BetOnRed Casino Review

The player from Italy had requested a withdrawal of €520 seven days prior, which had been approved, but had not yet been received. Additionally, he could not access his casino account due to a block by Italian customs. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed that the withdrawal had arrived a couple of days later, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Denmark experienced delays with a payout. Each representative provided different explanations regarding the status of the funds, which remained unprocessed. 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 a withdrawal of 600 euros from Betonred on September 6, 2024, but had not received the funds as expected. They were unable to contact the casino for updates on the situation. After communicating with the Complaints Team, the player confirmed that their account was verified and agreed to wait for an additional 14 days. The player later reported receiving their withdrawal, and the issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Spain reported that their withdrawal had not arrived for over 50 hours, and the casino had blocked their account with the funds still in it. They received repeated messages that the withdrawal was under review. The issue was resolved, and the player confirmed that their concerns were addressed satisfactorily. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Poland had their account blocked by BetOnRed, resulting in the confiscation of €62 and approximately 350 Polish zloty. The casino closed the account citing fraudulent activity, which the player denied, stating that they did not have multiple accounts or engage in fraud. The Complaints Team reviewed the situation but determined that they could not adequately evaluate the casino's investigation, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Portugal encounters issues withdrawing €5825.57 from Betonred after their account, which was previously verified, suddenly becomes unverified. Despite providing the required documents and proof of deposit multiple times, Betonred continues to reject the submissions without explanation.

The player from Germany had met the wagering requirements using a bonus but had his account closed after attempting verification. The customer support team did not provide any reasons for the closure, which resulted in the player being unable to access his winnings. After reviewing the evidence, it was determined that the player did not pass the verification process, leading to the casino's actions being upheld according to its terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was declined as the casino's decision was justified.

The player from Poland had deposited 5686 PLN and won a total of 13300 PLN, but after attempting to withdraw 10000 PLN and 3200 PLN, both withdrawals were canceled, and his account balance was inexplicably reduced to 6061 PLN. The casino not only canceled the winnings but also suspended the player's account without clear communication. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino, which stated that the account had been closed for administrative reasons and that the player had been informed multiple times. The complaint was ultimately rejected as the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, and the player had successfully withdrawn his deposits.

The player from Switzerland had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The issue was resolved as the player confirmed finding a solution independently. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Australia faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings of 50 AUD from BetOnRed, as his request got automatically canceled after several hours. Despite having a fully verified account and submitting the necessary documents for payment method verification, he continued to receive the same response that the issue was being escalated. The Complaints Team extended the timeline for the casino to process the payment but ultimately had to reject the case due to the player's lack of response to their inquiries. The player was informed that he could reopen the complaint in the future if he wished to continue pursuing the matter.

The player from the United Kingdom had been able to open an account, pass KYC verification, and deposit money on a casino site despite being from a restricted country. He had requested a refund due to the casino's failure to enforce proper checks. The Complaints Team had been unable to investigate further because of the player's lack of response to inquiries, which resulted in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Ireland had won €3,000 and had successfully withdrawn €2,000 before their account was closed for allegedly violating maximum bet terms. The remaining winnings were confiscated, and the casino stopped responding to emails, making it impossible for the player to obtain their gaming history for verification. The Complaints Team had determined that the casino acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, as the player had breached the maximum bet limit while using bonus funds, in a way that gave him an unfair advantage in further play and fulfilling bonus conditions. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from Spain had winnings of 6,000 euros and was unable to withdraw the funds due to the requirement to use the original deposit method, Binance Pay in USDT, which was not available. Despite multiple discussions with support and providing evidence, the issue remained unresolved. The Complaints Team was informed that the casino had started processing the player's withdrawals, indicating a change in their decision. However, due to a lack of follow-up communication from the player, the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Germany had his account at Bet On Red Casino locked without warning after depositing €2,550 and had been unable to access his withdrawal of €2,400 since June 29, 2024. Despite being fully verified and submitting all required documents, he only received automated responses. The Complaints Team attempted to resolve the issue by contacting the casino for clarification on the account closure and disputed funds. However, the case was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to inquiries, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Spain had a €2,000 withdrawal in process but then found their account unexpectedly closed for their "well-being." The casino requested card photos for verification, but the player had lost their cards and provided other documents instead. The player sought to verify their account and receive their €2,000. We were unable to proceed with the investigation due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria won 47,000 Euros and successfully withdrew 5,000 Euros. However, when he attempted to make a subsequent withdrawal, his account was deactivated, leaving 42,000 Euros pending. We requested additional information and evidence from the player to investigate the issue. The player failed to respond to our messages and questions, resulting in the complaint being rejected due to insufficient information.

