Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) The NZ TAB to my mind is clearly in breach of the AML/CFT Act requirements in the introduction from the 1/8/2019 of the requirement for punters to identify themselves if they bet $1000 or collect $1000!!! This is clearly a breach of the act and contravenes the requirement as defined in the AML/CFT of needing to be $10,000 cash and $1000 by way of an international transfer! The NZ TAB needs to come on here and news media and clearly define why they wish to subject the NZ punters to a tenth of the necessary requirement as defined in the act??? I have always stated that it has nothing to do with money laundering but all to do with their wanting of total control of the wagering of punters! I await with baited breath as to the TABs reply, and hopefully they will change their mind as to the policy they have just brought in to stuff the industry further! Hopefully they will see sense and amend the requirement to what the requirement is supposed to be!!!! Edited July 31, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkatime! Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Brodie said: The NZ TAB to my mind is clearly in breach of the AML/CFT Act requirements in the introduction from the 1/8/2019 of the requirement for punters to identify themselves if they bet $1000 or collect $1000!!! This is clearly a breach of the act and contravenes the requirement as defined in the AML/CFT of needing to be $10,000 cash and $1000 by way of an international transfer! The NZ TAB needs to come on here and news media and clearly define why they wish to subject the NZ punters to a tenth of the necessary requirement as defined in the act??? I have always stated that it has nothing to do with money laundering but all to do with their wanting of total control of the wagering of punters! I await with baited breath as to the TABs reply, and hopefully they will change their mind as to the policy they have just brought in to stuff the industry further! Hopefully they will see sense and amend the requirement to what the requirement is supposed to be!!!! I’m not sure you are correct Brodie, the threshold to report is $10,000 but I wouldn’t think collecting information on those who collect over $1000 or bet over $1000 is a breach of the act. It is possibly an overly cautious approach and butt covering. I agree that someone collecting $1100 from an $8 bet having to provide id is a bit silly but for most I would doubt its a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Brodie said: The NZ TAB to my mind Clearly a mind bordering on insanity. Do you think all the below businesses needs to come on here and news media and clearly define their intentions as well? https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/AML-CFT-Reporting-Entities/$file/AMLCFT_Reporting-Entities_28-February-2019.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tonkatime! said: I’m not sure you are correct Brodie, the threshold to report is $10,000 but I wouldn’t think collecting information on those who collect over $1000 or bet over $1000 is a breach of the act. It is possibly an overly cautious approach and butt covering. I agree that someone collecting $1100 from an $8 bet having to provide id is a bit silly but for most I would doubt its a big deal. It is a breach of the privacy act, that someone that what’s to have a bet is asked by a TAB agency staff member who they are and then that is passed on to the TAB! It doesn’t matter who you talk to government agencies always quote the Privacy act, If we don’t want to, why on earth should we have to identify ourselves for collecting a winning bet! Does the supermarket have to ask someone who pays cash for food who they are in case they are money laundering or someone that buys a $1000 TV from Leeming? As I say it is not money laundering that the TAB is concerned about, it is control over who is collecting money off them and we can now stop them. We only want losing punters betting with us! As I have said got no problem with the TAB questioning people if they have suspicions but a blanket policy of $1k on everything which is one tenth of the requirement for money laundering under the AML act is so ridiculous. If it is going to be policed I can tell you now, punters who bet larger amounts just won’t bother with the TAB' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, Nowornever said: Clearly a mind bordering on insanity. Do you think all the below businesses needs to come on here and news media and clearly define their intentions as well? https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/AML-CFT-Reporting-Entities/$file/AMLCFT_Reporting-Entities_28-February-2019.pdf What a stupid thing to say. This is a racing forum and the TAB is a racing topic and there policy is so out of line with the requirements under the AML, somthey should be giving their reasons. They stated that they weren’t considering punters as money launderers and yet they impose a limit of $1k? How on earth you can defend it Nowornever defies logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkatime! Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 24 minutes ago, Brodie said: It is a breach of the privacy act, that someone that what’s to have a bet is asked by a TAB agency staff member who they are and then that is passed on to the TAB! It doesn’t matter who you talk to government agencies always quote the Privacy act, If we don’t want to, why on earth should we have to identify ourselves for collecting a winning bet! Does the supermarket have to ask someone who pays cash for food who they are in case they are money laundering or someone that buys a $1000 TV from Leeming? As I say it is not money laundering that the TAB is concerned about, it is control over who is collecting money off them and we can now stop them. We only want losing punters betting with us! As I have said got no problem with the TAB questioning people if they have suspicions but a blanket policy of $1k on everything which is one tenth of the requirement for money laundering under the AML act is so ridiculous. If it is going to be policed I can tell you now, punters who bet larger amounts just won’t bother with the TAB' Clutching at straws Brodie. First it was a breach of the aml act, now your rattling on about the privacy act being breached. Im not a lawyer but I can’t see how it’s breaching anyone’s privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Tonkatime! said: Clutching at straws Brodie. First it was a breach of the aml act, now your rattling on about the privacy act being breached. Im not a lawyer but I can’t see how it’s breaching anyone’s privacy. You can defend the TAB to the cows come home. Why doesn’t the TAB come out and tell us the truth in that it is to stop winning punters and the convenience of the AML act can now do that for them. Until someone pointed out the AML / CFT requirement at $10k today i wasn’t aware of that, although I knew that it was not to do with the AML act that the 1k was brought in. I am not a money launderer, never have been and don’t need to be one. The fact is that people that know Brodie can vouch for that and I could prove that to the TAB but to have to tell them every time I bet or collect who I am takes away every chance of me making money from gambling. Anyway would be good if someone from the NZ TAB could come on here or media and advise us why they are adopting a one tenth of the requirement amount that has to notified? Doubt that will happen as we know why, don’t we!? Edited July 31, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Dumb question maybe. What happens if I win $1000 at the pokies or at the casino? Do I pull out my casino card? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Happy Sunrise said: Dumb question maybe. What happens if I win $1000 at the pokies or at the casino? Do I pull out my casino card? No the Casino is 10k by the look of it. It is the NZ tAB that is only 1k! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 we all no the odds so why can't we bet them and good on any punter that can 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Just now, Brodie said: No the Casino is 10k by the look of it. It is the NZ tAB that is only 1k! So what does one produce at the casino? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Happy Sunrise said: So what does one produce at the casino? 5 aces 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: So what does one produce at the casino? Wouldnt Expect too many to be winning 10k and if they were they would be known to the casino as prob highrollers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, Brodie said: Wouldnt Expect too many to be winning 10k and if they were they would be known to the casino as prob highrollers That is beside the point, Brodie. Anyone can win over 10K so do they have to produce various forms of ID before they get their cash? Just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkatime! Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 40 minutes ago, Brodie said: You can defend the TAB to the cows come home. Why doesn’t the TAB come out and tell us the truth in that it is to stop winning punters and the convenience of the AML act can now do that for them. Until someone pointed out the AML / CFT requirement at $10k today i wasn’t aware of that, although I knew that it was not to do with the AML act that the 1k was brought in. I am not a money launderer, never have been and don’t need to be one. The fact is that people that know Brodie can vouch for that and I could prove that to the TAB but to have to tell them every time I bet or collect who I am takes away every chance of me making money from gambling. Anyway would be good if someone from the NZ TAB could come on here or media and advise us why they are adopting a one tenth of the requirement amount that has to notified? Doubt that will happen as we know why, don’t we!? That was awfully long rant about nothing. I’m not defending the tab, more pointing out that yet again the broadster isn’t on the money with his claims of legal breaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 having a tab card the tab blood must be spinning 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tonkatime! said: That was awfully long rant about nothing. I’m not defending the tab, more pointing out that yet again the broadster isn’t on the money with his claims of legal breaches. And u are a lawyer? I am on the money Tonka if it was contested in a court. Don’t give a rats what u think, it is blatantly just another morally and poor policy from a business that is haemorhaging U are entitled to an opinion at the end of the day the punters will vote with their feet. I don’t rely on punters for business, let’s see what the bigger punters think when it is enforced. Just another bad decision? Edited July 31, 2019 by Brodie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: That is beside the point, Brodie. Anyone can win over 10K so do they have to produce various forms of ID before they get their cash? Just wondering. They would have to in terms of the AML and if they purchased 10k of chips If the TAB was a casino it would be 1k as they don’t follow the AML Act rules Edited July 31, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 One of my good mates works at DIA and specifically within the AML CFT compliance unit. I bailed them up over lunch today and asked about this $1k v $10k issue. Apparently it (the $1,000 figure) was a deal struck between the TAB and the DIA. Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! They settled on $1,000. We both have an employment background working with a lot of different legislation. There is no breach of the Act here with the TAB doing what they are doing. Pissing a lot of their customers off, yes perhaps, but not a breach of the legislation. Nothing in the Act to say they cannot do what they are doing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiplash smile Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 yep fair comment happy sunrise, bitcoin if you havent heard of it, is a relatively untraceable currency, even more so with tumblers, that banks will close down your account whilst not illegal, the point im failing to make and i think tonkatime is trying to elude to is it really doesnt affect us when it comes to these changes, bitcoin casinos are available in simple red/black roulette to a 97.5 % winrate on a single 0 euro board, from countries that are outside of these rules of taxation by globalised networks, black friday texas hold em ring a bell? these changes are pre- emptive for the fact that nz has been a haven. these are not sinister changes to catch brodie or anyone else, but do understand the frustration we are all feeling when it comes to this monopoly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 5 hours ago, Tonkatime! said: Clutching at straws Brodie. First it was a breach of the aml act, now your rattling on about the privacy act being breached. i am regretting not going long in juniper berries 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ Flash Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 7 hours ago, Rangatira said: i am regretting not going long in juniper berries Its never too late Ranga? Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shodsie Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 brodie........ talking too a few of the management in the weekend this is not what the "tab" wants they have no choice....... this is going too cause a lot of hassles at retail and on race days and its something they could do with out in testing times...... i understand not only does it effect cash bets or collects over $1000, if you bet with a voucher with a balance of over $1000 every time you use it even if you spend only $50, every time you scan it you will need too produce ID or the "verified card" the big race days on course and retail will be a nightmare.......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, shodsie said: brodie........ talking too a few of the management in the weekend this is not what the "tab" wants they have no choice....... this is going too cause a lot of hassles at retail and on race days and its something they could do with out in testing times...... i understand not only does it effect cash bets or collects over $1000, if you bet with a voucher with a balance of over $1000 every time you use it even if you spend only $50, every time you scan it you will need too produce ID or the "verified card" the big race days on course and retail will be a nightmare.......... Shodsie, thanks for that. That being the case that the TAB didn’t want to bring it in, why did they accept it when the AML/CFT Act says $10k? I have not got a problem with sorting out any money laundering but I can not see how the TAB could not get thru to DIA that someone betting $2 and collecting $1k off a trifecta is likely to be money laundering. What was the reasoning by the DIA that all punters that spent or collected $1k was wanting to launder money? A regular punter of large amounts and collects if known to the TAB and checked out, should not be having to identify theirselves to the TAB and Big Brother every time. The TAB over the past few years have gone to lengths to stop their customers who are somewhat successful from betting with the TAB! This policy just totally enables the TAB to know who every punter is that wants to bet a reasonable amount and limit them to pathetic amounts. I for one am not prepared to play this stupid game that has come in. I am not and never needed to be a money launderer, and as such will not accept being treated like one and have to identify myself everytime I get a collect! Edited July 31, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Brodie said: I for one am not prepared to play this stupid game that has come in. I am not and never needed to be a money launderer, and as such will not accept being treated like one and have to identify myself everytime I get a collect! Does that mean you will not keep banging on about it! Not sure we can take much more of this torture! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.