Instant Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom requested the payout of his account balance after a change of heart about closing his account. He had deposited €50 and won between €90-€95 from a bet, but during the bet in question, the casino processed his closure request. He provided new bank details and photo ID for verification but had not received any updates on his account balance. The issue was resolved as the player confirmed that the funds had now been received.

The player from Spain had deposited around 1200 euros but had their account closed when they attempted to withdraw 1500 euros. They did not receive any responses to their emails regarding the situation. The Complaints Team found that the casino's terms and conditions had been breached due to the use of a third-party payment method for deposits. As a result, the casino's decision to confiscate the player's winnings was deemed fair, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece successfully initiated a withdrawal of 800 euros, which was confirmed by email, but had not received the funds despite previous withdrawals being credited immediately. The casino was unresponsive to chat and emails regarding the issue. The complaint was resolved when the player received the funds one day later.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal of €2250 on August 8th and received confirmation that the funds were sent on August 10th, but she had not yet received the money. Despite weekly inquiries and providing account statements, customer support only advised her to be patient. After two months, she received a message from the casino stating that the funds had been credited back to her account, allowing her to attempt the withdrawal again. Ultimately, she successfully received her winnings, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had self-excluded due to gambling addiction and had their account closed, but was able to open a new account using the same personal details shortly after. Despite making no withdrawals, he requested a full refund of the deposits made on the new account, citing a lack of safeguards against re-registration. He had deposited €585 on the second account and noted that the casino had failed to respond adequately after the account's closure. The issue was closed with the player accepting the casino's response regarding their account management practices, leading to the closure of the complaint.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal of €1,600 from Instant Casino, but after more than 10 business days, the funds were still not received. Despite multiple communications with customer support and providing the requested documents, including bank statements, the player faced constant delays and additional demands for evidence. The Complaints Team, after reviewing the situation, concluded that the casino's account blocking was likely due to detected activities requiring further investigation, which limited the ability to evaluate the complaint adequately. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Sweden requested the deletion of a closed virtual card from the casino but faced refusal due to the requirement of a bank statement from Klarna Bank, which could not be provided for virtual cards. He submitted transaction receipts and card details, but the casino continued to deny his proof of ownership. The issue was resolved when the casino deleted the card according to his wishes, despite initially requiring documentation that was unattainable for virtual cards. The resolution occurred without a clear explanation from the casino.

The player from the United Kingdom had an approved withdrawal of 1000 euros that had not been credited to their bank account. The issue was resolved after the player confirmed that the funds had arrived. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation of receipt.

The player from Sweden had created an account at Instantcasino, deposited 300 euros, and won a total of 1700 euros in withdrawals. However, her account was closed without explanation after multiple unsuccessful attempts to process her withdrawals and communicate with support, which she suspected was unresponsive or non-existent. The issue was resolved when the player received her winnings, but she still did not receive an explanation for the account closure or any follow-up communication from the casino. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Italy was unable to upload the verification documents required for a withdrawal, as there was no section available in her gaming account. Despite sending multiple emails and receiving vague responses in chat, there had been no resolution since August 5th, and the player was looking to retrieve her winnings. The issue was resolved after the casino's technical team addressed the problem with the document submission process. However, the player did not respond to follow-up inquiries from the Complaints Team, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of further communication.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had registered with GAMSTOP due to a gambling addiction, reported that InstantCasino had not responded to his emails regarding the issues with his account. Despite having bank blocks in place to prevent gambling transactions, he had continued to deposit and wager over £2000. The Complaints Team extended the timeline for resolution due to the designated resolver's absence but ultimately had to reject the complaint after the player did not respond to further inquiries.

The player from Germany had experienced issues with her first deposit at Instant Casino. Despite having provided screenshots of the bank transaction, the casino did not accept the evidence and requested different proof. After several communications and delays in obtaining a bank statement, the player successfully submitted the required documents. Following this, her payment was processed, and the issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Sweden had deposited funds into the casino and initially withdrew 150 euros without any issues. After his account was closed, the casino requested further verification documents, including an ID photo with an IBAN account PDF, which he provided. Despite sending the required documents, the player had not received any response from the casino. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the account had been reopened, and the player was able to make a successful withdrawal, but the player failed to confirm that.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited €20, completed a one-time wager of €420, and attempted to withdraw. Despite receiving email confirmation of the successful withdrawal, the funds were returned to the playing balance, and the player was asked to wager €420 again. After contesting, the account was closed, and the player was instructed to send bank details for a manual refund. We contacted the casino support, and the player confirmed that the money was finally received. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited money despite being registered with Gamstop and having gambling blocks on debit cards because transactions did not appear as gambling merchants. There had been no response to the player's complaint, and the support team claimed they couldn't access the complaints department. Upon review, it was found that the casino had closed the player's account immediately after her request. The player was advised to contact the Licensing Authority Gaming Curaçao for further assistance.

The player from the UK voiced concerns about the eligibility of the casino's license and its connections to another site, Slotmonster, from which she had self-excluded. Despite the self-exclusion, she was still allowed to deposit on the platform. She requested a refund of her deposits, but the casino did not respond. We determined that since she had not informed the casino about her gambling problem before creating the account and her account was already closed, there was no further assistance we could provide. The complaint was therefore rejected.