Leon Casino Review

The player from Germany had their account reopened by Leonbet six months after requesting a permanent ban due to gambling addiction. The casino was uncooperative regarding GDPR information and dismissed the player's refund request without review. They demanded a refund for losses incurred after their account was incorrectly reopened. The Complaints Team concluded that the player had been informed about the necessary steps for permanent self-exclusion but had not followed the required procedure, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Greece had deposited 273€ at Leon casino and won 800€, but faced issues withdrawing his winnings due to the refusal of his ID document, which was valid until 2029. The casino claimed the document was too old despite it being validated by the Greek government. After communication between the player and the casino, the complaint was rejected at the player's request.

The player from Portugal reported that casino withdrawals had surpassed the promised 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, the player's betting account had been limited and promotions removed without explanation. The casino canceled the player's withdrawal request and limited his betting to 15 cents without providing a reason. We explained that delays could occur due to verification or high request volumes and suggested patience. However, since the issue involved sports betting, which is outside our scope, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India experienced a delay in withdrawing funds from the casino. Despite the casino's claim of a 1-2 hour processing time, it had been almost 17 hours with no resolution. The player later reported that his account was blocked, and he had undergone multiple verification steps without receiving his winnings. After reviewing the casino's evidence, it was found to support claims of "opposite betting," leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Portugal had met the original requirements, but the bonus was not credited, and the requirements were changed without being listed in the Terms and Conditions. He sought the credited bonus and a refund of 129 euros. The issue remained unresolved due to a lack of response from the player, preventing further investigation.

The player from Peru had their withdrawal restricted despite their account being fully verified. After providing additional documents as requested, they did not receive a response for 7 days, despite being told they would receive an answer within 3 days. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, which stated that the player was in the queue for video verification. The player completed the video verification and eventually confirmed that his account was verified and the withdrawal was processed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Australia had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been received up to that day. The player mentioned that his account was suspended for a security check. We asked for further information but received no response. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of communication.

The player from India regularly faced deposit issues with the casino. We recommended the player contact his payment provider to investigate the lost funds, acknowledging that this process might take up to a month. The complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's lack of response, preventing further investigation.

The player from Sweden had been unable to redeem loyalty points at Leon Casino for several months despite being in contact with customer service. The casino's security team had made this decision without providing an explanation or timeline for resolution, and the player had never been able to redeem loyalty points. We contacted the casino, which acknowledged that the restriction was due to a security flag and should have been lifted earlier. The casino unblocked the loyalty points redemption, and the player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Quebec had deposited $500 CAD or 364.59 USDT to the casino on May 30, 2024, but the funds were not credited. Despite contacting support multiple times and providing an ERC20 address for a potential refund, the issue remained unresolved, with support citing 'technical difficulties' and asking for patience. The casino confirmed that the deposit had been refunded to the player's crypto wallet on May 31, 2024. The player did not respond to confirm receipt of the funds, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further communication.

The player from Portugal made a deposit and later decided to withdraw the funds from LeonCasino, but encountered an extensive verification process. Despite fulfilling all the requirements, he was informed that the withdrawal request might take up to 30 days. The player completed the requested video call and provided all necessary documents, but still faced delays. After persistent follow-ups, the casino confirmed that the player had successfully passed the verification and withdrew his winnings. The issue was resolved, and the player confirmed the receipt of his funds.

The player from Greece experienced a delay and limitations in his account after an unusual second verification request, which included pictures from a PC and ID card, as well as full bank statements. He did not receive any updates for eight days, and his access was limited to casino games. We requested additional information from the player, but after failing to receive a response, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of communication.

The player from Germany reported that although all her deposits had been debited from her bank account, she had only received a part of them on the casino site. Despite reporting the issue and sending the necessary documents, the casino claimed to find no errors. The player was advised to wait a few weeks and forward payment confirmations. However, the player stopped responding to further requests for information. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the inability to investigate further.

