Godmorgen, jeg er for nylig blevet gjort opmærksom på dette indlæg, og jeg vil gerne give lidt yderligere indsigt - forhåbentlig til hjælp.
Jeg arbejder for en bank, og for nylig stødte jeg på et tilfælde, hvor en kunde havde foretaget betalinger til et bestemt online casino med en Curaçao spillelicens - hvor de midler, der var beregnet til at fylde hans saldo op, var blevet betalt med kort i både forsøg og succes transaktioner til mindst 7 'forskellige' betalingsdestinationer, som jeg alle mener er shell-selskaber, der opererer på vegne af kasinoet.
Jeg tror, at begrundelsen for, at disse shell-selskaber opererer, er ret enkel og i bedste fald også ekstremt uetisk.
Ved at skjule betalingsdestinationen er dette en foranstaltning, der kan bruges til at forsøge at omgå foranstaltninger som Gamstop, da systemet ikke vil udløse, at betalingerne - foretages til shell-virksomheder, der tilbyder køkkenudstyr, babytøj/varer, onlinespil designkurser (alle dokumenterede eksempler fra det bestemte casino, jeg kigger på) - er til et helt andet formål.
I sidste ende er det altid et mistænkeligt træk at skjule betalingsdestinationen - men jeg mener, at dette bliver gjort specifikt af kasinoet for at unddrage sig beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, som kunder kan sætte på deres bankkonti - hvilket jeg mener sætter særligt sårbart. kunder (som gør hvad de kan for at beskytte sig selv) med en utrolig høj risiko
Dette er noget, jeg har rejst som en del af min rolle, og jeg håber, at den bank, jeg arbejder for, kan træffe passende foranstaltninger for at beskytte vores kunder
Good morning, I have recently been made aware of this post and I would like to offer some further insight - hopefully to be of assistance.
I work for a bank, and recently, came across a case where a customer had been making payments to a certain online casino with a Curaçao gaming license - where the funds intended to top up his balance had been paid via card in both attempts and successful transactions to at least 7 'different' payment destinations, all of which I believe to be shell companies operating on behalf of the casino.
I believe the reasoning for these shell companies operating is quite simple, and also extremely unethical at best.
By disguising the payment destination, this is a measure that can be employed to try and evade measures such as Gamstop, as the system will fail to trigger that the payments - made to shell companies who offer kitchen supplies, baby clothes/items, online games design courses (all evidenced examples from the particular casino I am looking into) - are for a completely different purpose.
At the end of the day, disguising the payment destination is always a suspicious move - but I believe that this is being done specifically by the casino in order to evade protective measures that customers can put on their bank accounts - which I believe puts particularly vulnerable customers (who are doing what the can to protect themselves) at incredibly high risk
This is something that I have raised as part of my role, and I hope that the bank that I work for can take appropriate action to protect our customers
Automatisk oversættelse:
