Megapari Casino CA Review

The player from Bulgaria reported issues with self-excluding in the casino and required assistance. The complaint was resolved as the casino successfully deactivated her account after she submitted the necessary documents. The account closure was confirmed to have taken place within two days of her request. The player acknowledged that the case was over, leading to the complaint being marked as resolved.

The player from India was unable to deposit or withdraw funds and could not place bets due to issues updating personal information that had been incorrectly auto-filled. We concluded the player submitted fake documents for verification, which violated the casino's policies. As a result, we were unable to assist further, and the complaint was closed as unjustified. The player was advised that only genuine documents should be used for verification to enable withdrawals.

The player from Spain faced recurring withdrawal issues at MegaPari, where the casino complicated the process whenever he won a significant amount. Recently, he had noticed that the SEPA withdrawal method was hidden, leaving only the card method available, which required him to undergo repeated verification processes. After an investigation, it was found that his card had been blocked, but this issue was resolved, and he successfully withdrew 1,000 EUR. However, he later reported that his account had been closed without notification while he still had 719 EUR in the account. The complaints team confirmed that his account was unblocked and his funds were withdrawn, but the complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of confirmation.

The player from Chile faced difficulties withdrawing his funds due to a payment method used for deposits that was not eligible for withdrawals. After being instructed to deposit additional funds using a new payment method, he still could not withdraw his money despite meeting the casino's conditions. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed he was able to withdraw his winnings successfully using the selected payment method. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system following this confirmation.

The player from Spain faced account restrictions after achieving winnings, with the casino requiring identification verification for withdrawals. Despite submitting the requested documents and waiting beyond the promised 72 hours, there had been no response. The issue was resolved with the player's account verification completed, and a withdrawal processed. However, the player expressed concern over the casino limiting his betting amounts after winning.

The player from Spain faced difficulties withdrawing funds from the casino. After requesting three withdrawals totaling 2,286 euros, they only received 700 euros. Despite providing multiple bank statements, the casino continued to ask for more proof, prolonging the process. The issue remained unresolved as the player did not respond to the Complaints Team's inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Chile was unable to withdraw funds as the casino required the same method used for deposit, which none of the options allowed. Despite following support's advice to use Webpay, withdrawals were still denied. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, which led to the identification of an issue with the payment method used for deposits. The player was advised to make a minimum deposit using the correct WebPay method to enable withdrawals. As the player did not confirm the resolution, the complaint was marked as rejected.

The player from Spain was unable to withdraw 2,000 euros because the SEPA method had been disabled for over 3 days, and card withdrawals were automatically rejected. Despite completing a thorough verification process a month prior, recurring issues persisted, and he demanded an immediate solution. The casino confirmed technical issues with the SEPA method and requested additional card verification. The player expressed frustration over repeated delays. The complaint was closed as resolved after advising the player to wait 14 days for the withdrawal process.

The player from Denmark faced difficulties withdrawing money from Megapari. Despite verifying a new card and receiving support, the player could only make small withdrawals; larger amounts were always delayed with instructions to wait longer. We confirmed that the player successfully withdrew funds using an alternative method (Jeton) after experiencing issues with the original card. The complaint was marked as resolved after the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from Spain faced ongoing issues withdrawing €3000, with the casino repeatedly blaming his bank despite the bank confirming there were no issues. The casino initially attributed the problem to a blocked card and suggested completing a verification process. Despite the player attempting withdrawals via SEPA, the method was later disabled due to maintenance. The player eventually lost his balance, and the complaint was closed due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Argentina had repeatedly requested self-exclusion for over a week, but the casino had ignored the requests and instead offered bonuses. We determined that the casino acted correctly by blocking the player's account within two days after he explicitly mentioned his gambling addiction. The player's initial emails did not clearly state his addiction, causing confusion. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from British Columbia attempted to close the casino account and, despite multiple emails to the relevant address, did not receive a response. We advised him to clearly state his request for self-exclusion and resend it. The player did not respond to further communication, and thus, the complaint was rejected due to lack of follow-up.

The player from Bangladesh, residing in Portugal, faced difficulties in withdrawing winnings due to repeated verification requests from the online casino. Despite submitting multiple documents, the casino continued to demand additional ones, including residency proof, which the player, being an immigrant, couldn't provide at that moment. We attempted to mediate by asking for any recent documents to confirm his stay in Portugal. The player failed to respond within the given timeframe, leading to the complaint being rejected due to insufficient information to proceed.

