Cashalot Casino Review

The player from Germany had encountered repeated difficulties trying to withdraw €90. Initial problems were related to KYC verification, and subsequent withdrawal attempts using a credit card and crypto had been denied multiple times without reason. The player had sought assurance from support that they had submitted the withdrawal correctly and was still having issues. We engaged the casino in the conversation and they explained that the player's crypto wallet had been labeled as "high risk", hence the withdrawal issues. They advised the player to use an alternative payment method, Mifinity wallet. The player confirmed receipt of the funds in their Jeton Wallet and considered the case resolved.

The player from Germany had completed a bonus round and was left with €1100, but the casino had reduced his balance to €136, stating that the bonus winnings were not credited. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information from the player to better understand the situation, however, the player did not respond to their queries. Consequently, the team was unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had experienced repeated delays and cancellations of her withdrawal requests, despite her account having been verified. She had been dissatisfied with the casino's customer service and had expressed frustration over the extended waiting period. However, after her complaint had been lodged, the issue had been successfully resolved and she had confirmed the receipt of her funds. We had then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal of €1000 from Cashalot casino over a week prior. Despite repeated inquiries with the casino's live chat and VIP consultant, the withdrawal process remained incomplete due to reported issues in the Finance Department. We received no response from the player to our questions. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and we rejected the complaint.

The player from Ireland had been unable to withdraw their winnings from the online casino for almost a year. The casino had reportedly been cancelling the withdrawals without providing reasons and had not been responding to the player's queries. The player had already verified their account and had made successful withdrawals in the past. After the issue was raised with the Complaints Team, the casino was contacted and they acknowledged a technical issue which had been preventing the withdrawal. The issue was subsequently fixed and the player confirmed that the funds had been successfully transferred to their crypto wallet. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany, a VIP member who was in constant contact with the manager at the casino, had won a large amount. The casino, however, had deducted her winnings, alleging that she violated bonus rules by changing her bet too often. The player argued that she had always played in this manner and her winnings were always paid out before. After reviewing the case, we invited the casino to join the conversation. The casino provided examples of the player's bet changes and insisted that these violated their rules. Despite the player's willingness to reach a compromise, the casino maintained their stance. We found the bet changes not to be an unfair advantage and marked the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from Austria had faced difficulties in withdrawing his winnings of €1600. After successfully withdrawing €800, the casino had claimed he violated rules and required him to wager the outstanding amount thirty more times. The player had claimed that the 30x wagering requirement was introduced out of nowhere and that he was unable to log into his account to access his gaming history. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player, he failed to respond to our messages and questions. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had been receiving constant emails from the casino, even though he had unsubscribed from their services. Additionally, the player had sought damages of 1,000 EUR for this issue. The player had contacted the casino directly to resolve the issue but had received no response. We contacted the casino to understand why the player was still receiving promotional emails. The casino had responded, stating that the player's email had been removed from their database, but due to pre-scheduled campaigns, he might have still received some emails. The player had insisted on his compensation, but we had explained that we could not penalize the casino for sending spam, nor could we ask the casino to compensate him. We had suggested the player adjust his email settings to prevent further emails from the casino.

The player from Malta had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. In addition, the player had faced a restriction on his withdrawals, with a maximum limit of 200€ per transaction, which led to a delay in withdrawing the full amount. The Complaints Team had advised patience and cooperation with the casino. The issue was later resolved, although the withdrawal limit remained in place. The complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Sweden was experiencing a delay in his withdrawal process which had been pending for a month. Despite our attempts to understand the situation and assist him, the player did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we could not proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint due to lack of communication from the player's end.

