Dear Everyone,
I want to address this matter by acknowledging that there is shared responsibility between both parties involved. On one hand, the player bears responsibility for not completing the KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure when it was requested. On the other hand, the casino did not take the necessary and immediate action to restrict (not close) the player’s account after the self-exclusion request was made.
It’s important to highlight that while the KYC procedure is a critical compliance step, it could and should have been addressed following the implementation of appropriate restrictions. This sequence would have allowed the casino to prioritize the player's protection, which is of paramount importance, and then handle matters related to refunds and other entitlements based on the outcome of the KYC verification process.
In this case, the more significant issue lies in the casino’s failure to act promptly by not imposing restrictions on the player’s account after the self-exclusion request. At Casino Guru, we strongly believe that players experiencing gambling-related harm must be protected as a matter of urgency once the casino becomes aware of their situation. This means that specific account functionalities should be restricted immediately, preventing further harm. Once these safeguards are in place, the player can then be required to complete the KYC process to access any eligible funds.
Given the failure to implement these restrictions, I believe the player should be eligible for a refund of deposits made from the 24th of October 2024. This would be a fair and appropriate resolution, considering the circumstances and the casino’s lack of preventive action.
Dear Hot.Bet Casino, I kindly request your feedback on how you wish to proceed with resolving this matter. Please let us know your stance so we can work together towards a solution that aligns with best practices and player protection principles.
Dear Everyone,
I want to address this matter by acknowledging that there is shared responsibility between both parties involved. On one hand, the player bears responsibility for not completing the KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure when it was requested. On the other hand, the casino did not take the necessary and immediate action to restrict (not close) the player’s account after the self-exclusion request was made.
It’s important to highlight that while the KYC procedure is a critical compliance step, it could and should have been addressed following the implementation of appropriate restrictions. This sequence would have allowed the casino to prioritize the player's protection, which is of paramount importance, and then handle matters related to refunds and other entitlements based on the outcome of the KYC verification process.
In this case, the more significant issue lies in the casino’s failure to act promptly by not imposing restrictions on the player’s account after the self-exclusion request. At Casino Guru, we strongly believe that players experiencing gambling-related harm must be protected as a matter of urgency once the casino becomes aware of their situation. This means that specific account functionalities should be restricted immediately, preventing further harm. Once these safeguards are in place, the player can then be required to complete the KYC process to access any eligible funds.
Given the failure to implement these restrictions, I believe the player should be eligible for a refund of deposits made from the 24th of October 2024. This would be a fair and appropriate resolution, considering the circumstances and the casino’s lack of preventive action.
Dear Hot.Bet Casino, I kindly request your feedback on how you wish to proceed with resolving this matter. Please let us know your stance so we can work together towards a solution that aligns with best practices and player protection principles.