22bet Casino CD Review

The player from Portugal struggled with a gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion from casinos. Despite this, 22bet allowed him to create multiple accounts and make deposits using the same ETH wallet, leading to significant losses exceeding €50,000. He claimed that the casino's actions were harmful and intended to demand the return of his funds. The issue remained unresolved as the Complaints Team rejected the case due to a lack of response from the player, preventing further investigation or potential solutions.

The player from Greece had made a withdrawal on the 10th of the month, but as of the 25th, the money had not been credited to her account. Despite having sent messages, she felt that the casino's behavior regarding her funds was unacceptable. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to inquiries. As a result, the issue remained unresolved.

The player from Poland faced difficulties withdrawing funds from their 22bet account after a hacker attempted to access it. Despite sending proof of identity, including screenshots and ID, the casino refused to acknowledge the account as theirs. We concluded that the player had not entered the correct personal information during registration. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the casino was not obligated to take action without the correct initial information.

The player from the Philippines encountered difficulties withdrawing funds after providing his ID and selfies for verification. Despite sending multiple bank statements and wallet statements from Maya and SeaBank, the casino's security team insisted on additional documents, leading to confusion and delays. The player sought a resolution from 22Bet regarding the requested documents. After extensive communication, the verification process was completed successfully, allowing the player to withdraw his winnings, although his account was subsequently restricted from gameplay activities. The player expressed disappointment but decided to explore other casino options while thanking the Complaints Team for their assistance. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany faced difficulties withdrawing her winnings after being asked to provide identification and a psychological evaluation, despite having used the account for over two months without issues. She found the demand for a psychological evaluation unreasonable and was frustrated with customer service insisting on its submission before allowing a withdrawal. The issue was resolved after the casino confirmed that all funds could be withdrawn following the completion of the standard verification process. The player's account was unblocked, allowing her to access her winnings.

The player from Brazil faced issues withdrawing funds as his attempts to use the same wallet for withdrawal were being rejected. He also considered another method provided by the casino, pay4fun. The issue remained unresolved as the player did not respond to the Complaints Team's inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Italy had requested self-exclusion from the casino but faced a lack of response for months, during which significant losses occurred. He sought damages amounting to at least 10,000 euros. The Complaints Team reviewed the case and confirmed that the casino had refunded all deposits made since the player's first mention of suicide, which was acknowledged as a mistake on the casino's part. However, the request for additional compensation was deemed irrelevant, leading to the closure of the complaint without further action.

The player from Spain faced withdrawal issues with the casino 22BetLuck, despite having a total of €1600 remaining after earlier losses. Attempts to withdraw using multiple methods were denied due to a 'payment processing error,' and the customer support did not provide a clear resolution. Additionally, the player's account was restricted from placing bets or making deposits without a specific explanation. The issue was resolved when the player contacted the casino's online chat, leading to the successful payment of winnings via instant SEPA after providing an account statement for verification. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Japan had their winnings confiscated by 22bet Casino after their identity was verified, due to allegations of multiple account registrations. Despite a successful first withdrawal, subsequent attempts led to account suspension and denial of further withdrawals. The Complaints Team investigated the issue and requested evidence from the casino, which confirmed the existence of multiple accounts. Consequently, it was determined that the casino's actions were justified, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal faced issues with delayed withdrawals at the casino, having received only one out of three requested that month. The first withdrawal, dated the 9th, had surpassed the 7-day waiting period, and despite contacting customer support and sending the requested bank statements, the player received no response. The casino later confirmed that the player's account verification was incomplete, which delayed the processing of withdrawals. Ultimately, the player received the funds after further communication with the casino. The complaint was marked as resolved, and feedback on the service was encouraged.

The player from Brazil had been attempting to change her email at the casino for months, but the casino did not accept her documents, which prevented her from withdrawing her winnings. Her current casino email did not match her Pay4Fun account, and the casino refused to allow withdrawals using bank transfer until the email was updated. The Complaints Team had extended the response period for the player but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to a lack of communication and response from her.

The player from the Czech Republic had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed receiving the funds from the casino after experiencing a delay. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following this confirmation.

