N1 Casino Review

The player from Greece had deposited 580 euros into a duplicate account without knowing it was not allowed. The casino subsequently confiscated the deposit, closed the account, and did not return the 580 euros, nor did it respond to emails. We reviewed the casino’s Terms and Conditions, which clearly stated that creating multiple accounts was prohibited and led to the forfeiture of funds. Due to this breach of rules, we were unable to provide further assistance, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece had won approximately €125 from free spins on Pragmatic Play’s Drops & Wins, but the casino had not credited the amount for over two weeks, claiming that an internal check found nothing. He had requested a detailed report of the spins but received no response. We reviewed the situation but found no conclusive evidence of unfair losses. Since the player wished to not pursue the issue further we closed the complaint accordingly.

The player from Greece attempted to withdraw winnings from free spins, but the casino claimed his credit card documentation was unclear, delaying the process despite it having been previously accepted at other casinos. The Complaints Team inquired about the verification status of his identity documents and any additional requests from the casino. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved. The complaint was marked as resolved by the team.

The player from Greece had deposited 30.01 euros which was not credited to his gaming account. He had contacted his payment provider who confirmed that the funds had been received by the casino. The player had reported the issue to local authorities. The casino eventually credited the deposit to the player's account and allowed him to withdraw it. The issue was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Cyprus deposited 200 euros and won 15588,40 on the game Sugar Rush 1000. Despite being told no bonuses were available for his country, the casino accused him of a bonus violation. His attempt to withdraw 3000 euros was cancelled, but he has since received the withdrawal, but the rest of his winnings remain unpaid.

The player from Germany had deposited money into a casino account that belonged to a family member, not realizing his own account had been blocked. He had been concerned about potential verification issues and the unresponsiveness of the casino's live chat. We had informed the player that we could not assist further due to his breach of the casino's Terms and Conditions by depositing money into an account that didn't belong to him. We also pointed out that he might have been accused of having duplicate accounts, which was also against the casino's rules. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Greece had reported that her withdrawal had been cancelled and her funds had been seized. The casino had claimed the player was betting with bonus amounts over 5 euros. The player had defended herself, stating that the casino should have corrected the bet amounts in real-time. She had also emphasized that the casino only raised the issue after she had requested a withdrawal. After reviewing the case, we found that the player had placed multiple bets exceeding the maximum allowed, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. As a result, we couldn't intervene to ensure the casino paid out her winnings. The complaint was subsequently rejected due to these findings.

The player from British Columbia had deposited $40 to the casino but the funds were not reflected in her account. We suggested that she contact her payment provider to investigate the issue as the casino usually could not intervene in such matters. Due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

After registration, the player from Japan had been guaranteed a $20 bonus upon depositing within an hour. Despite making a deposit, the bonus had not been credited and the support team had asked to await their response. The player had provided evidence of meeting the requirements and after some communication, the issue had been resolved with the casino crediting the $20 bonus to the player's account. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The Irish player had deposited 400 € in N1 casino and after making 4,000€, she mistakenly cancelled her bonus, which resulted in a balance of only 380€. She felt she was treated unfairly as the casino refused to add the initial amount back. The player's account had been verified, but she was unsure of how much wagering had been done before the bonus cancellation. We had asked for more details about her account activity and extended the response time, but the player failed to provide the requested information. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Greece and her partner had encountered difficulties with an online casino when they had tried to withdraw 3,000 euros. The casino had accepted their deposit but had refused the withdrawal due to identification issues. Their casino account had been deactivated with their winnings seized. After reviewing the case, we found that the players had breached the casino's terms and conditions by using a third-party payment method and sharing a single casino account. Consequently, we had concluded that the casino's actions to close the account and confiscate the funds were justified.

The player from Germany 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 wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as such delays could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. Despite extending our assistance, the player did not respond to our messages. Consequently, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had reported that her approved winnings hadn't been transferred to her bank account, despite her account having been closed. She had been advised by the complaints team to wait for 14 days, the usual processing time for withdrawals. After the 14-day period, she still hadn't received her winnings. The casino had responded that the payment had been processed minutes after her request, implying a potential issue with the bank account details the player had provided. Despite attempts to gain further information from the player, she had failed to respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint. The issue seemed to stem from the player transferring funds to a different account.