The player from Sweden had faced repeated cancellation of withdrawal requests, without any given reason and no response to inquiries. Multiple methods of withdrawal had been attempted with no success. In order to understand the situation completely, we had asked the player a series of questions regarding account verification and the nature of withdrawal issues. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with any further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was consequently rejected.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had experienced difficulties during the withdrawal process, which had required her to create a Mifinity account, despite her initial deposit having been made via bank transfer. The casino had also restricted her withdrawal to €200 at a time, causing further delay. After discussing the issue with the casino's chat support and verifying her Mifinity account, she had been able to receive her full winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved, and the complaint was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had frequently requested self-exclusion and to unsubscribe from emails, but her requests had been consistently ignored by the casino. We had explained the difference between account closure and self-exclusion to the player. We also extended the complaint's response time twice, but the player didn't confirm whether the issue was resolved. Due to the lack of confirmation, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player claimed to have passed the KYC verification and held a balance of 12,000 euros. The casino had limited withdrawal amounts to 200 euros due to technical issues, which had resulted in the player only being able to withdraw a small portion of his winnings. The casino representative assured that the player would receive his winnings in full once the technical issue was resolved. We had advised the player to wait for the issue to be resolved, but the player had not responded to our latest messages. The complaint had been rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Germany has been unsuccessful in withdrawing his winnings of 35000€. After verifying, he learned of a technical issue limiting withdrawals to 200€ per request (10,000€ before), allegedly set up by the casino's payment provider. The player complains about the unfairness of the policy. In addition, he continued playing with his balance and increased it to 340,000€. However, during the process of resolving the complaint, the player suddenly informed us that the issue was resolved and asked us to close the complaint. Based on this information, we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player reported that the casino had imposed a daily withdrawal limit of 200 euros, which significantly slowed down the process of cashing out a total of 15,000 euros. The casino allegedly stopped processing withdrawals after three days and ceased communication. The player's failure to respond to our inquiries had led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Ireland has been attempting unsuccessfully to withdraw winnings for a month. Each time he tries, the casino cancels his withdrawal and instructs him to choose a new method. After discussing the issue with the casino, the casino started processing the withdrawal but it ended up cancelled. The player has lost all their funds and therefore we were unable to help them further and rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece made a deposit, fulfilled wagering requirements and requested a withdrawal. After passing KYC verification 10 days ago, their withdrawal was still pending without explanation from the casino. We contacted the casino, and its representative promised to check the issue. The player was recommended to use another withdrawal method, and they finally informed us about receiving their funds therefore the complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Spain 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 Sweden was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to an unspecified issue with the used payment method. The player should have chosen an alternative one for withdrawal, but his funds were not credited back to his account. The complainant later confirmed that he was able to resolve the issue before we invited the casino to the thread. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Sweden is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings. Although we received information from the casino the withdrawal was processed, without confirmation from the player we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing additional verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment afterwards.

The player from Ireland has tried to activate a deposit bonus without being successful. The player confirmed the issue was resolved after she received a withdrawal after the mandatory wagering of the deposit was complete.

The player from Sweden 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 Sweden has requested withdrawals one week prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino hasn't responded to the complaint and it was closed as "unresolved".

The player from Sweden was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. After providing the casino with documents for additional verification and re-requesting a new withdrawal, this was successfully processed and the player received the funds. We consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Spain requested a withdrawal at the beginning of May, but it hasn't been processed yet. The casino provided us with evidence confirming the player later lost all their funds, therefore we rejected this complaint.

The player from Spain has been trying to close his account. Unfortunately, his requests have been ignored. Since the casino asked for simple account closure and the casino had no obligation to the player, we decided to reject this complaint.

The player from Hungary has requested a withdrawal two months ago. The casino has returned the original deposit to the player. As the player was eligible for the full amount, the complaint was closed as "unresolved".

The player from Austria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. We closed the complaint as unresolved because the casino failed to respond in 2 weeks timeframe.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal, but it has not been processed yet. The casino provided us with evidence confirming the player later lost all his funds, therefore we rejected this complaint.

The player from Italy had their winnings cancelled due to an accusation of illegal practices to win and the account was blocked. After our unsuccessful attempts to communicate the issue with the casino, we were informed that this case was brought to the licensing authority, which ruled in favor of Cashalot Casino. Because there was lack of transparency and communication from the casino's side, followed by insufficied evidence, which this case was based on, we had no other choice than to close this complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player's account got blocked for playing betting strategies. The casino failed to respond and we were forced to close this complaint as 'unresolved', we also recommended the player to contact the casino's licensing authority.

The player from Spain was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds. Later, we were informed that the casino confiscated a part of the player's winnings due to use of a prohibited strategy. The specific strategy doesn't give players any statistical advantage, therefore, we consider prohibiting it to be unfair. The player was only able to withdraw a fraction of his balance. The complaint was closed as 'Unresolved - Against fair gambling codex' because the casino refused to reconsider its decision in this case.