Mega Dice Casino Review

The player from Japan had attempted the welcome bonus when his account got permanently closed without any clear explanation. The user had confirmed that he had passed the full KYC verification and had been playing Cowboy Slots. He also mentioned that his balance had been refunded, but he was unable to achieve the bonus. The casino had not provided a specific reason for the account closure. However, we had pointed out the casino's terms and conditions, which allowed them to close or suspend any account without prior notice. As the player had received a refund and there was no balance in his account, we concluded that the casino had been within its rights to close the account. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Mississippi had raised a complaint about a cashback bonus that was removed from his account by Mega Casino without any clear reason or evidence. He claimed to have made several deposits and lost his money. We were unable to investigate further since the player hasn't responded to your questions and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Norway claimed that Mega Dice Casino was refusing to pay out his withdrawal request. He had requested permanent self-exclusion and provided all necessary verification documents, but alleged the casino had ignored his queries about the payment status. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, due to the player's lack of response to further communication, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. The complaint was therefore rejected.

Player from the UK has been IP banned on the crypto casino, Megadice. The player, who is unable to withdraw winnings, has requested a refund and has sent emails to the casino's support team but has received no response. The complaint was rejected as the player had no remaining balance on the casino account therefor was not eligible for any refund.

A player from Spain reported that their underage son was able to access the casino and gamble using their Binance wallet containing 9600 USDT. Despite the casino's rules, no sufficient age or location checks seemed to be in place. After being informed, the casino blocked the son's account, but refused to refund the lost money. The complaint was rejected as the casino is not responsible for the registration made by the underage person.

The Canadian player reports a serious problem with Megadice Telegram Casino. She was able to successfully withdraw after the second deposit, but on her third deposit (declining the bonus), they manually withdrew her balance of $2,000 and ceased all communication. The casino has provided us with evidence of delayed bonus rounds therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Russia reported that his account was blocked right after he sent documents for verification. Prior to this, he had a successful withdrawal, but the disputed withdrawal of 2000 was left in 'Review' status. It turned out that the complainant accumulated his winnings from a tournament, thanks to breaching a specific rule valid for the promotion. Later, the complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions after we asked him for more details and evidence supporting his claims.

The player from Isle of Man used Mega Dice Casino because they promoted themselves as an anonymous/no KYC platform. The player deposited around $200 in BTC and managed to win about $4,000. The casino then asked for identity verification, which the player refused resulting in account closure. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Russia had reported that her online casino account had been blocked when she had attempted to withdraw her winnings, after having fulfilled all wagering requirements. The casino had accused her of fraudulent gameplay, which she had denied. The casino had provided evidence of alleged fraudulent behavior, showing the player and other accounts placing bets in a pattern that suggested collusion. This, according to the casino, had been a violation of their terms and conditions. Upon investigation, we had found that the player had violated the max bet rule while playing with an active bonus and had been part of a collusion to abuse the bonus system. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected.