, even if Im disappointed of the casino handling this, Im very pleased with the rep, Martin, here. He took care of it and I give much credit to his work! So, get in contact with him, Im sure he will help you out too.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

I had the same problem as the TS. Was asked to send in my usual documents and also this "We request for the notarized physical copy of your ID to be sent via regular
or express mail...".

I was kinda surprised by this since it never happened in 9 years in any other casino. Of course I was mad, since this would cost me about $50 to get these documents and sending it to who knows who. And the waiting period alongside that.

So, I sent a PM to the Plex-rep they got here, and he said he was gonna check on this. A day passes and he can see that my ID and the address I entered in the casino dont match up. Strange, since I have never had this issue elsewhere, using the same address on all other casinos. Anyway, he requested that I sent in the usual documents to him and also a screenshot from my MB-account, so he could check this for me again.

Lo and behold, today I have received my withdrawal of $650! I requested this payout last thursday, so I must say, even if Im disappointed of the casino handling this, Im very pleased with the rep, Martin, here. He took care of it and I give much credit to his work! So, get in contact with him, Im sure he will help you out too.

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

If casinos are mistakenly thinking information from registration is not matching documents, then they have a problem that is leading them to wrongly point the finger at innocent players. I find it hard to see how any competent person could make such a mistake (assuming they can read), so maybe it is the registration software itself that is "messing around" with what players enter such that when presented during a document check, a mismatch is seen.

I have occasionally caught software "messing around" with my address, name, and card details. Microgaming, for example, will NOT always let me put my name "exactly as shown on the card". I have to drop the title "Mr" from the name else the form rejects it, thus it ends up NOT being "exactly" as shown on the card. It is possible that casino-plex registration has similar problems with certain names and/or addresses, and records them wrongly, and thus they don't seem to match what turns up on an ID document.

The rep clearly saw that this was a "false positive", and was able to pass this by security by having you send in a screenshot of your Moneybookers account. Surely the casino security department could have done the same, rather than going for the full monty of notarised documents snail-mailed to Manila.

For the rep....

Why Manila? Do you not have ANY offices in the EU where you are taking your players from? What about where you are licensed, are you not REQUIRED to have an office there by the licensing body, one that could easily deal with such "rare" circumstances as players having to send things by post. If nothing else, it would be much quicker for an item to reach, say Malta than Manila. Players are also likely to accept sending notarised documents to where a casino is licensed, since this is the jurisdiction they are relying on to protect them, and where all the electronic data on them are kept on the casino's server.

Having seen Dispatches on TV, I think you are SAFER posting those documents to Manila than to some parts of LONDON

 

[CasinoPlex]

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

If casinos are mistakenly thinking information from registration is not matching documents, then they have a problem that is leading them to wrongly point the finger at innocent players. I find it hard to see how any competent person could make such a mistake (assuming they can read), so maybe it is the registration software itself that is "messing around" with what players enter such that when presented during a document check, a mismatch is seen.

I have occasionally caught software "messing around" with my address, name, and card details. Microgaming, for example, will NOT always let me put my name "exactly as shown on the card". I have to drop the title "Mr" from the name else the form rejects it, thus it ends up NOT being "exactly" as shown on the card. It is possible that casino-plex registration has similar problems with certain names and/or addresses, and records them wrongly, and thus they don't seem to match what turns up on an ID document.

The rep clearly saw that this was a "false positive", and was able to pass this by security by having you send in a screenshot of your Moneybookers account. Surely the casino security department could have done the same, rather than going for the full monty of notarised documents snail-mailed to Manila.

For the rep....

Why Manila? Do you not have ANY offices in the EU where you are taking your players from? What about where you are licensed, are you not REQUIRED to have an office there by the licensing body, one that could easily deal with such "rare" circumstances as players having to send things by post. If nothing else, it would be much quicker for an item to reach, say Malta than Manila. Players are also likely to accept sending notarised documents to where a casino is licensed, since this is the jurisdiction they are relying on to protect them, and where all the electronic data on them are kept on the casino's server.

Having seen Dispatches on TV, I think you are SAFER posting those documents to Manila than to some parts of LONDON

Hi vinylweatherman.

