Blaze Spins Casino - Player’s withdrawal has been delayed.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. We are sorry to hear about the issue with your withdrawal and understand your concern. However, please bear in mind that it’s quite usual for withdrawals to take a couple of days or even weeks to get fully processed. This means that it may take some time before your money appears in your account. This delay may be caused by unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests.
That’s why we advise players to be patient, cooperate fully with casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawals before submitting a complaint.

If your account has been successfully verified, your game history checked, your withdrawal approved by the casino, and you still haven't received your winnings by 14 days since requesting the withdrawal, we will intervene and do our best to help you.
Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.

Best regards,
Complaints Resolution Center

Dear Nunyabiz6,

I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience with Blaze Spins Casino. Please allow me to ask you a few questions so I can better understand the situation.

• Were you informed at any point that the bonus terms and conditions remain applicable even after the wagering requirement has been completed?
• Could you please confirm whether your casino account balance was divided into real money and bonus money balances?
• Did the balance you continued playing with appear as "withdrawable"/"real money", or were your winnings still displayed in the bonus balance?
• Did you play casino games or bet on sports?

I hope we will be able to help you resolve this issue as soon as possible.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Dear Casino Guru Team,

Thank you for picking up my complaint. Here are the answers to your questions, supported by the evidence I have attached.

1. Were you informed that bonus terms remain applicable?

No. Once the wagering requirement was completed, the system automatically converted the funds. There was no notification or indication that any restrictions remained. I was under the impression I was playing with my own unrestricted funds.

2. Was the balance divided into real money and bonus money?

No. My entire balance was converted to Real Money.

Evidence: Please see the attached screenshot (Image 1) from my transaction log. The system explicitly labeled the funds as "Type: Deposit" and "Real Money." It was not labeled as "Bonus" or "Restricted."

3. Did the balance appear as withdrawable/real money?

Yes. As shown in the screenshot, the system treated the funds as a standard Deposit. I continued to play for approximately 18 hours with this balance, believing it was fully legitimate Real Money. If the system intended to enforce a max cashout, it should have done so at the moment of conversion, not 18 hours later after I had risked those funds

to win more.

4. Did you play casino games or sports?

I played Casino Games (Slots), specifically "3 Hot Chillies" by 3 Oaks Gaming.

Summary of the Issue:

The casino's system authorized me to play with what it labeled "Real Money" for nearly a full day. I risked this balance to generate new winnings of ~$3,000.

Then, a human administrator (labeled "Admin" in the logs - see Image 2) manually intervened to confiscate the winnings retroactively. This was not an automatic system correction; it was a manual seizure of funds that I had won fairly using what the system told me was Real Money.

Thank you for your assistance.

While I wait for a response, I have gathered forensic evidence that proves the Casino's "Responsible Gaming" (RG) defense is fabricated.

They claim my account is "Permanently Closed":

Attached: Screenshot taken Dec 15 at 1:20 AM [evidence.jpg].

Proof: I can still log in, access the wallet, and view "Welcome" bonuses. The account is active. Their claim of a "Safety Closure" is false; they only used the label to confiscate the balance.

They claim they banned me for "Protection":

Attached: Screenshot of my Bonus Dashboard [1000012701.png].

Proof: After they applied the so-called RG ban, they sent me an offer for 40 Free Spins. This marketing offer has since been deleted from my account by their team, but I secured this screenshot first. This proves they were marketing to me after the alleged ban.

I request this evidence be added to the file immediately.

Dear Nunyabiz6, thank you for your response.

Could you please forward your communication with the casino? Send emails or chat transcripts to my email at attila.g@casino.guru, or post screenshots here.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

To the Mediator:

I have just forwarded the full email correspondence to your provided email address as requested.

I have also included the screenshots referenced above, which prove:

1. The Casino's public claim of a 'Safety Ban' is false (Account is still active).

2. The Casino's claim of 'Bonus Funds' is false (Balance was manually reset to Real Money).

Please confirm when you have received these documents.

Thank you.

Dear Nunyabiz6, thank you for your response. I can confirm I have received your email.

Could you please advise how much were your bonus winnings before they were manually reset to $69.76 CAD?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the sequence of events. There are three critical facts that prove my C$3,002.95 winnings were confiscated in bad faith after they had already been converted to real money:

1. The Terms were Already Fulfilled and Capped

After I completed the bonus playthrough (from a balance of approx. $546), the casino's system immediately performed a legitimate reset to $69.76 CAD to satisfy the 'Max Cashout' terms. At this exact moment, the bonus was closed and the funds were converted to my Cash Balance.

2. I was Playing as a Funded, Real-Money Player

My account already had a verified '1 Deposit' status from a crypto deposit I made in November. After the first reset to $69.76, my balance page displayed these funds alongside my deposit history, leading me to the correct understanding that I was now playing with my own finalized cash. I then legitimately won my way from that 69.76 up to 3,002.95

3. Weaponized RG Ban and The 'Verified' Trap

When I requested a withdrawal for the $3,002.95 and questioned the KYC delay, Blaze Spins unfairly tagged me for Responsible Gambling (RG) and banned me for a few hours. While I was locked out, they performed an illegitimate second deduction, stripping my $3,002.95 down to $70.

Most dammingly, the moment the money was removed, they suddenly 'Verified' my KYC and lifted the ban, telling me I could now withdraw the $70. This proves the RG tag was a fabrication used specifically to facilitate the theft of my winnings while I could not access my account.

I am requesting the restoration of my C$2,932.95 balance. The casino cannot 'double-cap' a bonus that was already settled and won using funds that their own system recognized as cash in a funded account.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your cooperation and for providing all the necessary information. I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share everything with us so far.

Your complaint will now move to the next stage of our process and be handled by your dedicated Resolver, Igor (igor.p@casino.guru). This is a standard step in our procedure, as the Resolver will take over communication with the casino directly and manage your case from this point onward.

No action is required from you right now. Your Resolver will reach out through this thread if any additional details are needed. You can rest assured that your case is in very capable hands.

I wish you the best of luck and hope your case will be resolved to your satisfaction soon.

Kind regards,

Attila G.