The player from the Czech Republic believed he was experiencing the same issue at 22Bet casino that had led to the cancellation of his previous account at 20Beth. He claimed that in the game 3Hot Chillies, bonus rounds did not activate on his account despite meeting the requirements, while a friend's account activated the bonus normally. The player suspected deliberate blocking of the bonus rounds to increase betting losses. After a thorough review, it was concluded that there were no irregularities in the game, and the complaint was closed, with a recommendation to play a different game or contact the game provider for further assistance.

The player from Mexico faced delays with account verification required by 22 Bet, which prevented him from withdrawing funds. Despite having submitted all requested documents to the security department four days prior, he did not receive a response and was still unable to access his winnings. The issue was resolved after the player provided additional documentation, including a selfie with a blank sheet of paper and a passport. After 12 days of communication with the casino, he was finally able to withdraw his funds. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Ireland won 3400 euros with a bonus, but after completing the wagering requirements, the casino limited her withdrawal to only 600 euros without clear terms stating this restriction. She encountered contradicting information regarding her wagering history and did not receive adequate assistance from customer support. Despite the complaints raised, the casino's terms regarding the bonus were confirmed, and the player did not respond to further inquiries from us. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal had requested a €300 withdrawal on 20-07-2024, which usually took minutes, but had not arrived after 8 days. Despite having contacted support and provided a bank statement, the issue remained unresolved. The player was dissatisfied and sought assistance. The complaint was escalated, and after further communication with the casino, it was confirmed that the player’s withdrawal requests were approved, although there were delays in processing. Ultimately, the player received the €400 withdrawal and expressed gratitude for the resolution. The case was marked as resolved.

The player from India had deposited INR 1,678 and, after resolving an issue, had increased their balance to INR 6,536. Withdrawal attempts consistently failed, and the casino only responded with automated messages. This issue had persisted for over 15 days despite daily emails. The complaint was rejected by us due to the player's failure to respond to our inquiries, preventing further investigation.

The player from Ontario deposited $550 into 22Bet, scaled it to $730.24, and faced issues withdrawing his winnings. Despite sending the required files to confirm his deposit, the casino refused to accept them and stated they would ignore his messages without returning the money. The Complaints Team intervened, facilitating communication between the player and the casino. After several attempts to meet the casino's verification requirements, the player successfully withdrew his winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Italy faced account blocking issues with 22bet after submitting withdrawal requests. Despite having previously verified their account and submitted the necessary documents successfully, the casino required the same documents and a selfie again due to email communication issues. We provided guidelines for proper document submission, and the player resolved the issue successfully. The complaint has been marked as resolved.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment hadn’t been processed yet. We informed the player that withdrawal processing could take several days to weeks and advised patience. The player did not respond to our follow-up inquiries, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from India had deposited ₹5000 using UPI on 4th July, but the amount had not been credited to his 22bet account. Despite multiple complaints, 22bet support had consistently stated they were waiting for a reply from the payment specialist. The Complaints Team had recommended that the player contact his payment provider and had requested evidence of the deposit. However, the player had failed to respond to further inquiries and questions, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to insufficient information for investigation. Eventually, after extensive communication and evidence submission, the case was closed as unresolved due to a lack of thorough investigation by the casino, despite the player's cooperation.

The player from Finland was unable to set deposit limits and had struggled with slow email responses from the casino. Despite requesting immediate account closure due to the lack of deposit limits, the casino required a three-month waiting period, which the player found unacceptable. The issue was resolved when the casino blocked her account permanently, citing signs of gambling addiction, which she denied. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as resolved after confirming the account closure with the casino.

The player from Greece faced a delay in payment after making a withdrawal request. The casino claimed he had multiple registrations and requested old deposit cards. Despite the player sending his ID and relevant documents, the casino did not respond to emails and seemed unwilling to release his winnings. We were unable to investigate further and had no choice but to reject this complaint due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Serbia successfully withdrew a small amount from 22bet but faced extensive verification requests for a larger withdrawal of $2,550. Despite providing numerous documents over 19 days, the process remained unresolved. The player confirmed that the casino eventually paid the full amount via cryptocurrency after a lengthy verification process. We closed the complaint as resolved based on the player's confirmation.

