Betpanda Casino Review

The player from Lithuania had successfully withdrawn 8 sol on September 17th but was facing a pending withdrawal of another 8 sol due to a security check, without any additional information or timeframes from the casino. After providing the necessary details and confirming that no KYC documents were requested, the player was advised to wait for the casino's response regarding the investigation. Ultimately, the withdrawal was confirmed, and the remaining balance was successfully withdrawn. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Portugal reported issues with withdrawing large sums of cryptocurrency, claiming that over 600 LTC was held on their account and an additional 300 LTC on a similar site, Cryptorino. KYC had already been completed, but both the player and a friend had blocked accounts, and significant deposits exceeding 20K-30K EUR were still being held. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the Complaints Team's inquiries, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Portugal reported being scammed by the casino for over 10 ETH and having their account blocked, along with a friend's account that had over 900 LTC. Both players had provided KYC documentation but faced ignored emails and locked accounts, with significant deposits also being seized. The Complaints Team attempted to assist by contacting the casino for clarification on the account blocks and fund confiscation. However, it was determined that the complaint was related to sports betting, which the team does not handle, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the UK had won $1,044 on Fortune Spinner, but the amounts disappeared. When he questioned Betpanda, they used evasive tactics and blamed him. Despite claiming to have raised the issue with the gaming provider, Betpanda provided no documentation to support their claims, and the relevant transaction records were missing from the site. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to the requests for supporting evidence and communication history needed for further investigation.

The player from Canada had requested a self-exclusion from Betpanda.io due to gambling addiction but was able to create multiple new accounts without KYC checks. Despite contacting live chat support and losing over $2660, the casino only suggested refraining from playing without taking further action. The complaint was rejected because the casino allowed anonymous play and quick registration, making it difficult to enforce self-exclusion measures. The player was advised to use third-party self-exclusion services like BetBlocker and seek help from gambling support organizations.

The player from the United States accused the casino of rigged slots, failing to pay out on certain games despite proof, and ignoring complaints. He claimed a loss of over $1000. The player provided screenshots and claimed to have contacted customer support, who confirmed winnings but did not issue a refund. We requested the player's entire gaming history for further investigation. However, the player did not respond to subsequent messages, leading to the complaint being rejected due to a lack of cooperation.

The player from Ohio claimed that the casino had manipulated games and exhibited unethical behavior. He had repeatedly asked for his account to be closed since March, but the casino had refused. The player also alleged that the casino had sent him promotional emails to encourage him to continue betting. He was demanding a refund of all deposits made from February to May 2024. Despite his claims, the Complaints Team found that the player had been previously banned for using abusive language, leading to the rejection of his complaint.

The player from the Netherlands had requested a permanent account closure, but the casino had still allowed the account to be reopened. The player claimed that he had explicitly requested a full closure with no option to reopen. However, we had clarified that unless a self-exclusion due to gambling addiction was requested, the account could be reopened at any time. The player's account was simply closed as he did not mention gambling issues or addiction. We had advised him to specifically request self-exclusion if he wished to permanently close his account in the future. The complaint was closed as the matter had been explained to the player multiple times.

The player from Argentina had been unable to permanently close the account due to the casino's non-responsive behavior, resulting in a loss of over 300 euros. The player also complained about the casino's refusal to provide information about their license. We had clarified the difference between account closure and self-exclusion, and noted that the player's account was eventually closed as per their request. However, we acknowledged that the casino in question had a poor license with almost no regulation. We advised the player to conduct better research before registration and offered assistance for future issues.

The player from Canada had his account closed when he attempted his first withdrawal. The casino had cited the creation of multiple accounts as the reason. However, the player had denied using multiple accounts or promotions. Despite the player's denial, the casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the player, including bonus abuse. The Complaints Team concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, as multiple accounts and bonus abuse were serious violations. Consequently, the complaint had been closed as unjustified.

The player from Norway had faced account closure by Betpanda due to "player advantage", with their balance and winnings being confiscated. The player contested this, insisting that they hadn't used the bonus that the decision was based on. The player's attempts to communicate had been met with unsatisfactory responses. We had attempted to gather more information from the player to fully understand the situation, and even extended the complaint response time by 7 days. However, due to a lack of response from the player, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands requested self-exclusion six times due to gambling addiction, but the casino did not act. After losing a significant amount post the first request, the player is now seeking a refund of losses. The casino has stopped responding to emails. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from the Netherlands had asked Betpanda Casino to close his account due to gambling issues but received no response. In the meantime, he had lost €170 in ETH. We had requested additional information and proof from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, despite extending the response deadline, the player did not provide the required details. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from Norway had reported an issue with BetPanda Casino, where despite his requests for account closure due to self-acknowledged gambling addiction, the account had remained active. The player had made multiple attempts to reach the casino for immediate closure and review of recent deposits, but to no avail. The player also claimed that the casino's response time and handling of the situation had been unsatisfactory. Despite our team's efforts to mediate the situation and contact the casino, the casino had remained unresponsive. We concluded that the casino had failed to handle the self-exclusion process correctly, leading us to mark the complaint as 'unresolved'. This outcome had negatively affected the casino's safety rating on our website.

The player from Netherlands who self-acknowledged a gambling problem had repeatedly requested account closure but received no response, which led him to continue playing and lose all his funds. We attempted to assist the player by requesting evidence of his communication with the casino, but he did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland had been allowed to join, play, and deposit in the casino from a banned country, but was subsequently denied a refund. He had contested that if he had won, the casino would have denied his withdrawal. However, the Complaints Team had stated they couldn't assist with this hypothetical situation. The player did not respond to further inquiries, which led to the rejection of his complaint due to a lack of communication.