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila. However, we do most of our services from Malta where we also have our office and license: Casino Plex is fully licensed in Malta under Letter of Intent Nos. LGA/CL1/637/2010, and LGA/CL3/637/2010. - Casino Plex is a part of E-PLAY 24 LIMITED - 93, St. Mary Street, Sliema SLM1105 Malta VAT : MT 1966 1023.

The mail raul1 received from us has been updated, so in the future players will be asked to send the documents via e-mail to [noparse][email protected][/noparse] or directly by post to above address if a player prefers this option.

All players on casino plex are more than welcome to contact our support using e-mail [noparse][email protected][/noparse], live chat in the software or send a private message to me, if they have any questions or concerns, so that we can resolve any issues in the best way possible.

Have a nice day everyone..

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi vinylweatherman.

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila. However, we do most of our services from Malta where we also have our office and license: Casino Plex is fully licensed in Malta under Letter of Intent Nos. LGA/CL1/637/2010, and LGA/CL3/637/2010. - Casino Plex is a part of E-PLAY 24 LIMITED - 93, St. Mary Street, Sliema SLM1105 Malta VAT : MT 1966 1023.

The mail raul1 received from us has been updated, so in the future players will be asked to send the documents via e-mail to [email protected] or directly by post to above address if a player prefers this option.

All players on casino plex are more than welcome to contact our support using e-mail [email protected], live chat in the software or send a private message to me, if they have any questions or concerns, so that we can resolve any issues in the best way possible.

Have a nice day everyone..

Eh!

I was "set straight" about this, and so was Bryan. We were told that this was NOT Playtech, but a different company. The address the OP was told to send documents to comes back as "Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited", rather than "Playtech".


Playtech also state that they "don't have access to players' data". How could this be so if one of their offices in Manila does all the verification of players' documents.

This discussion has come up again and again, and this is all "on the record" somewhere in the forum archives.

I'll have to see if these references can be dug up.

If Playtech ARE this involved with operators they can damn well get involved when the rogue ones pocket progressive jackpots received from the pool rather than paying the player concerned, or at the very least returning unpaid monies to the pool from which it came.

So, if Playtech say "we don't have access to Player's data" - it's a load of bollocks - it is all at "their office in Manila" that they don't have

I don't blame you, this is Playtechs bullshit.


If Playtech still claim not to have an office in Manila, they are calling plexrep a liar.

A chance here for Playtech to cut the crap and tell the truth, as well as stop pretending they have no influence over rogue operators because "we only supply the software".

 

[rainmaker]

.

I think it is great to see that Casino Plex`s practice have been changed and that players now can send these documents to your office in Malta or per e-mail. I see that VWM has raised some other questions in his latest post. That is fair enough, but the most important thing is that this issue has been resolved. OP and other players will not again be asked to send documents to the Philippines when playing at Casino Plex. I think we at least should give the rep some credits for his engagement here. He clearly listens to his players and the members of this forum. Great

 

[vinylweatherman]

.

I think it is great to see that Casino Plex`s practice have been changed and that players now can send these documents to your office in Malta or per e-mail. I see that VWM has raised some other questions in his latest post. That is fair enough, but the most important thing is that this issue has been resolved. OP and other players will not again be asked to send documents to the Philippines when playing at Casino Plex. I think we at least should give the rep some credits for his engagement here. He clearly listens to his players and the members of this forum. Great

It is not clear whether such documents will simply be forwarded internally to Manila, and the questions remain about the "two faced" nature of official statements from Playtech when similar cases have been brought up before. Not just documents, but payment of progressives, who has access to player data and where, who really "calls the shots" when it comes to operators' policy decisions, etc.

The Manila offices do at least appear to meet (if not exceed) standards expected, but players still worry about such a long postal journey that passes through less secure parts of the world, so the change does at least hide this from them. I expect many other casinos forward such things to to their security contractors, but players don't know the inner workings, so don't get so worried.

 

[Maax]

There was clearly a reason for this, but how come you have been "getting away" with this mismatch elsewhere, or is it a case of the casino WRONGLY stating they don't match.