The player from Denmark had won 26.000 DKK on Megapari but was unable to withdraw his winnings because the previously available withdrawal methods, including Visa, were no longer displayed. Despite having contacted live support multiple times, the issue remained unresolved. The player had also reported that the casino suggested depositing through a new method and then withdrawing the same amount, but this also failed. The casino representative responded by saying the withdrawals were rejected due to technical errors and confirmed that the player had successfully withdrawn a total of 31,420 DKK. The player confirmed the receipt of funds, attributing the resolution to our intervention, but expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Spain reported multiple unsuccessful attempts to close their account at the Megapari casino. The player faced issues withdrawing his winnings of 30,200.13 euros and claimed a specific 2,000 euros withdrawal on May 2nd was never received. The casino confirmed the transaction was processed and provided an ARN number for the player to check with his bank. Despite further communication, the player decided to drop the complaint, and we closed the case as per his request.

The player from Belgium had made multiple requests to Megapari to have his account closed due to his gambling addiction but was continuously encouraged to keep playing. It resulted in substantial financial losses and emotional distress. After extensive communication, the casino offered a partial refund of €2000, which the player eventually accepted. The issue was resolved with the player confirming the receipt of the funds.

The player from Argentina had made three withdrawal requests on April 25th. However, only two had been attended to. The casino support had not offered a resolution or a receipt for the final withdrawal. The player had previously made successful withdrawals and the winnings were from real money, not a bonus. The casino had acknowledged the issue and started an investigation. Eventually, the missing payment of 15 thousand was made to the player. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' after the successful resolution.

The player from the Dominican Republic had experienced a delay in account verification, which had hindered his withdrawal process. He had also reported slow customer service. After submitting all required documents, he had claimed that the casino was not trustworthy and was using excuses to avoid payment. The casino, however, had emphasized that the verification process, while sometimes lengthy, was necessary for security purposes. Eventually, the casino had confirmed the player's successful verification and had asked for confirmation of his withdrawal requests totaling 9,913 USD. The player had confirmed he was able to withdraw his money but had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service. The issue had been resolved with the player being able to withdraw his winnings.

The player from India had faced issues with multiple deposit transactions at an online casino. An initial amount of 7500 had been deducted from his bank account and e-wallet but was not credited to his casino account. The player's subsequent attempts to deposit the same amount had also been unsuccessful, leading to heightened frustration. He had requested assistance from the Complaints Team. The casino had acknowledged the issue, conducted an investigation, and rectified the problem by crediting the amount of 7500 to the player's account. However, the player later reported a similar issue with a deposit of 3500. The casino found the issue to be due to an incorrect Reference Retrieval Number (RRN) and resolved it. The player had not confirmed the receipt of the funds despite the Complaints Team's requests, leading to the closure of the complaint.

The player from Spain had made two deposits of 2000 Euros each at Megapari. While the first deposit had appeared in the game account, the second deposit had not yet arrived. The player had provided proof of the transaction and the casino had initiated an investigation. The player also reported issues with withdrawals, which were eventually resolved after multiple attempts. However, the second deposit of 2000 Euros remained uncredited. The casino claimed that the funds were possibly frozen by the player's bank due to exceeded daily transfer limits. The player insisted that his bank had confirmed the successful transfer. Despite the unresolved issue of the second deposit, the player managed to withdraw a total of €28,249.92 from his gaming account. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' as the player confirmed the successful withdrawals.

The player from Chile was unable to access his casino account due to a lengthy verification process. The casino had been requesting various documents since April 1, with no clear end date. The player had deposited a total of $455,000 and was upset because the casino was only returning $190,377. He also claimed that the casino had deleted his losing bets, leaving only the winning ones. The casino responded that the account closure was due to violations of their terms and conditions, including fraudulent activities such as multiple account registrations, use of automated betting software, and arbitrage betting. As a result, they had only refunded the initial deposit. The Complaints Team could not intervene further due to the issue being related to sports betting, which was outside their jurisdiction.

The player from India dealt with a deposit issue. Despite the amount being deducted from his bank account, it was not reflected in his casino account. Neither a refund nor a credit in the casino account was made. We advised the player to contact his bank for a chargeback request. However, he failed to provide sufficient proof of the chargeback request or a bank statement. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response and evidence from the player.