The player from Germany registered and subsequently lost 5,000 euros within a week. The player initially questioned the casino's acceptance of German players and requested a refund due to his gambling addiction and the belief that the casino would not pay out winnings. After communicating with the casino, the player felt assured of fair treatment and withdrew his complaint. The issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Spain attempted to make his first withdrawal, but it kept getting rejected and returned to the betting page. The player stated that his account was verified and that he had contacted the casino multiple times without resolution. Despite being told by the casino that the issue would be resolved, his withdrawal was rejected again. We requested more information and interaction details, but the player did not respond. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Greece had been using Bet On Red casino normally for months. After winning over €5000 and requesting a withdrawal on 24/6, the request was canceled due to a KYC verification requirement. Despite submitting all necessary documents, the player faced delays attributed to a heavy workload. We attempted to assist and requested additional information from the player, but due to a lack of response, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Bulgaria, despite having had a verified account and successful past withdrawals, had a pending crypto withdrawal at BetOnRed casino since 22 May, nearly 20 days ago. Customer support was unresponsive or ineffective in resolving the issue. The player confirmed the receipt of the funds, and the complaint was marked as resolved by us.

The player from Norway was unable to withdraw funds because the bank transfer option had been removed. The only available option was cryptocurrency, which only allowed a small withdrawal amount. After providing the necessary documentation and communications, the issue was resolved with assistance. The complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Hungary had sent the required documents to the casino, but they were disapproved after 24 hours because the casino claimed the documents needed to have the player's name and bank account number. The player believed the documents were correct and sought clarification. The player's account was later fully verified, and he awaited the payment of his winnings. The complaint was closed due to a lack of further response from the player.

The player from Germany had to wait for his withdrawal to be processed for 14 days despite having completed the KYC verification. The player expressed dissatisfaction with the lengthy withdrawal process compared to the quick deposit times. The issue was resolved when the payout was processed, and the complaint was closed by us after receiving confirmation from the player.

A self-excluded player from Greece requested their personal player ID from Betonred casino, but the casino refused to provide it. The player intended to use the ID to appeal to the regulatory authority for dispute resolution. We inquired further details and asked the player to provide their self-exclusion request, but the player did not respond. Due to the lack of response, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Spain was unable to access his account and retrieve the cashback amount of €141.53. He sought the money, not access to the account. The complaint was reviewed, and it was determined that since the player's account was blocked, he was not eligible for the cashback bonus due to the inability to meet wagering requirements. It was confirmed that the account balance was zero at the time of closure. The complaint was closed as no further assistance could be provided.

The player from Spain had unintentionally used his wife's card to deposit money on BetOnRed Casino, where he had won 2400€. Despite having provided all necessary documents proving his wife's consent, the casino had denied his withdrawal request as the card was not registered in his name, which was a violation of the casino's terms and conditions. The player had threatened legal action, but the Complaints Team had maintained the casino's stance, explaining that the rules prohibited third-party payments regardless of consent. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Portugal faced an issue with BetOnRed Casino. He won a slots tournament and unlocked a bonus worth €8,700, but the casino voided this, citing 'technical incompleteness', and only left €200 in the account. The player contested that the tournament prizes were not of this value and sought the remaining €8,500. We advised the player to wait 14 days for the withdrawal process, and upon further delay, we extended the timer by 7 days. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from the United States had claimed that he hadn't received a welcome offer from an online casino despite entering the correct code (SPICY10EURO) during his registration. He had won $1,602 previously and had been hoping to repeat this success with the welcome offer. However, the casino did not honor the offer. Our investigation had revealed that the player was ineligible for the bonus due to his location, as the offer was only available to players from specific countries. The player had understood this and had requested to close the complaint. We had complied with his request and assured him of our assistance in the future.