First of all, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years. Also sincerely thank you for all your help so far and for accepting my complaint and taking it serious. It's a pretty hopeless feeling being in this situation. It's my first time going through this and I must say it's not been pleasant but you guys have given me hope and I sincerely appreciate all your help so far and all your help to come. Thank you kindly. Take care and reach out if you need me to clarify anything or provide any more documentation. Anything I can do to help I am more than happy to do.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

I am so sorry to hear about your problem with the Blaze Spins Casino. I will contact the casino and try to resolve the issue as soon as possible.

Now I would like to invite a Blaze Spins Casino representative to join this conversation and participate in resolving this complaint.

Dear Blaze Spins Casino,

Could you comment on the situation?

Thank you in advance for providing the information.

It has now been several days since this complaint was opened, and Blaze Spins has still not provided a response either here or to my private emails. It is very concerning that a casino would remain silent regarding the confiscation of $3,002.95 in legitimate winnings after I have already completed KYC. I am still waiting for the casino to do the right thing and settle this matter.

Hi Igor, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

With the timer entering the final 24 hours and still no response from Blaze Spins, I was hoping you could clarify the process from here.

Since I’ve already provided all my evidence, what exactly happens if the clock runs out? Specifically, does the complaint close automatically, and how does a non-response from them affect the final ruling on my claim?

I just want to understand what the outcome looks like for me if they continue to stay silent. Thanks for your help!

Dear Igor,

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify Blaze Spins’ position.

Following a full review of the player’s gameplay, transaction records and account history, we confirm that the entirety of the disputed winnings originated from a free bonus promotion. As stated in the applicable promotion terms, this bonus is subject to a maximum cashout of USD 50, which corresponds to CAD 69.76 at the time of settlement.

We would also like to clarify that promotions remain active until all associated winnings are fully withdrawn as per the Bonus Terms. Accordingly, the promotion and its restrictions, including the maximum cashout rule, remained applicable, as no successful withdrawal had yet been completed. The balance adjustment to CAD 69.76 therefore represents the correct enforcement of the promotion’s maximum cashout, as the promotion had not concluded.

Additionally, during communication with our support team, the player indicated gambling-related concerns which is why the account was closed. This action was independent of the bonus review. The player remains eligible to withdraw CAD 69.76 upon successful completion of KYC, after which the account will remain permanently closed for players protection.

Kind regards,

Maria

Blaze Spins Casino

Hi Igor,

I reject the casino's response. Maria's statement relies on a distorted timeline. Here is the actual sequence of events, which proves the "Max Cashout" rule was applied twice to the same funds.

The 'Active Bonus' Falsehood (Double Deduction)

Maria claims the bonus remains active until withdrawal. This ignores the fact that the system already executed the bonus terms.

The First Deduction (The Real Cap): When I completed the playthrough requirements, my balance was approximately 500.

The system automatically deducted the excess funds and reset my balance to 69.76 CAD. At that specific moment, the bonus terms were satisfied and the funds converted to Real Money.

Real Money Play: I continued playing with that cleansed $69.76 balance. I grew the balance to approximately $1,000 and attempted a withdrawal. The casino did not void the funds then; they simply asked for KYC.

The Second Deduction (The Theft): While waiting for KYC, I continued playing and reached $3,002.95. It was only after I inquired about the delay that the casino manually deducted the balance a second time, resetting it to $70. You cannot apply a max cashout rule twice—once to the bonus, and again to the real money won from it.

The 'KYC' Falsehood

Maria states I must "successfully complete KYC."

The Evidence: Please see the attached email from the Blaze Spins Accounts Team dated Dec 6, 2025. It explicitly states: "Your KYC verification is all done! Your account is now fully verified."

The 'Account Closure' Lie

Maria claims my account was "permanently closed" for "player protection." This is false.

The Evidence: Please see the attached screenshot. It clearly shows me logged into my account, accessing the wallet, with the date 2025-12-15 visible on the taskbar.

The Trap: They didn't close the account for safety; they left it open hoping I would play the remaining $70 and lose it.

Update: I was only banned from the site today (Jan 5), immediately after Maria posted her reply. This proves the "Safety Ban" narrative is a fabrication created today to justify the theft.

Summary: The bonus was cleared and capped at the $500 to $69 stage. The subsequent $3,000 win was legitimate real money play. I request the full reinstatement of my $3,002.95 balance.

Dear Blaze Spins Casino,

Could you please comment on the situation and explain why the player’s balance was capped twice?

Also, was the player informed that the balance would be capped even after wagering, upon the withdrawal request?

I would like to provide a brief update. While attempting to access the site's Terms and Conditions yesterday (Jan 8th) to review Rule 4.3, I was automatically logged into my account. This confirms that my account was active and accessible at that time, contradicting the casino's earlier claim that it had been closed for addiction issues.

However, as of today (Jan 9th), the casino has blocked my access entirely. This appears to be a manual intervention following my recent activity in this dispute. I remain focused on the manual Admin deduction of my $2,932.95 cash balance and look forward to the casino's explanation for that specific transaction.

Dear Igor,

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your follow-up. Please find Blaze Spins clarification below.

Under the Bonus Terms Clause 1.25 – Promotional Lifespan, promotions remain active until all associated winnings are fully withdrawn.

The earlier balance change referenced by the player was an intermediate system display and not the closure of the promotion. Since no successful withdrawal occurred, the promotion and its restrictions, including the maximum cashout, remained applicable.

The final adjustment to CAD 69.76 represents the correct enforcement of the promotions maximum cashout at the point of settlement.

The player was informed through the Bonus Terms, which are publicly available, accessible prior to registration, and accepted by the player during registration.

Specifically, the Bonus Terms Clause 1.25 states:

"Promotions remain active until all associated winnings are fully withdrawn. Depositing more funds or lowering the balance below $1 does not deactivate the promotion."

This clause informs players that the maximum cashout remains enforceable until a withdrawal of the winnings associated with the promotion is successfully finalized.

Based on the above, the balance adjustment applied reflects the correct enforcement of the Bonus Terms.

Kind regards,

Maria

Blaze Spins Casino

Dear Igor,

I strongly reject the Casino’s explanation.

The Casino claims that the system resetting my balance and labeling it as "Type: Deposit" with a status of "Success" (Transaction ID 11459529) was merely an "intermediate system display." This is factually incorrect and deceptive.

