How fast is a fast withdrawal casino in Australia, and who actually offers one

Data current as of 28 October 2026 — licence claims verified against the ACMA formal-warning register.

A “fast withdrawal casino” is a promise that runs straight into the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. The promise is about speed. The Act is about whether any of these operators are lawfully allowed to take an Australian customer’s deposit in the first place. They are not, which forces a different shape on the whole page. The brands that market themselves as fast-paying to Australians all operate offshore, and every one of them has been the subject of an ACMA formal warning. So the speed question is real — it is what readers actually came for — and the legality question is the first thing that has to be on the table. Both stay.

Speed, on its own terms, is mostly engineering. It depends on whether identity checks are already on file, on what settlement window the operator runs, on the payment rail the customer picked, and on whether the cashier triggers manual review because of a bonus, a recent deposit, or a withdrawal size that looks unusual. Crypto cuts through some of that because it skips the bank rail, but it adds its own delay — the network’s confirmation time — and the operator still controls the moment it releases the funds. None of those levers overrides the basic fact that the casino is operating outside Australian law. That part is settled before the comparison begins.

What “fast withdrawal” actually means on a casino cashier

The marketing version of fast is a number on the homepage — “instant”, “under one hour”, “same day”. The honest version is a sequence of steps that each take a measurable slice of time, and the operator’s internal cut-off decides whether any of it happens today or tomorrow.

A cash-out starts with a request. The cashier checks it against three things: identity documents already on file, the bonus terms if a bonus is active, and the deposit trail (the operator usually pays out through the same channel the deposit came in, on a known anti-money-laundering rule). If any of those flags, the request goes to manual review, where a payments officer looks at it. If none of them flag, the cashier releases the funds into the operator’s settlement queue. The settlement queue is the part the operator actually controls: same-day, hourly, or weekly, depending on the policy of that brand.

The rails that move the money once the operator has released it are not under the casino’s control at all. A bank transfer rides Osko, which is genuinely fast in Australia — typically under a minute when both banks participate — but only inside bank-to-bank transfers. A card refund is slower, because it has to come back through Visa or Mastercard’s settlement. A crypto withdrawal is fast if the operator releases it promptly, and then bounded by how many confirmations the network needs to consider the transfer settled. None of those rails changes the operator’s own settlement window. That window is the only thing the brand controls.

That is the picture in which every claim of “fast” has to be read.

See also Highest payout online casino Australia 2026.

Cluster — speed on the rails in Australia

Bank-to-bank via Osko and PayID

Osko settled bank-to-bank transfers between participating Australian banks in under a minute, twenty-four hours a day, including weekends. The transfer can be addressed to a BSB and account number or to a PayID. PayID has shown the name of the account holder before the transfer is sent for several years now, and Australian Payments Plus has been explicit about what that means in this context: being asked to send money to a PayID on an illegal gambling site almost certainly means a scam site. That is not the casino being fast. That is the rail being fast, and it is a warning sign attached to it.

PayID itself is broadly available — over a hundred Australian financial institutions are signed up, and more than twenty-five million PayID identifiers had been registered on Australia’s New Payments Platform by April 2025. The New Payments Platform went live to the public on 13 February 2018 and is owned by New Payments Platform Australia Ltd, a non-profit whose shareholders include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the major banks. Participants in NPP have to keep the platform’s monthly outages to no more than two minutes. That is a real-time retail rail that has nothing to do with how fast a casino chooses to release funds.

If a casino is going to pay out to an Australian through bank transfer, it is using this rail. The rail is fast. The casino still has to send the instruction, and a brand with a manual review queue sitting on top of every payout undoes everything the rail gives.

Card refunds and digital wallets

Card refunds come back through Visa or Mastercard’s settlement, which is materially slower than Osko. Apple Pay and Google Pay do not change that — they are tokenisations of an underlying card transaction, and the wallet itself does not charge the consumer; any surcharge on a card payment comes from the merchant’s processing fees, not from Apple. By the end of 2025, Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay together accounted for around forty-five per cent of all card payments in Australia by number. The wallet volume is enormous, and the settlement speed is still card-bound.