I dont think there was anything wrong with my info from the start. My ID as they claim they have must have come from Moneybookers (why do they even send the address info when depositing?) where 1 address line is shown as a c/o address, which I cant erase (trust me, Ive tried). So in the info from MB it looks like I got 2 street addresses, everything else is fine and I never even reflected about the extra address line before.

I think Plex got some hard and some very tough security check and every single syllable must match, whether other casinos have some leniency against misspelling and what not.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I dont think there was anything wrong with my info from the start. My ID as they claim they have must have come from Moneybookers (why do they even send the address info when depositing?) where 1 address line is shown as a c/o address, which I cant erase (trust me, Ive tried). So in the info from MB it looks like I got 2 street addresses, everything else is fine and I never even reflected about the extra address line before.

I think Plex got some hard and some very tough security check and every single syllable must match, whether other casinos have some leniency against misspelling and what not.

This could be the problem, and you need to get it sorted.

How did Moneybookers place this extra line there in the first place. This seems like proof of my suspicion that software "messing about" with your input before storing it, compounded by denying the customer the opportunity to correct the information, leads to innocent players getting flagged as suspicious.

As far as players have been told, this is NOT important, because if Moneybookers are happy with the address, it isn't something that should screw up their dealings with a casino, since officially the casino is never supposed to even SEE this data.

If Moneybookers are routinely passing a players address to a merchant during a transaction, and have NOT sought explicit permission from the customers to do so, they are breaking the law.

If it is the other way around, and the merchant passes the address registered at the casino to Moneybookers, and Moneybookers does the comparison and sends a flag back to the merchant, this would NOT be breaking the law as far as Moneybookers are concerned, and it is likely that casinos have this covered in their general "permission to share with contractors" term.

If the street address matches, this extra line should not be causing problems, as it simply infers that the property is not owned by the player, and that they are staying with someone who pays the bills.

It seems that ensuring street address (and probably other details) match across the board is more important than players are lead to believe, and it isn't enough that the addresses match for a physical location, but the FORMAT must match too. The same problem will affect a woman player who legally takes the married name, as this will lead to a changeover period where they will have their maiden name at some places, and be using their new married name at others. I recall seeing a female player hit by this exact problem in a previous thread, where they "got away" with something they shouldn't have because they had become 2 diffferent players (one with the maiden name, and one with the married name). She only hit a snag when the two entities were tied together, and it became clear they were getting away with something that should have been caught far earlier.

 

[rainmaker]

Eh!

I was "set straight" about this, and so was Bryan. We were told that this was NOT Playtech, but a different company. The address the OP was told to send documents to comes back as "Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited", rather than "Playtech".


Playtech also state that they "don't have access to players' data". How could this be so if one of their offices in Manila does all the verification of players' documents.

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think this is a bit interesting. It was probably discussed before my time on this forum. Do you remember more about this case ? What Playtech said about this company etc? There is a connection between Playtech and Paragon Intl Customer Care Limited, so it would be interesting to know what was said when this was discussed earlier.

Playtech never contributed directly to the forum discussions, but some industry members here were pretty close to Playtech, and the record was "put straight" through them.

I remember Bryan saying he had visited "Playtech's offices in the Philipines", which promoted a "putting straight" of the form "Playtech doesn't have offices in the Philipines, this was the offices of an operator". What had promoted this debate was the fact that all Playtech casinos seemed to know how players approached bonuses across ALL Playtech powered casinos, yet Playtech said no such "bonus abuser" list existed. It was even insinuated that continuing to repeat this theory as though it were fact might result in "legal action" being taken (by whom was not stated). Someone clearly wanted this rumour buried, yet there was no other explanation for operator A knowing how a player played at operator B UNLESS there existed a shared list that ALL Playtech casinos had access to, a list not of fraudsters, but of winners and bonus abusers. It seemed to operate in a similar way to how all Rival casinos knew about players at their supposed competitors. It was eventually discovered that Rival themselves operated a "player rating system" that pooled playing and bonus data from all the different Rival casinos, and computed "gradings" for each player, which could then be used to automatically bonus ban a player across ALL Rival casinos simultaneously - and this is exactly what players were experiencing.

