Hello everyone,
thank you both for the additional updates and for continuing to cooperate with the investigation.
Dear diml131979,
I understand your position and, based on the information currently available to me, I am still inclined to support your side regarding the confiscation of the remaining balance.
The casino has now provided evidence indicating that the account was accessed through a VPN/proxy using an IP address located in the Netherlands. I have taken this evidence into consideration. However, I do not believe that the mere fact that a VPN was used is, by itself, sufficient to justify confiscating the player's remaining balance.
From Casino Guru's perspective, the use of a VPN is not automatically considered fraudulent or an unfair practice where it did not allow the player to circumvent a geographical restriction, obtain access to games or promotions that were unavailable to them, or otherwise gain an unfair advantage over the casino. We have applied this approach in other cases as well.
In this case, there is also an additional circumstance that I consider particularly important. You have provided evidence showing that, after the account had already been closed and after the case was reopened approximately a year later, a representative of RX Casino instructed you to use a VPN in order to access the account and request the refund of your last deposit.
Therefore, I cannot simply disregard this evidence and conclude that any VPN usage automatically constitutes fraudulent activity just because the casino's Terms prohibit VPNs.
Dear RX Casino,
I would like to make it clear that I will decide when this complaint can be considered resolved and closed. At this stage, I do not consider the matter resolved merely because the player's last deposit of €300 was refunded.
The remaining issue is the confiscation of the €1,245.96 balance. In order for me to support that decision, I need to understand what the alleged VPN usage actually enabled the player to do and what specific rule or restriction was allegedly circumvented.
You have now provided evidence that the player used a VPN connected to an IP address in the Netherlands. However, this still does not answer the most important questions.
Please clarify the following points specifically:
- Was Greece an allowed or restricted country under your Terms and Conditions at the time when the account was originally blocked in 2025?
- Was the Netherlands an allowed or restricted country under your Terms and Conditions at that time?
- If Greece was an allowed country, what geographical restriction did the player allegedly circumvent by connecting through a Dutch IP address?
- If the Netherlands was a restricted country, how was the player able to access the casino through a Dutch IP address in the first place? Does your website or registration/login system technically block access based on the user's IP location when a restricted country is detected?
- What specific advantage did the player obtain through the use of the VPN? For example, did the VPN allow the player to access a promotion, bonus, game, payment method, or other service that would not have been available to them when connecting normally from Greece?
- Did the player obtain any bonus or promotional advantage that was unavailable to players located in Greece? If so, please identify the specific promotion and explain how the VPN enabled the player to access it.
- More generally, if the player's actual country of residence, Greece, was permitted, what was the practical purpose or effect of changing the apparent location to the Netherlands?
This distinction is important. A VPN can certainly be used to circumvent geographical restrictions, and where there is evidence that this was done to access restricted games, bonuses or other services, we can consider such conduct a serious breach. However, the mere fact that the IP address belongs to a VPN provider or is located in another country does not, without further context, establish that the player gained an unfair advantage.
There is another point I would like you to clarify.
The player states that VPN usage occurred only after the account had already been closed, when your representative instructed him to use a VPN because he could no longer access the casino normally and needed to request the €300 refund. The player has provided supporting correspondence for this claim.
If VPN usage is strictly prohibited and can result in the complete confiscation of the player's balance, I need an explanation as to why your own representative subsequently instructed the player to use a VPN to access the account.
This is particularly relevant because the player is not claiming that he used the VPN to obtain any advantage. On the contrary, he claims that he used it only because your representative instructed him to do so in order to access his already-closed account and request the refund.
Given these changing explanations, I need the final explanation to be specific and supported by the available evidence rather than simply referring generally to the Terms and Conditions.
At this stage, I therefore still do not consider the refund of the €300 deposit to be sufficient resolution of the complaint.
RX Casino, please provide a clear response to the questions above. In particular, I need you to clarify the status of Greece and the Netherlands under your country restrictions at the relevant time, explain what restriction or advantage was allegedly circumvented through the Dutch VPN, and explain how your system handles access from restricted countries.
Once I have this information, I will review the evidence again and make my final assessment regarding the remaining €1,245.96.
Thank you both for your cooperation.