The bigger issue with cards is that credit cards and credit-related products are not a lawful payment route for Australian-licensed online wagering — that restriction took effect under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 as amended in 2023, and it constrains linked digital wallets too. An offshore casino that takes credit-card deposits from an Australian is not the only thing operating outside the rules; the underlying payment route is doing the same. Banks have built the equivalent of a front-of-house filter: Westpac’s gambling block works at card level and refuses authorisation of transactions registered under the merchant category code ‘Betting/Casino Gambling’ on eligible cards; ANZ’s gambling block, set through the ANZ app, blocks gambling transactions made through a digital wallet such as Apple Pay on an eligible card, and once it is on, removing it requires a forty-eight-hour waiting period; Commonwealth Bank lets customers apply a gambling lock to eligible cards via its app. None of these blocks stops a debit card payment to an offshore casino that has not been added to a bank’s block list, but all of them narrow the surface area that the casino can route a deposit through.

American Express sits a little outside this picture. It runs on a three-party model — Amex issues the card and processes the transaction itself, rather than going through a four-party network like Visa or Mastercard — and the Reserve Bank of Australia’s July 2025 review on card surcharging proposes removing surcharges on eftpos, Mastercard and Visa transactions, leaving American Express explicitly outside the scope of the proposed surcharge ban. So an Amex transaction is structurally different, and for the moment it also sits outside the surcharge reform that would tighten the cost of card payments for everyone else.

BPAY, and what it is and is not

BPAY is a bill-payment service inside online banking. The payer enters a Biller Code and a Customer Reference Number that the bill prints on its face, and the payment is pulled from the payer’s bank. BPAY has been operating in Australia since 1997, is available in the online banking of over a hundred and forty banks and financial institutions, and is offered by over ninety-five thousand businesses. It is owned equally by Australia’s four major banks through Cardlink Services Limited, and in September 2021 the ACCC authorised the merger of BPAY Group with eftpos and NPP Australia under a single holding entity, Australian Payments Plus.

BPAY is built for paying bills, not for receiving payouts from a casino. It is not a withdrawal rail for an offshore operator in any practical sense. The reason it shows up in this picture is the inverse: it is one of the deposit routes that an Australian-licensed online wagering service is allowed to use under the 2024 credit-card ban. Debit card, bank transfer, PayID/Osko and BPAY — that is the lawful set for a licensed operator. An offshore casino is not on the lawful set at all.

The crypto route, and why it does not dodge the rest

Crypto is the rail that the marketing language reaches for hardest, because the operator does not have to wait for a bank. A bitcoin or USDT withdrawal goes out to a wallet address the customer controls, and the confirmation time is set by the network rather than by anyone’s settlement queue.

That does two things at once. It cuts the bank rail out of the picture, so the operator does not need an Australian bank account to receive funds and does not have to depend on Visa or Mastercard’s settlement. And it keeps the operator fully in charge of the moment it releases the funds. The fastest crypto withdrawal in the world still waits for the operator to send it. A casino that puts withdrawals through a manual review queue will still put them through a manual review queue, regardless of the rail. That is the part that gets lost when the marketing material focuses on the network speed rather than the cashier speed.

There is a separate question about whether a “no verification” promise survives contact with the actual cashier. A crypto casino can be set up to take a wallet address as the entire customer record, and that genuinely cuts out the document-checking step that an Australian-licensed operator has to run under anti-money-laundering law. It does not cut out the operator’s own internal review, which still runs on the cashier side and still holds the request when the operator chooses to. The promise of no verification and the reality of no verification are not the same. A reader who has already sent their first deposit will meet the cashier’s actual rules very quickly.

Where the speed stops being the brand’s choice

A few things sit entirely outside the operator’s control, and they are the reason a withdrawal that usually takes minutes can suddenly take a day or two.

