Kwiff - SOW request, account closed, refuse to return balance

[BenchBasic]

Hello,

Hopefully this is the right section. From searching the forum this is clearly not the first time this casino has caused issues.

I've been playing on and off at Kwiff for a couple of years, my balance is a little over £1k.

I hadn't used the site for a few months and out of the blue received a Source of Wealth request by email in late July, so I logged in and sent a bank statement. Seven days later that was rejected and they requested a savings statement. I wasn't comfortable with that and emailed them several times, which they never replied to. At that point I was even less inclined to send them any further documents and decided to close my account in mid-August.

When my balance wasn't returned I once again emailed them several times without response. Given how little communication I was receiving from them I sent another email to trigger their formal complaint procedure, which finally got me a reply.

It's now late September and I finally heard back saying they have completed an internal investigation and are not going to return my balance. They have given me the choice of sending documentation to complete the SoW check or contacting the ADR, eCogra.

It's also worth noting several times in the emails they made incorrect statements, e.g saying I had not completed an ID check (which I had), and saying the bank statement I sent only contained a few transactions from a Revolut account (it had many transactions, and I don't even have a Revolut account).

What is my best course of action here?

My understanding from reading this forum is that with my account closed their legal obligations are complete and they must now return my money. The exception is if they believe criminal activity is involved, in which case they should have contacted the police. Is this something eCogra would rule on, and if so how likely would I be to win based on the above?

The alternative is sending them documentation. Which I am not keen on, but would risk if it meant getting my money back.

Any help or advice would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[jasonuk]

What is my best course of action here?

The answer to this will depend on what happened to your balance after the documentation request - any winnings after that point are at risk of forfeiture.

The process is explained at:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You'll notice that "comply or take it to ADR" is not on the list - and being a regulatory procedure it's unclear if an ADR can even rule on it in the first place.

If you refuse Customer Due Diligence (including SoW), they should send your money back - but that'll consist of the balance at the time of the request, and any subsequent deposits but not subsequent winnings.

It's also worth having a read through some of the Kwiff threads over the past year - it's clearly a calculated play on their part, and they are more than willing to lie to customers (as you have discovered) to try and strongarm them...

Sadly, there's always a risk that they steal your balance (as in, they have no authority to do so) and it's unclear how that would be resolved - the UKGC will not act directly on player complaints, it may be outside the scope of ADR, which would only leave small claims (and that's beyond the scope of this forum).

It may be worth dropping the UKGC an email anyway - they may be able to give you a more specific answer, even if they can't intervene.

 

[BenchBasic]

Thanks for the response Jason, that was helpful. I've just re-read some of the previous Kwiff threads and see you were active in those as well.

To confirm I hadn't played on the site for a few months when the SOW occured, and I did not deposit or play on the site after the request. So the whole balance was already in the account before the request.

Per your advice I will contact the UKGC to see if they can provide additional information.

 

[BenchBasic]

So just to update this thread:

I opened a dispute with the ADR (cCOGRA) in the middle of October, which has now been settled. They have ruled in favour of the casino.

So my understanding from Jason's post above is my only remaining options are to use the small claims court, or send them a statement of my savings (which may or may not release my funds). If anyone has any further advice or suggestions then I would appreciate it.

 

[jasonuk]

So what reason have they given for confiscating the funds... or are they still demanding documents?

I posted the relevant UKGC guidance in September, so it would be baffling to me if Kwiff are still trying to hold the money to ransom pending documents after going to ADR.

The CDD process is not unbounded, so when it's clear the customer is unwilling to complete it - the termination procedure should be followed.

 

[BenchBasic]

Yeah Kwiff are still demanding savings documents, and eCOGRA won't rule on the issue while that is outstanding (which is de facto siding with the casino). To clarify my personal situation, I am currently on a break from work while moving on to something else. I'm never sure what to put in the occupation field really, although it hasn't caused issues at any other casino and wasn't a problem at kwiff until a few months ago.

Here was the last email from Kwiff a few months ago:

We have completed an internal review as part of our complaints procedure and your case reference number is xxx. We are sorry that you have had a poor experience at kwiff and we welcome the opportunity to review what has taken place.

As regulated operators we are required to verify the age and identity of their customers before allowing them to gamble. During registration your identity and affordability are checked by a major UK data provider, no deposit or gameplay is permitted without passing the checks.

Information from the UK Gambling Commission can be found here.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

We have ongoing obligations to make sure players are who they say they are, that they are old enough to gamble, that no fraud or abuse is being committed, that gambling is not causing significant harm and to stop money-laundering. Reviews take place at various stages and for different reasons, and where necessary documentation will be requested if information is required or outdated.

We understand that sometimes the requests for further documentation may seem excessive but these are necessary to safeguard both the player and us, as well as to comply with regulations. As per your account activity you only requested one withdrawal before making this complaint, and that withdrawal had already been honoured. After that no more withdrawal attempts were made.

