Parimatch Casino Review

The player from India reported a deposit of 900 Rupees made on August 25, 2024, that had not been reflected in his account. Despite providing proof and contacting customer support multiple times, he received no resolution. The player expressed frustration with the lack of assistance and warned against future deposits if the issue was not resolved. The issue was resolved after the Complaints Team intervened, allowing additional time for the casino to investigate, which led to the player's funds being credited to his account.

The player from India had deposited a total of 20,000 INR to the casino, but the amount remained pending for over two weeks. Attempts to contact Parimatch support left the player's concerns unaddressed. The Complaints Team had actively sought updates from the casino regarding the delay in crediting the player's funds but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved' in the system, with the recommendation to contact the Curaçao Interactive Licensing Authority for further assistance.

The player from India had deposited ₹850 via UPI to his Parimatch account on August 8, 2024, but the funds had not been credited. Despite multiple attempts to contact customer support, he received no response regarding the issue. The Complaints Team had requested several documents to investigate the matter, but the player did not respond to the requests. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from India had their account blocked for four days. Despite sending the required documents multiple times and contacting support, he received no response. The Complaints Team attempted to gather more information but was unable to proceed as the player did not respond to follow-up inquiries. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had requested withdrawals on July 13 (15,000) and July 14 (25,000), but had not received the amounts by July 31. The casino claimed that the funds had been sent but was now asking for an official letter after previously submitted documents. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately rejected the complaint due to the player's lack of response to inquiries.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team acknowledged the player's concern regarding the withdrawal delay, which may have been due to KYC verification or high withdrawal volumes. However, as the player did not respond to follow-up inquiries, the complaint was unable to be investigated further and was consequently rejected.

The player from India had requested a 28,000 withdrawal two weeks prior, but it had not appeared in his bank account despite being given a UTR number. After providing bank statements and engaging in daily communication with the casino, they had asked for a confirmation letter, which the bank would not provide. The Complaints Team had extended the inquiry period for additional information, but ultimately, the case was rejected due to the player's failure to respond to requests for further details necessary for the investigation.

The player from India had deposited multiple amounts to the merchant's account on Parimatch but was informed by the casino that the transfers had been made to another account. The merchant’s bank confirmed successful credits. The player reported a specific deposit of 5000 INR made on 2/7/24 that was not credited to his Parimatch account, despite other transactions to the same merchant being successful. The Complaints Team attempted to mediate but ultimately marked the complaint as 'unresolved' due to a lack of cooperation from the casino. The player was advised to contact the Curaçao Interactive Licensing authority for further assistance.

The player from Alberta had built a balance of $4200 on the site but was unable to withdraw due to additional KYC/verification requirements. Despite submitting a passport selfie and other documents, the verification process had been delayed. The player did not respond to our requests for further information, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The player reported that his account was KYC verified and that previous withdrawals had been processed quickly. However, after a month of waiting for the current withdrawal, the casino requested a confirmation letter from the player's bank regarding a reference number that the bank could not trace. Despite providing all necessary documentation and following up multiple times, the player faced repeated delays and inadequate responses from the casino. Ultimately, we were unable to obtain cooperation from the casino, leading to the complaint being marked as 'unresolved'. The player was advised to contact the Curaçao Interactive Licensing Authority for further assistance.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had followed up with the casino regarding the delay, but the casino did not respond within the specified timeframe. As a result, the complaint was closed as unresolved for now, with the possibility to reopen it if the casino provided any updates.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The Complaints Team had attempted to assist by advising the player to wait for the standard processing time and to provide the necessary documentation. However, due to the player's continued frustration and inappropriate communication, the team had decided to close the complaint, indicating that further assistance might not be provided if such behavior persisted.

The player from India had deposited 1000 INR via UPI QR on June 11-12, 2024, but the funds did not appear in his account. Despite having raised the issue with support multiple times and being promised a refund, the problem remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had extended the response time but ultimately rejected the complaint due to the player's lack of communication and failure to provide necessary information about contacting the payment provider.

The player from India had deposited 6500 INR via UPI QR code, but the payment had not been confirmed by the casino. Despite multiple follow-ups with customer support, the issue has remained unresolved since July 13-14, 2024. The investigation timeline had been extended to allow for further communication between the player and the casino regarding the transaction. The casino was found to be unlicensed in the player's region, and despite ongoing inquiries, no satisfactory explanation had been provided regarding the deposit issue. The complaint was marked as 'unresolved' due to the casino's lack of cooperation.