The first is the rails’ own cut-offs and limits. Osko is genuinely fast, but a transfer outside business hours to a non-participating bank falls back to standard settlement. Crypto networks run on their own confirmation schedules, and a Bitcoin transaction with a low fee can sit in the mempool longer than the brand’s advertised window. The second is the payment provider on the operator’s side: the casino does not necessarily send funds from its own treasury. A payment processor between the operator and the customer adds its own queue, and a payment processor with an internal review step adds another manual review on top of the operator’s. The third is identity verification done late. If the cashier hits a request that has not been verified before — a withdrawal to a new bank account, a withdrawal over a threshold — the request goes back to the queue the customer thought they had already cleared.

That is the shape of the answer to why a “fast” withdrawal is sometimes slow.

Cluster — what decides which withdrawal sails through and which does not

Identity checks completed earlier

Once identity documents are on file and confirmed, withdrawals typically skip extra manual review. This is the single largest determinant of whether a withdrawal sails through. A customer who has uploaded the documents on day one and confirmed a bank account or wallet address at the same time will see most later withdrawals processed without the cashier pausing to ask who they are. A customer who has not done either, or who is withdrawing to a new destination for the first time, will see a queue.

This is also the place where offshore operators that advertise “no verification” meet the practical constraint. Crypto deposits do not require a verified bank account, so the no-verification pitch lands cleanly at deposit. The pitch is less clean at withdrawal, because the cashier still has to satisfy the operator’s own anti-money-laundering checks on the way out, and a request to a brand-new wallet address is the kind of thing that gets paused regardless of what the marketing page says.

Bonus terms, and what they cost the cashier

If a bonus is active, the cashier checks the wagering requirement against the request. If the bonus is not yet cleared, the cashier declines the withdrawal, and the operator either returns the request to the queue or cancels the bonus balance. This is not a quirk of fast-withdrawal brands in particular — it is the standard behaviour across the offshore market — but the speed of the operator’s queue determines whether the customer finds out before or after they thought the cash-out had gone through.

The way bonuses bite at the cashier is the part that gets talked about least. The marketing language focuses on the headline offer. The cashier focuses on whether the offer has been cleared, and that is where the speed claim either delivers or does not.

Size thresholds and source-of-funds checks

Above a certain size, the cashier almost always pauses for a source-of-funds check. The threshold varies by operator and by the jurisdiction the operator reports under, but the shape is consistent: a request that is materially larger than the customer’s recent deposit-and-withdrawal pattern will go to a manual review, and that review will look at where the funds came from. The review is the operator’s own — AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report rule, which requires reporting of transfers of A$10,000 or more, applies only to physical cash, and ordinary electronic bank transfers are not subject to that per-transaction reporting requirement regardless of amount. The casino’s internal threshold sits separately, and it sits lower than AUSTRAC’s.

For an Australian customer, the practical consequence is that a series of small withdrawals will sail through the cashier and a single large one may not. Splitting a cash-out into smaller requests is not advice — it is a description of how a cashier queue tends to behave.

Reversals and the cooling-off window

A withdrawal that has been approved is, in normal practice, not reversible from the customer side. Once the operator has sent the funds into the rail — the bank, the card, the crypto network — the customer does not have a button to undo it. The place a reversal can still happen is on the operator’s side, in the gap between approval and release: some operators show a withdrawal as “pending” for a window during which a customer can cancel it and return the funds to the playing balance. Outside that window, the funds are out of the operator’s hands.

The bank side also has its own delay surface. A bank that operates a gambling block will refuse a deposit from an account that has been added to its block list, but a withdrawal back to that same account is typically processed; the block is on the way in, not on the way out. A digital wallet does not add its own delay — Apple Pay and Google Pay pass through to the underlying card — but it does add a layer at which a merchant-level block can be applied.

How fast is a fast withdrawal casino in Australia, and who actually… — More on this topic at casino safety.

Cluster — ranking the brands the ACMA has named

The brands below are not a ranking of how fast any of them pay out. They are presented in the order the research set names them, and the only fact the table carries on speed is what the ACMA’s own warnings say about whether the brand is allowed to take Australian customers at all. Where the research carries a subject support note, the table keeps it; where it carries none, the cell is left blank on purpose.

The row at the top is the most recent ACMA action in the set. The rows down the table run backwards through the ACMA’s formal-warning publication, with two brands (RocketPlay and Bizzo Casino) carrying an earlier warning from the same operator set. The “Subject support” column reports what listings the research checked, and the cells with a dash are not a denial — they are the places the research did not check a fast-withdrawal claim against a named secondary source.