When replying to our request for occupation information you disclosed that you are currently retired and that your funds derived from your previous employment, in order to confirm that, we requested a bank statement showing your savings, as the bank statement provided only showed a few transactions from a Revolut account that was not compatible with a savings account. This was requested to make sure you were playing at a comfortable level as well as to comply with regulatory requirements as to the source of player's funds. Without this information we are unable to process your withdrawals.

Each party's obligations are part of our Terms and Conditions, Game Rules and other relevant conditions when making use of the service/product we offer. It is the player's responsibility to read and understand all conditions.

I can assure you that your information is treated with utmost care and any documents provided to us are stored in a secure manner and GDPR rules are strictly followed. If you wish to provide us with the necessary documentation we will be happy to analyse it and resolve your issue as soon as possible.

Based on the above, we are unable to help you any further if you refuse to provide the necessary documentation.

You have now reached the end of our internal complaint procedure and our review indicates that we have followed all our internal procedures and the regulations as is required.

In these circumstances you can consider the use of our Alternative Dispute Resolution entity eCogra but your statutory rights remain unaffected.

This is what eCOGRA have said:

The operator has informed us that before settlement of the dispute can be processed, they are required to complete the regulatory requirements of Enhanced Due Diligence ('EDD') on your account.

The request for EDD is in line with the operator’s terms and conditions and the licensing conditions of Great British Gambling Commission.

All licensed operators are required to ask for proof of funding and source of income. Gambling operators have a responsibility to uphold the three licensing objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). The first of those licensing objectives is to prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime.

Whilst we understand this process may be frustrating to you, we are obliged to follow and adhere to the guidelines and expectations set out by the Gambling Commission.

If you are not satisfied with the resolution or outcome provided by the gambling operator, it does not restrict your right to bring proceedings against the operator in any court of competent jurisdiction.

We have closed this dispute accordingly.

 

[jasonuk]

Yeah Kwiff are still demanding savings documents, and eCOGRA won't rule on the issue while that is outstanding (which is de facto siding with the casino). To clarify my personal situation,

As suspected, eCOGRA's hands are tied somewhat because it's a dispute regarding regulatory actions (CDD/AML checks) rather than a financial transaction (e.g. a deposit, withdrawal or gameplay - even though a withdrawal is caught up in it). That's why Kwiff's "comply or take it to ADR" stance made no sense - because it will only cause severe delays to your withdrawal.

It's a little surprising that eCOGRA doesn't acknowledge 6.17 (mentioned in post #2) - compliance with CDD isn't mandatory, particularly important when an operator (such as Kwiff) is repeatedly taking the piss with such requests. If you have a right of reply with the ADR, you should question that because Kwiff seem to be hiding behind the obligations that help them, but ignoring the ones that help you.

We understand that sometimes the requests for further documentation may seem excessive but these are necessary to safeguard both the player and us, as well as to comply with regulations. As per your account activity you only requested one withdrawal before making this complaint, and that withdrawal had already been honoured. After that no more withdrawal attempts were made.

So "no more withdrawal attempts were made" (or more likely, technically true because they are actively preventing you from withdrawing), but they won't honour your withdrawal requests in the next paragraph...

This was requested to make sure you were playing at a comfortable level as well as to comply with regulatory requirements as to the source of player's funds. Without this information we are unable to process your withdrawals.

It doesn't apply retroactively - an operator isn't going to refund a player if they were playing to excess... and you're not going to be playing there anymore so there is no future tense.

--

It does feel like we're entering unchartered territory with Kwiff. As demonstrated by the rather brief stay of their Rep - their lack of professionalism and eagerness to fight back (even when straying into breaches of regulation and/or law) was a major warning sign.

Some of the CM members that signed up during their brief stay then had to fight hard to get their money (again with unreasonable CDD requests), and Kwiff seemed to continue to state "as fact" things that are not true. Now they're at the point they seem to be willing to hold players to ransom to get what they want, even when there is insufficient regulation to support their stance. They would be correct if you wanted to continue playing there - but you don't... you just want your money.

It's probably worth asking the UKGC again how to proceed - because the next step highlighted by eCOGRA is legal action and that will incur costs on your side. While a letter before action may be enough to force their hand, that's well beyond the scope of this forum and we'd defer to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

or a legal bod.

At this point, CM needs to be considering bumping them down to Not Recommended (and certainly not with an 8.9 rating) - arguably should never have been accredited in the first place, but their conduct shows they're not good enough to be a Neutral Zone member either.

<edit>Also curious what @maxd has to say on this one...</edit>

 

[BenchBasic]

Once again thanks for your detailed response, it's very helpful.

I'm not sure if I have a right of reply to eCOGRA, but I have sent an email to the person in charge of my case.

I didn't actually contact the UKGC before, as their contact form only allows 400 characters (including spaces!). I was expecting contacting the ADR would bring an end to this but I guess that was naive. I will try to write a message that fits in that space and see what happens. If that's no good I will give them a call.

Are there any lawyers who specialise in gambling on this forum, or do you (or anyone else) have any recommendations? I appreciate the actual decision is beyond the scope of this forum and I will do my own research, but any input will be taken on board.

Thanks once again!