The player from Austria claimed to have lost several thousand Euros due to inconsistencies in Betonred Casino's deposit system. The player constantly found discrepancies in deposited and posted amounts, with several cases of missing funds. Despite contacting Betonred Casino multiple times, the player did not receive any meaningful resolution. The Complaints Team investigated the issue and communicated with the casino, which manually credited one of the missing deposits. However, due to the lack of further response from the player, the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Spain faced difficulties trying to withdraw their winnings of 500€, as the casino kept canceling the transaction. We asked the player for additional information regarding previous withdrawals, KYC verification, and the use of bonuses. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Greece was removed from the game by the online casino. She reported that her winnings of approximately 650 euros suddenly decreased to 90 euros while playing a slot game. The casino explained that her winnings were capped at 110 euros due to a bonus policy limiting maximum winnings to ten times the bonus amount. We determined that the casino acted according to their terms and conditions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Germany had been able to deposit money into the casino, despite the fact that it did not accept players from his location. The player claimed he did not use any VPN or IP-masking software to access the casino. He had registered with the casino on April 9 and found out about the casino's terms and conditions, effective from January 1, 2023, which clearly stated that they did not accept players from Germany. However, the player did not respond to further inquiries from our team. Hence, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had faced an issue regarding the withdrawal of 500 euros. Despite approval, and more than two weeks of delay, she hadn't received the money due to alleged technical issues. The player had had a history of withdrawal attempts and her winnings had been accumulated without an active bonus. Her chosen method for withdrawal had been through Post Office Account Manager. After communicating with the casino representative, it was found that the initial withdrawal request had been cancelled and returned to her casino account. A new withdrawal had been made and approved. The player had confirmed the resolution of her issue and expressed gratitude. The complaint had then been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Italy had experienced delays in withdrawing his winnings from BetOnRed Casino. Despite having passed full KYC verification and contacting the casino daily, his withdrawal request had remained pending. The casino had attributed this delay to technical issues with the payment provider. After intervention from the Complaints Team, the casino had resolved the technical issue and the player had confirmed receipt of his winnings. As a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused, the casino had also issued 60 free spins to the player. The player had accepted this resolution and the complaint had been closed as resolved.

The player from Italy had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. Their money hadn't been received yet. The player had communicated with the casino and was informed about technical issues causing the delay. After expressing concern over the delay and requesting the intervention of the Complaints Team, the player eventually received his withdrawal. However, his account was closed by the casino due to concerns over his gambling behavior. The Complaints Team concluded that they couldn't penalize the casino for closing the player's account, particularly since the player's winnings had been successfully paid out.

The player from Portugal had requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction, but his deposit of 200€ had been accepted a month later despite the exclusion. The player was requesting a refund from the casino. However, he was unable to provide any supporting evidence of his self-exclusion request as his email had been deleted and he couldn't access his account on the casino's site. We had asked for any relevant communication demonstrating his request for self-exclusion, but without this evidence, we were unable to proceed with his complaint. Consequently, we had to reject his complaint due to lack of proof.

The player from Germany had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take some time, possibly due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. The player had been advised to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The Complaints Team attempted to follow up with the player, but received no response. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Canada had raised a complaint about recurring issues with cashbacks and bonuses at an online casino. The Complaints Team had clarified that they could not penalize the casino for revoking bonus privileges as casinos reserved the right to restrict or close player accounts. They also explained that casinos were not obligated to provide bonuses, which could be withdrawn at any time without notice. The Complaints Team had been prepared to reject the complaint as unjustified but had extended the timer for additional player input. However, due to the lack of response from the player, the Complaints Team had to reject the case, being unable to proceed with further investigation or solutions.

The player from Germany had reported an issue with Betonred Casino concerning account closure and refund. He had requested his account to be closed due to gambling addiction and had sought a full refund of his €400 deposit, despite the casino initially offering only €100. However, the casino later stated they could not provide the refund. The player had also demanded a permanent ban from the casino and all its associated sites. We, the complaints team, had clarified that the blocking rules depended on the casino's license and suggested the player contact the relevant authorities for further resolution. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to the casino's response and the licensing rules.

The player from Greece had won 100 euros from his deposit at an online casino. When he had tried to withdraw his winnings, his requests had been cancelled twice without any explanation. Despite numerous attempts to get clarification, the casino had remained unresponsive. After the player had lodged a complaint, we had engaged with him and extended the complaint resolution timer. Shortly after, the player had reported that his issue was resolved and the casino had credited his winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Poland had his account suspended after he tried to withdraw winnings from sports betting. The casino had justified the suspension with accusations of 'fraudulent activity', which the player denied. He also reported that he had received repeated verification requests and experienced delays in withdrawal processing. Unfortunately, since the player's issue pertained to sports betting, we were unable to assist due to a lack of expertise in this specific area. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had tried to withdraw €160 from BetOnRed via Revolut, but the request had been denied without any explanation. Further attempts to withdraw via JetonCash had also failed, with an error message about multiple registered accounts that the casino's customer service couldn't resolve. The player's account had been verified and no alternative withdrawal method had been offered. The casino had later clarified that the withdrawal via bank transfer was cancelled because the IBAN must have matched the country registered on the gaming account. Withdrawals via Jeton had been cancelled because no deposits had been made with this method. The casino had suggested using a German IBAN for withdrawal. The complaint had eventually been rejected due to lack of further response from the player.