The player from Slovenia had trouble withdrawing his winnings of 1500 EUR from an online casino. His attempts to withdraw the funds had been repeatedly rejected, regardless of the withdrawal amount. The casino's support team initially stated that the player could only withdraw the same amount he had deposited. However, after the issue was escalated to their Payment Team, it was revealed that technical glitches had caused the withdrawal problems. Following the casino's advice to try the withdrawal again, the player had been able to successfully withdraw all his winnings. The issue was thus resolved.

The player from Slovenia encountered an issue with the bonus system—after completing x35 wagering requirements and increasing the balance to 3745€, the casino returned only the initial bonus of 25€. Despite attempts to resolve this with support, the problem persisted for 6 months. We determined that the casino correctly applied the maximum cashout rule of 1x the bonus amount upon meeting the wagering requirements. The player's winnings beyond the 25€ bonus were voided as per the casino's terms and conditions. The complaint was closed as unjustified due to the casino's adherence to its stated rules.

The player from Canada had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service and their procedures for responsible gambling. He had been particularly frustrated with the ID requirement for account closure and the slow response time. The Complaints Team had advised the player on the correct procedure for self-exclusion, emphasizing the importance of verifying his identity for future protection. Despite the player's skepticism about the need for ID verification, the casino eventually closed his account. We had concluded the issue as resolved, highlighting that the account verification process was a standard procedure before account closure.

The player from Argentina had faced an issue with a deposit of 90,000 ARS to an online casino. The amount had been deducted from his bank account, but the casino initially rejected the transaction. Eventually, the casino confirmed that the deposit had been successfully credited to the player's account. However, due to the player's lack of response to further communication, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Austria had repeatedly requested Megapari to close his account. However, the casino had demanded ID verification to proceed with the closure, which the player had viewed as unnecessary and infringing on his privacy. Despite multiple requests and extended timelines, the account closure had not been successful. The complaints team had advised the player on how to request self-exclusion and had highlighted the importance of ID verification for account security and to prevent future re-registration. The casino had also responded, providing a detailed procedure for account closure. However, due to the lack of response from the player to further communications, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had doubled her original deposit but was unable to access her winnings due to unsuccessful KYC verification. Despite her multiple attempts to complete the verification with her ID, her account had remained unverified. After she contacted the casino, she had been informed that her account was verified, but she was unable to withdraw her winnings due to not meeting the wagering requirements. The casino had stated that the deposit amount must have been fully invested in bets with odds of at least 1.1 for withdrawal approval. The player had been unhappy with this requirement but eventually complied, which resulted in her losing half of her winnings. The casino had processed her withdrawal request after she met the wagering requirements. The issue had been resolved and the complaint was closed.

The player from Argentina had not been able to withdraw her substantial funds from MegaPari using her usual method, ASTROPAY. She had made a new deposit via LEMON CASH on their advice and attempted to withdraw $126,000 of her $589,000 account balance but multiple obstacles had suddenly been introduced, including betting requirements and additional verification. She had complied but to that point, had received no response, continuing to feel scammed. After a thorough investigation, we had concluded that the issue involved sports betting and third-party payment which was against the casino's policy, leading to the rejection of the complaint. The player had been advised to contact the licensing authorities for further assistance.

The player from the United Kingdom had had his Megapari account suspended after a self-verification process, even though he had been in profit from sports betting. The casino had refunded the account balance, but had not provided a reason for the suspension. After having communicated with the casino, we had learned the issue was related to sports betting, not casino games. As our forum had primarily dealt with online casino complaints, we had lacked the necessary insight to resolve sports betting issues. Therefore, we had had to close the complaint due to these circumstances.

