Casinoin Review

The player from Greece had been a long-time customer but was dissatisfied after requesting a withdrawal of €1700, which typically got resolved within minutes. However, the request was pending with the responsible parties, causing frustration. The Complaints Team intervened by facilitating communication and assisting the player in providing necessary documentation for verification. Ultimately, the issue was resolved, and the player expressed gratitude for the support received.

The player from Russia faced issues with withdrawing money from the casino, as his withdrawals were repeatedly canceled and additional verifications (including video verification) were requested. After a month, the player still had not received his funds and had not been informed about the reasons for the withdrawal cancellations. The Complaints Team intervened, and after confirming the player's documentation, the funds were eventually released. The player reported receiving the money, although he expressed dissatisfaction with the prolonged process.

The player from the United Kingdom faced delays in the account verification process, which surpassed the promised timeframe of 5 business days, extending to 7 days without clear communication from the casino. The player reported issues with an expired ID card and expressed concerns over the handling of his verification. After intervention from the Complaints Team, the issue was resolved, and the player received his winnings. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Greece had registered at the casino and deposited 500€ using credit cards and Skrill, resulting in a balance of 696.5€. The casino had requested various verification documents, including a credit card statement showing deposits, which the player was unable to provide. Despite forwarding an email from the credit card provider explaining the unavailability of this information, the player was still awaiting a response to the withdrawal request. The complaint had been closed as unjustified due to a breach of the casino's terms and conditions, with reasonable grounds to believe the player had engaged in prohibited activity in a specific Live Casino game.

The player from Colombia faced difficulties withdrawing 370 euros despite having met the wagering requirements and completed verification over 5 months prior. Although there were no active bonuses, the casino cited system issues for the delay, which lasted over a week. Additional information was requested from the player to better understand the situation. The player confirmed past successful withdrawals and mentioned the available payment methods. The issue was eventually resolved, and the player successfully withdrew his winnings.

The player from Greece tried to withdraw funds using a new card after their original card was stolen. Despite providing all requested verifications, the casino had been unresponsive since May 29th. After our intervention, the casino requested additional documents, which the player promptly provided. The issue was resolved, and the player successfully withdrew all winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Greece faced a delayed withdrawal. This wasn't the first incident; previously, a delay in processing a withdrawal of €3,000 led to the player gambling and losing the money. The player believed the casino intentionally delayed large withdrawals. We were unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Colombia had fulfilled the wagering requirements of a won free bet and turned the bonus balance into real money. When he sought to withdraw these winnings, he was informed that a review by the responsible department was pending. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. Due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to assist further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had reported that Casinoin had closed his account without warning, during an active online session. After he contacted the casino, he was advised either that he had no account or that additional accounts were found. The casino had not provided any proof or further response. The player admitted that a friend had once logged into their own account using the player's WiFi. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino, which provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the same IP, device ID, and Google ID. All these accounts had taken advantage of bonuses, which the casino deemed a violation of its terms and conditions. As a result, the Complaints Team rejected the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Brazil had had her winnings confiscated and her account closed despite having verified her identity. She had claimed to have only one account with the casino. Following a detailed investigation, the casino had cited allegations of unfair game and suspicious activity, stating that the player had had multiple accounts linked with similar names and the same payment method. The accounts had reportedly been used to take advantage of bonuses, a breach of the casino's terms and conditions. We had reviewed the evidence provided by the casino and had upheld their decision to close the player's account and confiscate her winnings.

The player from Austria had used a no-deposit free spins bonus at Casinoin and won 240 Euros. She had been under the impression that there was no withdrawal limit based on a conversation with customer support. However, she later discovered that there was indeed a withdrawal limit. The player had insisted on receiving her full winnings and provided screenshots of her interaction with customer support as evidence. We had concluded that the rules were clear and that one instance of support providing inaccurate information did not justify forcing the casino to fully pay her winnings. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece claimed that the casino unexpectedly closed her account without prior warning. She denied the casino's accusation of violating terms and conditions by having two accounts. The player had no funds in her account at the time of closure. We explained to the player that casinos could close accounts at their discretion as long as no funds were being withheld. Since no funds were involved, we decided not to investigate further and rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece, who had a fully verified account, struggled to withdraw €300, despite having been able to successfully withdraw €2000 in the past. The issue was eventually resolved and the player confirmed the successful receipt of his winnings.