The player from Portugal had his account with 22bet blocked without notice for verification purposes. Despite submitting all the requested documents, his account remained inaccessible and he kept receiving the same response to his emails. The player reported that after persistent communication via support chat and email, the situation was resolved. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Greece had created an account with 22bet for sports betting in April. He had made several successful deposits and withdrawals until the casino requested an account verification on May 12. Despite submitting all requested documents promptly, the player had experienced a delay in the verification process. The player had provided all necessary documents, including his ID, a photo of his face with his ID, an email from the security department, a utility bill, and his driving license. After the Complaints Team intervened and communicated with the player and the casino, the verification process was finally completed. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved and the complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Spain had been unable to make withdrawals from his account despite having provided the necessary identification documents. His account had been active, and he had obtained his balance mainly through sports betting, without the use of any bonuses. After having communicated with the Complaints Team, the casino had confirmed that his documents were approved and no further action was required from the player. However, the player had already decided to cross bet with another platform, Betfair exchange, to retrieve his funds, due to perceived unfair treatment by the casino. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's practices and had decided not to use it again. The issue had ultimately been resolved with the player successfully retrieving his funds.

The player from Austria had been waiting for two days for the completion of his account verification on 22bet, despite having sent his ID card. He had reported no feedback or reaction from the casino. Later, the player had informed that his withdrawal was being processed but his account was restricted. Eventually, the player had confirmed that he had received his money successfully, resolving the issue. As a result, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Spain had had an issue with withdrawal at an online casino due to required documentation. Despite multiple attempts to send the documents, he had received no response from the casino. After he submitted his complaint to us, we had asked for additional details to better understand the situation. Shortly after, the player had informed us that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had deposited 1200 Euros via immediate payment, but the funds had not appeared in his casino balance. Despite having provided evidence to customer support, he had only received responses that his request was being processed. After the player had contacted his payment provider, he had been able to provide a payment confirmation with a tracking number to the casino. Consequently, the casino had been able to track the payment and credit the funds to the player's account. The issue had been resolved successfully.

The player from India had experienced repeated withdrawal denials from 22bet due to processing or technical errors. The player had confirmed that he had made successful withdrawals in the past, passed the KYC verification, and his winnings were a combination of deposits and bonuses. After multiple follow-ups, the player had been able to successfully withdraw his winnings. We had marked the complaint as resolved following the successful withdrawal.

An Argentinian player's account at 22bet had been blocked, which prevented the player from withdrawing their funds. The casino had not provided a reason for this action. The player had registered with the platform in February 2024 and had been involved in sports betting without any active bonuses. After reviewing the case, we concluded that we couldn't assist the player due to the issue being solely related to sports betting, an area where we lacked sufficient expertise. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Spain had struggled to self-exclude his account from an online casino, 22bet, as the casino had completely ignored his request. The player had also experienced difficulties in withdrawing his funds. Despite our team's attempts to gather more information to resolve the issue, the player had failed to respond adequately to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India claimed that a withdrawal of 37,000 had not been credited to his bank account. The casino support had confirmed the completion of the withdrawal process but had not provided any supporting documents. The player had communicated with the casino multiple times and had been told to contact his bank with a provided reference code. Despite this, the player insisted that the casino had not provided sufficient proof of the transaction. The casino had requested written confirmation from the player's bank to resolve the issue. The player had agreed to provide the necessary documents to the casino's support team. The complaint had been rejected due to lack of confirmation from the player, but could be reopened anytime.

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. We had advised the player to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. After our intervention, the player confirmed that he had received his winnings. Thus, we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Hungary had been waiting for recognition of his refund from 22Bet for nearly four weeks. Despite being advised that his balance would be refunded at the beginning of their 'investigation', this had not occurred. The player had confirmed that he had completed the casino's verification process and his balance consisted of his initial deposit without any winnings. However, he had only engaged in sports betting, not in casino games. We had explained that our forum dealt with complaints regarding online casinos only and we lacked the insight to handle issues related to sports betting. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to its focus on sports betting rather than casino games.

