Goldwin Casino Review

The player from Germany has been experiencing issues with withdrawing €440 for two months. Despite completing a verification process and changing her bank account, the casino website error message still prevents payment. The player suspects stalling tactics from the online casino, while she's been given no useful information from the casino's chat support.

The player from Norway is attempting to have his account closed due to gambling issues but the casino is not complying with his requests. The casino informed us that the player's account has been blocked on the same day, so we closed this complaint as resolved.

The player from Australia won a total of $6,500 across three separate occasions but has been experiencing difficulties with the casino. Despite submitting their ID documents for verification, the player's account remains unverified, and they have not received any responses to their numerous emails. The player is concerned about not being able to withdraw their actual winnings of $800 and is seeking assistance to resolve the situation. After verification had been confirmed by the casino, the player has stopped responding. Therefore, the complaint has been rejected.

The player expressed frustration with the casino. They mentioned pending identity documents and a withdrawal request awaiting attention from the finance team. We contacted the casino, and its representative informed us that the passport photo sent by the player didn't meet the requirements, so the player was asked to send it again. Unfortunately, the player refused to do so and stopped responding to our messages. We were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom is demanding a refund of their deposits from the casino, claiming that they have mental health issues and repeatedly requested account closure. However, the casino has disregarded their pleas and kept the account open, allowing additional deposits. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The casino started processing withdrawals in weekly installments, therefore we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player's account was deactivated as a result of proof of income. Even though the player is upset because this happened right before they managed to activate a special feature in a game, their real money funds were paid. We ended up rejecting the complaint because we can't force the casino to provide services to players or to refund the player the money they spent playing games.

The player was dissatisfied with the casino tournament as there is a maximum win limit for the prize. The casino had informed the player that upon gaining the second place prize in the tournament, the prize money of EUR 3600 must be wagered 50 times and would have a maximum cashout of EUR 100, because it was classed as a "free bonus'. There was no mention of this in the promotional terms and conditions, and due to these restrictions, it would be easier to achieve the maximum winnings of EUR 100 by coming in last place, as you would have to wager a smaller amount of prize money. We considered this to be very unfair and stated that the player should be paid their prize in full. The casino refused to change its position on this, and instead offered the player the same amount of prize money with a smaller amount of wagering and a larger amount of maximum cashout. We still considered this to be unfair, but eventually the player begrudgingly decided to accept the offer as there was no better option. As the player and the casino came to an agreement, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal back in January 2021. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. We were not able to receive any relevant information or evidence from the casino, other than some claims about legal procedure, which was not confirmed by the player. The player decided to submit the complaint to the licensing authority of the casino and we have closed this complaint as unresolved. We have reopened the complaint and learned that the issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from New Zealand requested a withdrawal 2 weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been received. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Ukraine had experienced difficulties withdrawing her promotional winnings. After a thorough investigation, we had determined that the casino's system failed to enforce bonus restrictions properly. Initially, the casino had insisted that the player breached the terms and conditions by claiming a bonus with a code, which should not have been available to her due to her jurisdiction. However, we found that the enforcement was based on IP address rather than the country in the registration form, and VPN usage was not prohibited by the casino. Despite the casino providing evidence of a bonus code being used, the player consistently denied this. Ultimately, we reopened the complaint to give the casino another chance to resolve the issue. The casino then decided to make an exception and credit the confiscated amount back to the player's account. The player agreed to this proposal and confirmed the receipt of funds. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player's self exclusion failed, as he was able to reopen the account and deposit. Since the player reached the regulator, we did not want to interfere, and we will wait for their decision. Later, we were informed that the regulator decided in favour of the casino.

The player from Germany had been accused of violating bonus terms by the online casino, specifically having placed several bets that exceeded the maximum limit. The player had denied the allegations, stating that overbets were not possible with bonus money. The casino had initially provided some evidence, but stopped responding to further inquiries. However, upon the casino's request, the complaint had been reopened and additional data had been provided. This data indicated that the player had two active bonuses when the overbets were made, thus the casino's decision had been deemed fair according to its terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from the UK tried to self-exclude, but attempts have been overlooked. The player asked the casino to delete her account and not for self-exclusion. Later the player decided she is no longer interested in our help and informed us she managed to find the solution with the casino.

The player from the Ireland was experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds, because the option to withdraw via their preferred payment method was not available. Later, she was able to request a withdrawal via bank transfer. She confirmed she had received her funds a few days later.

The player from Germany has requested withdrawal a week ago. It has been pending since. Even though we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Switzerland had had their bonus winnings cancelled due to a violation of promotional rules. The player had disputed the casino's claim of bonus abuse and the complaint had been taken to the regulator, which had ruled in favor of the casino. The casino had offered a partial payment of $1,000, which the player had initially declined. After further discussion and reevaluation by the casino under new management, the offer had been upheld and the player had accepted. The player's account had been verified, and they had successfully received the $1,000 settlement. The complaint had then been marked as resolved.

The player had been trying to close his account due to a gambling problem. The player reported that despite several requests for self-exclusion and account closure, the casino had failed to respond and continued to encourage him to make deposits. The player also claimed that he had lost €600 after his self-exclusion request. We attempted to contact the casino for clarification but received no response, which led to the complaint being initially closed as 'unresolved'. Later, the complaint was reopened at the casino's request. The casino stated that the player's account had been closed since April 2021. However, due to the player's inappropriate behavior on our platform, we were unable to continue the investigation since his account was banned and had to reject the case.

The player from Finland had made a withdrawal request on 21.3 which was later rejected by the casino. They had demanded bank account confirmation which had already been provided earlier, leading to a delay in payment. The player had used different methods for deposit and withdrawal, which had caused confusion. After communication with the casino and our team, the player's account had been verified again. The casino had clarified its procedures and timelines for withdrawal processing. The player eventually received their withdrawal. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Japan had struggled to verify his address as part of the casino's Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures. Despite having submitted multiple documents, the casino had continually rejected them due to poor photo quality and the documents not being in the player's name. The casino had suggested submitting a bank statement in PDF format. After the player complied, the casino confirmed the successful verification of his account. However, since we hadn't received final confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint. Later the player confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Afghanistan had deposit issues with the casino and claimed a loss of 750 Euro. We reached out to the player, sought clarification on his issue, and asked for relevant documentation. The player later responded that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Rhineland-Palatinate had been waiting for a payout of 100 euros that had been delayed for over a month. Despite the casino having claimed the payout was completed, the player had not received any money. After back and forth communication, the player had provided a bank statement as proof of non-receipt of the funds. Finally, the player had confirmed that the money had arrived, resolving the issue. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal from Westcasino, but despite being previously verified, they were asked to re-verify their identity. After providing the requested documents, the withdrawal has been delayed for 14 days, far longer than the player expected.

The player from British Columbia 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 Germany was asked to complete additional wagering of his funds, even though the player considers the requirement unwarranted and wants to withdraw his winnings. The player confirmed the withdrawal was successful.

The player from India 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.