This was illustrated recently in a complaint about Grand Duke, a brand new operator that only recently signed up with Playtech, yet when the complainant registered they were immediately told they were a "bonus abuser" before they had made a single deposit. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Grand Duke to have known this from their own "first party" data, and the ONLY way "bonus abuse" could have been claimed is if Grand Duke had access to a Playtech wide "player rating database" that held details showing the complainant habitually milked the bonuses at other Playtech casinos. However, since Playtech state this database does not exist, and processors ONLY share information related to fraud and chargebacks, there is no LEGAL way Grand Duke could have obtained this data.

The ONLY explanation that would make knowing this information legal is that ALL Playtech casinos are operated by ONE top level operator, and are licensed out as "white labels" to the others, the same way that Rival works.

The fact that almost all Playtech casinos have chosen this one company in Manila out of many thousands of similar companies throughout the world suggests that individual operators did NOT apopoint this company, the top tier white label supplier did, with the operators bound by contract to use them to verify players.

If this company does turn out to be wholly owned by Playtech, then Playtech ARE in possession of players data, all of it.

The 2008 company report for Playtech shows that they have many cross-shareholdings and vested interests in a number of companies at those offices. UK company and stock exchange laws require that these be declared in the reports. The current position will be more accurately reflected in the 2010 end of year report.

Since the deal with William Hill, Playtech officially became an operator, not just a software supplier. William Hill Online is an operator created by a partnership between the two, and each stands to profit (or lose out) on the success or otherwise of the venture. It appears the pair had a "domestic" a while back, so not exactly a stable marriage

 

[rainmaker]

.

Thanks for updating me about the discussion you guys had then. I want to add some info.


I looked at Playtechs "admission documents" (admission to AIM on London Stock Exchange 2006).

"Paragon International Customer Care Limited" are listed as an affiliate of Playtech in that document. An affiliate in this context are in the same section defined as "related parties of the Playtech Group by virtue of common beneficial shareholding and/or management.



This is stated on page 81 in that document :

A call option agreement dated 21 March 2006 between (1) the Company and (2) Nomicom
Limited (“Nomicom”) pursuant to the terms of which Nomicom granted the Company with
an option (the “Paragon Option”) to purchase the entire issued share capital of Paragon
International Customer Care Limited (“Paragon”) held by Nomicom (the “Paragon Option
Shares”) for the Paragon Option Price (as defined below).

The Paragon Option Price shall be calculated on the basis of a multiple of the average monthly
net profit received by Paragon from Licensees. The Paragon Option becomes exercisable in
the event that the standard of service provided by Paragon falls below that acceptable to the
Company and, in such circumstances, can be exercised at any time prior to 20 March 2011 (the
“Paragon Expiry Date”). In addition, if, prior to the Paragon Expiry Date, Nomicom receives a
bona fide third party offer to purchase Paragon for a price greater than the Paragon Option
Price, Nomicom shall inform the Company and the Company shall have 30 days to exercise
the Paragon Option, after which Nomicom may sell Paragon Limited to such third party. The
Paragon Option is only exercisable in respect of all of the Paragon Option Shares.

Nomicom gives certain representations, warranties and undertakings to the Company
including in respect of title to the Paragon Option Shares and an undertaking to procure that
Paragon is debt free at the time that the Paragon Option is exercised (save only in respect of
expenses which have accrued in the ordinary course of business which are not due to be paid
prior to such exercise).


So NOMICOM at this point owned Paragon. But the section above gives Playtech an option to buy Paragon before 20 mars 2011 (the “Paragon Expiry Date”).


And what or who is Nomicom ?

Well...Nomicom are on this document (Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2005) listed as Director of Playtech . Remember that this was before they got accepted on the AIM list.






As you can see on this document, Nomicom were replaced (of course they had to replace them) with other directors (or maybe the same people but with real names ) before Playtech were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

 

[rainmaker]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,






It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

 

[vinylweatherman]

.

I would also like to add some info from Linkedin.com that I forgot in my post.



This is from the profile of Greg Fermont.