When a system deducts excess funds, resets a balance to a specific cap, and relabels the funds as a "Deposit," the Bonus Contract is concluded. A player cannot be expected to know that funds explicitly labeled "Deposit" in the casino’s own ledger are actually "Secret Bonus Funds" subject to a second cap.

Furthermore, regarding the Casino’s reliance on Clause 1.25 ("terms remain active until withdrawn"):

I have been researching similar complaints against Blaze Spins on Casino Guru, specifically the case of user Puyops (handled by you, Igor), where the Casino used this exact same argument.

In that case, you stated clearly:

"According to our policy and point of view, bonus terms should not remain in effect after the wagering is completed... We consider this practice unfair and contrary to fair gambling principles."

The Casino is attempting to enforce a rule that Casino Guru has already deemed unfair. They capped my bonus once (down to $69.76), and now they are attempting to cap my Real Money winnings a second time based on a predatory clause.

I request that you apply the same standard here as you did in the previous case: The "Deposit" funds were mine to play with, and the subsequent winnings of $3,002.95 should be paid in full.

Dear Blaze Spins Casino,

Was there any advantage the player gained by not withdrawing the money immediately after wagering?

Dear Igor,

Dear Nunyabiz6,

 

There is a potential advantage associated with not withdrawing immediately after the wagering requirement is completed.

If, after completing the wagering requirement, the players balance is below the maximum cashout defined in the promotion terms, continuing gameplay allows the player the opportunity to increase the balance so that the permitted maximum cashout can be withdrawn.

In this specific case, however, the players balance had already reached the maximum cashout amount defined by the promotion at the relevant stage. Therefore, the player was already eligible to withdraw the maximum permitted winnings under the bonus terms.

Any subsequent gameplay after that point, while still technically allowed, does not create entitlement to withdraw amounts exceeding the promotions maximum cashout. Continuing to play only extends the gameplay session, but it does not alter or override the predefined maximum cashout set by the promotion terms.

In summary, while extended gameplay provides an advantage by giving the player the opportunity to reach the maximum cashout where it has not yet been achieved, it does not grant the right to withdraw more than the stated maximum cashout.

Kind regards,

Maria

Blaze Spins Casino

Dear Igor,

I would like to thank the Casino for their honesty in this latest reply, as they have just confirmed exactly why their action is unfair.

The Casino admits: "The player was already eligible to withdraw the maximum permitted winnings."

If I was eligible to withdraw, but chose to play the funds that were in my balance, I was risking that money.

If I had lost the $69.76, the money would be gone. The Casino would have kept it.

But the Casino claims that if I won (which I did), I am not allowed to keep the winnings.

This creates a situation where the player can Lose, but cannot Win. This is the definition of a rigged game and runs contrary to all fair gambling principles.

Furthermore, the Casino claims this was just an "extended gameplay session." This is factually false based on the evidence.

As proven by Transaction ID 11459529, the system:

Deducted the excess funds.

Reset the balance.

Labeled the new funds as "Type: Deposit".

A system labeling funds as a "Deposit" is the start of a New Session, not the extension of an old one.

Since the Casino admits I gained no advantage, and since I was risking funds that the system labeled as a "Deposit," I request that the confiscation be overturned and the $3,002.95 be paid.

Dear Blaze Spins Casino,

Could you please clarify what would have been different, in terms of balance and funds, if the player had withdrawn the money from bonus at the moment their balance was capped?

Dear Igor,

I am updating the thread to report that I attempted to contact Blaze Spins directly to reach a resolution, as is standard practice. I received a final reply from their Compliance Team ("James") stating:

"We consider this matter closed and will not be engaging in further correspondence regarding this issue."

This response is highly concerning for three reasons:

Refusal to Mediate: By declaring the matter "closed" while your mediation is active, the casino is explicitly refusing to participate in a fair review.

Ignoring the Core Issue: They have completely ignored your specific question regarding the "no-win" nature of the funds. They have failed to explain why I was allowed to risk a balance that they had already "capped," which placed me in a position where I could lose my money but never truly win.

Shifting Narratives: This is now the third different reason given for the confiscation. First, the account was closed for "addiction"; then they cited Clause 1.25 (Promotional Lifespan); and now they are claiming it was a "$50 Free Promotion." This constant shifting of "facts" demonstrates that they are searching for any technicality to justify an "Admin Deduction" that was manually performed.

The casino admits I gained no advantage, yet they are refusing to address the fact that my balance was reset and labeled as a "Deposit". Since the casino has officially ended communication and refused to address the logic of the "Freeroll" situation, I request that you now proceed to a formal ruling based on the facts you have already identified.

Thank you for your help in holding this operator accountable.

Dear Igor,

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your question.

In regular circumstances, if a player withdraws immediately once the wagering requirements are done the outcome is straightforward - the bonus cycle is concluded at the time of withdrawal when the max cashout amount is paid out (subject to any outstanding KYC/withdrawal checks), and the player’s account is then clear to continue normal activity - make new deposits, participate in new promotions (if eligible), and start a new, unrelated gameplay session under standard rules.

In this specific case, the player’s circumstances changed after they communicated gambling-related concerns to our support team. For responsible gambling reasons, the account was handled under our player protection process, meaning the player will not be able to continue gambling activities or access further promotional/deposit gameplay going forward, irrespective of whether they withdraw now or later

In addition, we would like to clarify that the ledger entry the player references was not labeled as a standard ‘Deposit’ (cash/real-money). It was labeled as a Bonus Deposit, a bonus-related credit tied to the promotion. This label indicates the funds remained promotional in nature and subject to the promotion’s rules (including the maximum cashout) until the promotion’s settlement conditions were met.

Kind regards,

Maria

Blaze Spins Casino

Dear Igor,

The Casino is providing false information to the mediation.

Please look at the evidence I already uploaded (Screenshot of Transaction ID: 11459529).

The Casino claims in their reply: "It was labeled as a Bonus Deposit."

This is factually untrue.

My evidence shows the system labeled it exactly as:

Type: Deposit

Status: Success

The word "Bonus" does not appear in the "Type" field on the transaction record.

Furthermore, regarding your question:

The Casino admits that "if a player withdraws immediately... the bonus cycle is concluded."

