Stake.com Suspended My Account and Requested Extreme KYC

[Optional]

Update on my verification process:

I recently received another response from Stake regarding my Level 4 verification. They stated that my investment account statement was rejected because it was in a digital format.

I’ve just sent them a message asking for clarification — I can request physically signed and stamped copies from my financial institutions, but in that case, I would still need to upload photos of those documents through the portal.

Let’s see how they respond. I’ll share another update here once there’s progress.

I assume they mean they wont accept a screenshot of an online account. or a downloaded csv or pdf file version.

What do you think?

They didn't really ask for stamped and signed paper versions did they? That is getting rather over the top if so.

[15cnbrk12345]

I assume they mean they wont accept a screenshot of an online account. or a downloaded csv or pdf file version.

What do you think?

They didn't really ask for stamped and signed paper versions did they? That is getting rather over the top if so.

You're right — I also assumed they just don’t want screenshots or basic CSV/PDF downloads, which would make sense.

However, the documents I submitted are official PDFs issued directly by my brokerage, digitally signed (e-signed) and fully verifiable. These are the same documents accepted even by consulates for **** applications, so it’s a bit odd that they were rejected simply for being in “digital format.”

Still, I’ve requested physically signed and stamped copies to be sent to my home address. Once I receive them, I’ll take clear photos and upload those instead — we’ll see how that goes.

[JK_Hammer_It]

Can you nominate any other bookmaker that does KYC before deposit?

If not, you probably should not rely on that argument. It's not going to be at all meaningful or significant to them.

I'd suggest just concentrating on "helping them" to find a way to protect themselves from any allegation they have not cleared you in a proper way. That's what they care about. The 100k+ fine they could face if they don't. Seriously, try to put yourself in their shoes and try to think of a way to give them what you can to help clear you. That's how you will see your money fastest. Not by arguing that all bookmakers should act differently than they all do.

Is getting fined 100k+ a real thing? Or just another way for a dishonest book to tell a winning player to go f himself?

[JK_Hammer_It]

You're right — I also assumed they just don’t want screenshots or basic CSV/PDF downloads, which would make sense.

However, the documents I submitted are official PDFs issued directly by my brokerage, digitally signed (e-signed) and fully verifiable. These are the same documents accepted even by consulates for **** applications, so it’s a bit odd that they were rejected simply for being in “digital format.”

Still, I’ve requested physically signed and stamped copies to be sent to my home address. Once I receive them, I’ll take clear photos and upload those instead — we’ll see how that goes.

With each update I think more and more that I missed something: like your balance is $60k not $600. This is crazy

[SportsBettor5]

Ok, Stake goes on the blacklist then.

[Optional]

Is getting fined 100k+ a real thing? Or just another way for a dishonest book to tell a winning player to go f himself?

Yes. And regularly. Getting fined 10 million is just as much of a real thing as being fined 100k.

Multi million fines against many books. Entain, William Hill, MGM, Ladbrokes, Coral, 888, Betway can think of from recently. All for KYC breaches.

[15cnbrk12345]

With each update I think more and more that I missed something: like your balance is $60k not $600. This is crazy

I’m starting to think the same, maybe there’s a missing zero somewhere and nobody told me. Would make this whole saga a lot easier to understand

[15cnbrk12345]

Yes. And regularly. Getting fined 10 million is just as much of a real thing as being fined 100k.

Multi million fines against many books. Entain, William Hill, MGM, Ladbrokes, Coral, 888, Betway can think of from recently. All for KYC breaches.

I completely understand and accept the regulatory necessity behind KYC. However, the documents I provided were already officially issued and digitally signed — the same type accepted even by consulates and financial authorities.

Anyway, to move things forward, I’ve requested stamped and signed physical copies from my two banks and my brokerage firm. Once they arrive, I’ll upload clear photos of them as requested. I’ll also keep this thread updated with the results.

[raiders72001]

GL, hoping not much longer to get paid.

[Optional]

I completely understand and accept the regulatory necessity behind KYC. However, the documents I provided were already officially issued and digitally signed — the same type accepted even by consulates and financial authorities.

Anyway, to move things forward, I’ve requested stamped and signed physical copies from my two banks and my brokerage firm. Once they arrive, I’ll upload clear photos of them as requested. I’ll also keep this thread updated with the results.