The player from Austria was experiencing difficulties with his account verification at an online casino. Despite having provided numerous photos, the casino's security service continued to find issues with them. The player had also submitted screenshots of 38 emails for review. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries from the Complaints Team, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. As a result, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Brazil was experiencing delays in withdrawal of R$80 from an online casino. Despite the withdrawal approval, the funds had not been credited to her account. The player had also mentioned an issue with a deposit made from a third-party account, which was against the casino's terms. We had advised the player about the violation and the potential consequences, including account closure. Due to the player's failure to respond to further inquiries, we were unable to investigate the case further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece was facing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to issues with MasterCard. The casino had advised the player to use an alternative withdrawal method such as e-wallet or cryptocurrencies, which required making a minimum deposit and staking it. We had attempted to assist the player, however, due to lack of response from the player, we could not proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint had been rejected for now.

The player from India had an issue with 22bet Casino. She reported that her account had been blocked after the casino asked about her relationship with an unidentified name, which she couldn't identify. The player confirmed that she had passed all KYC requirements and had a balance of 13000+ RS in her account. She often used her company's LAN wifi, which might have caused an IP conflict. The casino accused the player of violating the rules by creating multiple accounts. However, they failed to provide evidence to support their claim. We advised the player to contact the gaming authority regulating the casino since the casino's lack of evidence led us to close the case as 'unresolved'.

The player from Brazil had admitted to having two accounts at the casino due to a gambling addiction. He had provided false information during registration, which was a violation of the casino's Terms and Conditions. The casino had blocked one account with winnings of 5170 Brazilian real. The player had argued that it was unfair as his second account had a larger amount, and felt the casino should not have held his funds. However, we had found that creating multiple accounts violated the casino's rules. We had informed the player that we could not assist him in this case and advised him to seek help for his gambling addiction. We had provided resources for self-exclusion and professional assistance. The complaint had been rejected due to the player's violation of the casino's rules.

The player from Greece had faced account closure after his wife had opened her own account. Despite a promise from the casino to refund any deposits made, these funds had not been returned. The player had claimed that they had separate accounts and had not used any bonuses. However, the casino stated that the player had violated the rules by engaging in multi-accounting. The casino had provided evidence to support its claims. After reviewing the evidence and considering the player's admission of using the same device and IP address for both accounts, we concluded that the casino had acted correctly according to its terms and conditions. The complaint was thus rejected as unjustified.

The player from Brazil deposited funds into his 22bet account, after which the casino blocked his account alleging fraud. He refutes these allegations, stating that the deposit came legitimately from his bank account. He is seeking help to reclaim his funds.

A self-excluded player from Ireland had opened a new account with the casino in violation of their terms and conditions. He accused the casino of breaching their terms as he had been able to register a new account after his previous account was closed due to his gambling addiction. He was then asking for a full refund of his latest deposits. Despite providing the casino with evidence of his previous self-exclusion and highlighting the lack of effective measures to prevent him from re-registering, the casino had refused to issue a refund. The casino had argued that the player had used a different email address to open the new account and had not completed the verification process. We had suggested that the casino should enhance its protection for problem gamblers and consider issuing a refund, but the casino maintained its stance. The complaint was closed as unresolved.

The player from Argentina had reported that his account had been blocked and winnings had been confiscated by the casino. He was requesting a refund of his deposit amounting to 50 USD since the casino was not responding to his request. The player had participated in a bonus offer and won, but upon attempting to withdraw, his account was blocked for alleged multiple accounts. He provided all requested verification documents but the casino did not respond further. The player also admitted to depositing once using his brother's account, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. We found that the casino's terms clearly stated that third-party deposits were not allowed and if detected, winnings would be confiscated. Therefore, due to a breach of these terms by the player, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Portugal had lost his mobile number linked to his 22bet account. Despite having provided all necessary details and sent three emails, his account had not been updated with the new number. The player had last contacted the casino on December 30th and was told to wait longer for the number change. Even after two months, there had been no progress. We had asked the player for recent correspondence with the casino regarding this issue, but no response was received. Therefore, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Austria who had admitted a gambling addiction had requested a deposit limit at 22bet, but the casino had denied having any control over such limits. The player then lost approximately 4,000 euros, which he believed could have been prevented by the casino. The player's account had been blocked as per his request, but he demanded a refund for his losses. We explained that without evidence of him communicating his gambling problem to the casino prior to his losses, there was no basis for a refund request. The player disagreed, but as there was no additional information or evidence provided, we had to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Greece deposited 60 euros that were deducted from their account, but it did not reflect in their betting account. They believe they have been cheated and report that the customer service chat responses are unhelpful. The complaint was closed as the player's issue got resolved by the casino.