They have failed to explain what the mathematical difference is between withdrawing and redepositing, versus simply playing. They admitted that if I withdrew, the funds were mine. Since there is no difference between "funds in hand" and "funds in account," their argument collapses.

They are now resorting to fabricating ledger labels ("Bonus Deposit") that do not exist in the evidence to justify a confiscation.

I request a ruling based on the visible evidence, not the Casino's false claims.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Earlier, you mentioned a similar complaint with Blaze Spins Casino that I am also handling.

Please note that in that case, the bonus was a deposit bonus with a sticky part.

Therefore, this complaint cannot be handled in the same way.

Additionally, I would like to ask whether you made any deposits after claiming the bonus until it was capped for the second time.

Dear Igor,

Thank you for the clarification regarding the differences between my case and the other complaint.

To answer your question: No, I did not make any additional deposits between claiming the bonus and the second balance adjustment.

The sequence was as follows:

I claimed the No Deposit Bonus.

I completed the wagering requirements.

The system automatically executed a "Max Cashout" reset, deducting my excess winnings and leaving a balance of $69.76.

At that exact moment, the system generated Transaction 11459529, labeling the funds as "Type: Deposit" and "Status: Success."

I played with those funds—which the system officially classified as a Deposit—to win the $3,002.95.

Since I did not mix any new outside funds, the $69.76 was the final, settled amount the casino gave me. I then risked those settled funds to win the $3,002.95. As I gained no advantage and the system told me I was playing with a "Deposit," I believe the full amount should be paid.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

You mentioned that you made a crypto deposit in November.

What was your exact balance in casino at the moment you claimed this no-deposit bonus?

Dear Igor,

I can confirm that my balance was exactly **$0.00** at the moment I activated the no-deposit bonus.

The mathematical proof of this is found in the first "Max Cashout" reset performed by the system. When I completed the wagering, the system reduced my balance to exactly **$69.76 CAD** (the exchange equivalent of the $50 USD cap). If there had been any pre-existing cash balance in my account—even a few cents—the final balance after that reset would have been higher than the cap. The fact that it was exactly the capped amount proves the starting balance was zero.

I would also like to clarify the $0.24 discrepancy between the two deductions:

1. The first reset to **$69.76** was automated by the system.

2. The second "cap" to **$70.00** was performed manually by an Admin after I won the $3,002.95.

This minor difference is clearly due to manual rounding by the casino staff during the second manual deduction, and not because of any residual funds in my account.

This confirms that I did not mix any funds at any stage. I played only with the $69.76 that the system officially labeled as a "Deposit" in Transaction ID 11459529. As I relied on the casino's own system classification of these funds as cash, I believe the full winnings should be paid.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Unfortunately, the casino has a rule clearly stating that the maximum win applies until the winnings are withdrawn.

Additionally, there was no balance prior to claiming the bonus, and no deposit was made during the wagering.

Therefore, the entire balance from the moment the bonus was claimed until the withdrawal attempt did not constitute real-money balance.

For some casinos, it is unfortunately technically impossible to display this distinction correctly.

Since the bonus was wagered, it is no longer bonus money. However, at the same time, it is not a free balance without restrictions.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, we will now proceed to reject this complaint. Thank you for your understanding. I am genuinely sorry that we were not able to assist you more effectively in this particular situation, as we always aim to help players resolve their issues whenever possible.

Please remember that you are welcome to contact us again if you run into any problems with this or any other casino in the future. Whether it is a question, a concern or a new issue that needs to be looked into, our team is here and ready to support you.

Best regards,

Igor

Dear Nunyabiz6 and Blaze Spins Casino,

Following an internal discussion within our team, we have decided to reopen this case for further review.

In the past, we handled a very similar situation (1Go Casino – player’s withdrawal delayed and winnings capped twice), where a player’s no-deposit bonus winnings were effectively capped twice. In that case, we concluded that such practice was against our Fair Gambling Codex.

Our position is the following:

Once bonus wagering requirements are completed and the system transfers the funds to a real-money balance — or clearly marks them as a deposit/real balance — those funds should be treated accordingly. Bonus rules should not continue to apply indefinitely after wagering is completed, unless this is very clearly and transparently communicated to the player in advance.

The only situation where we were willing to accept such an approach was when the casino had a clear, unavoidable warning (for example, a pop-up notification) informing the player that the maximum cashout restriction would still apply even after wagering was completed and until a successful withdrawal was processed.

We have been informed by the casino that such a warning (pop-up) was in place.

Therefore, we would now like to ask the casino to clarify:

• What exactly does this pop-up state?

• At what moment is it displayed to the player?

• Is it mandatory to acknowledge before continuing to play?

• Can the casino provide a screenshot or system proof of this pop-up as seen by the player in this specific case?

My email address is petronela.k@casino.guru.

This information is essential for us to determine whether the player was sufficiently and transparently informed about the continued application of the maximum cashout rule.

We will await the casino’s clarification before proceeding further.

Best regards,

Petronela

Dear Petronela,

Thank you for reopening this case and aligning the review with the **Fair Gambling Codex**.

I would like to state clearly for the record: **No such pop-up notification or warning was ever displayed to me.**

The Casino’s claim regarding this "warning" should be viewed with extreme suspicion, as they have demonstrated a consistent pattern of providing false information throughout this mediation:

1. **Fabricated Ledger Evidence:** The Casino explicitly claimed in this thread that the ledger was labeled 'Bonus Deposit.' As the evidence proves, this was a lie; the system labeled it **'Type: Deposit / Status: Success.'**

2. **Weaponized RG Labels:** The Casino claimed they applied a 'Responsible Gaming' tag for my protection. However, immediately after seizing the $3,000, they **reopened my account** with the remaining $70 and invited me to gamble. No legitimate safety protocol allows an "at-risk" player to continue gambling with a reduced balance. This was clearly a predatory attempt to bait me into losing the remaining funds so the dispute would vanish.

3. **Lack of Documentation:** Despite having 60+ days to provide proof of this alleged "pop-up," the Casino only mentioned it now that their previous arguments have failed.

The only system confirmation I received was **Transaction ID 11459529**, which confirmed a successful deposit. I relied on your Codex, which states that once win limits are applied, funds should be treated as cash.