The player from Greece had complained about his withdrawal requests being consistently cancelled without any clear reason, despite having received initial emails that the withdrawal was approved. He was continually advised via chat that the issue would be forwarded to the relevant department. He insisted that he only had one account and suggested that the casino might have created a second one without his knowledge. The casino, however, provided evidence of multiple accounts being used from the same device, which was a violation of their terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence, we concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece had requested the casino to block their IP address due to their gambling addiction but was informed it wasn't possible. Despite having used the same details and card for multiple accounts, the casino had advised them to use responsible gambling tools. The player had provided evidence of their request for self-exclusion. However, we had concluded that the casino's inability to block the player's IP address was not a violation as it wasn't a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the player's creation of multiple accounts using different email addresses had complicated the issue. We had advised the player to seek professional help for gambling addiction and to contact the licensing authority for further assistance. The complaint was rejected due to these reasons.

The player from Germany was struggling to withdraw his €3,000 winnings from an online casino. Despite having successfully deposited and withdrawn funds in the past using TRX or bank transfer, the casino had requested a €50 deposit via credit card for verification purposes. The player complied, but the casino then requested additional verification of a bank card deposit made four months prior. The player felt the casino was purposely delaying the payout. Despite our attempts to assist and clarify the situation, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leading to the closure of the complaint due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Greece had made a withdrawal request of 1,000 euros from an online casino, but her request had been rejected. The casino had initially stated that identification wasn't necessary for amounts up to 500 euros, but later asked for identification verification. After verification, the casino had accused the player of having multiple accounts and refused to pay out her winnings. The player had denied having multiple accounts and threatened legal action. The casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts to the Complaints Team. The team had found the evidence credible and justified the casino's actions. As a result, the player's complaint had been rejected.

The player from Greece, who confessed to being addicted to gambling, lodged a complaint against an online casino. He indicated that he had opened over 10 accounts at the casino, lost a considerable amount of money, and then requested a refund of 500 euros. Despite using similar email addresses to create these accounts, the casino did not take any action. The player claimed that he had requested self-exclusion six months ago, but the casino allowed him to continue making new accounts. However, the player failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. On the other hand, the casino presented evidence that the player had never initially requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction on his original account, and the casino's expected actions to detect multiple accounts based solely on similar email addresses and credit cards were unjustified since this was not an industry standard due to technical limitations. Consequently, we were unable to validate his complaint and were forced to reject it.

The player from Greece had made deposits to qualify for a special Christmas offer for free spins, but did not receive them despite having fulfilled the conditions. The casino had claimed he hadn't bet the total amount of his deposit. The player had insisted he had wagered his deposit. We had engaged in communication with both parties, and the casino had requested specific details about the promotion and deposit. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, leading to the case being rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Malta, who had been a regular at Casinoin for over a year, reported an issue with his withdrawal requests continually being rejected. Despite having been fully verified and not using any bonus money, the player was unable to receive his winnings. The casino informed the player that his case had been forwarded to a specialist department. However, no resolution was provided. After the player reported the issue to us, he subsequently informed us that he had received his money from Casinoin. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had won a large sum on the casino platform but had been unable to withdraw due to alleged technical issues for 5 days. The player had expressed frustration at receiving automated responses and felt deceived by the casino. After the player had reported the issue, some withdrawals were approved, but the technical issues persisted. The player eventually lost all their winnings due to betting again while waiting for the withdrawal issues to be resolved. The player also claimed that the casino had blocked their account. We concluded that the player was responsible for their account and bets, and unfortunately, we couldn't ask the casino to refund the lost winnings. We had suggested the player to use our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool to avoid similar situations in the future. The complaint was rejected due to these reasons.

The player from Greece had claimed to have requested self-exclusion due to gambling problems but was still allowed to deposit €300. She reported that the casino had been unresponsive and demanded an immediate refund. After reviewing the provided emails and investigating the issue, we found that the player had not directly requested self-exclusion from the casino. The player had used different login credentials for her accounts, which led to confusion. The casino had been unable to identify her second account, leading to the misunderstanding. After a thorough review, we concluded that the player was not eligible for a refund and closed the case as rejected.

The player from Greece had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. In response, we had advised him that withdrawals might take some time to process, potentially due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We had asked him to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. Despite extending the response time, the player failed to answer our messages, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Greece had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. After contacting the Complaints Team, he had been advised to wait for 14 days as withdrawals could take some time due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. Eight working days later, the player confirmed that his account had been identified and the amount had been credited. As a result, the Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece was unable to withdraw his €3400 winnings from CasinoIn. The casino's live chat had provided false reasons for not verifying his account. Two days had passed without a resolution. The player had previously made successful withdrawals and had submitted all necessary documents for verification. After we invited a CasinoIn representative to join the conversation, the player's account was verified and his withdrawal was processed. The complaint had been resolved successfully.

The player's complaint had been temporarily closed by us, pending the decision of Curacao Gaming, the regulator. We had assured the player that his complaint would be automatically reopened in three months and that we would update the final verdict based on the regulator's decision. We had also asked the player to contact us as soon as he received a response from Curacao Gaming.