Agree. It does sound like Stake staff think they are the FBI when that is not needed or required.

But they will also be under pressure to not leave the company vulnerable to a big fine. Just takes one really bad miss by them to result in some huge fines.

KYC annoys me as much as anyone. And I think it's completely wrong headed to have every bookmaker we use require so much personal info.

But that doesn't change the situation as it stands right now. And I have almost zero empathy for anyone who decides to rail on about the unfairness of the system AFTER they have been caught in it. Personal responsibility applies imho. Crying that the book just hates you or wants to make life hard for winners is mindless stupidity imho. People actually think these mega corporations want to hurt their profit because they hate you or think reaming you for info will help their business?? painful to see people post it so often.


I think you are handling it almost perfectly btw.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Could anyone tell me where this place is working out of and are they even legal? If so who do they report all this stuff to that can sanction them? I admit I never heard of them...

[littlekona]

classic free roll your deposit site if you violate terms. just like cloud bet....thats said i have international frens who meet the terms that love it and get paid no issues......if you tr to get around kyc with vpn though tyty u a free roll on them

[SportsBettor5]

classic free roll your deposit site if you violate terms. just like cloud bet....thats said i have international frens who meet the terms that love it and get paid no issues......if you tr to get around kyc with vpn though tyty u a free roll on them

appreciate this report from a vet such as you!

[dhristov211]

Could anyone tell me where this place is working out of and are they even legal? If so who do they report all this stuff to that can sanction them? I admit I never heard of them...

I think Drake the rapper (aka 'certified pedophile') promoted Stake some years ago. Well known brand

[littlekona]

GL, hoping not much longer to get paid.

when it comes to crypto deposit books platforms just ask Raiders he got the goods on all them and knows the ones that will freeroll your deposits

[SportsBettor5]

Could anyone tell me where this place is working out of and are they even legal? If so who do they report all this stuff to that can sanction them? I admit I never heard of them...

Curacao. Their license expires in June 2026. Operating legally in over 150 countries. Also hold licenses in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Curacao. Their license expires in June 2026. Operating legally in over 150 countries. Also hold licenses in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

Very impressed. Must be real hard to operate legally in those places. Where someone gets $600 is still a joke.....

[SportsBettor5]

Yes. And regularly. Getting fined 10 million is just as much of a real thing as being fined 100k.

Multi million fines against many books. Entain, William Hill, MGM, Ladbrokes, Coral, 888, Betway can think of from recently. All for KYC breaches.

All of your examples stem from enforcement actions of the United States DoJ, UKGC, AUSTRAC, or the Swedish government.

Stake.com forbids clients from all of those jurisdictions.

15cnbrk12345 are you a resident of Canada? If not, of which nation are you a resident?

[Brooklyn Dick]

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that this is nothing of a stall or even a beat job. Depositing $600 in a bank in the US which already is like a Police State, there no one would blink an eye. Come on, these guy are thieves........

[15cnbrk12345]

All of your examples stem from enforcement actions of the United States DoJ, UKGC, AUSTRAC, or the Swedish government.

Stake.com forbids clients from all of those jurisdictions.

15cnbrk12345 are you a resident of Canada? If not, of which nation are you a resident?

I’m based in Europe, not in any of the restricted jurisdictions mentioned. I’m not playing from any banned location either — Stake had already verified my country, phone number, and ID when I first signed up.

[SportsBettor5]

I’m based in Europe, not in any of the restricted jurisdictions mentioned. I’m not playing from any banned location either — Stake had already verified my country, phone number, and ID when I first signed up.

My point is: if you were a resident of Peru or Costa Rica and this happened to you, this would be a big black mark on Stake. Western Europe...Optional has a point about punishments for KYC/AML compliance.

Hope you get paid soon.

[Optional]

All of your examples stem from enforcement actions of the United States DoJ, UKGC, AUSTRAC, or the Swedish government.

Stake.com forbids clients from all of those jurisdictions.

15cnbrk12345 are you a resident of Canada? If not, of which nation are you a resident?

