Odds96 Casino Review

The player from India had experienced a problem with his account which had been blocked, and he had asked for assistance. He reported that he had INR 1600 in his account. It was revealed that the player had used someone else's documents to verify his account, which was a violation of the casino's terms. We concluded that the casino had acted within their rights to block the account and confiscate the balance due to the violation of their terms. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had two accounts with the same casino. His brother had used the same ID for his account, which already had an associated account, leading to both accounts getting blocked. He had asked for an opportunity to verify his account. However, we discovered that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by creating multiple accounts and attempting to verify all of them with the same documents. Given these circumstances, we concluded that the casino had acted in compliance with their terms and conditions. Consequently, we were unable to assist further and the complaint had been rejected.

The player from India had had issues with the KYC process on the Odds96 platform. Despite assurance of a successful KYC completion in three days, the player had received a notification that his account was blocked. The player had claimed a discrepancy in the name used in his Google account and the documents submitted during the KYC process. The casino had accused the player of identity fraud, alleging that he had submitted two sets of documents. The player had defended himself, suggesting a possible glitch in his Google drive and offered to resubmit his documents. After reviewing the provided evidence, we had sided with the casino, concluding that the player had submitted someone else's ID, which was considered fraudulent. The complaint had been rejected as unjustified.

The player from India had his initial KYC verification approved, but subsequently his account got blocked. He was willing to provide additional documentation for verification to reopen his account. However, upon reviewing, we discovered that the documents provided exhibited signs of editing, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, we concurred with the casino's decision to permanently close the player's account and dismissed his complaint. We had advised the player to avoid using documents of questionable authenticity in the future.

An Australian player deposited 100 AUD into his casino account using Bitcoin. Despite confirmation of the transaction from his crypto wallet service, the amount has not been reflected in her betting account for the past two days. 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 India had his winnings capped without further explanation. We rejected the complaint as the player stopped responding, and the casino presented evidence that the player had depleted their balance down to zero.

The player's account got blocked due to ongoing verification. The casino has not provided sufficient evidence, and the complaint was closed as "unresolved". The complaint was reopened as the casino provided additional evidence, but the player stopped responding to the complaint and it was closed as "rejected".