I look forward to seeing if the Casino can produce "system proof" for a notification that never occurred.

We would like to ask the casino to reply to this complaint. We are extending the timer by 7 days. If the casino fails to respond in the set time frame, we will close the complaint as ‘unresolved’ which may negatively affect its rating.

Dear Petronela,

Thank you for your detailed response and for reopening the case to ensure a fair and transparent review. I fully understand and respect your position regarding the Fair Gambling Codex.

Below, I would like to clarify our position:

1. Acceptance of Terms

• Players cannot create an account without first accepting both our Casino Terms and Conditions and Bonus Terms and Conditions.
• The maximum cashout rule, including its continued application after wagering requirements are completed, is clearly stated within these terms.

2. Pop-up Notification After Wagering Completion

• Our system is configured to display an automatic pop-up notification immediately after the wagering requirements are fulfilled.
• This notification clearly informs the player that the maximum cashout rule continues to apply even after wagering has been fulfilled and remains in effect until a successful withdrawal request has been processed.
• Due to technical limitations of the third-party platform we operate on, it cannot be made mandatory or require manual acknowledgment.

3. Good Faith Improvements

Following previous discussions with your team, we have already taken steps to improve transparency by updating and clarifying our Bonus Terms and Conditions to help prevent potential misunderstandings.

To support our position, I am providing all requested details and sending the following supporting materials to your email:

• A front-end screenshot demonstrating how the pop-up appears to the player, including the exact text displayed.
• A back-end configuration screenshot confirming that the pop-up is active within the system, with matching text to what is shown on the front end.

I believe we have taken reasonable and good-faith steps to inform players about the continued application of the maximum cashout rule.

Nevertheless, we remain open to your feedback and will fully cooperate with your final assessment.

Kind regards,

Matthew

Blaze Spins Team

Dear Blaze Spins Casino,

Thank you for your detailed response and for providing the requested materials. We appreciate your cooperation and the clarification of your position.

We would like to inform all involved parties that yesterday we contacted the casino with several additional questions in order to fully assess the situation and ensure that all relevant aspects are properly reviewed.

Once we receive the requested clarification, we will continue with our evaluation and update this complaint thread accordingly.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

Thank you, Petronela, for your continued oversight. However, I must formally object to the timer being reset to 7 days yet again. This dispute began on December 6th, and the Casino has already provided multiple inconsistent defenses.

I would like to highlight a critical technical contradiction for the public record: The previous mediator, Igor, already confirmed in this thread that the Casino’s system was 'technically impossible to display this distinction correctly.'

If the system was technically incapable of distinguishing between funds or displaying them correctly in December, it is logically impossible for it to have had a 'mandatory and unavoidable pop-up' specifically for that purpose.

Furthermore, in their last response, the Casino explicitly admitted that this notification 'cannot be made mandatory or require manual acknowledgment.' Per the Fair Gambling a non-mandatory notification is not an 'unavoidable warning.'

Because the Casino has already admitted their system is technically limited and the warning is avoidable, I request that you hold them to a verifiable, account-specific standard. A generic screenshot is not evidence. I require a timestamped server log proving this specific UI element was triggered for my User ID at the exact moment of Transaction 11459529.

If this cannot be provided within 48 hours, I request that you move immediately to a final ruling for the full $3,002.95 CAD. Allowing further stalls for a proven 'impossible' feature is an unreasonable burden on the player.

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for outlining your concerns so clearly.

Please allow me to clarify the decisive point in this case.

As part of our extended investigation, we specifically requested from the casino a full explanation of the exact mechanics of the pop-up window displayed after wagering completion. This element became the key factor in our assessment.

As you know, Casino Guru generally stands firmly behind the position that once wagering requirements are completed and bonus winnings are capped, the player should be considered to be playing with their own funds. In contrast, the casino’s position is that bonus terms — including max cashout and related restrictions — continue to apply even after wagering is completed, until a successful withdrawal is processed.

While we strongly believe that if a player withdrew capped winnings and then redeposited them, the situation would effectively be identical, we are willing to accept the casino’s interpretation provided that the player is clearly and demonstrably warned that bonus terms remain in effect. Transparency is the crucial factor.

We have now received a full video from the casino demonstrating how the pop-up window functions. The video shows the complete mechanics: once wagering is completed, a pop-up appears informing the player that bonus terms continue to apply. The player must actively close this window for it to disappear.

Although this solution is not ideal and may indeed be somewhat confusing, it does constitute a visible warning. Importantly, since this was a no-deposit bonus and since the system appears to notify the player that bonus conditions remain active even after wagering, this materially affects our evaluation.

Please be assured that we thoroughly investigated this matter, requested as many technical details as possible, and carefully reviewed the materials provided. The existence and functioning of this pop-up window ultimately made the difference in our assessment.

That said, I would like to emphasize that we do not consider this implementation optimal. I fully understand that players may not clearly associate this pop-up with capped winnings, especially as it does not explicitly reference max cashout limits, max bet rules, restricted games, or other key bonus limitations.

As constructive feedback, we will recommend that the casino:

• Clearly reference max bet, max cashout, and restricted games directly in the pop-up text,
• Make the warning more prominent and visually distinct,
• Improve clarity to avoid any ambiguity for players.

Nunyabiz6, in one of your earlier statements, you mentioned that no such pop-up appeared. However, based on the technical demonstration we received, the system is configured to generate this notification automatically. Since the window requires active action from the player to close it, it is possible that it may have been closed unintentionally or without fully reviewing its content — especially if it appeared at a moment of continued gameplay.

We fully acknowledge that the pop-up is relatively small and does not explicitly reference all key bonus limitations (such as max bet, max cashout amount, or restricted games), which may contribute to confusion. We do not consider this implementation ideal and recommended that the casino improve both the clarity and prominence of this warning.

That said, because this was a no-deposit bonus and because the system appears to provide a visible warning that bonus terms remain applicable after wagering is completed, this element significantly affects our assessment. On that basis, we are currently inclined to close the complaint as rejected.

Before proceeding with a final decision, I would like to ask you once more — does this explanation make sense to you from a technical standpoint, even if you disagree with the fairness of the rule itself?

We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your response.

Dear Petronela,

To answer your question directly: No, this explanation does not make sense from a technical, logical, or fair-play standpoint.