The player from Finland is having withdrawal issues due to the casino's request for additional, irrelevant documents such as a friend's account information. The player claims these are not related to the origin of his funds. Until such documents are provided, the casino refuses to pay out his winnings. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Greece had suspected possible interference from the casino or the game provider after failing to win anything, despite having invested 600 euros and spun approximately 3,000 times. The casino had denied any technical problems. The player had further invested 400 euros, resulting in a total loss of 1000 euros without any winnings, which he found suspicious. We had informed the player that without substantial evidence of unfair play, such as a long history of lost deposits without any winnings or proof of the casino using an unofficial domain for games, we could not proceed with the complaint. We had suggested that the player could contact the casino's licensing authority or specific game providers for further investigation. The complaint was closed due to lack of evidence.

The player from Japan had $700 deducted from his account due to a purported 50% bonus usage at CasinoIn. Despite protesting this and providing evidence that he did not use this bonus, CasinoIn insists no mistakes were made on their part. From the information provided by the casino the bonus worked as intended. We have rejected the complaint.

The player from Montenegro had made a deposit with the expectation of receiving a promised bonus, which was not added. Despite winning 920 euros using his own money, he had faced difficulties with the withdrawal process due to unresponsive customer service. The player later indicated that the withdrawal had been approved, thus resolving the issue. However, without further confirmation from the player, we were compelled to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had referred a friend who had won a significant amount. However, the friend had faced withdrawal issues and was unable to complete the identification process. The player had then stepped in to chat with the casino administration, but as a result, both their accounts were closed. Despite our attempts to clarify the situation and extend the response time, the player did not provide any further information. Consequently, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had complained about the lengthy delay of withdrawal, which had subsequently been declined, and the funds had been returned to her account without explanation. The player had shared that the casino had requested documents for identification and proof of a cancelled card, which she had found difficult to provide. Eventually, she had gambled the remaining funds in her account and decided not to use the casino again. We were unable to assist in resolving the issue as the funds had been lost before the verification process was completed. The complaint had been closed due to this reason.

The player from Ontario won a large sum ($108,000 Canadian), but when checked the balance, only $1067 was registered. Despite contacting the casino, no evidence of the win was found. She does not have a screenshot and is appealing for there to be a record of the win somewhere. The complaint was rejected as due lack of evidence provided by the player.

The player from Greece was waiting for a withdrawal, but their payout was not received. Later, we closed the complaint as unjustified after it turned out that he operated multiple accounts and abused the casino's bonus offer. In addition, there was another linked account (the 3rd one), and the complainant obviously provided us with misleading information several times during the course of the process. The winnings on his disputed account were gained from a bonus so he is not entitled to the winnings obtained in this way. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The player from Japan had had an issue with CASINOIN regarding their withdrawal process. The player had been concerned about the extensive KYC verification process, during which he had been repeatedly asked to submit various documents. He had suspected that the constant request for documentation was a tactic to withhold his earnings. After a series of communications between the player, the complaints team, and the casino, the player managed to submit all the necessary documents for verification. The casino then confirmed that the player's KYC process had been completed successfully, and the player confirmed that he had been able to withdraw his winnings. The issue had thus been resolved.

The player from Japan is facing extensive KYC verification requirements from CasinoIn, preventing her from withdrawing her funds. Despite submitting numerous documents, the casino continues to request additional materials. The player does not have a passport and is unsure what other legitimate proof of identity can be provided. We requested further information from the player and since the player didn't respond to our questions and messages we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had experienced account deactivation at a balance of 516.66 euros due to allegations of multiple linked accounts. The player had asserted that he had completed all KYC procedures and that the only other person who had used his device to play was a friend, who had a separate account. The casino had alleged a violation but did not initially provide specific details. After discussions with our Complaints Team, the casino had agreed to reopen the player's account as an exception. The player had confirmed that he was able to access his account and withdraw his funds. The complaint had then been marked as resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited money from her N26 account to her casino account, but the funds were not credited. Despite her communication with the casino, the issue remained unresolved. She had then provided the Complaints Team with a receipt of her transaction. The team had advised her that the process of locating and refunding her funds could take around a month. However, the issue was resolved before the given timeline as the money had been credited to her casino account. The complaint was subsequently closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Canada had registered at the casino two weeks prior and had been repeatedly reassured by agents about the ease of withdrawals. However, she had struggled to withdraw her funds. The Complaints Team had tried to understand the issue, asking for more details about the receipt of transfer requested by the casino. Despite extending the response timer by 7 days, the player had not replied to the team's queries. Therefore, we could not investigate further, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Quebec is dissatisfied because the casino keeps rejecting his withdrawal requests. Despite reaching out numerous times, the casino has claimed there are issues with their payment system. The player lost their entire balance of $31,500 and is seeking compensation. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Greece claims that his self-exclusion request was irresponsibly handled by the casino, leading him back into gambling. He alleges that the casino violated GDPR laws by sending him promotional material during his self-exclusion period, further temptation which resulted in significant financial loss and emotional distress. He is seeking compensation in the amount of €10,000. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

