BK8 Casino Review

A player from Taiwan won over $100 at the casino, but their account was blocked for allegedly violating the casino's T&Cs. The casino then agreed to let the player withdraw their initial deposit of $121 but blocked the withdrawal due to it being less than the $150 minimum withdrawal limit. The account has been blocked again, and the funds have been forfeited.

The player from Singapore had requested self-exclusion from BK8 casino for 5 years due to a gambling addiction. However, they had requested to have the self-exclusion lifted before the period was over, which resulted in severe losses. They believed the casino should have enforced the initial self-exclusion period. The player had provided video evidence and screenshots of their communication with the casino, but the casino claimed that the player had not explicitly stated they had a gambling problem when requesting self-exclusion. The casino also argued that they used a standard reply for all self-exclusion requests, which may have led to misunderstanding. We had concluded that the casino was not aware of the player's gambling problem, therefore, the lifting of the self-exclusion was standard procedure, and the case was rejected.

The player from Albania had successfully registered and made deposits on the casino site. Despite having complied with verification procedures, the player had encountered issues with receiving an OTP for withdrawal due to his Albanian phone number not being accepted by the casino. The player had communicated with the casino and provided all requested documents, but the issue had remained unresolved. Finally, the casino had offered to refund the player's deposits, which the player had accepted. Despite this, the player did not confirm having received the refund, and no further communication was received, leaving the complaint unresolved.

The player from Albania has deposited money into casino account but the funds seem to be lost. After our intervention, we were able to help to resolve the player's issue. The player confirmed the complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Canada had his winnings confiscated after he requested a withdrawal. We ultimately dismissed the complaint after the casino presented evidence indicating that it was connected to sports betting.

The player from Bulgaria was blocked and accused of having multiple accounts. We ended up rejecting the complaint as the casino provided evidence suggesting that the complaint was related to sports betting and that two different users activated the same bonuses on the same device.

The player from Singapore had his winnings canceled and his account suspended due to "abnormal gaming activity". The casino was not able to provide us with sufficient evidence supporting its decision due to the internal policy and stopped responding to our messages and questions. The player was allowed to withdraw only his initial deposit. The complaint was considered unresolved. Later, based on the update received from the casino, we reopened the complaint. The casino decided to provide us with the requested evidence, and we were able to sufficiently review the matter. After gathering all the necessary information and details, we updated the complaint to 'unjustified' due to breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions - with the help of another casino account or accounts (multiple accounts used by 1 person or collusion), the disputed account was engaged in fraudulent activity and bypassing the casino's rules for the bonus in question (Live Casino Welcome Bonus), which gave him an unfair advantage over the casino and its system. Industry-standard rules forbid more than 1 account per player or collusion, as well as doing activity giving the players an unfair advantage. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and conditions, and we accept its decision.