PLEASE CC TO CASINO GURU MLRO (MONEY LAUNDERING REPORTING OFFICER)
CASINO GURU: Our position is that the verification process should not have been concluded just based on the difference between the two attributes of the file
BETPAT: Customer Verification was not part of the attributes mentioned, KYC was approved based on the initial documents provided by the customer, we agree that the customer is who he says he is, this is not in question, this is not why the account has been closed, we have mentioned this previously, please understand the problem.
1. Verification of the customer for KYC was approved on the documents provided.
2. The identity of the customer is not in question, therefore there is no need to have a "skype call" to verify the customer, we have clarified this position in the last email.
3. AML checks were processed as part of our KYC/AML obligations, it was noticed that modified banking document was supplied by the customer.
4. Casino Guru recognised the customer has supplied a modified banking document.
5. Casino Guru are forcing us to accept modified banking documents against our KYC/AML policy, If we don't accept your opinion, you will reduce our rating.
If you can explain to BetPat in your professional opinion why the banking document in question may have been modified, as you mention there are many reasons, and why in Casino Guru's opinion that we should change our AML policy based on this, to allow modified banking documents.
I'm very interested that Casino Guru member of staff has a qualified opinion in regards to our and international AML standards, we have advised this member of staff to forward this to Casino Guru's MLRO, (Money Laundering Reporting Officer) which has not happened, the member of staff is forcing BetPat to accept a modified banking document, we find this highly irregular and against international standards to combat money laundering.
PLEASE CC TO CASINO GURU MLRO (MONEY LAUNDERING REPORTING OFFICER)
CASINO GURU: Our position is that the verification process should not have been concluded just based on the difference between the two attributes of the file
BETPAT: Customer Verification was not part of the attributes mentioned, KYC was approved based on the initial documents provided by the customer, we agree that the customer is who he says he is, this is not in question, this is not why the account has been closed, we have mentioned this previously, please understand the problem.
1. Verification of the customer for KYC was approved on the documents provided.
2. The identity of the customer is not in question, therefore there is no need to have a "skype call" to verify the customer, we have clarified this position in the last email.
3. AML checks were processed as part of our KYC/AML obligations, it was noticed that modified banking document was supplied by the customer.
4. Casino Guru recognised the customer has supplied a modified banking document.
5. Casino Guru are forcing us to accept modified banking documents against our KYC/AML policy, If we don't accept your opinion, you will reduce our rating.
If you can explain to BetPat in your professional opinion why the banking document in question may have been modified, as you mention there are many reasons, and why in Casino Guru's opinion that we should change our AML policy based on this, to allow modified banking documents.
I'm very interested that Casino Guru member of staff has a qualified opinion in regards to our and international AML standards, we have advised this member of staff to forward this to Casino Guru's MLRO, (Money Laundering Reporting Officer) which has not happened, the member of staff is forcing BetPat to accept a modified banking document, we find this highly irregular and against international standards to combat money laundering.