The player from Portugal had completed the casino's requested verification process, which included additional unusual steps. Despite complying, the player had been waiting for 20 days without a response. As a result, he could not access his funds and was unable to place sports bets. After further communication and a video call, the verification process was eventually completed, and withdrawals were processed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from India had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. We advised the player to be patient and wait at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. Despite multiple attempts to contact the player for further information, no response was received. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from British Columbia had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. We informed the player that withdrawal processes could take several days or weeks and advised patience. Despite extending the response time, the player did not reply to our inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Portugal, who had self-identified as a gambling addict, reported that he had repeatedly requested Twin Casino and Leon Casino to block his account due to his addiction, but his requests had been disregarded. Despite his self-exclusion from the Portuguese gaming regulator SRIJ, the player had been able to continue playing and lost over 20,000€. The player also claimed that Leon Casino owed him €2450, which he alleged had disappeared from his account. The casino and the bank were involved in an official investigation regarding the missing funds and possible failed self-exclusion. The player also reported that he had filed a complaint with the police against Leon Casino for operating illegally in Portugal. The casino had responded that the issue had been escalated to their regulator, KGC. We decided to wait for the regulator's decision before taking further action. The regulator decided in the casino's favor, and the complaint was closed accordingly.

The player from India had issues with depositing 500₹ to their Leon account. Despite the money having been deducted from their bank account, the balance did not reflect the same. The player confirmed this had been their first deposit. We had advised the player to contact their bank for further investigation as the transaction seemed to be stuck somewhere in the process. However, due to the lack of response from the player to our follow-up inquiries, we were unable to proceed with any further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Germany reported that the casino unjustifiably closed their account due to a slow response. The player had already completed the verification process but was continually asked for additional documents. The Complaints Team intervened, and after communication with the casino, it was clarified that the player did not respond to a video verification request within the provided 7-day period. The casino agreed to offer one more chance for video verification. The player failed to respond to the Complaints Team's messages within the given timeframe, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from British Columbia was unable to withdraw winnings due to an extended verification process. Despite having provided the required documents and received confirmation, the player's withdrawal attempts remained restricted. The player had attempted to contact the casino's customer service multiple times, only receiving automated responses. We had invited the casino representative to the conversation, who stated that the player had passed the verification and withdrawn the funds. However, the player did not confirm this and stopped responding to our messages, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden, a regular at LeonBet, had deposited €3500 and won €19275. Despite being a verified customer with previous smooth withdrawals, he had experienced delays in receiving his winnings. Despite numerous interactions with customer service, the issue had remained unresolved. We had attempted to investigate the complaint, asking the player for additional details. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had a withdrawal request of 250 Euros that was cancelled without explanation, despite having had successful withdrawals in the past and having completed account verification. The casino had not communicated about the cancellation. Despite our attempts to reach out and gather more information, the player hadn't responded to our messages. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had no choice but to reject the complaint.

The player from India had won 165,000 rupees at an online casino. However, all winnings had been confiscated due to alleged fraud and duplicate account creation, which the player denied. The player had demanded a thorough review of the case and restitution of the confiscated winnings. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, it was found that the player had submitted forged identification documents. The player had admitted to uploading a low quality copy of his original document due to misplacement. However, it had been determined that the player had used the same photo but different names on the IDs, which was considered fraud. As a result, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from India had made a successful deposit of 1750 on February 28th 2024, but it had not been credited to his Leonbet account. Despite daily correspondence with customer support and providing a payment slip, the issue had not been resolved after 11 days. The casino insisted the payment was being held by the payment provider. We had suggested he contact his payment provider and forwarded the payment confirmation to the casino. However, the player had not responded to our messages, hence we were unable to investigate further. The complaint had been rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Ukraine had deposited $1,243 into his casino account but was unable to withdraw his winnings because the only withdrawal method, Webmani, was blocked in Ukraine. Despite having verified his documents, the casino had suggested he open a Euro account, which he disagreed with. The player had confirmed he had $3,901 in his casino account, accumulated without a bonus. After we had invited the casino to provide their side of the situation, the issue was resolved. The player had received his funds in full and expressed satisfaction with the resolution. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany suspected that the platform had manipulated the RTP as he had significant losses. He demanded his account to be permanently blocked and requested all his game logs to be sent in a PDF format. Despite numerous attempts, the player failed to provide the game history or any communication with the casino about the issue. Therefore, we couldn't investigate the issue further or ask the casino for cooperation. Without any supporting evidence, we had to close the complaint.