About him:

A veteran of the online gaming industry with almost 8 years experience working with market leaders such as Traffic Sales, Paragon (Playtech), Emphasis Services Ltd (AsianLogic Ltd).

Experienced in working with colleagues in the Philippines, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, China, South-East Asia.


Here is the interesting part from his profile,


View attachment 28703



It is interesting to see that this guy, the co-founder of the risk department in Paragon writes "Paragon (Playtech) and Paragon-Playtech".

He clearly also indicates that Playtech founded or established the risk departement in the Philippines.

So, if Playtech consider Paragon as just a division of Playtech, why on earth was I warned off by continuing to insist that Playtech were operating this office in Manila, and when Bryan thought he had visited "Playtech's office" and said so, we were both put straight by the statement :-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines. Some Playtech casinos do. Some do not.

Well, if Playtech have always considered Paragon was simply a division of theirs, this statement was wrong. It came from a highly respected member here, who lived and worked around the Philipines, and would have been told this by his employers (Playtech). Playtech seemed happy for this to stand as an "official" clarification of the position at the time, which was the middle of 2010.

It was all triggered by a complaint that Mansion casino insisted on a player sending their documents to Manila based Paragon, rather than to them in Gibraltar.

It seemed odd that EVERY Playtech casino happened to choose Paragon as their verification and fraud detection company.

However, the picture is becoming clearer. Given that Paragon was expected to be profitable, it is a very strong motive for the contract between Playtech and operators to insist that Paragon is used for player verification. This has allowed Paragon to build a database of players throughout ALL Playtech powered casinos, and hence in the perfect position to create the infamous "Playtech-wide player blacklist (of bonus abusers)", and use this to inform "new" operators when they net a player with a "history of bonus abuse" at other Playtech casinos.

I can figure out how this might work.

1) Player registers at new casino.

2) Details of that player are sent back to Paragon electronically for checking against the database.

3) A "rating" is returned to the operator before the player even gets the chance to claim the welcome bonus.

4) If the rating is negative, such as "history of bonus abuse", the player doesn't get the bonus after their deposit.

5) When player contacts CS, they are told they are an "abusive player at other casinos", and are not getting the bonus.

This generates a complaint thread with the player genuinely puzzled at how on earth a completely new operator with little history and no sister casinos can possibly know that he played like this at "other casinos".

The "send notarised documents" is probaby down to another flag coming from Paragon, triggered by the first withdrawal request. The operator would not necessarily know WHY, but would get the message that he then has to ask his player to send the requested documents to Paragon.

In some cases, casino management looks at things, and may decide that Paragon went over the top, and will thus overrule the automated flag and let the player send additional supporting documents instead via the normal electronic means.

If operators did NOT use Paragon, then Paragon would make less money, and this would not suit those Playtech board members who have an interest in Paragon meeting targets.

This murky construction has allowed Playtech to pull the wool over our eyes by making it seem that Paragon is nothing to do with them, and the offices of Paragon are classed as simply one of those generalised as "belonging to a casino operator".

The Plex casino rep was clearly not briefed (by Playtech), and so let the cat out of the bag in saying:-

Some of our services are provided by Playtech which in this case has an office in Manila.

yet officially:-

And just for clarification, Playtech does not, and never has had, offices in the Philippines.

Is it any wonder then, that I won't let this drop and swallow the above "official position" as gospel truth.

If it wasn't for UK stockmarket and company reporting rules, this would have remained pretty well hidden.

Playtech had to "come clean" in the listing documents and annual reports, but presumed players would never read these, nor understand them even if they did.

I was also "put straight" when I said that all Playtech casinos had much higher WR for UK players because of "advice from Playtech" given to operators, yet the "official line" was that this never happened, and it was simply the fact that one operator did it, and the others "ran scared" and followed suit of their own volition.

Maybe "Playtech" didn't offer such advice, but what's the betting that it was advice coming from Paragon that prompted operators to all step into line and have this doubling of WR for UK players.

Now, what happened in March 2011?

Did Playtech buy Paragon, or options expire, allowing Paragon at last to REALLY be an independent company. The 2011 report should reveal this, but we might have to wait a little longer for it to be published.