The player from Hungary had requested a withdrawal but did not receive her money. After the casino's verification process, they had refused to pay her winnings, alleging she held multiple accounts, which the player denied. The casino had not provided evidence to corroborate their claims, invoking user data protection policy. The player had been advised by the Complaints Team to submit a complaint to the Antillephone Gaming Authority. Without evidence from the casino, the complaint had been marked as unresolved. Later, the casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the same device, constituting a violation of their terms. The player had disputed this, but the evidence led the Complaints Team to dismiss the case. The player was subsequently advised to contact the Antillephone Gaming Authority.

The player from Portugal had been unable to access his 22Bet account after accidentally deleting the Google Authenticator codes. Despite his attempts to contact support via chat and email to disable two-factor authentication, he had received no response. His account had been successfully verified since 2018 and there had been no issues until this incident. The casino later informed us that the issue had been resolved and the player had been able to log in to his account. However, without a confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from South Korea had had an issue withdrawing funds due to constant additional verification requirements by the casino. Despite having submitted various forms of identification, the casino had continued to request more, which the player had perceived as an intentional delay of their withdrawal. The complaints team had communicated with the casino and the player, clarifying the need for a national ID card for verification. After the player had submitted a new passport photo with a code and a selfie, the casino had approved the withdrawal. The player had confirmed that the funds were transferred, and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Czech Republic is dealing with excessive verification requirements from Bet22 Casino, who are refusing to pay out his winnings. Despite providing numerous photos and documents, the casino requested further verification after a 14 day wait, which the player finds strange. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Greece was trying to close his account through customer service. However, he did not respond to our inquiries for additional details to better understand the situation. As a result, we were unable to investigate his complaint further and had to reject it due to lack of communication from the player's end.

The player from Portugal had been unable to withdraw his winnings from the casino despite having provided numerous documents for verification. The Complaints Team had explained the importance of the Know Your Customer (KYC) process and had asked the player for further information regarding his document submission and communication with the casino. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved by the casino. Consequently, the Complaints Team had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in their system.

The player from India had experienced issues with withdrawing his winnings from 22bet. Despite having his account fully verified and making several attempts to withdraw through Paytm, his withdrawals were repeatedly approved but then returned to the gaming account within 24 hours. After extensive communication with the casino and the Complaints Team, the casino had claimed the withdrawal was successfully processed to the player's Paytm wallet. However, the player insisted that he had not received the funds and did not have an active Paytm wallet. The issue was finally resolved after two months when the player confirmed that he had received his withdrawal.

The player from Greece had submitted all required verification documents but faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings. Despite our attempts to engage with him and gather additional information about his case, he did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate his complaint further and had to reject it.

The player from Slovenia successfully withdrew funds from their 22bet account after initial verification, but subsequent withdrawal attempts were denied. After asking for additional documents and verification, the casino closed the player's account, citing a violation of their terms and conditions regarding multiple accounts. We rejected the complaint because the player's account was blocked due to sports betting activities that violated the casino's policies, and we lacked the necessary knowledge to act on this kind of issue.

A player from Argentina is facing a problem with their withdrawal as their request was rejected despite using the same method for deposit. The complaint was resolved as the player's money got paid out.

The player from Greece is not receiving the cashback bonuses or promo points he is entitled to according to the casino's offer. He states that despite meeting all requirements and making high bets, the casino is withholding his cashback bonuses and promo points. We later found out that the complaint was related to sports betting, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Austria had had issues with a deposit made at a casino. The player later confirmed receipt of his deposit but expressed a desire to close his account. We had asked for further details regarding his account closure, but the player did not respond. Therefore, we could not assist further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland has an issue with the casino, regarding unclear bonus rules. After depositing 15€ and getting a 7.5€ bonus, he won 300€. Post wagering, the casino claimed the winnings while he got only the bonus amount. The player also indicates that the Bonus terms and conditions are not clearly stated in the casino's T&C. The player later complained about the specifics of certain games that were more related to the game provider, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany had deposited money into his account two days prior, but the money had not been credited to his account yet. The Complaints Team had suggested contacting the payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino typically could not intervene in these cases. However, the player disputed this advice, arguing that the casino must have received the funds since they had been debited from his account. The Complaints Team requested more information about the payment method used, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece is facing a deposit issue at the casino where his 300 euros didn’t reflect in his account. The player later informed us that the issue was solved, so we closed the complaint accordingly.