The player from Portugal had an issue with her betting site regarding deposits and winnings. Despite having made several deposits, she hadn't won anything. She was frustrated about a clause that obliged a player to play with the entire deposit amount and was considering legal action. We had explained to her that all regulated casinos required players to wager real money deposits as a standard anti-money laundering rule. We also pointed out the relevant clause in the casino's terms and conditions. However, without any further information or evidence from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had experienced an extensive account verification process, which prevented him from accessing games, placing bets, or viewing his transaction history. Despite having reached out to support, he was continually told to wait without any progress for two weeks. After he submitted all required documents and had a video call for account verification, the player's account was reinstated. We had confirmed the resolution of the issue with the player.

The player from Ireland had secured some winnings from deposits made at Leon.bet casino and tried to withdraw these. Despite having had their account verified previously and having it verified again after winning, the casino demanded another 'second' verification, which could take up to 30 days. In the meantime, his withdrawal of 4000 euros had been cancelled and he couldn't withdraw again. He had also mentioned an issue with his loyalty points being unavailable for exchange. The casino had responded that the account was under additional review as per their terms and conditions, and the player had used up his funds during this period. The issue with loyalty points had been due to an oversight and had been resolved. The player had requested to close the case as his account had been verified and the issue with loyalty points had been sorted. We had rejected the complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Italy had been able to play and make deposits while in France initially but had encountered issues once in Italy. When he attempted to withdraw €1,600 from his account, it was blocked due to play from a restricted location. Despite having verified the account in France, the casino hadn't clarified why subsequent deposits had been permitted from Italy. The player had provided proof of his French residence, but the casino had insisted on additional documentation. After a protracted process, the casino finally verified his account and released his funds. We assisted the player throughout the process and the issue was eventually resolved.

The player from Brazil had participated in 4 tournaments, had won prizes in each, and should have received a total of R$1050. However, the casino not only altered the payment dates and rankings but also paid only a part of the winnings without any details. The player had complained that the lack of transparency and significant changes in terms and conditions after tournaments ended were unfair. The player had provided all the necessary records and screenshots to support his claim. However, we found that while the casino did misinform the player about his tournament placement initially, it was not intentional deception. The casino had paid most of the player's winnings, and the discrepancy was due to a delay in information sharing because the tournament was not organized exclusively by the casino. Therefore, we rejected the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Greece had difficulties verifying one of his deposit cards with an online casino. Despite his attempts to offer alternative cards for verification, the casino insisted on the disputed card. The player suspected the high deposit amount may have triggered the issue. We attempted to resolve the matter by reaching out to the player and extending the response time by seven days. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to further investigate or assist, resulting in the complaint being rejected.

The player from Russia was facing issues with his casino account. Despite having completed the verification, the casino argued that he had an American account. They proposed deleting his account and creating a new one, resulting in the loss of his $49 deposit. The player couldn't select his country during registration and could only indicate a Russian number. He lost all his winnings due to his inability to withdraw. However, the Complaints Team concluded that as the player was responsible for their account, active balance, and all the bets taking place, they could not ask the casino to refund the lost winnings. Thus, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal had won 1900 euros on 12/3/2023 and had provided the requested photo verification for his account. Despite this, he had still been awaiting a response and the chance to schedule a video verification after 15 days of waiting. We had asked him to provide more details and any relevant communication. The player later informed us that the video call had been conducted on 12/21, his account had been unblocked, and he had been able to withdraw his winnings. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as resolved.

