Kineko Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom had claimed that the casino had reopened his account despite his request for permanent closure due to gambling addiction, which led to a loss of £5000. He had accused the casino of misusing chat history and refusing to provide a full transcript to support his claim. However, upon reviewing the evidence provided by the player and the casino, we found that the player had altered some screenshots. Additionally, it appeared that the casino had not been aware of the player's gambling problem, thus the reopening of the account was not deemed inappropriate. Consequently, we had rejected the player's complaint. We had suggested that the player could file an official complaint with the casino's licensing authority if he disagreed with our conclusion.

The player from Russia had deposited $20 and used a first deposit bonus. After fulfilling the wager requirements of a $1400 turnover, his winnings were not transferred to the real balance. He had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's support response. We had asked the player for additional information to better understand the situation, but he did not respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate the issue further, resulting in the complaint being rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced account closure after making a profit. The casino had claimed the reason was multiple accounts but the player insisted on having only one account. As a result, his funds had been confiscated and communication had ceased. The player had provided details and was willing to undergo KYC verification, but the casino maintained its stance. The casino had provided evidence to our team showing breaches of terms related to sports betting, which was outside our remit. Hence, we had recommended the player to submit a complaint on sports betting-related websites.

The player from Canada had experienced issues with Kineko Casino and Sportsbook. After successfully making a withdrawal, his subsequent withdrawals had been barred due to alleged multiple accounts, a claim he denied. This had resulted in blocked withdrawals and an account balance totaling 20972.14 USD. The player confirmed he had only participated in sports betting, not casino games. Upon learning this, we informed the player that our forum dealt with complaints regarding online casinos only and we lacked sufficient insight to handle sports betting-related issues. However, we had offered to contact the casino on his behalf to gather more information, but had to reject the complaint due to its nature.

The player from Canada had been dealing with a pending withdrawal since June 17 and had been receiving frequent excuses via email. His payouts had been limited to 5k every few months. Despite the player's attempts to resolve the issue, the complaints team had been unable to assist as the issue was related to sports betting, which fell outside of their jurisdiction over online casino complaints. The team had reached out to the casino for more information but had to reject the player's complaint due to the nature of the issue.

The player from Norway, who had a balance of $152,150 USD, had been struggling with delayed withdrawals since May 2023. The casino had provided different explanations and had set up a weekly payment plan, but had failed to honor it consistently. The player had requested a full update, an explanation for the delay, a reasonable timeline for resolution, and assurance of the security of the remaining balance. After our Complaints Team had intervened, the casino communicated with the player and agreed to pay out all rightfully generated earnings. The casino confirmed that the withdrawal was moved to November due to a delay in their new sportsfeed release and the next payment would be made on Dec. 22nd. We had considered this complaint resolved after the player confirmed the receipt of the initial payment and it was understood the subsequent one would be disbursed according to the agreed-upon terms. We were confident that all outstanding payments would be completed as scheduled. The complaint was later reopened by a request from the player, as the player had not received the initially agreed payments, however, new information in regards to the player's sports betting game play came to light that influenced the initial agreement. Regrettably, the winnings are derived from sports betting, we are unable to pursue this case further and have had to reject it. The player was advised to submit a complaint to other ADRs that specialized in sports betting-related complaints.

The player from Norway received a bonus. Then he was informed the bonus was not credited correctly and the casino confiscated his winnings. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.