The player from Austria was concerned that there were no options to set a deposit limit or pause or lock his account, highlighting a lack of player protection in the casino. We had provided information on the casino's responsible gambling section and asked if the player had contacted the casino with a request to block the account. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Greece had initially been unable to make a withdrawal from the casino. However, he later reported a different issue, stating that the casino had not closed his account despite his request, and had only responded to his emails every seven days. Despite our efforts to assist the player by requesting further information about his account closure request and the casino's responses, the player did not provide the requested details. Therefore, we could not investigate the matter further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Ecuador has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany has winnings at 22bet. Upon attempting a withdrawal, the casino's security service requested a medical certificate to confirm they weren't addicted to gambling. The player finds this request impossible and non-compliant, and seeks assistance. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria had made three deposits to the casino which never appeared in his account. The player claimed they were repeatedly told that a specialist was handling the issue. We advised the player to contact their payment provider, Colibrix, for investigation. The player later informed us that their bank couldn't retrieve the money and they had reached out to Colibrix. Despite our follow-ups, the player did not provide any further updates, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of response.

The player from Austria had his casino account unexpectedly closed with a balance of 1400€ after the player submitted documents for verification. We closed the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Poland has been experiencing difficulties with his identity verification and the subsequent withdrawal of his winnings for more than six months. It seems to be a common practice of Casino to ignore us completely in our attempts to mediate any kind of issue therefore the complain remains unresolved.

The player from Spain is requesting a deposit refund after the casino allowed him to open a new account despite an active self-exclusion. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.”

The player from Portugal has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy”.

The player from Hungary had his account blocked because he was accused of opening multiple accounts. He asserted that he only had one account and played without utilizing any bonuses. The player attempted to withdraw his winnings but encountered problems with document verification. He sent the requested documents several times, but the casino, 22bet, stated they were unacceptable. They claimed that the player submitted counterfeit documents and chose to close his account in accordance with their general terms and conditions. The case was reopened at the request of the casino, but the player did not answer further requests for document verification. As a result, the complaint had to be dismissed due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Czech Republic had reported that his account had been blocked without any explanation, which prevented him from withdrawing his funds. The player had made successful deposits and withdrawals in the past. When he had tried to contact the casino, his emails had not been sent, and he had received no communication from the casino regarding the issue. The casino, however, had claimed that the player's account was not blocked and that a standard verification procedure was in place for all players. The player had maintained that he was not notified about this procedure and that it was unfair to allow deposits but block withdrawals. The Complaints Team had explained that such verification processes were common in the industry and necessary for security reasons. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, the team had found no unfair treatment and had suggested the player write a user review about his experience. The complaint had been closed as 'unresolved' as the casino had more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.”

The player from Spain wishes his deposits to be reimbursed since the casino doesn’t hold the Spanish License. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Italy had requested her account to be blocked, but the casino had failed to process her request. She had also experienced issues with her withdrawal request. After numerous interactions with the Complaints Team, she had managed to get her account blocked. However, she was unsure about how to proceed with a refund request. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' due to the casino's history of non-responsiveness in over 15 cases. The casino later reopened the complaint, stating that they had blocked the player's account after learning about her gambling addiction. The Complaints Team had concluded that the casino had acted appropriately in this case.

The player from Spain had requested a refund because he was able to open a new account after self-excluding from the 22bet Casino due to gambling problems. The casino had responded by stating that the player violated their rules by creating a duplicate account and they did not process requests for the return of played funds. Despite the player's insistence that all provided data was genuine, the casino maintained their stance. The Complaints Team had highlighted contradictions in the casino's responsible gambling policy and recommended the player to contact the regulator in Curacao. The complaint was closed as unresolved, waiting for the regulator's decision.