What the ACMA’s blocking rate actually says

The ACMA’s June 2026 round asked Australian internet service providers to block twelve more illegal gambling websites — 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino — bringing the running total since the first blocking request in November 2019 to 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites blocked. The first blocking request went out in November 2019, and the round that produced the running total was reported on 26 June 2026, so the time window from first block to current snapshot spans roughly six years and seven months.

Dividing the cumulative count of 1,751 blocked sites by the six-and-three-quarter-year window from November 2019 to June 2026 gives a blocking rate of roughly 260 sites per year on average, or around 22 sites per month. The rate is not constant — the early years saw fewer blocks per round than the recent ones — but as a single figure it puts the pace of enforcement at a level where a brand that has been on the market for two years has had a meaningful chance of being named in a blocking round. The same figure also says that the ACMA is not catching up to a fast-moving market; it is publishing rounds faster than the market is opening new fronts.

Where the speed claim sits on each brand

The brands in this ranking are all offshore, all named in an ACMA formal warning, and all operating outside Australian consumer-protection law. The speed they advertise is the speed of their own cashier, not the speed of the rail, and it is independent of whether they are lawful to use in Australia. A reader who has chosen to use one of them will still meet the cashier’s actual queue, the rail’s actual cut-offs, and the absence of any Australian complaints body if a withdrawal is refused. The brand-level speed claims the research carries do not survive contact with the ACMA register; the register survives contact with everything else.

RocketPlay is the brand with the most recent ACMA action — a formal warning issued in March 2026 to Pulsup Ltd over Rocketplay.com.au — and it also carries an earlier warning to Dama N.V. from May 2022, when the same operator ran six brands at once including RocketPlay itself. The second warning is the ACMA’s way of saying the first one was not enough to end the conduct. A reader who is looking at RocketPlay is looking at a brand whose operator has been told twice, by name, that offering prohibited services to Australians is an offence, and that has continued. On the speed side, the only thing the research confirms is what a gambling-insider listing reports about its cashier. That listing is not the operator’s own fact.

Level Up Casino carries the May 2022 warning to Dama N.V., which was issued jointly with RocketPlay and four other brands. The brand is one of six siblings under the same operator, which is the structural reason the ACMA was able to issue a single warning covering all of them. The relevant secondary source for fast-withdrawal coverage is a Westpac page that documents the bank’s gambling block. That page does not endorse the brand; it documents that the brand is the kind of merchant that the block catches. The two facts are not the same, and they read in different directions.

Woo Casino and Spirit Casino are the two more recent Dama N.V. warnings — March 2025 and May 2025. They sit in the gap where the ACMA was escalating against the same operator after the 2022 warning had not produced a behavioural change. Information on fast-withdrawal claims is not available for either brand, so the ACMA warning remains the defining fact.

National Casino and Bizzo Casino are the two July 2025 warnings issued to Consolutetish S.R.L. Bizzo Casino had already been the subject of a 2022 formal warning, this one to TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V. — the second formal warning tied to that brand since 2022. National Casino is a sibling warning to Bizzo in the same round. The research carries three secondary-source links for National Casino: the ACMA register itself, AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report page, and BetStop. None of those is a speed claim; two of them are Australian public infrastructure for the lawful side of the market.

Ignition Casino is the third brand from the July 2025 round, with a warning to Bamboo Media rather than to Consolutetish S.R.L. No secondary data confirms a fast-withdrawal claim here.

Instant Casino’s warning came from EOD Code SRL in February 2025. The research carries two secondary-source links: the ecoPayz page and the PayID page. PayID, as the rail discussion above shows, is fast; the brand being connected to a fast rail does not change what the ACMA warning says about whether the brand is allowed to take Australian customers.

Jackbit is the April 2026 warning to Ryker B.V., and the same warning covered CasinOK. The research does not check a fast-withdrawal claim against either. Casino Intense is the April 2025 warning to Sterplay Holding Ltd, and the research carries secondary links to AUSTRAC, BetStop and Gamblinginsider.com. Sky Crown is the September 2022 warning to Hollycorn N.V., and the same warning covered Blue Leo. The research does not check a fast-withdrawal claim against Sky Crown.

The shape that comes out of this is that the ACMA has, in the last four years, named a meaningful share of the offshore brands that advertise themselves as fast-paying to Australians. The speed at which a particular brand’s cashier releases funds is independent of that. A reader who is comparing these brands on speed is comparing them on a property the ACMA has nothing to say about, and that comparison has nothing to say about whether the brand is a lawful option.

Cluster — what an Australian reader can actually do, and what is not on the table

The lawful side of the Australian market is narrower than the marketing suggests. Online casino games and online pokies cannot be licensed in Australia, under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 as strengthened by the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026; its advertising and inducement measures commence on 1 January 2027 — law with a start date, not yet in force on a page published in 2026. What is licensable is wagering on races and sport placed before the event, lotteries and keno. The Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission regulates fifty-two of Australia’s online bookmakers — including Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes — which are licensed in the Territory for tax reasons; the commission has no full-time staff and meets once a month in Darwin. That is the shape of the regulator that the lawful market actually runs through.

A reader looking for a “fast withdrawal casino” is, by definition, looking for a casino. The lawful Australian market does not have casinos. So the comparison the reader is asking for runs across operators that no Australian regulator licenses, and the speed comparison is being asked of operators that an Australian regulator has actively warned.

For a reader who chooses to use an offshore operator anyway, the practical advice that does not depend on the operator is to keep identity documents current on file, keep the bank account or wallet address consistent across deposits and withdrawals, pick a payment rail that does not depend on a credit card, and read the cashier’s rules on bonuses before claiming one. None of that changes whether the operator is lawful. It changes how smoothly a withdrawal request goes through the cashier.

For a reader who is weighing whether to use an offshore operator at all, the cost is not in the cashier queue. It is in the absence of an Australian complaints body if a withdrawal is refused, the absence of BetStop coverage — the National Self-Exclusion Register binds only Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services, and an offshore casino is not connected to it — and the possibility that the site is blocked mid-cycle with a balance still on it. The speed question is real. The legality question is the larger one, and it is settled before the speed comparison begins.

Cluster — what the ACMA’s blocking rate tells a reader

The ACMA’s blocking activity provides a clear picture of enforcement trends. The first blocking request went out in November 2019; the cumulative count reported on 26 June 2026 was 1,751 blocked sites. That spans roughly six years and seven months. The straight-line average is around 260 sites blocked per year, or roughly 22 per month.

The straight-line figure is not the real pace, because the ACMA’s early rounds were smaller than the recent ones. The figure is a band, not a point: as a single average it tells a reader how quickly the ACMA is producing blocking rounds, and as a band it tells a reader that any brand that has been on the Australian-facing market for two or three years has had a meaningful chance of being named. The 26 June 2026 round itself blocked twelve sites in one action — 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino — which is well below the monthly average and shows the variance in the size of any single round.

The same picture, read differently, says that the ACMA is not catching up. At 260 blocked sites per year on average, the rate of new blocks is higher than the rate at which new offshore brands appear in marketing, but the underlying market is moving too. The page’s reading of the figure is that a reader comparing two offshore brands on speed is also comparing two brands whose operator is at meaningful risk of being in the next blocking round, and that a balance at the moment of a block is a balance a reader cannot retrieve.

Cluster — responsible play, and the limits the law has put around the lawful side

The responsible-play picture is structurally lopsided. BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, has been live since August 2023, and it binds Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services. It does not bind an offshore casino. A self-excluded Australian who tries to open an account at a licensed Australian bookmaker is refused; the same person opening an account at an offshore casino is in a system that does not know BetStop exists and does not check it.

The National Gambling Helpline is 1800 858 858 — free, twenty-four hours a day — and chat is available through Gambling Help Online. These are the routes a reader can use regardless of whether the operator they have been using is licensed. They are not a substitute for the protections a licensed operator would otherwise provide, but they are the protections that the law has actually put in place.