The player from Greece was experiencing delayed withdrawal because the casino had requested a photo of a card. The player claimed to have sent all the requested documents, but the casino refused to process his withdrawal. The casino insisted on verifying every payment method used for deposits. Without the necessary evidence from the player, we were unable to challenge the casino's decision and rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece had made deposits using a newly-verified prepaid card and won 1,400 euros. However, Casino N1 had refused to process the withdrawal request, insisting on verification documents for an old card, which had not been used in the gaming session that resulted in the winnings. The player had provided all necessary personal documents and complied with the casino's requests, despite his frustration. The casino had claimed a third-party payment method had been previously used, which the player disputed. After some back-and-forth communication, the player informed us outside of the thread that he had received his winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had deposited 300 Euros using Paypal and won some funds. Despite providing the necessary documents, his withdrawal requests were continually rejected. He expressed his desire to withdraw via IBAN instead. After communicating with our complaints team, the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had been experiencing difficulties in verifying his last transaction at N1 Casino for two weeks. The issue arose from the payment provider 'Payabl' which did not provide detailed transactions, hindering successful verification. Despite the player's attempts to resolve the issue with the casino, the problem persisted. After reviewing the case, the Complaints Team identified that the variety and accessibility of payment methods were influenced by several factors beyond the casino's control. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player did not respond to the team's inquiries.

The player from Greece had had an issue with N1 Casino GR regarding uncredited tournament winnings. The player had participated in multiple tournaments with a total winning of €3,400, along with additional winnings from other programs. Despite the player's efforts to contact the relevant authorities, there had been no response. We had attempted to gather more information and proof from the player, but the player had failed to respond. Consequently, we had had to reject the complaint. Later, the complaint had been reopened upon the player's request. However, due to lack of sufficient evidence and the decision from the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), we had been unable to assist further and the complaint had been rejected again.

The player from Greece had complained about a disputed withdrawal. She had played with a bonus, met the wagering requirements, and claimed to have not exceeded the maximum bet. Her winnings were around 1100 euros, but according to the player, the casino denied payment based on her having multiple slots open. The casino had stated that the player violated their bonus policy by exceeding the maximum bet limit. The player contested this, but upon reviewing the game history provided by the casino, it was confirmed that the player had made overbets on several occasions. Despite the player's disagreement, we concluded that the casino's decision was based on their stated bonus policy. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Greece had deposited a total of 41.50 euros into his casino account 25 and 19 days ago, but the funds had not been credited. Despite his attempts to communicate and provide necessary evidence, the casino had only stated that the issue was under examination. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation, as the casino's ability to intervene might have been limited. However, the player did not respond to our messages, leading us to reject the complaint due to insufficient information for further investigation.

The player from Greece had been with N1Casino for two years and recently struggled to withdraw winnings of 12,000 euros. An accidental use of a different card for deposit had led to repeated document verification and the casino closing the account. The player asserted they had a joint account with the card's primary holder and thus the deposit was legitimate. Despite the player's efforts to provide evidence of the joint account, the casino had refused to pay the winnings. The player's complaint was ultimately rejected by us due to the deposit having been made with a card bearing his brother's name, despite it being linked to their joint account.

The player from Greece had had an issue with a delayed withdrawal of 600 euros from N1 Casino GR which had been initiated in October 2024. After the player's complaint had been submitted, the issue had been resolved and the withdrawn amount had been credited to his account.

The player from Greece had encountered an issue where a 13€ deposit was deducted from his bank account but was not credited to the casino. The casino had requested proof of deposit, which the player did not possess. We had advised the player to contact the payment provider for investigation. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and the money had been successfully credited to the casino account. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had protested the fact that N1 Casino had allowed him to register and deposit funds, even though he had previously self-excluded due to gambling issues. After depositing a total of 800€, the player had managed to withdraw 630€, resulting in a loss. The casino had decided to reimburse only the last deposit of 250€. The player had requested the return of all his deposits made during the self-exclusion period. The casino, however, had maintained that the player was not self-excluded at the time of the deposits and that they had adhered to their terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence and correspondence, we had concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by using a third-party payment method. Therefore, we found the casino's decision to return only the last deposit to be within its rules, and rejected the player's complaint.