The player from Greece had raised a complaint about the casino's RTP, claiming he hadn't won anything. He also accused the casino of having operated illegally in his country, having refused to close his account despite his requests, and having provided inadequate bonuses. The player had requested a refund of his deposits. The casino had defended their RTP, stating it was controlled by official game providers and they couldn't influence it. The casino also claimed they had no record of the player's request to close his account. The player insisted he had made multiple requests for account closure and had even reported the casino to the local gaming committee. The player had agreed to resolve the complaint if the casino offered him a significant bonus. The casino had advised the player to contact their support team to block his account. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for the regulator's decision on the matter. The case had been closed as 'waiting for regulator's decision' when no response was received from the regulator within the set timeframe.

The player from Bolivia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player, who was based in Spain, had raised a complaint about an issue with 22bet Casino. She had claimed that her winnings were deposited into her bank account and then reversed after four minutes. Despite the casino's assertion that all her withdrawals had been processed, the player insisted that she had not received her winnings of 4030 euros. The casino had suggested that the player contact her bank for clarification, as they were unable to influence the process after payments were requested. The player confirmed that she had consulted with her bank and provided documentation as proof. Nonetheless, the complaint was closed due to the player's failure to respond to further inquiries from the Complaints Team. The casino had a standing no reaction policy, which had led to the unresolved status of the complaint.

The player from Greece accumulated his winnings, but the casino reduced this amount due to a maximum cashout limit. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.”

The player from Croatia had been blocked during verification. He had reported winnings of 3400 euros, which were accumulated from his deposits, with his last withdrawal having been 600 euros on November 6th. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino, which had over 15 unresolved cases, did not cooperate. As a result, we had closed the complaint as 'unresolved', impacting the casino's overall rating. The casino later responded, stating the player's account was active and verified, but showed no available funds or deposits. However, the player did not confirm this information, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of response.

The player from Croatia had complained about her account being blocked and winnings confiscated by the online casino, accusing her of operating multiple accounts. Despite having provided the required identification documents, the casino maintained its stance and only refunded her deposit, withholding the winnings. The Complaints Team had attempted mediation but due to the casino's history of non-cooperation, the complaint was initially closed as 'unresolved'. The casino later responded, insisting on their decision based on the player's violation of rules. The casino confirmed the refund of the deposit but the player stopped responding, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of confirmation from the player's side.

The player from Brazil had had difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino because his account had not been verified. Despite his attempts to submit documentation, the casino had not responded. Our team had attempted to mediate, but the casino, with a history of 15 unresolved cases, had remained unresponsive, leading us to close the complaint as 'unresolved'. Later, the casino had claimed to have processed the player's withdrawal. However, the player had not confirmed this, causing the complaint to be closed as 'player stopped responding'. Eventually, the player had informed us via email that his issue was resolved.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds because the transactions to his preferred payment methods have been declined. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

A male player's self-exclusion had failed as he was able to deposit more until his account was closed. The complaint was closed due to the casino's no reaction policy. The player expressed frustration over the casino's refusal to provide chat logs related to his gambling addiction, which he believed was crucial evidence. Despite the complaints team's efforts to mediate, the casino maintained that they could not provide the requested information, leading to the conclusion that the case was marked as "uncertain" due to insufficient evidence.

The player from Italy is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy”.

The player from Portugal had been blocked from the online casino due to allegations of creating multiple accounts. He had attempted to withdraw his deposited sum but was denied by the casino. The casino had requested identification documents from the player and upon review, decided against the player's favor. Despite this, the casino had indicated that he could withdraw his deposited sum, which he was unable to do. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the issue but was unable to make progress due to the casino's history of non-cooperation. The casino had provided evidence that two accounts were using the same device and IP address, which was against their rules. The Complaints Team had agreed with the casino's decision. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' due to the player's violation of the casino's rules.

