I would like to raise several serious concerns regarding the way SlotNeo handled my account closure and the AML investigation.
1. My KYC verification remained pending. I submitted my verification documents, but they remained in "Pending" status for several days. Before the verification process was completed, my account was closed.
2. My account was closed immediately while my withdrawal had been pending for several days. At the time my account was closed, I had a withdrawal request that had remained in "Pending" status for several days. During that period, I repeatedly contacted the casino requesting an explanation for the delay and asking them to process my withdrawal. Instead of receiving an explanation or having my withdrawal processed, my account was immediately closed.
3. No Source of Funds documentation was requested before the closure or after. If the operator genuinely had AML concerns, I would have expected them to request Source of Funds or any additional documentation before making the final decision. Instead, I voluntarily provided extensive evidence, including Revolut statements, MEXC transaction history, proof of income, and other documents demonstrating the legitimate origin of my funds.
4. Previous withdrawals were approved. The casino successfully processed my previous withdrawal requests before suddenly claiming that my account was suspicious from an AML perspective. This raises questions about when the alleged suspicion actually arose and why no additional verification was requested at that stage.
5. The reasons for closing my account changed over time. Initially, the operator justified the closure by referring to AML concerns. Subsequently, they introduced the argument that I was located in a restricted jurisdiction. However, Romania was added to the operator's list of restricted jurisdictions after my account had already been closed. Furthermore, the operator had been fully aware from the very first day that I was registering and playing from Romania. My country of residence was clearly declared during registration, and the casino accepted my registration, my KYC submission, my deposits, my gameplay, and even processed several withdrawals without raising any concerns regarding my jurisdiction. This raises serious questions as to why the restricted jurisdiction argument was introduced only after the account closure and whether it was used retrospectively to justify a decision that had already been made.
6. The account balance was modified without my agreement. After the dispute progressed, my account balance was unilaterally changed to approximately the amount of the casino's previous settlement offer, despite the fact that I had never accepted that offer. I respectfully request the operator to explain the legal and contractual basis for this action.
I fully understand that licensed operators have obligations under Anti-Money Laundering regulations and may investigate suspicious activity. However, I believe such investigations should be conducted in a consistent, fair, and transparent manner.
I respectfully ask the operator to clarify the following:
On what exact date was the AML investigation initiated?
If the investigation had already begun, why was my withdrawal left pending for several days instead of being promptly addressed?
Why was my account closed immediately after I repeatedly requested an explanation and insisted that my withdrawal be processed?
What specific circumstances triggered the AML suspicion?
Why was no Source of Funds documentation requested before the account was closed?
When were the documents that I voluntarily submitted actually reviewed?
Why was the justification later changed from AML concerns to a restricted jurisdiction issue, especially considering that Romania was added to the restricted jurisdictions list only after my account had already been closed?
Why did the operator knowingly accept my registration, KYC, deposits, gameplay, and previous withdrawals if Romania was supposedly considered an unacceptable jurisdiction?
Under which contractual or regulatory provision was my account balance altered without my consent?
I am not asking the operator to disclose any confidential AML reporting or information that cannot legally be revealed. I am simply requesting a clear explanation of the procedure followed in my case and the legal basis for the decisions that were made.
Given the sequence of events, I believe there are legitimate questions as to whether the AML procedure was carried out consistently and in accordance with the operator's own policies and regulatory obligations. I respectfully request that these questions be addressed individually with factual explanations supported by the relevant terms, internal procedures, or regulatory requirements where applicable.
I would like to raise several serious concerns regarding the way SlotNeo handled my account closure and the AML investigation.
1. My KYC verification remained pending. I submitted my verification documents, but they remained in "Pending" status for several days. Before the verification process was completed, my account was closed.
2. My account was closed immediately while my withdrawal had been pending for several days. At the time my account was closed, I had a withdrawal request that had remained in "Pending" status for several days. During that period, I repeatedly contacted the casino requesting an explanation for the delay and asking them to process my withdrawal. Instead of receiving an explanation or having my withdrawal processed, my account was immediately closed.
3. No Source of Funds documentation was requested before the closure or after. If the operator genuinely had AML concerns, I would have expected them to request Source of Funds or any additional documentation before making the final decision. Instead, I voluntarily provided extensive evidence, including Revolut statements, MEXC transaction history, proof of income, and other documents demonstrating the legitimate origin of my funds.
4. Previous withdrawals were approved. The casino successfully processed my previous withdrawal requests before suddenly claiming that my account was suspicious from an AML perspective. This raises questions about when the alleged suspicion actually arose and why no additional verification was requested at that stage.
5. The reasons for closing my account changed over time. Initially, the operator justified the closure by referring to AML concerns. Subsequently, they introduced the argument that I was located in a restricted jurisdiction. However, Romania was added to the operator's list of restricted jurisdictions after my account had already been closed. Furthermore, the operator had been fully aware from the very first day that I was registering and playing from Romania. My country of residence was clearly declared during registration, and the casino accepted my registration, my KYC submission, my deposits, my gameplay, and even processed several withdrawals without raising any concerns regarding my jurisdiction. This raises serious questions as to why the restricted jurisdiction argument was introduced only after the account closure and whether it was used retrospectively to justify a decision that had already been made.
6. The account balance was modified without my agreement. After the dispute progressed, my account balance was unilaterally changed to approximately the amount of the casino's previous settlement offer, despite the fact that I had never accepted that offer. I respectfully request the operator to explain the legal and contractual basis for this action.
I fully understand that licensed operators have obligations under Anti-Money Laundering regulations and may investigate suspicious activity. However, I believe such investigations should be conducted in a consistent, fair, and transparent manner.
I respectfully ask the operator to clarify the following:
On what exact date was the AML investigation initiated?
If the investigation had already begun, why was my withdrawal left pending for several days instead of being promptly addressed?
Why was my account closed immediately after I repeatedly requested an explanation and insisted that my withdrawal be processed?
What specific circumstances triggered the AML suspicion?
Why was no Source of Funds documentation requested before the account was closed?
When were the documents that I voluntarily submitted actually reviewed?
Why was the justification later changed from AML concerns to a restricted jurisdiction issue, especially considering that Romania was added to the restricted jurisdictions list only after my account had already been closed?
Why did the operator knowingly accept my registration, KYC, deposits, gameplay, and previous withdrawals if Romania was supposedly considered an unacceptable jurisdiction?
Under which contractual or regulatory provision was my account balance altered without my consent?
I am not asking the operator to disclose any confidential AML reporting or information that cannot legally be revealed. I am simply requesting a clear explanation of the procedure followed in my case and the legal basis for the decisions that were made.
Given the sequence of events, I believe there are legitimate questions as to whether the AML procedure was carried out consistently and in accordance with the operator's own policies and regulatory obligations. I respectfully request that these questions be addressed individually with factual explanations supported by the relevant terms, internal procedures, or regulatory requirements where applicable.