The Ledger is the Final Authority: You admit the pop-up is 'small' and 'confusing.' In contrast, the Casino’s official financial ledger generated Transaction 11459529 as a 'Type: Deposit / Status: Success.' In any digital system, a permanent database entry overrides a temporary UI notification. I acted as a diligent player, checked my transaction history, and saw an official confirmation of a successful deposit. Why would any reasonable person withdraw money that the Casino's own system just officially confirmed was already deposited as cash?

The 18-Hour Technical Reality: This is the most critical point that you are overlooking. If the funds were truly 'promotional,' the Casino's backend engine would have been required to enforce bonus restrictions (e.g., blocking bets over $5 or restricted games). The system handled my balance as cash for 18 hours. If I had lost that $69.76 during those 18 hours, the Casino would have kept it. This proves the system internally recognized the funds as real money.

The Definition of a Freeroll: By allowing a player to risk their balance for 18 hours with a 0% chance of winning a profit, the Casino ran an illegal 'Freeroll.' Per your own Fair Gambling Codex, a game is only fair if there is a Risk vs. Reward balance. A 'confusing' notification does not make a rigged game fair. You are essentially ruling that as long as a casino 'warns' a player they are being cheated, the theft is acceptable.

I am deeply disappointed by this direction. I provided hard technical evidence of a ledger entry and caught the Casino in multiple lies regarding 'Bonus Deposit' labels and fabricated RG tags. I expected a neutral arbitrator who enforces the Fair Gambling Codex, not a protector of a dishonest operator with a proven track record of lying. I request that you rule based on the Database Truth, not a demonstration video of a flawed UI.

Petronela and the Public Record

Before a final position is rendered on this 83-day dispute, I must put the irrefutable technical and logical facts of this case on the public record, as the current direction of this mediation fundamentally contradicts Casino Guru’s own Fair Gambling Codex.

The Casino confiscated $2,932.95 CAD based on a predatory clause, and is attempting to justify it using a generic "demonstration video" of a confusing pop-up. However, a temporary UI pop-up does not override actual financial data and system behavior.

Here are the undisputed facts of the case that remain unaddressed:

1. The Illegal 'Freeroll' Trap

The Casino argues that after my no-deposit bonus was capped to $70.00 CAD, I was required to withdraw and re-deposit before playing. However, their software intentionally left the funds in my account, removed all bonus restrictions (max bet/restricted games), and allowed me to play unrestricted for 18 hours.

By allowing me to risk that $70 balance, the Casino engaged in an illegal 'Freeroll.' If I had lost that $70 during those 18 hours, the Casino would have kept the money. Because I won, they suddenly claim the funds were "theoretical" and applied bonus terms retroactively. A game where the player's losses are real cash, but their wins are "theoretical," is the literal definition of a rigged game.

2. The Ledger is the Final Authority

My official account ledger (Transaction ID 11459529) permanently recorded the funds as "Type: Deposit / Status: Success." In any digital or financial platform, the database ledger is the final authority. The responsibility for accurate financial reporting lies entirely with the operator. A player should never be penalized $3,000 for relying on the casino's official transaction history.

3. The Admitted $70.00 Debt

Blaze Spins has admitted on the record that my balance was capped to $70.00 and those funds were legitimately mine to withdraw. Instead of paying it, they applied a retaliatory "Responsible Gaming" ban after my win to lock my account and hold that $70 hostage. A mediation platform cannot justify marking a case as "Rejected" while the operator is actively withholding funds they admitted are valid.

Under Section 12 of the Fair Gambling Codex, once a bonus cap is applied, funds "should be considered real money and treated as such." I am asking Casino Guru to enforce their own Codex, rule against this predatory freeroll, and require the Casino to honor the full $3,0

02.95 CAD.

Further to my previous statement, I would like to add a critical fact regarding the Casino’s internal handling of my balance prior to the confiscation.

When my balance reached $1,000 CAD, I initiated a withdrawal request and contacted support to inquire about the process. At that time, the Casino’s staff did not state that my winnings were capped, nor did they reference any 'mandatory pop-up' or Rule 1.25. Instead, I was explicitly instructed to complete the KYC verification process to proceed with my withdrawal.

This action by the Casino's staff serves as implicit validation that the funds were considered real, withdrawable cash at that stage. If a mandatory warning system was truly in place as the Casino now claims, their support team would have been obligated to inform me of the $70 cap immediately.

The Casino only 'discovered' this supposed restriction after I successfully won an additional $2,000 and began questioning the 2-day KYC delay. I am adding this to the record to demonstrate that the Casino's current defense is a retroactive fabrication that contradicts their own staff’s instructions during the active session.

Hi Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your detailed message and for outlining your perspective.

I would like to clarify that, based on our investigation so far, there is no contradiction between our current position and the principles outlined in the Casino Guru Fair Gambling Codex. The section you referenced indeed states that once bonus wagering is completed and winnings are transferred to the player’s balance, they should normally be treated as real money. However, the same section also explicitly acknowledges that if platform or software limitations prevent this, an adequate warning to the player is required, typically in the form of a notification or pop-up that the player must acknowledge.

During our investigation we:

• reviewed the recording and supporting evidence provided by the casino,
• discussed the case internally within our team,
• evaluated the fact that the funds originated from a No Deposit bonus, and
• confirmed that a warning was presented to the player, even though we agree that the implementation could have been clearer.

Could the warning have been more transparent or better designed? Yes, absolutely.

However, based on the evidence we received, a warning was still present, which is a key factor in our assessment.

Please also note that our team has spent a significant amount of time reviewing this case, gathering materials, and discussing it internally to ensure that the evaluation is fair and consistent with our guidelines. We have also communicated our recommendations to the casino.

At this stage, our focus is on ensuring that the legitimate winnings from the No Deposit bonus are paid out. Once this happens, the complaint will be closed accordingly.

• At the same time, I would like to ask the Blaze Spins Casino Team to confirm: have the legitimate winnings of $70 already been paid to the player? If not, please provide an update on the status of this payment.

Nunyabiz6, if you decide to pursue the matter further through other channels, you are of course free to do so. However, I would like to emphasize that our team has conducted a very thorough review, and we believe we have dedicated considerable time and effort to analyzing this case in depth.

