TonyBet Casino - Spelarens uttag har försenats och pengar har tagits bort.

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to review this case.

We can confirm that the documents provided by the player during the verification process were reviewed by our relevant team. The player submitted several documents intended to demonstrate that the bank account used for the deposit was a joint account.

However, when the deposit in question was made to the player’s Tonybet account, the name reflected on the payment transaction was not the player’s name but that of another individual. As such, from our payment system’s perspective, the deposit appeared as originating from a third party.

According to our Terms and Conditions, deposits must be made only from payment methods registered solely in the player’s own name. This requirement is part of our regulatory and anti-money laundering compliance obligations.

Even in cases where a bank account may be jointly owned, it does not meet the requirement of being exclusively registered in the player’s name, as another individual retains authorised access to the same account. For this reason, the payment method could not be accepted for deposits on the player’s account.

As a result, the deposit made from the joint account was treated as a third-party payment method under our policy. Since the winnings were generated from funds deposited via this payment method, they were unfortunately removed from the player’s account in accordance with our Terms and Conditions.

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the matter here and remain fully open to cooperating should any additional clarification be required.

Kind regards,

Tonybet Team

Hello Martin,

Thank you for continuing to review this case, and thank you to the TonyBet representative for providing further clarification.

I understand the purpose of the rule regarding payment methods being registered in the player’s name, and I appreciate that such rules are typically implemented for regulatory and anti-money-laundering compliance reasons. However, I believe the way it has been applied in this situation does not reflect the actual circumstances of the transaction.

In this case, the origin of the funds has been fully documented. The $1,000 used for the deposit came from my own primary bank account. I withdrew the funds and deposited them into a joint account that I am authorized to use. From that account, the Interac transfer was made to TonyBet. Therefore, the source of the funds is transparent and traceable, and there was no anonymous or unrelated third party involved.

During the verification process, I provided multiple forms of documentation to demonstrate this. These included a bank statement showing both account holders, documentation on bank letterhead confirming the account details, a void cheque showing the account number and my name, and additional banking screenshots. These documents were submitted specifically in response to the requests made by TonyBet support to verify the account used for the deposit.

Because of this, I believe the anti-money-laundering concern cited by TonyBet has effectively been addressed. The origin of the funds has been demonstrated, the account used is one I am authorized to access, and the transaction can be traced back to my own bank account. My intention was not to circumvent any rule, but simply to complete a deposit after reaching the daily Interac transaction limit on my primary account.

I would also respectfully note that the deposit itself was accepted by the system and gameplay was allowed to continue normally. The issue was only raised after I attempted to withdraw winnings. If the payment method had been considered invalid from the beginning, the deposit could have been declined at the time it was made.

In practice, if the gameplay had resulted in losses instead of winnings, the transaction would likely have remained accepted and the matter would have been considered closed. This is why I believe it is important that the situation be reviewed in light of the full context and documentation provided.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation further and remain fully willing to provide any additional documentation that may help resolve the matter. My hope is that the circumstances can be reviewed with consideration of the complete evidence submitted and the clear traceability of the funds.

Thank you again for your time and assistance in reviewing this case.

Dear parties,

thank you both for sharing your respective positions.

Dear casino representative,

We understand the importance of the mentioned rules, and we acknowledge that the deposit appeared in your system under another individual’s name.

And while we recognize that your terms require payment methods to be registered solely in the player’s name, we believe it should be possible to make an exception for a player, especially in case he is not acting in bad faith. We also in no way want to dismiss any verification checks, we only encourage the casino to continue with them.

For this reason, we would appreciate it if you could clarify whether there would be any possibility for the player to complete additional verification regarding the joint account and the origin of the funds, or whether the matter is considered fully closed under your internal policies regardless of any further documentation.

Dear canadianwinter18,

could you please provide us with generated statements for both the joint account and the account from which you have transferred the money? It seems I am unable to find these in the documentation provided.