The player from Argentina had deposited funds using Astropay but later discovered that the Astropay withdrawal option had been removed. Despite having reached out to customer service, they had not provided a solution. After the player had filed a complaint, the casino had suggested making a minimum deposit using another payment method, wagering the deposited funds, and then withdrawing the total balance. The player had successfully executed this method and was able to withdraw all their previous winnings. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit of $200,000 Argentine Pesos via Mercado Pago into their Megapari account, but it had never arrived. Despite having a receipt for success, the casino had rejected the deposit and it had vanished from the transaction history. After 4 days, the player had still not received the money back. The player had contacted the payment provider who confirmed the transfer was successful. The casino later confirmed that the deposit had been successfully credited to the player's gaming account. Despite this, the player had failed to confirm resolution, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Denmark had encountered difficulties withdrawing his winnings from Megapari. Despite having deposited 400 EUR and making some small winnings, the player had been unable to access his funds due to technical issues and confusion around required banking information. The casino's representative had stated that the player's withdrawal of 678 DKK had been successfully completed. However, without a confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint. The player could reopen this complaint anytime.

The player from Spain couldn't withdraw winnings from the online casino. Multiple deposits with two credit cards had been successful, but once the player started winning, the casino had refused withdrawal requests and made excuses tied to the payment method. The player had passed the KYC verification and the winnings were accumulated without a bonus. The casino representative had acknowledged the issue, attributing it to technical glitches. After several attempts, the casino had confirmed the approval of the player's withdrawal. The player later confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the issue.

The player from Finland had been facing issues with withdrawing his 1,000 EUR winnings from Megapari Casino due to the casino's unconventional withdrawal methods. Despite his numerous queries, the casino's only response had been to wait or make additional deposits to unlock more options. The player had expressed a lack of trust in the casino's advice as his previous deposits did not unlock any new withdrawal methods. The casino had responded by explaining that the withdrawal methods were influenced by factors such as licensing authority, geolocation, and contracts with payment providers. They had suggested the player follow their instructions for alternative payment methods. The player had been in constant communication with the casino's security department for the verification process. However, he was frustrated by the slow progress and lack of clarity from the casino. The casino had assured the player that once the verification process was completed, he should not face any further issues with withdrawing his funds. Despite the casino's assurance, the player remained skeptical and eventually stopped responding. The case was then subsequently rejected.

The player from Spain had experienced difficulties withdrawing 8271 euros from their casino account. Despite numerous attempts and using different banks, the withdrawal request continually failed, and the funds were redirected back into the account. The casino had attributed the issue to occasional technical problems with their payment systems and confirmed that the player had successfully made 4 withdrawals totaling 4000 EUR. After a series of exchanges, the player managed to withdraw 8000 euros and thanked the casino. However, the player later complained about withdrawal fees and requested a refund. The casino had offered a promo code worth 100 EUR as compensation but refused to refund the fees. The player then requested the closure of their account. After confirming that there were no pending transactions or withdrawable balances on the player's account, the casino agreed to close the account upon receipt of a formal request from the player. The player confirmed that their issues had been resolved.

The player from Italy had had two issues with the online casino: He had claimed that his football game winnings were incorrectly calculated and part of the payout had been withheld. Additionally, he had won a bet in roulette but the money had disappeared from the account shortly after, and the casino's chat support hadn't provided a satisfactory explanation for either case. After our team had intervened, the casino had acknowledged the error and returned the disputed amount to the player's account. The player had confirmed the receipt of the funds and considered the matter resolved.

The player from Argentina had deposited $80,000 Argentinian pesos and earned $40,000 in profits at 'Megapari'. When he had attempted to withdraw his total account balance, the casino allegedly only permitted the withdrawal of winnings, insisting he must use his total account balance before withdrawal. We had reached out to the player for further information to investigate the issue, but we did not receive a response. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Vietnam had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting his complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. He reported that the casino had declined his withdrawal requests multiple times and his account balance had kept decreasing. The player had successfully withdrawn money in the past using bank transfer, but the option was no longer available due to a system error. Eventually, the player exhausted all his funds and requested to close the complaint. The complaint was closed as requested by the player.