The player from Greece had complained about a deduction of €100 from his balance and the nullification of his remaining €90, allegedly due to exceeding the betting limit of €5 and purchasing bonuses. He had denied the claims. We had checked the general bonus terms and conditions and asked the player to clarify if his winnings were solely from Free Spins and if he had redeemed any free bonuses from the casino in the past. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint had been rejected.

The player from Greece deposited €30 into their account at N1 Casino five days ago, but the funds have not been credited. They have attempted to raise the issue with the casino, providing the requested deposit receipt, but have received no resolution or concrete timeline. The complaint was resolved as the player's deposit got credited.

The player from Netherlands had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The player had faced issues with his MiFinity account, which he had used for depositing in July. However, he was unable to provide necessary details due to login issues with MiFinity. Despite successfully verifying his other payment method, Brite, and providing all other necessary documents, the casino had cancelled his withdrawal due to the unresolved MiFinity issue. We had attempted to extend the complaint investigation by 7 days, but the player failed to respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Greece had experienced a deposit issue with N1 Casino, where her deposit of €14.50 had not been credited to her casino account despite bank confirmation of the transaction. After 10 days, the casino had not resolved the issue. We had advised her to contact her payment provider and refrain from making further deposits until the issue was resolved. After extending the complaint resolution timeline for an additional 17 days, the player had confirmed that the issue was resolved and the deposit was finally credited to her N1 Casino account. We then closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had deposited 20 Euros into N1 Casino, won, and had attempted to withdraw 900 Euros. However, the casino had cancelled the withdrawal, alleging 'abusive' behavior due to an incorrect, one Euro wager, which the player denied making. The player insisted she never bet more than one or two Euros at a time. The Complaints Team had attempted to investigate the matter, referring to the casino's bonus terms and conditions and asking for the player's game history. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, we had to reject the complaint. The player retained the right to reopen the complaint in the future.

The player from Greece had experienced repeated withdrawal cancellations despite successfully completing identification. The player also reported non-responsiveness from customer service. In an attempt to resolve the issue, we had asked the player several questions and extended the response time. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the given time frame. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece reactivated his account at N1 casino, deposited 200€, and set a weekly limit of 100€. Despite reaching the limit, he was able to make additional deposits. He is challenging the casino's responsible playing section and seeking a refund for the excess deposits made. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Austria was experiencing issues with their deposits not being credited to their casino account, despite the money being deducted from their personal bank account. It turned out the delay in crediting the deposits in question to his casino account was caused by the deposit limits set up by the player on his disputed account in the past. We were informed the last missing deposit was successfully credited to the complainant's casino account, so we consider the case resolved.

The player from Germany had won 190€ and attempted to withdraw 100€. The casino had requested multiple documents and an explanation after she had deposited money using her husband's Paysafe account. As a result, her account access was blocked while her balance was pending. The Complaints Team determined that she had violated the casino's terms and conditions by using a third-party payment method. Despite her acknowledgement of the mistake, we couldn't assist her in resolving the case due to this breach of rules. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Switzerland is facing withdrawal issues due to repeated declination by the payment provider. Despite the rules stating that withdrawals should be made with the same method as deposits, customer support has suggested experimenting with other methods, all of which have also been declined. The player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany experienced an issue with N1 Casino allowing them to breach deposit and stake limits, contrary to their Terms and Conditions and German gambling laws. After further consideration we rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece had won 6700€ at N1 Casino, but after he increased the maximum bet following misleading advice from the casino, the winnings were removed from his account. He reported that he had been uninformed about the rules or terms. His complaint had been rejected as he failed to provide additional information regarding the case. The Complaints Team discovered that the player had breached the casino's terms by exceeding the maximum bet limit while using a bonus, which led to the voiding of his winnings. Despite multiple attempts to clarify the situation and the casino's rules, the player maintained his perspective and failed to respond to queries about his communication with the Hellenic Gaming Commission.

The player from Greece self-excluded from N1 casino due to addiction, yet was allowed to create a new account resulting in the loss of a significant amount of money. The player is now requesting a refund. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Switzerland is facing an issue where the casino blocked his account without any specific reason. Despite being completely verified and making numerous deposits, the casino cited an administrative decision for the closure.

The player from Quebec faced an issue when trying to activate a free bonus which had 2 hours left. Despite contacting support and sending an email, he was told it was no longer available. We ended up closing the complaint.