A player from Greece is struggling to withdraw their winnings of 60 euros from Rise of Olympus game due to a disputable bonus scheme. Casino denies the claim, blaming the internet connectivity. The player has already reported the issue to police and ministry. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Greece is complaining about the casino's bonus system. After depositing and receiving a bonus, winnings from the bonus were capped. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Greece submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from Greece is having issues withdrawing $300 from his casino account. Despite providing necessary documents and complying with their requests, the casino claims he has duplicate accounts which he denies. His account has since been inaccessible. After gathering and reviewing all the necessary details and information provided by the casino, we concluded that the issue relates to sports betting play and breaching its rules. The complainant started playing slots only after the casino asked him to verify his account and started checking his account activity. Later, although we do not deal with sports betting-related complaints, we were able to say that there are reasonable grounds to believe we are talking about multiple accounts used by 1 person or collusion. Therefore, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from New Zealand complains about game glitches and sudden major losses in the casino. They suspect foul play and request a full refund. Since there has not been any specific issue with a missing bet, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Portugal is upset because after making a deposit via bank transfer, the casino didn't provide the same method for withdrawal. Despite making another deposit through JETON hoping to withdraw winnings, no withdrawal methods were available. The player lost all funds and closed the account, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Greece tried to withdraw his winnings, but the casino canceled all withdrawal requests. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece 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 Greece requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. His money has not been received. After gathering all the necessary information provided by the casino, the complaint was closed as unjustified. There are reasonable grounds to believe multiple accounts were used by 1 person and the casino's bonuses were abused, which means a serious breach of the casino's terms and conditions and an unfair advantage. The provided evidence clearly shows that more than 1 account was used from the same IP/device, and both accounts used the same bonus offer. It would be very difficult or even impossible to prove anything else.

The player from Japan is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece had his casino account blocked. After receiving the details from the casino, we concluded there are strong and reasonable grounds to believe we are talking about multiple account use and bonus abuse. According to the provided evidence in combination with the complainant's claims and inconsistencies between the versions he provided, it would be very difficult or even impossible to prove that he did not play with both connected accounts. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and conditions, and we accept its decision.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings from the casino due to incomplete verification of the payment method. The player confirmed the verification was successful and the player cashed out his winnings.

The player from Greece 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 been blocked without further explanation. After gathering all the necessary information, we decided to close this complaint as unjustified due to breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions - reasonable grounds to believe the player registered and used more than one account in the casino. In the given circumstances, it would be very hard or even impossible to prove that he did not play with other connected accounts. The casino acted in accordance with its Terms and Conditions.

The player struggles to withdraw his winnings due ongoing verification. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

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 the Czech Republic is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. He is also not able to access his account. The player later confirmed that the verification was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece accumulated a significant amount of winnings. The casino first reduced his winnings and later restricted his account completely. The casino responded and explained that there was a technical fault that had caused the players losing bets to remain in their balance. While investigating this, it also came to light that the player had multiple accounts at the casino and so was in breach of the terms and conditions. As sufficient proof of all of the above was provided, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece has 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 from Greece 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 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 Greece has 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 from Greece has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. The casino explained the player was paid, however since we haven't received a confirmation from the player we rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

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 lost their winnings, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

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 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 Greece has 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 from Greece 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 been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to unfinished bonus wagering. Consequently, the entire balance was cancelled. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece 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 Germany has been blocked since the casino discovered that he created more than one account. The player requested that their first account be closed permanently without specifying a reason, but then later opened a second account using different details to register it. In doing so, the player circumvented the terms of the casino and so the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal one day prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The palyer from Canada is requesting a full deposit refund since their withdrawal limit was lowered for the first 24 hours from the deposit. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played before we could intervene.

The player from India had been experiencing difficulties withdrawing winnings. Based on the data and evidence received from the casino, the complaint was rejected because it turned out the player intentionally sent incorrect documents for verification to the casino, lost his disputed funds and later asked the casino to close his account forever. The casino proceeded correctly.

The player from Greece is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds, because the transactions to the preferred payment methods have been declined. We rejected the complaint because the player decided he was no longer interested in our help.

The player from Germany complains about false bonus advertisement. After the casino representatives were involved in resoling the issue and informed us that they received a query about this topic, however they were not able to locate the email address of the recipient, the player stopped responding and we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds, because the transactions to his preferred payment methods have been declined. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.