Player’s Horizon #3 looks at what happens when you win €30,000 only to have your account locked "hours later"

The latest episode of Player’s Horizon takes a look at what happens when a player wins what is arguably a life-changing amount, or in this case, €30,000, but then the casino locks their account up hours after their last communication.

Make sure to listen to the full episode of Player's Horizon #003.

This case, though, is about addressing player concerns as much as pointing out the missteps that players may take when handling payments. Still, the case starts with a rush of panic, moves into the familiar if tedious territory of background checks, and ends up in a surprisingly positive way.

Essentially, argues Mike, not every time a casino blocks your account, they are trying to cheat their players. In fact, it could be part of a normal verification procedure - although jarring from the point of view of most players, but sometimes well justified as the present case demonstrates.

"Exactly. Sometimes the casino has spotted something that needs to be verified. And in this case, that something was a payment method that did not belong to the player," Nate interjects.

But then there is the issue of timing, Mike notes, pointing out that getting your account locked after a five-figure win certainly feels suspicious. The player was based in Germany and promptly tried to cash out his money - €29,999, with support assuring them that the process might take up to a few days.

"And then two hours later, boom. Blocked account," Mike explained. To add to the fraughtness of the situation, the player had never before tried to withdraw money from his account and had placed more than 100 deposits.

Account locked, AML check ongoing - player turns to Casino Guru and files complaint

At this point, the player turned to the Casino Guru Complaint Resolution Center, seeking assistance from the service. He was assigned to Kristina. At this point, the case also serves as a reminder as to why payment rules matter a lot, Mike notes. Now, the player submitted the complaint explaining that he had submitted all the documentation the casino required from him, which was why the player couldn’t understand what had happened.

"That’s the fear many players have. Deposits are easy. Playing is easy. But when money is supposed to leave the casino, suddenly everything gets complicated," Mike adds.

The issue, explain Nate and Mike, was not that the casino didn’t have a legitimate reason to conduct an AML process, but the ensuing silence that saw the player trying to get someone to explain to him what had happened.

"Yes. Kristina starts with the key questions. Was this the first withdrawal attempt? Were the winnings made with or without a bonus? Did the casino explain the account block?" Nate says, detailing the case, and Mike interjects: "The bonus question matters."

Luckily, there was no bonus involved, which made the case much cleaner and easier to resolve. The player then forwards all relevant communication he has, but one thing remains a mystery - the reason behind the block. That is resolved very quickly; Nate and Mike confirm.

The reason is simple enough, and called anti-money laundering (AML), Mike explains. A casino expects players to play with their own money by using payment methods registered to their name, but the player had deposited using someone else’s payment method and this is where things get difficult.

At this point, Mike urges Nate to elaborate on why this is important and what it means.

"In online gambling, the payment method usually needs to belong to the player. Your card, your bank account, your e-wallet, your name," Nate states.

"And if you deposit with a friend’s card, partner’s card, or family member’s card, even with permission, the casino may still treat it as a serious issue," Mike adds.

So the account block wasn’t automatically suspicious. In fact, Kristina asks the player if he had indeed deposited with a friend’s card, which they confirm they had. Then came an important moment.

The player did not try to hide the fact, but cooperated and sent the payment method holder’s documents, which is probably what saved the whole case from getting much more complicated, Mike noted.

Both Nate and Mike note that the casino was happy to accept the deposits, but only started AML procedures when a withdrawal was necessary. Even then, however, the casino still confirmed that everything was in order and proceeded with payment.

The original complaint was submitted on November29, 2021, and resolved on December 8, 2021 - only a week after the submission.

"So just over a week," Mike says. "Exactly. Compared with complaints that drag on for months, this one moved quickly," Nate confirms. However, the casino was very explicit about the player using another person’s payment method.

"They encouraged the player to use only payment methods that belong to him," Nate explained, with both Nate and Mike then urging players in general to ensure that they only use their payment methods at casinos specifically, and never those of someone else - be that a family member, a partner, or a friend.

In a way, the casino made an exception - it went the extra mile to review the player’s documents, along with those of his friend, and ensure payment, not least perhaps because the sum was large and the brand did not wish to appear like it was taking advantage of a technicality, albeit a crucial one.

Who’s right and who’s wrong, and also - what’s fair?

While the case was resolved positively for all parties involved, a question of fairness remains.

"Some people will say: the account was blocked after a big win.That looks suspicious," Mike notes.

"And others will say: the player used someone else’s payment method, so the casino had every right to investigate," Nate rejoins.

Both would be right. Ultimately, both the casino and player were right in their concerns - the casino was right to ask questions and find out more about the source of funds, whereas the player was correct to worry that the casino may be trying something untoward.

There are nuances, too, however. A casino may request more verification when you withdraw large amounts, and while annoying, these are within the ordinary course of action when withdrawing significant amounts from casinos.

But ultimately, the casinos ought to do a little better in notifying players as to why something is happening a little quicker, too, both Nate and Mike agree. They both note that if a player finds themselves in a similar situation, they must retain as much information as possible, including emails, live chats, document submissions, and so on.

This is because if the matter is brought to Casino Guru’s Complaint Resolution Center, the specialists there, Kristina included, would need to review every angle of the situation and existing communication to achieve a fair ruling in the case.

Interested in more content like this? Make sure to visit Player’s Horizon’s page on Spotify and subscribe for new episodes down the road!

Image credit: Casino Guru News