A player from Thailand experienced an issue with the slot game called "Piggy Tab" on Leon. Despite breaking the piggy bank twice, which should result in a jackpot, no winnings were credited to the player's account. The provided customer service asked for a bet ID, which the player couldn't find in their gaming history. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Sweden had experienced issues with account verification at the casino. Despite having submitted all requested documents including a picture of the bank card used, proof of residence, and a photo holding the passport with a piece of paper stating the date and company title, the casino had rejected the submissions mostly due to format and clarity. We had provided advice on the importance of KYC and asked for more details about the documents submitted. However, due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. Upon submitting the complaint, the player had reported receiving a portion of his withdrawal but claimed that a certain amount had been deducted without reason. The Complaints Team had tried to investigate this issue further and had extended the complaint response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. The complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Portugal had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player had complained about the casino cancelling his withdrawal and restricting his withdrawal option, despite him providing all required documents for verification. The casino then had scheduled a video verification session. After some delay, the player received his winnings. The issue was resolved with the help of the Complaints Team, who had facilitated communication between the player and the casino.

The player from Greece had issues with his casino account closure following a successful withdrawal request. Just after his withdrawal request of over 1100 euros had been verified, the casino closed his account. The player and his father both used the same bank account for transactions, which was against the casino's rules. We clarified that each player had to use a payment method exclusively belonging to them. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Austria is unable to withdraw winnings as the casino claims that Skrill, the method used for deposit, is not available in their country. Additionally, the player has been prohibited from using other withdrawal methods. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Greece is struggling with a 5k withdrawal from Leoncasino. Despite completing prior withdrawals successfully, this withdrawal requires additional documentation and up to a 30-day processing period. We tried to investigating the situation, starting with asking the player additional questions. We closed the complaint since the player didn't respond.

The player from India had deposited 1450₹, won 30190₹, and submitted a withdrawal request when his account was suddenly closed due to alleged money laundering. Despite successful document verification and attempts to clarify the situation, the casino refused to reopen the account and return his winnings. The player had claimed that his identity was verified and that the casino was unfairly withholding his winnings. However, the casino had provided evidence suggesting the player had registered using false information. After reviewing the provided evidence, we concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions. The complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from Portugal had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The casino had returned the funds to her gaming account instead of transferring them to her bank account. She had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service. We had attempted to assist by asking for further information and extending the response deadline. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, which led to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Greece had had issues withdrawing 597 euros from an online casino. Despite multiple attempts and having provided all required documents for verification, his withdrawal requests had been repeatedly declined. The player had been unclear as to why his documents were not accepted. After several communications with the casino's support team, his identification had finally been verified. Consequently, the player had been able to successfully withdraw his winnings. The issue had been resolved and the complaint had been closed.

The player from Greece had his account locked by Leon.bet, which prevented him from placing bets or withdrawing funds totaling €510.28. Despite having provided identification, the issue remained unresolved. The player was able to withdraw only €130 out of his total funds, but he did not specify why the remaining balance was not withdrawn. The player did not respond to further inquiries from the complaints team, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from Ontario had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. After our advice to wait for the standard withdrawal processing time, the player confirmed that she had received her funds. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany had been consistently depositing money into her casino account but had not seen any returns. After her complaint was submitted, we had informed her that we could not take action based solely on her description, as the nature of casinos involved both wins and losses. We had provided her with resources to understand the payout ratio (RTP) and variance in casino games. We extended the complaint response time by 7 days, however, the player did not respond within the given time frame. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had been waiting for a month for his withdrawal, despite having provided all the requested documents. His account was subsequently blocked. In response, the casino stated that the player had failed to attend two scheduled video verification calls, hence, the verification process was incomplete. We had to reject the player's complaint due to a lack of response to our messages and inquiries, which prevented further investigation or resolution of the issue.

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had complained about not receiving his withdrawal, however, the casino had clarified that the player had provided an incorrect purse number in the AstroPay payment system, and the withdrawal had already been processed on their end. We had advised the player to contact AstroPay about the error. Despite extending the response period, the player did not provide further communication, leading us to close the complaint.