The player from Poland has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria had requested a full report of all his deposits and withdrawals from 22bet Casino. The casino initially did not respond to his request, which led to the complaint being marked as 'unresolved' due to the casino's history of non-responsiveness. However, the casino eventually provided the requested information and the player confirmed receipt. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Spain has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has been trying to close his account. Unfortunately, the player didn't mention the gambling problem as a reason for account closure. He was advised on what such a request should look like and rejected the complaint.

The player from the Czech Republic is experiencing issues with withdrawals. The casino is refusing to refund the money. Unfortunately, since the player used a 3rd party payment method to deposit money into his account, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from India requested a withdrawal 2 days prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Spain had had issues with a withdrawal of his winnings from an online casino. He had previously received withdrawals without problems after verifying his account. However, the recent withdrawal request had been met with repeated demands for documentation from the casino, which the player had viewed as stalling tactics. Our attempts to mediate the issue had initially been unsuccessful due to the casino's history of non-cooperation, leading us to mark the complaint as 'unresolved'. However, after reopening the complaint at the casino's request, the casino had reported that the player had completed the verification process and had successfully withdrawn funds. The complaint was eventually marked as 'rejected' due to the player's lack of response to confirm the resolution.

The player from Spain requested self-exclusion, but they managed to lose more money before the casino blocked their account. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Poland has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino confiscated their winnings. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.”

The player from Austria had provided the required documents, but the casino had rejected them. We had attempted to mediate the issue, but the casino, with a record of over 15 cases marked as "No Reaction Policy", showed no interest in cooperation. As a result, the complaint was closed as 'unresolved', which affected the overall rating of the casino. Later, the casino claimed that the player had successfully completed the verification process and withdrawn their funds. However, the player did not respond to confirm this resolution, leading us to dismiss the complaint as rejected.

The player from Greece had been unable to withdraw his winnings due to an incomplete KYC process. The complaint had initially been marked as 'unresolved' due to the casino's history of non-cooperation, with over 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.” However, the complaint was reopened upon the casino's request. The casino later informed that the player had successfully completed the verification process and withdrawn his funds. Despite attempts to confirm this with the player, no response was received. Consequently, based on the casino's statement and the player's lack of response, the complaint had been closed as 'rejected'.

The player from Brazil is having difficulties withdrawing winnings due to incomplete verification. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy.”

The player from Portugal is experiencing difficulties accessing all the functionalities of their account. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy”.

The player from Argentina is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds due to limited availability of payment methods. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy”.

The player from Portugal is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino has more than 15 cases marked “No Reaction Policy”.

The player from Portugal had reported an issue regarding a lost deposit made through Ripple to his 22Bet casino account. Despite having a history of successful deposits using this method, the funds from his recent transaction hadn't been credited to his account. We had attempted to mediate the issue, but due to the casino's history of non-cooperation, we initially marked the complaint as 'unresolved'. However, the complaint was reopened after the casino's request. The casino had claimed that the funds were credited to the player's account, but we couldn't confirm this due to the player's lack of response. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Portugal had faced an issue with the online casino, as his account had been blocked due to accusations of him opening multiple accounts. The casino had decided to refund his deposits, but he was unable to withdraw them due to the lack of access to his account. The player's cousin also had an account at the same casino, which might have caused the issue. The player had requested the return of his €1000 deposit. The casino had failed to respond initially, leading to the complaint being temporarily closed as 'unresolved'. However, the complaint had been reopened upon the casino's request. The casino had stated that the player's total withdrawals exceeded his deposits, and they were enforcing their rules to prevent potential fraudulent activity. Despite extending the response time, the player did not respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Argentina is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the Czech Republic had had her account blocked after she requested a withdrawal. The casino had alleged that she had opened multiple accounts, which was against their rules. Despite the player's denial of these accusations, the casino had provided evidence showing that the same device ID had been used for two accounts within a short period. The casino had offered her a deposit refund, but did not respond to further queries. We, the Complaints Team, had supported the casino's actions based on the provided evidence and had closed the complaint as unresolved. The case had been later reopened at the casino's request but was ultimately rejected due to lack of additional evidence from the player.

The player from Romania is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to missing authorization message. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Serbia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds, because the transactions to his preferred payment methods have been declined. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Italy is dissatisfied with the verification process. The casino asks for documents which he cannot provide. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Indonesia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played before we could intervene.