The player from Mexico had encountered difficulties while trying to withdraw his winnings from Megapari Casino. Initially, his bank details had not been accepted by the 'Bank Transfer' method, which had caused an 'Error filling in the account field' message. He then attempted to withdraw using a different account (BBVA), but the transaction was rejected by the operator within minutes. After the player had lodged his complaint, we had contacted the casino to clarify the situation. The casino confirmed that, after thorough verification, the player's withdrawals had been successfully processed. With the issue resolved, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Slovenia had faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to repeated transaction rejections. Despite having reached out to the casino's support, he had been advised to try again later and discovered that the MasterCard withdrawal option was not available. However, the issue had been resolved when the player successfully completed a transaction on his credit card. The casino had confirmed the successful withdrawal of a total of 500 EUR through three separate transactions. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Mexico had had difficulties withdrawing his winnings from the online casino due to form errors and payment processing issues. Despite multiple interactions with the casino's support, the issue had remained unresolved. He had feared that the casino was deliberately ignoring his requests to prevent him from withdrawing his money. After intervention by the Complaints Team, the casino had acknowledged the issue was due to technical difficulties and confirmed that the player had successfully made two withdrawals. The player had confirmed the resolution of his problem but expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's services. The Complaints Team then had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Vietnam had trouble withdrawing funds due to a phone verification issue. The casino refused to release winnings over $500 due to a discrepancy between the ID information provided at sign-up and the actual ID card. The player admitted to providing the incorrect ID number at registration, but confirmed that the rest of the details were correct. The casino had advised the player to provide additional information to change his personal details. The player failed to respond within the given time frame, resulting in the rejection of his complaint.

An Italian player had repeatedly requested for her account at the casino to be closed, but her requests had not been addressed. She had also sought to permanently self-exclude herself from the casino. Shortly after, the player informed us that her issue was resolved and requested no further intervention. Thus, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Vietnam had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money hadn't been received yet. The player also had an issue with his deposit, which the casino claimed they hadn't received. After the player provided a screenshot of the payment, the casino acknowledged the deposit and credited it to the player's account. However, the casino initially didn't allow the player to withdraw his winnings. The issue escalated until the casino finally permitted the withdrawal. We intervened to mediate the situation, and the player confirmed that he had been able to withdraw his winnings. The issue had been resolved.

The player from Ireland requested a permanent account closure in November. Despite this, the casino contacted the player with an offer to reopen the account. The player is upset with this behavior as they had originally decided to permanently close the account. The complaint was rejected as the player was not entitled for a refund as he did not request for a self-exclusion. The casino promised to keep his account closed in the future.

The player from Argentina had deposited 10,000 pesos which was never credited to her account. Despite her repeated follow-ups, the casino had kept asking her to wait for different periods. After five days without a resolution, the player had lodged a complaint. We had advised the player to contact her payment provider, AstroPay, for further assistance as the casino claimed they were unable to assist directly. Despite extending the complaint response time by seven days, the player had failed to respond, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from India has two accounts with megapari; one has been blocked with winnings deducted, and the other is active but unable to deposit funds. The player wants to close the account and get a refund of her deposits. The complaint was rejected as the player breached the casino terms by creating multiple accounts.

The player from Peru had made several attempts to withdraw 169 PEN from his account using various methods, including bank transfer and VISA debit card. All attempts were initially approved but were later rejected with a 'Payment processing error' message. The casino had identified two issues affecting the withdrawal process: incorrect card data entry for PayRetailers and rejection by the issuing bank for Paycos. The casino had advised the player to double-check his card information and submit a new withdrawal request. However, the player did not respond to further communication, and thus the complaint was rejected.

The player from Spain had been facing issues withdrawing his 1000 euro winnings through SEPA transfer. Eventually, the player confirmed that he had been able to withdraw his winnings via SEPA. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany had registered with the Megapari casino platform, despite the platform not being licensed in Germany. He had noted that the casino conducted withdrawals without KYC verification, which raised concerns about potential underage gambling. The player had not heard from Megapari for over a week and was waiting for the return of his funds. Despite his concerns and requests for clarification, we had concluded that the casino had not acted inappropriately. The player had voluntarily created an account, made deposits, and played. The casino's verification process, while not to the player's satisfaction, was not in violation of its licensing authority's rules. As such, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from India, after playing and winning on Megapari, found all winnings deducted by the security team after document verification. The player is now unable to log into the account. The complaint was rejected as the player used a 3rd party payment method thus breaching the casino terms.

