V?NLIGEN CC TILL CASINO GURU MLRO (PENNINGSTv?ttsrapporteringsombud)
CASINO GURU: V?r st?ndpunkt ?r att verifieringsprocessen inte borde ha avslutats bara baserat p? skillnaden mellan filens tv? attribut
BETPAT: Kundverifiering var inte en del av de n?mnda attributen, KYC godk?ndes baserat p? de f?rsta dokumenten fr?n kunden, vi ?r ?verens om att kunden ?r den han s?ger att han ?r, det ?r inte ifr?gasatt, det ?r inte d?rf?r kontot har har st?ngts, vi har n?mnt detta tidigare, v?nligen f?rst? problemet.
1. Verifiering av kunden f?r KYC godk?ndes p? de tillhandah?llna dokumenten.
2. Kundens identitet ?r inte ifr?gasatt, d?rf?r beh?ver du inte ha ett "skype -samtal" f?r att verifiera kunden, vi har f?rtydligat denna position i det senaste mejlet.
3. AML -kontroller behandlades som en del av v?ra KYC/AML -skyldigheter. Det m?rktes att modifierat bankdokument levererades av kunden.
4. Casino Guru ins?g att kunden har levererat ett modifierat bankdokument.
5. Casino Guru tvingar oss att acceptera modifierade bankdokument mot v?r KYC/AML -policy. Om vi inte accepterar din ?sikt kommer du att minska v?rt betyg.
Om du kan f?rklara f?r BetPat i din professionella uppfattning varf?r bankdokumentet i fr?ga kan ha ?ndrats, som du n?mner finns det m?nga anledningar, och varf?r enligt Casino Guru anser att vi b?r ?ndra v?r AML -policy utifr?n detta, f?r att till?ta ?ndrad bank dokument.
Jag ?r mycket intresserad av att Casino Guru -personal har en kvalificerad ?sikt n?r det g?ller v?ra och internationella AML -standarder, vi har rekommenderat den h?r personalen att vidarebefordra detta till Casino Gurus MLRO (Money Laundering Reporting Officer) vilket inte har h?nt, personalen tvingar BetPat att acceptera ett modifierat bankdokument, vi finner detta mycket oregelbundet och mot internationella standarder f?r att bek?mpa penningtv?tt.
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.
Automatiskt ?versatt: