Marathonbet Casino BY Review

The player from Poland had accumulated significant winnings on Marathonbet Casino. After passing a verification process, the player's withdrawal request had been denied under the claim that they had breached terms of service. The casino had stated that the player's account was not being used for genuine purposes and was subsequently closed. The player had confirmed that his winnings were from live casino games. The casino later clarified that the account had been closed due to the provision of false information during registration. We had been unable to investigate further due to the personal nature of the information involved and had advised the player to contact the Curaçao Antillephone N.V. for further assistance. The player had not responded to our last message, thus we had to reject this complaint.

The player from Austria had been unable to successfully withdraw his winnings from Marathonbet, despite numerous attempts and communication with his bank. The repeated failures had resulted in a loss of all his funds, including deposits. We regretted to inform that since the player had already utilized his winnings, there was limited assistance we could have provided. The player was reminded of his responsibility in managing his account, active balances, and all wagers placed. Despite our inability to resolve the issue, we had encouraged the player to reach out for any future issues. The complaint was dismissed as unjustified.

The player from Brazil had experienced an account blockage after he had placed bets and withdrawn winnings. The casino had reportedly blocked his account because he had not used the total deposit value for betting. The player had been frustrated due to the lack of prior notifications about this rule. Upon review, we found that the casino's action had been in line with their terms and conditions, which stated that if the amounts of money deposited and withdrawn did not correlate with bets placed, the casino could proceed with enhanced customer verification procedures and had the right to close the account. This rule was a common practice in casinos and was in accordance with Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for the Gaming and Gambling Industry. The complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil had his account at Marathonbet Casino locked after a few days of use. Despite having provided all the required information, the casino had claimed that the information didn't match and retained his funds. The player had claimed to have provided correct and true personal information during registration. The Complaints Team had requested further evidence from the player, and upon review, discrepancies were found in the documents provided, particularly in the utility bill. Despite the player's attempts to provide alternative proofs of address, Marathonbet Casino had maintained its decision to close the account, citing clause 1.4.5 of their rules. The Complaints Team had concluded that the casino was within its rights to refuse and proceed following its terms and conditions, which resulted in the complaint being rejected.

The player from Peru 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 Ukraine passed the KYC and successfully withdrew, however the casino withheld a rather large amount from the accumulated winnings as a withdrawal processing fee. Allegedly, the reason for withholding the amount was an inconsistency between the amount of placed bets and the amounts of deposits / withdrawals made from the player's gaming account. We closed this complaint as 'Unresolved' because the casino failed to reply. Later, the complaint was reopened as per the casino's request. The case was rejected because the player stopped responding.