Petronela,

I am formally rejecting this conclusion. This ruling represents a complete abandonment of the Fair Gambling Codex and relies on a logical paradox that compromises the integrity of this platform.

1. The 'Adequacy' Paradox: You have admitted on the record that the Casino’s interface was 'confusing,' 'not optimal,' and 'missed key information.' By definition, a warning that is confusing and non-optimal is NOT ADEQUATE. You are ruling that a Casino is allowed to provide misleading information ('Type: Deposit Success') and then use their own technical incompetence as an excuse to confiscate winnings.

2. The 18-Hour Freeroll: You have failed to address the technical fact that for 18 hours, the system handled my balance as cash. No bonus restrictions were enforced. If I had lost that $70, the Casino would have kept it. Ruling that a 'confusing warning' justifies a rigged 'freeroll' session—where a player can lose but not win—is a direct violation of the Risk vs. Reward principle.

3. Demonstration vs. Account Proof: You have accepted a generic recording of how the system functions while ignoring the Transaction ID 11459529 which officially recorded the funds as a Deposit.

By marking this as a 'resolved' issue once the $70 is paid, you are facilitating the theft of $2,932.95 and protecting an affiliate partner that you have already admitted provides misleading information to players.

I will be providing this entire transcript, including your admission that the UI was 'confusing' but 'adequate,' to the GPWA Board and LCB as proof of a conflict of interest in this mediation. I do not accept this as a fair or logical conclusion.

We understand that you disagree with our conclusion. However, after reviewing all available evidence, including the recording provided by the casino, the technical explanation of how the system works, the communication between you and the casino, as well as extensive internal discussions within our team, our position remains unchanged.

Once the maximum cashout from the No Deposit bonus ($70) is confirmed as paid to you, the complaint will be closed as rejected with the disputed amount reflecting the difference between the amount you claim ($3,002.95) and the maximum bonus cashout ($70).

As explained previously, our decision is based on the evidence we received, the warning that was present in the interface, and the nature of the funds originating from a No Deposit bonus. While we agree that the implementation of the warning could have been clearer, the presence of the warning itself remains a key factor in our assessment.

Please also note that this case has been reviewed very thoroughly. It involved multiple rounds of communication with the casino, detailed evidence review, and internal discussion among several team members before reaching this conclusion.

You are, of course, free to pursue the matter further through any other channels you consider appropriate. However, from our side, we believe the case has been analyzed carefully and consistently with our procedures.

Petronela,

I am providing this final response to ensure the public record reflects the specific evidence you have chosen to ignore in this conclusion.

You state your decision is based on a 'recording' of how the system is configured to work. However, you have completely disregarded the human conduct of the Casino’s staff during the active session:

Implicit Validation at $1,000: When my balance reached $1,000 CAD, I inquired about a withdrawal. The Casino’s support staff did not mention a cap, nor did they reference any 'unavoidable' warning. Instead, they instructed me to complete KYC verification to proceed with the payout. You do not initiate KYC for a $1,000 win if the account is capped at $70. This proves that no 'restriction flag' was visible to their own staff at the time of play.

The Failure of 'Adequacy': You have admitted on the record that the interface was 'confusing,' 'not optimal,' and 'missed key info.' By your own definition, the warning was not adequate. To rule that a confusing and non-optimal warning satisfies the Codex is to render the term 'adequate' meaningless.

Risk without Reward: You have failed to address the 18 hours of unrestricted play. If the funds were 'theoretical,' the backend engine would have enforced bet limits. It did not. The Casino allowed me to risk that balance (a real loss for me), while secretly intending to treat any win as imaginary.

By marking this 'Rejected' once the $70 is paid, you are facilitating the theft of $2,932.95 and rewarding a Casino that provided false information regarding ledger labels. I formally state that I do not accept this as a consistent or fair application of your procedures. This entire record, including your admission that the UI was confusing, will now be provided to the GPWA Board as proof of a failure in neutral mediation.

Also food for thought, how can you justify going against the precedent set with 1Go casino that you mentioned when you took over the complaint Petronela? I don't feel I'm out of line looking for clarification with that forgotten bit of information.

I will address the additional points you raised so the record remains clear.

First, regarding the KYC request when your balance reached $1,000. The request for verification was triggered because winnings accumulated on the account, even though they originated from a No Deposit bonus. In many casinos, once a balance reaches a certain threshold or a withdrawal inquiry is made, the system or support staff may initiate KYC as a standard compliance step. This procedure does not confirm that the winnings are eligible for withdrawal, nor does it override the applicable bonus restrictions. It simply means the casino prepares the account for potential financial transactions. Therefore, the KYC request itself cannot be interpreted as confirmation that the winnings were unrestricted.

Regarding the adequacy of the warning: when we evaluate adequacy under the Fair Gambling Codex, the key question is whether the player was notified that the bonus conditions still apply even after wagering is completed. Based on the evidence provided, a pop-up warning was displayed informing the player that the bonus rules would continue to apply.

Importantly, this was not a passive notification that briefly appeared and disappeared. It was a pop-up that required the player to actively close it in order to continue playing. In other words, the player had to acknowledge the message before proceeding. While we agree that the wording and interface could have been clearer and better designed, the essential information was present and actively presented to the player. For this reason, it meets the minimum requirement of an adequate warning under the Codex.

Finally, concerning the comparison with the 1Go Casino complaint I referenced earlier: that case differs in one key aspect. In that situation, no warning pop-up was presented to the player at all, meaning the player was not informed that bonus restrictions would still apply after wagering was completed. That absence of any warning is what led to a different outcome in that case. In the present complaint, a warning was present and had to be actively closed by the player, which is the decisive distinction between the two situations.

For the Public Record: Casino Guru’s Endorsement of a T&C Violation

Before this thread is permanently closed, I must formally document a critical failure in Casino Guru’s final assessment, which proves this mediation actively endorsed the Casino violating its own Terms and Conditions to confiscate my $2,932.95.

Petronela’s final ruling stated that a visual pop-up warning—which she admitted was "confusing" and "not optimal"—supersedes the official "Type: Deposit" label in my account ledger.

However, I direct the public and the regulators reading this thread to Section 9.3 of Blaze Spins’ own Terms and Conditions:

"9.3. Final Authority of Server Records: In any dispute, Blaze Spins’ server records are final and binding in determining outcomes."