The player from Ireland had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The player had expressed frustration over multiple rejected withdrawal requests. After the casino's investigation, it was found that the payment processor could not confirm the transaction. The casino had advised the player to make a new withdrawal request via different payment methods and later confirmed that they had successfully processed a withdrawal of 615 EUR for the player. However, the player did not confirm receipt of the funds and failed to respond to further inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Spain 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 that despite having deposited over €6,000, the casino was asking for more deposits to unlock the withdrawal method. The casino had responded by requesting additional verification documents from the player. After the player had provided the necessary documentation, the casino confirmed successful verification and asked the player to create a new withdrawal request. The player was initially uncooperative, but later confirmed that part of the withdrawal was successful. However, they raised a new issue about a delayed deposit. The casino confirmed that the deposit had been successfully processed and credited to the player's account. The complaint was closed due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Spain had attempted to deposit 80 euros into Megapari Casino. The transaction had been rejected even though the amount had been deducted from his bank account. Despite having reached out to the casino's customer service, he had still been awaiting a resolution and had feared not being able to recover the funds. We had suggested that the player contact his bank to track the payment. The casino had requested a bank statement to investigate further. After the player had provided the necessary documentation, the casino confirmed that they had been unable to process the deposit and had refunded the amount. The player had confirmed that he received the refund, resolving the issue.

The player from India reports that Megapari blocked his account without valid reason, holding 100000 INR of his winnings. The casino has not responded to his queries and the complaint was closed as unresolved. The complaint was rejected as the player breached the casino terms.

The player from Portugal had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The player had expressed his frustration over the delay and poor customer support from the casino. The casino, after investigating, confirmed that the withdrawal of 50 EUR had been processed and asked the player to confirm receipt. The player confirmed receiving the funds but was unhappy due to the loss of €41 caused by the delay. The Complaints Team explained that they couldn't help with the lost funds, as the player was solely responsible for their account and bets. The issue was marked as 'resolved' since the player had received the winnings he didn't lose.

The player from India had trouble withdrawing his funds from Megapari. Despite providing the requested National Identity card and Netwallet transaction history, the casino's security team did not allow him to withdraw his money even after multiple attempts to contact them. The player also expressed concern about being unable to access games or place bets on the site. After a series of communications, the casino asked for a selfie with the ID, which the player couldn't provide due to not having a physical card. However, he provided a valid e-Aadhar document. The casino finally completed the verification process and approved the player's withdrawal request. The player was asked to confirm the receipt of his winnings, but he did not respond. As a result, we had to reject the complaint, but it could be reopened at any time by the player.

The player from Spain is struggling to access his casino account despite numerous password resets and attempts on various devices. Efforts to resolve the issue through Telegram and email have been unsuccessful. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Greece, who recently started gaming on Megapari, is unable to withdraw their winnings of 80 Euros. While they verified the account and made the initial deposit via MasterCard, withdrawal attempts via the same card and SEPA are being denied. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Argentina is unable to withdraw his funds as the casino eliminated the payment method he can use. The casino's support team advised him to wait, but he has no other alternative payment methods for withdrawal that work for their region. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

A player from Nigeria is having issues withdrawing his winnings, though depositing seems to be working fine. Also, a recent deposit made via BTC has not been reflected in his account. The player has attempted to contact the casino several times. The casino got in touch with us and informed us the player received his winnings. However, the player did not respond to our question if it's true, that's we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy 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 Germany is experiencing difficulties with his attempts to block his account in the casino. The player confirmed he reached an agreement with the casino and that his account was blocked.

The player from Spain had struggled to close his account in the casino, as his requests for self-exclusion were overlooked. The player had also made claims of losing €3,500 due to the casino's failure to act on his self-exclusion request. Despite multiple communications, the casino maintained that they had acted appropriately by eventually closing the account, citing open bets and the player's continued engagement with the platform as reasons for the delay. The player refuted these claims, arguing that he continued to play because his self-exclusion request was not acted upon. The complaint team believed that the casino could have handled the situation better, especially considering the player's declared gambling addiction. The case was marked as 'unresolved' as the casino team had made their final decision, refusing to refund the player's losses. Later, the casino decided to make an agreement with the player and the case was resolved.

The player struggled to withdraw his balance due to limited payment methods availability. After the casino explained the situation and the player followed its instructions, a new withdrawal was processed in a relatively short time. The complaint is resolved.

The player's withdrawal was delayed. At first, the casino didn't respond, but after reopening the complaint, we found out that the player failed to follow the casino's instructions and eventually played the funds. The complaint was rejected.

The player from Singapore has been trying to close the account due to a gambling problem. The casino team could handle this situation better, the player could finish the process, therefore both sides carried partial responsibility, and left us with no other option than to reject this case.

The player requested the casino to close her account due to a gambling addiction, but the casino never replied. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.