Player from Greece deposited money, won, and requested a withdrawal. Despite verifying his account and submitting the requested bank details, the casino deactivated his account without explanation and has yet to refund his deposit. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece 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's winnings were confiscated because the player opened and played on a new account created after their first account was self-excluded. The issue was successfully resolved as the casino returned the player's deposits made after their self-exclusion.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's withdrawal is delayed for unknown reason. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their deposit back. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player's deposit did not arrive for unknown reason. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their missing deposit back. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Austria 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 Greece has made a mistake in his personal data while registering new account. Unfortunately, the withdrawal is now pending due to incomplete verification. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Germany had his withdrawal withheld due to a third-party deposit. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has been blocked without further explanation. The casino responded and explained that the player's account had been reopened, but that the bonus winnings had been confiscated due to consistent breach of the max bet rule. The player stated that they did not approve of the handling of the bonus rules, but stated that they considered the matter to be resolved.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, the payment seems to be delayed. We contacted the casino to get more information on the case, but before they replied back the player informed us that the winnings were finally received. We closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece couldn't withdraw his money. The casino blocked his account claiming that they will help to process the withdrawal manually. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

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

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

The player from Lower Saxony submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. We closed the complaint as per the player's request.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Poland has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal 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 Netherlands has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Ukraine has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player lost his winnings and then didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Switzerland 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 Baden-Württemberg has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany 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 is unsure about the verification process. The casino has asked for proof of income. After providing all the necessary documents the account was verified.The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing single bets greater than the allowed ones. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Netherlands had his withdrawal denied due to alleged usage of third party payment method. Later, the casino fully refunded the player, he received the last remaining payment approximately 1 month from requesting a withdrawal. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Finland was dissatisfied with the operator of the casino because he was not receiving bonuses and was experiencing other issues as well. The casino addressed the player's concerns and informed him that there was nothing preventing him from getting bonuses at the casino. The complaint was closed as 'resolved' after the playe confirmed he had not further inquiries.

The player from Austria made a deposit but didn’t receive a Friday bonus. We were forced to reject this complaint, because the player was banned from receiving bonuses before he tried to activate this offer.

The player from Germany has requested a self-exclusion due to a gambling problem. Afterwards, he was able to open accounts in other casinos owned by the same company and lost a substantial amount of money. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified.

The player from Netherland had his account suspended due to an investigation and subsequently blocked with funds being confiscated by the casino. We rejected the complaint because the player played and lost his funds.

The player from the Netherland was sharing a casino account with his wife and the casino confiscated winnings due to a deposit sent from 3rd party credit card. We rejected the case because the player stopped responding to her complaint.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal a month ago. Unfortunately, it has been pending due to ongoing verification. It shows that player provided access to his account to third party which is actually breach of Terms and Conditions.

The player is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings because he cannot use a preferred payment method. After reopening the complaint the casino provided evidence suggesting that the player played their winnings instead of verifying their account and using the suggested payment method to withdraw the funds. The complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany deposited money into their account, but the funds got lost. After reopening the complaint, the casino credited the player's deposit to his account. Even though the balance was played, we consider the issue to be resolved.

The player from Canada is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to incomplete verification. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Denmark has been accused of breaching bonus T&Cs by placing a higher single bet than allowed. The player also created multiple accounts to activate the bonus, therefore we rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany had his winnings cancelled due to breaching bonus terms and conditions. The evidence provided supported the casino's claims of numerous overbets. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified.

The player was asked to provide documents for additional verification and he is concerned about the safety of sending them. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal has tried to redeem 50 Free Spins upon her registration. Unfortunately, they weren’t granted. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully thanks to casino’s goodwill gesture.

The player from Germany has deposited funds from his wife’s credit card, afterwards, he requested a refund. We decided to reject this complaint because the player breached the casino's T&Cs and his wife's bank refused to cooperate with the casino.

Sandra, a player from Germany, requested a withdrawal of winnings won from a deposit bonus and was informed that her withdrawal was declined with the reason of multiple accounts. She also stated that her flatmate has an account there, too.

The player from Austria has deposited money into his account with a friend’s card. Subsequently, the player’s winnings were confiscated. After a closer examination, we rejected this complaint as unjustified.