Hello everyone,
thank you both for the additional updates and for continuing to cooperate with the investigation.
Dear diml131979,
I understand your position and, based on the information currently available to me, I am still inclined to support your side regarding the confiscation of the remaining balance.
The casino has now provided evidence indicating that the account was accessed through a VPN/proxy using an IP address located in the Netherlands. I have taken this evidence into consideration. However, I do not believe that the mere fact that a VPN was used is, by itself, sufficient to justify confiscating the player's remaining balance.
From Casino Guru's perspective, the use of a VPN is not automatically considered fraudulent or an unfair practice where it did not allow the player to circumvent a geographical restriction, obtain access to games or promotions that were unavailable to them, or otherwise gain an unfair advantage over the casino. We have applied this approach in other cases as well.
In this case, there is also an additional circumstance that I consider particularly important. You have provided evidence showing that, after the account had already been closed and after the case was reopened approximately a year later, a representative of RX Casino instructed you to use a VPN in order to access the account and request the refund of your last deposit.
Therefore, I cannot simply disregard this evidence and conclude that any VPN usage automatically constitutes fraudulent activity just because the casino's Terms prohibit VPNs.
Dear RX Casino,
I would like to make it clear that I will decide when this complaint can be considered resolved and closed. At this stage, I do not consider the matter resolved merely because the player's last deposit of €300 was refunded.
The remaining issue is the confiscation of the €1,245.96 balance. In order for me to support that decision, I need to understand what the alleged VPN usage actually enabled the player to do and what specific rule or restriction was allegedly circumvented.
You have now provided evidence that the player used a VPN connected to an IP address in the Netherlands. However, this still does not answer the most important questions.
Please clarify the following points specifically:
- Was Greece an allowed or restricted country under your Terms and Conditions at the time when the account was originally blocked in 2025?
- Was the Netherlands an allowed or restricted country under your Terms and Conditions at that time?
- If Greece was an allowed country, what geographical restriction did the player allegedly circumvent by connecting through a Dutch IP address?
- If the Netherlands was a restricted country, how was the player able to access the casino through a Dutch IP address in the first place? Does your website or registration/login system technically block access based on the user's IP location when a restricted country is detected?
- What specific advantage did the player obtain through the use of the VPN? For example, did the VPN allow the player to access a promotion, bonus, game, payment method, or other service that would not have been available to them when connecting normally from Greece?
- Did the player obtain any bonus or promotional advantage that was unavailable to players located in Greece? If so, please identify the specific promotion and explain how the VPN enabled the player to access it.
- More generally, if the player's actual country of residence, Greece, was permitted, what was the practical purpose or effect of changing the apparent location to the Netherlands?
This distinction is important. A VPN can certainly be used to circumvent geographical restrictions, and where there is evidence that this was done to access restricted games, bonuses or other services, we can consider such conduct a serious breach. However, the mere fact that the IP address belongs to a VPN provider or is located in another country does not, without further context, establish that the player gained an unfair advantage.
There is another point I would like you to clarify.
The player states that VPN usage occurred only after the account had already been closed, when your representative instructed him to use a VPN because he could no longer access the casino normally and needed to request the €300 refund. The player has provided supporting correspondence for this claim.
If VPN usage is strictly prohibited and can result in the complete confiscation of the player's balance, I need an explanation as to why your own representative subsequently instructed the player to use a VPN to access the account.
This is particularly relevant because the player is not claiming that he used the VPN to obtain any advantage. On the contrary, he claims that he used it only because your representative instructed him to do so in order to access his already-closed account and request the refund.
Given these changing explanations, I need the final explanation to be specific and supported by the available evidence rather than simply referring generally to the Terms and Conditions.
At this stage, I therefore still do not consider the refund of the €300 deposit to be sufficient resolution of the complaint.
RX Casino, please provide a clear response to the questions above. In particular, I need you to clarify the status of Greece and the Netherlands under your country restrictions at the relevant time, explain what restriction or advantage was allegedly circumvented through the Dutch VPN, and explain how your system handles access from restricted countries.
Once I have this information, I will review the evidence again and make my final assessment regarding the remaining €1,245.96.
Thank you both for your cooperation.