Transaction ID 11459529 is an official backend server record. It permanently recorded my funds as "Type: Deposit / Status: Success."

A visual UI pop-up is not a server record.

By allowing the Casino to manually override and ignore an official server record, Casino Guru has officially supported an operator in breaching its own legally binding Terms of Service just to protect a confiscation.

I have submitted this specific T&C violation to the Anjouan Gaming Board and the Casinomeister community as proof of the operator's financial fraud, and as proof that Casino Guru failed to enforce the basic Terms and Conditions during this 84-day mediation.

I am still awaiting the return of the undisputed $70 debt, but the escalation regarding the stolen $2,932.95 continues with the regulators.

The casino breaks its own rules and the mediator lets them get away with it.

We would like to ask the casino to reply to this complaint. We are extending the timer by 7 days. If the casino fails to respond in the set time frame, we will close the complaint as ‘unresolved’ which may negatively affect its rating.

Worth noting that not only are they ghosting this complaint but they've officially abandoned the Anjouan complaint as well. I would say you picked the wrong horse to back Casino Guru. Shame on you for promoting this kind of behavior. I had higher expectations for a site of this supposed moral standing. This is what I received after replying to the complaint after they haven't replied in 7 days.

Update for the Mediator:

I have independently investigated the '550 Address Not Found' bounce-back error from the casino's official support@blazespins.com email.

Using a VPN to bypass their blocks, I contacted their live chat. Their own agent admitted that the casino has quietly migrated their domain and contact emails to @blazespins.info.

They did not exit scam; they intentionally disabled their registered compliance email without notifying players, this ADR, or their licensing board. They are using deceptive digital routing to evade the Anjouan Gaming Board's 72-hour summons, and to dodge paying the undisputed $70.00 you ordered them to pay.

I have provided the Anjouan regulators with their hidden '.info' address. The Operator is actively operating in extreme bad faith to hide from their regulatory and financial obligations

Hi Petronela, Guru Team amd Nunyabiz6,

We are happy to proceed with an instant payout to the customer.

However, we would like to note that the player’s account was previously permanently closed due to gambling addiction. To facilitate the payout, we will temporarily reopen the account solely for withdrawal purposes.

The funds have now been returned to the player’s balance, and we will proceed with reopening the account so the player can submit a withdrawal request.

Once the withdrawal request is made, we will process it instantly and then deactivate the account again, ensuring it remains permanently closed.

Thank you,

Blaze Spins Team

To the Mediator and the Casino:

I have logged in and initiated the withdrawal for the undisputed $70.00 CAD.

For the official and legal record: My withdrawal of these undisputed funds does NOT constitute a full and final settlement of this dispute, nor does it waive my active regulatory complaint with the Anjouan Gaming Board and EGIS Arbitration regarding the remaining confiscated $2,932.95 CAD.

Furthermore, I am forwarding the Casino's latest response directly to the Anjouan regulators. The Casino just publicly admitted to 'temporarily reopening' an account they claim was permanently closed for 'gambling addiction' so that I can log into the casino lobby. Under standard RG mandates, a casino must process a manual backend wire for excluded players. Forcing an allegedly 'addicted' player to log back into an active casino environment is a severe RG violation, further proving this tag was weaponized.

I await the $70 hitting my account, and the regulator's ruling on the remaining $2,932.95."

STEP 3: The Email to Anjouan & EGIS

Take a screenshot of the casino's message on Casino Guru (where they say "we will temporarily reopen the account solely for withdrawal purposes").

Go to your Anjouan email thread, hit Reply All (make sure complaints@anjouangaming.com, disputes@egis-adr.com, and support@blazespins.info are all on there), and send this:

"Dear Anjouan Compliance Team and EGIS Arbitrators,

Please see the attached screenshot from the public Casino Guru mediation thread today.

The Operator is attempting to pay the undisputed $70 base balance, but in doing so, they have just publicly confessed to a severe Responsible Gaming (RG) violation.

The Operator stated in writing: 'the player's account was previously permanently closed due to gambling addiction... we will temporarily reopen the account solely for withdrawal purposes.'

Under international RG standards, an operator cannot force a player they have deemed 'addicted' to log back into an active casino environment. The Operator is legally required to process a manual backend transfer. This public admission proves the Operator does not follow basic RG protocols, and further validates my claim that the RG tag was entirely weaponized as a retaliatory tool.

For the record, I am accepting the $70 as partial payment of an undisputed debt only. I am maintaining my formal request for a Default Judgment for the remaining illegally confiscated $2,932.95 CAD.

I await EGIS's review of this documented RG abuse.

Hi Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your update.

I would like to clarify one important point — the casino has clearly stated that your account is being temporarily reopened solely for the purpose of processing the withdrawal, not for continued gameplay. This is a standard technical step to enable the withdrawal to be submitted and completed, after which the account will be closed again.

At this stage, I would kindly ask you not to focus on every detail or escalate further within this complaint, as the main objective here is to ensure that the undisputed amount of $70 is successfully withdrawn.

Could you please confirm once the funds have been received on your end?

Thank you.

"Hi Petronela,

I can confirm that the $70.00 CAD has successfully reached my account.

I respect your request not to focus on further details or escalate the core issues within this specific complaint thread. As the $70 base balance has been recovered, my objectives here are concluded, and my escalation regarding the remaining confiscated $2,932.95 CAD and the casino's compliance practices will remain strictly with the Anjouan Gaming Board and EGIS Arbitration.

You may proceed with closing this Casino Guru thread. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Jody

Why sweat the small things in life!

Dear Nunyabiz6,

Thank you for your confirmation, and I’m glad to hear that the $70 has been successfully received.

At this stage, since the undisputed amount has been paid out and after a thorough review of all available evidence, we are unfortunately unable to support your claim regarding the remaining funds. Therefore, we will proceed with closing this complaint as rejected.

For the sake of accuracy, please also note that the disputed amount has been adjusted from C$3,002 to C$2,932, in line with the information provided.

We respect your decision to pursue the matter further with the relevant regulatory bodies and wish you the best in that process.

Thank you for your cooperation throughout the case.

Kind regards,

Petronela

Casino.Guru