It is the same pressure in the US. MGM is US. Penn Entertainment were fined for failing to KYC one customer not too long ago. The "security depts" personal focus is as much about protecting themselves from accusations of not doing their job as much as stopping money laundering, at every legit book I deal with. Whilst the salespeople and VIP hosts work with opposite motivations there is genuinely virtually no one who performs KYC at books who is thinking they need to find a way to boot you for winning. In other departments responsible for player management I am sure there is but in any legit corporate licensed book those people don't get to weaponize KYC from what I have seen. They impose limits or refuse service without any KYC excuse.

[SportsBettor5]

It is the same pressure in the US. MGM is US. Penn Entertainment were fined for failing to KYC one customer not too long ago. The "security depts" personal focus is as much about protecting themselves from accusations of not doing their job as much as stopping money laundering, at every legit book I deal with. Whilst the salespeople and VIP hosts work with opposite motivations there is genuinely virtually no one who performs KYC at books who is thinking they need to find a way to boot you for winning. In other departments responsible for player management I am sure there is but in any legit corporate licensed book those people don't get to weaponize KYC from what I have seen. They impose limits or refuse service without any KYC excuse.

Most of the world's sports bettors do not reside in US/UK/Canada/Western Europe. Stake operates in more countries outside of that group than inside that group. I imagine Stake has different KYC policies based on the residency of the player, hence my question. If Stake is subjecting players from outside those countries to stringent KYC like this, that would seem inappropriate at best.

[Optional]

Most of the world's sports bettors do not reside in US/UK/Canada/Western Europe. Stake operates in more countries outside of that group than inside that group. I imagine Stake has different KYC policies based on the residency of the player, hence my question. If Stake is subjecting players from outside those countries to stringent KYC like this, that would seem inappropriate at best.

Inappropriate if not done in good faith of course.

But if you run a relevant business from a country that is signed up to international AML agreements, as all countries who want access to SWIFT have to be, then you are subject to those rules to some extent.

Even in Costa Rica bookmakers hold business licenses and are technically just as liable for not performing KYC as Euro or US bookmakers. On everyone. Whether America declares it is illegal to bet there or not. Whether it is enforced properly in CR is another question but reality is even offshore books could end up with fines if something goes badly wrong enough. Like being linked to terror money laundering.

I do get what you are thinking and why you would think it. But it's no where near as black and white as saying "this book has no right to kyc me". Or that Stake are just trying to steal the OPs money or stop him betting there via KYC.

Just as a hypothetical example, they might be under extra scrutiny as part of a new license application and are being extra thorough with KYC due to that. Not making excuses for them as the OPs experience does sound over the top, but there could be reasons for them acting as they do.

[SportsBettor5]

But it's no where near as black and white as saying "this book has no right to kyc me". Or that Stake are just trying to steal the OPs money

This is called strawmanning. The opposite of steelmanning. A very bad thing to do, indeed.

[Optional]

This is called strawmanning. The opposite of steelmanning. A very bad thing to do, indeed.

If you think I am a liar or not able to identify people lying to me I guess you could see it that way. But I am giving you my genuine opinion based on personal experience.

I am glad you want to have the discussion to help readers get a bit more perspective on different opinions about this btw.

[SportsBettor5]

I didn't say I think that you're lying. I don't think that you're lying. I'm saying no one here said "this book has no right to kyc me", which is what you wrote in post #59. No one wrote that "Stake is trying to steal the OPs money" (also post #59). It's $600. I don't think anyone believes it's worth the bad PR for Stake to steal $600.

I wrote this:

Yes, it's theoretically possible that a book not operating in the KYC/AML-thirsty jurisdictions could still get hit with punishments of some type from the governments of those jurisdictions merely for not KYC'ing its clients. After all, the governments of those jurisdictions are richer, more powerful, and have a long history of bullying the governments of smaller/poorer/weaker countries.

However, has a sportsbook not licensed in all of UK/US/AU/NZ/Canada/W Europe and not accepting clients from those places ever had to face any kind of serious penalty for not enforcing AML/KYC?



But now I see that in July 2025, Curacao took an unprecedented step:



In July 2025, Curacao’s Public Prosecutor's Office (PPO) announced a landmark out-of-court settlement with 12 unnamed online casino and gambling operators (including sportsbooks) for systemic failures in Know Your Customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance.