The player from Brazil made a deposit of R$ 54.00 that was not credited to their casino account. Despite numerous complaints to casino support, the issue remains unresolved. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Greece faces a delayed withdrawal. Even though the account is verified, the casino keeps canceling the request and informing the player that the payment period has expired. We closed the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India had won a big prize playing Roulette and tried to withdraw the winnings. In the process, their account was blocked after an unsuccessful document verification where the casino claimed the documents he provided were forged. After gathering additional information we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece received a no-deposit bonus of 30 euros and, under unclear terms, won 588 euros. Upon attempting withdrawal, all but the initial 30 euros were voided. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from India deposited 90k using UPI. The payment was successful but it wasn't credited to her casino account. After contacting support, they simply stated that they are investigating the matter. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from India is unable to withdraw his winnings of 20,183 INR due to challenging account verification. His account was blocked following a discrepancy between the surname in his documents and the surname on his casino account. Though he explained the issue and provided valid documents, the casino refuses to reopen his account. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Sweden requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player confirmed receipt of the payment, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece has an issue with a specific game on Leon Casino. After betting over 200 euros on 'Rise of Olympus' and 'Rise of Olympus 100', he did not receive any winnings. We’ve closed this complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Greece believes the casino confiscated his entire balance. We later found out that the balance was lost during the gameplay. Although the player claims that he didn't play at that time, we were forced to close this complaint because it would be close to impossible to prove that someone else did it.

The player from Greece 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.

The player from India has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. After the investigation the fact has come to light that the player had used other person's payment method, so their deposits were refunded. Therefore, the complaint has been rejected.

The player from Greece was allowed to create a second account in the casino and deposit despite an active self-exclusion. The player stopped responding to the complaint, and it was closed as "rejected".

The player from India requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from India is criticising the mandatory deposit wagering for real money. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to verification issues directly with the payment provider. The complaint was rejected as we did not receive any response from the player regarding our messages and inquiries.

The player from India had faced an issue where his deposit was not credited to his casino balance. He had provided evidence of two transactions, but it was clarified that one of them had been sent elsewhere. Despite our team's efforts to contact the casino, there had been no response. The complaint had been marked as 'unresolved'. Later, the casino responded, providing evidence that the deposit had been successfully credited to the player's account. The player had confirmed the resolution of his issue, and the complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from India had his account blocked, and his deposits were returned. The casino had stopped responding to the complaint thread and had not provided sufficient evidence against the player. The complaint was closed as "unresolved." The complaint was reopened at the casino's request. The timeline was extended multiple times to allow for responses from both the player and the casino, but the player ultimately did not respond to the inquiries, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from India was struggling to complete the verification in the casino. The player had been communicating in Hindi and had someone translate for them during the video call verification, which the casino deemed unacceptable. The player claimed the casino had confiscated their winnings without providing a clear reason. After attempts to engage the casino in resolving the issue, we had marked the complaint as 'unresolved' due to the casino's lack of response. The casino finally responded, providing evidence that the player had failed their video verification procedure, leading us to close the complaint as unjustified. The casino had acted according to its terms and conditions.

The player from Australia has deposited money into his casino account, but the funds seem to be lost. The casino was not able to identify his account and asked him for more details. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece 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.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Greece has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal requested a withdrawal but it has not been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

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

The player from Greece is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada was experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing verification. We got contacted from the casino representative and received information that the player had successfully gone through video verification. The casino paid out on 27/12/22. Unfortunately, we were unable to find out if the player received winnings since he stopped to reply to our questions, so the complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal has experienced technical problems which caused her winnings not to be paid. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Greece has been blocked without further explanation. The casino responded and stated that the reason for blocking the account was inconsistencies in the player's personal data for their payment method. The player was asked to contact customer support so that the details could be updated. After this, the player stopped responding to our messages, so the complaint was rejected. The player requested that the complaint be reopened, so we tried to contact the casino again. While awaiting a response from the casino, the player stopped responding once more, so the complaint was again rejected.

The player from Brazil has 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 struggles to verify his account due to long waiting time. During the process of investigation the player informed us that the account was successfully verified so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from India requested a withdrawal 3 days prior to submitting this complaint. Winnings have not been received due to ongoing verification. Although the casino confirmed that the verification was successfully completed, the complaint was rejected because, in the meantime, the player lost his disputed funds.