On the payments side, the Australian banks have built their own filtering layer. Westpac’s gambling block operates at card level; ANZ’s gambling block also covers digital-wallet transactions through an eligible card, and once it is on, removing it requires a forty-eight-hour waiting period; Commonwealth Bank’s app offers a gambling lock on eligible cards. None of these blocks stops a debit-card payment to an offshore brand, but all of them narrow the surface area that a brand can route a deposit through. Apple Pay does not charge consumers for transactions; any surcharge comes from the merchant’s processing fees, and Apple states that transaction limits and PIN requirements are set by the card issuer or merchant, not by Apple itself. The wallet is a pass-through; the block sits on the underlying card.

The 2023 amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 closed the credit-card route for licensed wagering, with the ban covering credit cards, credit-related products and digital currency. The practical deposit routes for a licensed operator are debit card, bank transfer, PayID/Osko and BPAY. An offshore casino is not subject to that restriction; the credit-card deposit an Australian reader could make to an offshore brand is one the licensed market cannot accept. The two markets run in opposite directions on this point, and the offshore market’s looseness is the reason it can advertise fast payouts at all — because it does not have to wait for the bank-side filter to clear before settling.

Cluster — tax, winnings, and what an Australian reader takes home

Gambling winnings of a recreational player in Australia are not assessable income under section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and losses are not deductible. The position is the same whether the operator is licensed or offshore. The ATO’s published guidance runs through the model rather than the rule, so the practical position is: a casual punter does not declare winnings and cannot claim losses, and a person carrying on a business of gambling is in a different model entirely. A reader whose activity crosses the line from casual to business is in territory that needs its own advice. The page is not that advice; the page notes that the rule exists and that the boundary is set by the ATO.

The offshore status of the operator does not change the tax treatment of the player. The IGA targets the provider, not the player, and the individual Australian reader is not prosecuted for using an offshore casino. The same fact — that the player is not the regulatory target — is what makes the market the size it is, and the same fact is what makes the cost of being a player in it asymmetric: there is no Australian complaints body to take a refused withdrawal to.

Frequently Asked Questions

What typically makes one casino’s withdrawal process faster than another’s?

Whether identity documents and the destination account are already on file is the single largest determinant, and the operator’s own settlement queue is the next — same-day, hourly, or weekly, set by brand policy and not by the rail. Manual review is triggered by bonuses that are not yet cleared, by withdrawals to new destinations, and by requests over the operator’s internal threshold.

Does a crypto casino process a fast withdrawal without any manual review at all?

No. Crypto cuts out the bank rail and the card settlement, but the operator’s cashier still runs its own anti-money-laundering checks and still pauses withdrawals to new wallet addresses or above its internal threshold. The fastest crypto withdrawal in the world waits for the operator to send it, and a request that hits a manual review queue is in that queue regardless of the rail.

Is there a maximum withdrawal amount that still qualifies for fast processing?

Above the operator’s internal threshold, which sits separately from any regulator’s threshold, a request typically goes to manual review for a source-of-funds check. AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report rule applies only to physical cash and is not the relevant number here; the relevant number is whatever the operator has set, and it is lower.

Why might a withdrawal that is usually fast suddenly take longer?

The rails have their own delays — Osko is genuinely fast between participating banks but slows outside business hours to a non-participating bank; crypto networks run on their own confirmation schedules. The operator’s payment processor may add its own queue. Late identity verification, a new destination account, a bonus not yet cleared, and a request over the operator’s internal threshold will each put a withdrawal into manual review.

Do identity checks completed earlier speed up a later withdrawal request?

Yes — once documents are on file and a bank account or wallet address has been confirmed, later withdrawals typically skip the document-checking step. The cashier’s check then moves to the bonus terms, the deposit trail, and the destination consistency, which is a narrower set of things to pause on.

Can a fast withdrawal still be reversed once it has been approved?

Once the operator has released the funds into the rail, the customer side does not have a reversal button. Some operators show a withdrawal as “pending” for a window during which a customer can cancel it and return the funds to the playing balance; outside that window, the funds are out of the operator’s hands, and the bank or wallet handles the rest of the journey.