The times are changing for the worse. These penalties were light (about 11.5k euro average per operator), but we should expect them to increase through time. I’ll be advising my friends to steer clear of Curacao-based books, but Pinnacle is probably unavoidable for pros. Optional wins this argument.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Most of the world's sports bettors do not reside in US/UK/Canada/Western Europe. Stake operates in more countries outside of that group than inside that group. I imagine Stake has different KYC policies based on the residency of the player, hence my question. If Stake is subjecting players from outside those countries to stringent KYC like this, that would seem inappropriate at best.

Inappropriate is taking a $600 deposit and than asking for a slew of documents to where this big $600 came from when he won. How anyone can condone this or actually deposit there after knowing this is beyond me...

[15cnbrk12345]

Everyone posting here clearly knows a lot more than I do — I’ve learned a lot reading your comments, so thank you.

I never said they were going to steal my money or keep it. I actually decided to be stubborn and go through the whole process just to see it through. But let’s be honest — most people wouldn’t bother doing all this for $600. That means, indirectly, Stake ends up keeping a lot of people’s money this way. It’s not a fair or honest approach.

What I’m saying is that the extreme KYC documents they request are exhausting and suffocating. I understand that rules or new licensing agreements may require stricter checks, but it feels hypocritical. Taking people’s deposits without much KYC and then suddenly demanding everything — up to a birth certificate (exaggerating) — when it’s time to withdraw feels, at best, two-faced.

As of yesterday, I received documents posted to my home and I photographed them. Soon I’ll share why they rejected my submission and what other documents they ask for, so you can see how they keep wasting my time.

[Brooklyn Dick]

Everyone posting here clearly knows a lot more than I do — I’ve learned a lot reading your comments, so thank you.

I never said they were going to steal my money or keep it. I actually decided to be stubborn and go through the whole process just to see it through. But let’s be honest — most people wouldn’t bother doing all this for $600. That means, indirectly, Stake ends up keeping a lot of people’s money this way. It’s not a fair or honest approach.

What I’m saying is that the extreme KYC documents they request are exhausting and suffocating. I understand that rules or new licensing agreements may require stricter checks, but it feels hypocritical. Taking people’s deposits without much KYC and then suddenly demanding everything — up to a birth certificate (exaggerating) — when it’s time to withdraw feels, at best, two-faced.

As of yesterday, I received documents posted to my home and I photographed them. Soon I’ll share why they rejected my submission and what other documents they ask for, so you can see how they keep wasting my time.

The joke here are the members who post how it is "normal" when we know it is an out and out swindle...............This is "supposed" to be a forum to help players. LOL.......

[SportsBettor5]

Inappropriate is taking a $600 deposit and than asking for a slew of documents to where this big $600 came from when he won. How anyone can condone this or actually deposit there after knowing this is beyond me...

If you're Stake.com and the government of your main license jurisdiction (Curacao) just took the step of fining operators (possibly including Stake itself) for not KYC'ing clients, you're probably going to start KYC'ing your clients.

Yes they should do it upon deposit, not at time of withdrawal. However, they're going to take the easier road for themselves (KYC at withdrawal) as long as the regulators don't threaten them.

Sad state of affairs but not really Stake's fault. Fundamentally its the fault of voters in the US and EU for being so scared of whatever the latest bogeyman is that they elect politicians who create these regimes.

Yes I changed my mind over the course of researching for this thread. Better late than never in finding the truth. Appreciate the pushback from Optional.

[Brooklyn Dick]

If you're Stake.com and the government of your main license jurisdiction (Curacao) just took the step of fining operators (possibly including Stake itself) for not KYC'ing clients, you're probably going to start KYC'ing your clients.

Yes they should do it upon deposit, not at time of withdrawal. However, they're going to take the easier road for themselves (KYC at withdrawal) as long as the regulators don't threaten them.

Sad state of affairs but not really Stake's fault. Fundamentally its the fault of voters in the US and EU for being so scared of whatever the latest bogeyman is that they elect politicians who create these regimes.

Yes I changed my mind over the course of researching for this thread. Better late than never in finding the truth. Appreciate the pushback from Optional.