The player from Greece had deposited 50 euros at Betonred Casino and won 2600 euros. However, upon completion of the bonus limit, 2330 euros were deducted. The player had claimed that the casino did not specify a maximum win amount in their bonus terms and conditions. The casino had responded that the maximum win amount was mentioned in the main site's terms and conditions, and also in the Wallet and Bonuses section of the player's account. The player had disputed this, insisting that the terms were not visible in his account and the link to the main site's terms was not accessible in his country. After an internal discussion, we had concluded that the casino was at fault for not clearly stating the bonus conditions in the Greek version of their site. However, the player was still able to view the bonus conditions in his account wallet. Therefore, we had suggested that the casino offer a gesture of goodwill to the player. The casino had offered a cash bonus of 100 euros, but the player rejected this offer. The complaint remained unresolved as the player insisted on a higher payment.

The player from Georgia had faced issues withdrawing his winnings of 3000 euros from BetOnRed Casino, despite having passed the verification process. His withdrawal requests via bank transfer had been repeatedly cancelled without clear explanation from the casino. The player had later attempted a withdrawal via cryptocurrency, which was pending. After intervention from our Complaints Team, the casino had confirmed that the player's winnings had been processed and paid. The player had confirmed receipt of his funds, marking the resolution of his complaint.

The player from Spain had reported that she was unable to access her casino account after making a deposit. She stated that the casino support team informed her that due to her nationality, she was not allowed to play at the casino, which resulted in the closure of her account. The player, however, resided in Spain and had a Spanish bank account. We asked for confirmation on whether the casino had refunded her money, but the player did not respond. As a result, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Spain had experienced server issues that prevented her from accessing the online casino page after a win. We reached out to the player for confirmation if the issue had been resolved but did not receive any response. As a result, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Spain had registered and played at a casino, unaware of the rules prohibiting Spanish citizens from participating. They had made several deposits and were then requesting reimbursement, as the deposits should not have been permitted due to the government-issued gambling prohibition. The player argued that the casino had breached its terms by allowing them to deposit and play. We explained that while we understood the player's perspective, we only intervened in cases where winnings were confiscated due to a player being from a restricted country. As the player had no balance left in their account when it was blocked, we concluded that there was not much we could do in this case.

The player from Ireland had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player claimed the casino cancelled all withdrawal attempts, despite being fully verified and trying various withdrawal methods. However, the player failed to respond to our inquiries within the given time frame, which resulted in us being unable to investigate further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The Austrian player had had an issue with an online casino where his account had been blocked and his winnings of 650€ had been cancelled after his attempt to verify his account. After our interaction with the casino, the player's account had been reopened, his documents had been approved, and his winnings had been refunded. The player had confirmed the resolution of his issue, expressing satisfaction with the outcome.

The player from Greece was facing issues with depositing cryptocurrency into their casino account, even though their transaction was visible. The casino had responded that the deposit was below the minimum allowed limit, therefore the money had been lost. We had advised the player to contact their payment provider for an investigation. However, the player failed to respond to our further queries, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of cooperation.

The player from Rhineland-Palatinate had multiple issues with withdrawals that were rejected due to alleged missing wagering turnover. After several delays with bank and alternative methods, the funds were returned to the betting account. Casino support hadn't provided clear explanations and asked the player to wager the refunded deposit again. However, after submitting the complaint to us, the player reported that the issue had been resolved and the payout had been processed. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Portugal had been unable to access the Betonred Casino application for three days and had been concerned about the approximately 130 euros in her account. We had advised her to contact the casino's support via email. She reported that she had been able to access the casino again and her money was still in her account. We marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Australia had attempted to cash out multiple times but all were declined by the casino without a clear reason. The player had confirmed that his account was fully verified. Despite having reached out to the casino's customer support, he hadn't received any helpful response. We tried to further investigate the issue, asking about the payment method and requesting recent correspondence with the casino, but the player failed to respond to our inquiries. As a result, we couldn't proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had sought to close his accounts across multiple casinos owned by the same company but had not received responses to his emails, and chat assistance had been unhelpful. After lodging a complaint with us, we had explained the difference between account closure and self-exclusion and checked the casino's terms and conditions. We then asked the player to specify the reason for closure and to forward us the account closure requests he had sent to the casino. The player had subsequently managed to delete his account from the casino. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Spain had faced an issue when his account was closed as he attempted to cash out his winnings. The casino had stated they would refund his deposits but not his winnings, however, even the deposits had not been returned after three days. The player had clarified that he had not accepted any bonuses and had left about €1200 in his account. Despite our efforts to communicate with the player to understand the situation better, he did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Australia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn’t been received yet. We had advised him that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days and recommended patience. However, the player decided to spend his casino balance due to the prolonged waiting time for cash out. As a result, we had to close the complaint because the player no longer had any winnings to withdraw.