The player from Portugal provided documents almost a month ago, but they have not been approved yet. After a short time, the casino replied and stated that the verification had now been completed and that the player had already withdrawn their funds. The player confirmed this, so the matter was resolved.

The player from Portugal is not able to withdraw their winnings due to ongoing verification. Although the verification was successful, the player played down their winnings while waiting for the verification process to finish. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played and we have no option to intervene.

The player from India was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player was then asked to complete a video verification. Upon completing this successfully, the player was verified and so the issue was resolved.

The player from India was dissatisfied with the verification process. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. Later, the complaint was reopened after we received an update from the casino. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal had her account closed in the past. Afterwards, she was able to open a new account using different email address and deposit funds. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India is dissatisfied because he is not able to play until the casino approved his documents. He submitted them weeks ago, but his account still hasn't been verified. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany had the account blocked for an audit after accumulating a substantial win. Later, the additional verification was concluded and the player's access to his account was fully restored. He was allowed to withdraw his winnings. The complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from New Zealand experienced a technical glitch while playing slots, where her winnings weren't credited. After the casino provided an explanation for the system malfunction that impacted the wagering requirements, we marked the complaint as resolved. Ultimately, the player received their payment.

The player from Greece faced issues with withdrawing funds after the casino disabled access to his withdrawal option two weeks prior. Despite a previously processed withdrawal, he was repeatedly asked for new documents, even after submitting several forms of identification and proof of address. Following a verification process that was initially disputed by the player, the withdrawal option was restored, and the player successfully received his funds. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Greece was very active but had not received a no-deposit bonus despite substantial losses exceeding €1,000. They requested a bonus and apologized for previously abrupt behavior with customer service out of frustration. The issue was resolved after the casino granted the player a €25 no-deposit bonus. The player confirmed the resolution, and the complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Portugal, who was identified as a high-risk gambler, had reported that Twin Casino Portugal had failed to close his account despite his repeated requests and national self-exclusion. The player had lost nearly €10,000 and sought to recover his losses. The player had claimed that the casino had made it complicated to self-exclude and hadn't blocked his account even after acknowledging his gambling problem. The player later reported the casino had returned all the money the player had spent post his disclosure of gambling addiction and had revamped their support team and website for easier self-exclusion and payment limitation. The player had been satisfied with the resolution.

The player from Canada had been frustrated with the casino's requirement for PDF bank statements instead of screenshots for a withdrawal after a significant win, which had caused a delay in withdrawal. After multiple interactions with the casino's customer support, the player had been asked to provide an unedited proof of deposit. The player complied and had been subsequently verified by the casino. He then successfully withdrew a small amount and a larger amount, totaling around $4000. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved.

The player from Greece had requested an account closure at Twin Casino due to concerns about gambling addiction. The casino had closed the account only to allow it to be reopened later with the same email, leading to a loss of 336 euros. The player was requesting a refund of this amount. We contacted the casino, asking for clarification on how a self-excluded player could create a new account with the same information. After reviewing the case, the casino decided to refund the deposited funds to the player and advised him on how to apply for a comprehensive self-exclusion. The player confirmed that he had received the refund and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from France had made a deposit and gained winnings at Twin Casino. After one successful verification, the casino had asked for a selfie with a passport and a site name for second verification. He had submitted the verification three times, and his withdrawal of 720 euros was delayed. The casino had claimed that they did not have any record of the player's account. After the player provided proof of his account, the casino approved his second verification and processed his withdrawal. The player was then able to access his winnings.

The player from Ireland is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the verification was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Sweden 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.

The player's unable to finish verification as his card statement is being rejected. The verification was completed successfully and the player was paid out. Due to the exchange rate difference the player withdrew less than he expected. The casino didn't offer an explantaiion, but we believe the issue is not necessarily the casino's fault. As the player doesn't wish to continue with the complaint and the main issue was resolved we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from New Zealand is having difficulties passing the verification process. The casino team later informed us the matter had been resolved and the player successfully passed the verification process. There were no further updates from the player. Based on the information provided by the casino, we closed the complaint as 'Resolved'.