Thorsten, a player from Germany, won quite a big amount from his third deposit bonus, but his withdrawal was declined with the reason of multiple accounts. He is not aware of having multiple accounts and the casino didn’t provide him with any proof. This case was successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player confirmed that the delay was due to the bank refusing the payment. The withdrawal was successfully received after the player cooperated with the casino's verification process. The complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Germany had her Joocasino account suspended after she made a deposit of 100 Euros. Despite having provided bank details for a refund, she waited for three weeks with no resolution and received repetitive responses from the casino. After the Complaints Team requested and reviewed the necessary documents, the player received her refund, and the issue was resolved. The complaint was subsequently closed by the team.

The player from New Zealand had won a jackpot of $50,000, but the casino had deducted $28,000 from her winnings, claiming she had used a bonus bet and exceeded the maximum bet limit. The player had disputed this, stating she hadn't used a bonus bet. Initially, the casino had ignored her emails. After intervention from the Complaints Team, who had asked for more information and evidence from the player, the casino had refunded the deducted amount to the player. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Germany was struggling to cash out his winnings as the casino continuously requested new documents for verification, subsequently rejecting his payout request each time. Despite being a verified user who had made withdrawals in the past, his recent attempts were rejected. The casino's continuous request for new documents and non-responsiveness from his VIP manager had added to his concerns. However, the issue was successfully resolved when the casino paid out his winnings. The complaint was then closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had tried to withdraw funds, but the casino had refused to verify her deposit transactions made via Jeton, hence denying the payout. After the player had provided screenshots and additional information about her issue, the problem was eventually resolved.

The player from Ireland had accidentally created two accounts with an online casino. When he tried to withdraw his winnings, the casino had closed one account and nullified the winnings, returning only the last deposit and not all of them. The player had disputed this action, citing it as contrary to the casino's terms and conditions. We had explained to the player that creating multiple accounts violated the casino's terms and conditions and that the casino was not obligated to refund all deposits when multiple accounts were detected. The player had understood the explanation and confirmed the receipt of his last deposit, requesting the closure of the complaint. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from China was experiencing difficulties withdrawing money from a casino. The casino claims he registered from a restricted country. Later, the casino reconsidered its decision, and the player confirmed that the disputed funds were successfully refunded. The complaint is resolved.

A player from Hesse, Germany is experiencing difficulties with a deposit to a casino. A €90 deposit made via credit card was denied by the casino but taken from their bank. Despite providing screenshots and communicating with their bank, the casino continues to request specific documents the player cannot provide due to the nature of the bank account. The complaint was resolved as the player's deposit got credited.

The player from Ontario has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Australia has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Australia had the account blocked right after placing the first deposit. The casino replied and explained that the account had been closed due to the administration's decision, and that an email had been sent to the player outlining how to obtain a refund of their deposit. The player provided the necessary information and the casino refunded the player, so the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany had her winnings capped. Since the casino's bonus system lacks transparency and confuses the players, we ended up closing the complaint as "unresolved". The casino eventually changed its position and after reopening the complaint and paying the player their winnings, the issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Slovenia requested a withdrawal a week prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Quebec faced repeated rejections of their bank account screenshots while attempting to withdraw C$1100, despite having their driver's license and selfie accepted. The player suspected the casino was employing tactics to avoid paying out their winnings. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, and shortly afterwards, the player received the withdrawal. The issue was marked as resolved, although the player remained concerned about potential future verification problems with the casino.

The player from Germany had encountered issues when he tried to withdraw his winnings of 1956 euros from Slothunter Casino. After he wagered his bonus and attempted to withdraw, the casino deactivated his account for unspecified internal reasons while retaining both the deposit and winnings. The player had not verified his account before the issue occurred. After we initiated communication with the casino, they asked the player to provide proof of deposit. The casino had previously informed the player about the account closure 10 days prior. Following our intervention and the player's cooperation with the casino's requests, the issue had been successfully resolved and the player had received his winnings.

The player from Germany had struggled to verify her account and validate her deposit at the casino. Despite multiple submissions, her photos and PDFs had not been accepted. She had communicated with the Complaints Team, providing all the necessary documents. The casino had finally accepted her withdrawal request and after some time, she confirmed that the money had been transferred to her account, resolving the issue.