The player from Germany had had issues with withdrawing winnings from an online casino. The casino had initially claimed that the bank had denied the transfer, but the bank had refuted this. The casino then suggested a different withdrawal method, but this had also been unsuccessful. The player had reported disrespectful communication from the casino. After the player's complaint was submitted to us, the casino had paid out his winnings within an hour. This issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Bulgaria had reported a deposit issue with Betonred online casino. He had claimed that despite the casino's support team's confirmation that a refund would be issued, he received an email stating that the payment wasn't recognized. He had further alleged that the casino used a different MCC code to accept Master Card payments. The player and the casino had engaged in a back and forth discussion about the issue, with the casino requesting proof of transaction and the player insisting that the casino was withholding his refund. After the intervention from the Complaints Team, the casino eventually confirmed that it had processed the player's refund. The player had confirmed receipt of his funds and the complaint had been subsequently marked as resolved.

The player from Canada was experiencing issues with depositing Ethereum into his account at the online casino. Despite having confirmed the successful transfer and having reached out to the casino's live chat and email support, his deposit was not reflected in his account. The player had previously made successful deposits and withdrawals from the casino. The Complaints Team had suggested contacting the payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino might not have had the ability to intervene in this case. The complaint remained unresolved as the player did not respond to further communication, leading to its rejection.

The player from Portugal had experienced a delay in receiving an approved payment which had taken longer than 72 hours. After the Complaints Team had advised her to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, the player confirmed that the payment had been successfully received. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Portugal has been waiting over a week for a withdrawal. The casino has provided multiple deadlines which have all passed without the withdrawal being processed. The player states that they have met all the requirements and provided all the necessary information for the withdrawal, yet the casino's support only gives automated responses and has failed to respond to an email sent 5-6 days ago. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player made 8 deposits and later requested a withdrawal of winnings. However, it was not processed and the customer support (chat and mail) didn't give any justification. The casino didn't react to this complaint and it remained unresolved.

A player from Portugal is having trouble withdrawing his winnings of 2300 from BetOnRed Casino. Despite having a verified account and making several withdrawal attempts, the player's efforts have not been successful. The complaint was resolved as the player managed to withdraw his money.

The player from Portugal had a 800€ withdrawal that had been delayed for 6 days. Despite daily assurances from the casino's chat function that the payout would happen soon, it hadn't been resolved. We had explained to the player that withdrawal delays could be due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We had extended the timer for the player to respond by 7 days, however, since the player did not respond to our messages, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Belgium had reported an issue with her withdrawal request and account verification at an online casino. Despite her multiple attempts to communicate with the casino's support and provide the necessary documents, the issue had remained unresolved. We had advised her to ensure the documents were in the correct format and to contact support again. However, the player did not respond to our further inquiries, which prevented us from proceeding with the investigation. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Portugal had requested self-exclusion from the online casino but continued playing as the process was not immediate. She had won around 200 euros and was unable to withdraw her winnings due to the account closure. After she had submitted her complaint to the Complaints Team and provided necessary documentation, the team had contacted the casino on her behalf. The casino had requested her refund credentials and she had complied. After a slight delay and further communication with the casino, the player confirmed that she had received her refund. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had registered and played on BetOnRed, losing several thousand euros before his account was abruptly closed due to jurisdiction restrictions. The player, who had not used a VPN, was seeking a refund of all deposits. Despite our efforts to assist, the player had failed to respond to our inquiries about any withheld winnings based on his geolocation. As a result, we were forced to reject the complaint due to the lack of further information, which prevented us from proceeding with any further investigation or providing potential solutions.

The player from Germany deposited money expecting a cashback as per the casino's Terms and Conditions. After losing, they were denied the announced 5% cashback due to undisclosed local regulations, which the player holds is deceptive. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Germany experienced a delay in her deposit transaction. Despite the casino's advice to wait, the player had sought help from the Complaints Team. We had suggested the player contact her payment provider for an investigation as the casino usually had limited control over such issues. The player later confirmed that she had received their deposit. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had made a crypto deposit which did not reflect in his account even after several hours. He had expressed dissatisfaction with the customer support responses. We had reached out to the player for more information and extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player failed to respond to our messages and questions. As a result, we were unable to further investigate the issue and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil 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.