I only have ONE question for you and don't expect anything but more BS, but here goes. Do you actually recommend people depositing their hard earned money with a book that follows these withdrawal rules? Give me a yes or no answer and spare me the 3 paragraphs of nothing...

[SportsBettor5]

I only have ONE question for you and don't expect anything but more BS, but here goes. Do you actually recommend people depositing their hard earned money with a book that follows these withdrawal rules? Give me a yes or no answer and spare me the 3 paragraphs of nothing...

No. Read what I already wrote, scholar.

(Stay in school, kids!)

[15cnbrk12345]

I’m not here to say “Stake is solely to blame” — that would be too simplistic. The bigger issue is that this market operates in a lot of grey areas, and the real victims are often the small bettors: people who risk their hard-earned money trying to win a little back.

Yes, anti-money-laundering (AML) and KYC procedures are necessary. But there’s something deeply unfair about a business model that lets anyone deposit instantly with no meaningful checks, yet when you try to withdraw they suddenly require extreme proof of income — up to documents that most ordinary users simply don’t have on hand. That’s not an edge case: it’s how many people will be trapped, and most will simply give up rather than fight.

Let’s be concrete: I might have all my savings in crypto or in long-term investments. Maybe I’m gambling with the last $1,000 I’ve got. Nothing in the signup or deposit flow stopped me from putting that money on the site. Then, at payout time, the operator asks me to prove the origin of those funds — bank statements, payslips, tax returns, signed brokerage letters… documents that many casual users don’t possess or can’t easily produce. Where’s the proportionality or common sense in that?

Some people here (rightly) point out regulatory pressures and potential license issues. I get that — and I respect that compliance is serious. But that doesn’t change the reality that the process, as implemented, feels two-faced: “Give us your money easily, but good luck getting it back unless you can jump through too many hoops.” Frankly, when you lean too far into devil’s-advocate territory you lose sight of the plain logic of fairness.

What I’d like to see from forums like this is more emphasis on highlighting operators that handle these issues responsibly — operators that are transparent about KYC at deposit time, proportionate in their requests, and clear about what they require before accepting large deposits. Experienced posters are rightly offering nuanced, regulatory perspectives — and that’s valuable — but from an objective user point of view the current practical process is often irrational and harmful.


Late add:

When people respond with “well, KYC procedures are mandatory — the book has to protect itself from fines,” we end up stuck in a loop. It’s the classic chicken-and-egg question: who created this problem in the first place?

But let’s be honest — the situation speaks for itself. The real cause of this hypocrisy is Stake’s willingness to accept deposits so freely and recklessly in the first place. If you’re going to demand extreme proof of income later, you shouldn’t let anyone deposit without similar checks upfront.

Earlier in this thread, a few users mentioned that “no one just finds money out of thin air” — implying that it’s perfectly reasonable for Stake to question where my funds came from. But that kind of thinking completely misses the point. It puts all the responsibility on the player while excusing the operator, as if Stake is somehow the innocent one here.

Anyway, this discussion is starting to feel like a never-ending loop, so I just wanted to add this perspective. Hopefully, I’ll get a positive email tomorrow and finally close this chapter with Stake once and for all.

[Optional]

What I’d like to see from forums like this is more emphasis on highlighting operators that handle these issues responsibly — operators that are transparent about KYC at deposit time

No bettor in the world wants to hand over all their personal info just to signup or do a test deposit or claim a bonus offer at every bookmaker they want to try.

The ONLY people who demand this is a real thing anyone wants are those already caught in the system. Or posters like Dick who come into many foreign bookmaker complaint threads and calls them all illegal or corrupt.

Some people think asking the book to do KYC when they join is the solution. 1) that does not mean you never get KYCed again. Your betting activity and the amounts you bet comes into KYC as well as identity. And even more importantly, 2) Asking for early KYC almost guarantees you will then be subject to at least level 2 KYC come withdraw time. You just put a red flag on your account by asking.

The number of complaints threads on here from people who do that and then start out with the line "I was 100% verified so they should not be allowed to KYC me now" is enormous. It's almost like a trope. It's partly their own fault, but way more the fault of people in here who unwittingly keep trying to tell others to do it.


Obviously Stake are not handling this very well but Ignore the noise. You are doing it the right way.