The player complained that their bonus winnings had been reduced after they finished wagering. The casino said the bonus terms stated a maximum withdrawal for the bonus, which the player had used, but the player was not able to find this term and the casino could not provide it. The complaint was marked as unresolved and there were no more updates since then.

The player complained that their withdrawal had been delayed due to multiple requests to provide identification documents. Despite submitting everything as requested, the player had still not received their payment after more than a month. The complaint is currently marked unresolved and there are no more updates since then.

The player complained that their withdrawal had been delayed. The delay appeared to be due casino's repetitive requests for identification documents despite having confirmed a partial withdrawal in the past. After lengthy exchange and numerous documents submitted, the player still was not paid. The complaint was marked as unresolved and there were no more updates since then.

The player from India had his account blocked after winning money, despite having provided all the requested verification documents. The casino cited "suspicious gaming activity" but refused to provide specific proof or details. The player wanted clarification on the reason for the account closure and to withdraw his funds. We determined that the balance in the player's account was much lower than the minimum possible withdrawable amount and close to zero, making it impossible to retrieve the balance. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from India had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. The issue was resolved as the player eventually received the amount and requested the complaint to be closed.

The player from Canada had requested Parimatch Casino to close his account due to a gambling addiction, but they repeatedly refused. As a result, he lost over 6500 CAD and sought a refund due to the casino's failure to address his requests. Despite multiple requests and provided evidence, the casino did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unresolved, negatively impacting the casino’s safety index on our website.

The player from India won a bet, but the casino denied the winnings, marking it as a loss. Despite numerous emails, the player did not receive any response from the casino. The issue was resolved after extensive communication, and the player confirmed receiving the winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved by us.

The player from India had deposited 300,000 INR on May 22nd, but the amount was not credited to their casino account. Despite sending thousands of emails and providing an up-to-date bank statement with an official letterhead, the issue remained unresolved. We attempted to mediate by contacting the casino but faced difficulties due to inappropriate language and behaviour from the player. Consequently, the complaint was closed.

The player from India had deposited 2000 rupees on June 10th, but the money was not credited to their account. Despite emailing the casino, he had not received a satisfactory response. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation. The player later confirmed that the money was credited to his account. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from India deposited 3000 INR to his casino account via UPI, but the transaction was declined in the casino’s payment history. The amount was deducted from his bank account but was neither reflected in the casino wallet nor refunded. The support team did not provide any resolution after two days. We requested additional information from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from Peru had been sending the requested documents, including a photo holding ID and bank transactions, to Parimatch for over 2 months. Despite this, the casino kept asking for the same documents repeatedly without further clarification, preventing the player from withdrawing his money. The player also mentioned that his account was now redirected to a new casino called JUGABET, where he still could not withdraw his funds. The Complaints Team tried multiple times to contact the casino without success. The complaint was marked as unresolved due to the casino’s lack of response.

The player from Peru had his account blocked and faced numerous obstacles while providing verification information. Despite submitting all required documents, the casino's responses have been delayed and unhelpful for over 2 months.

The player from India had issues with pending deposits to Parimatch. Multiple deposit attempts totaling 65,000 INR made between May 21, 2024, and June 2, 2024, remained pending. We informed the player that the issue required investigation by the payment provider, which might take approximately one month. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from India deposited 9000 INR to the Parimatch platform, but the money did not end up in their gaming account. The casino had promised to resolve the issue within 5 hours but had been repeating the same response for the last four days. We recommended that the player contact the payment provider for an investigation, which could take approximately one month. Due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had deposited an amount of 20,000/-, made in two transactions, which was neither credited to his playing account nor refunded. This problem persisted despite multiple follow-ups. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino could not resolve the issue directly. The player failed to respond to our messages, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from India had their account blocked by Parimatch without a clear reason. The casino claimed that suspicious activity had been detected; however, the specific details were not provided. We requested further details from the player, but he did not respond within the given timeframe. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of necessary information.

The player from India, who had been using Parimatch India for almost a year, experienced withdrawal issues despite his account being verified. After having successful deposits and withdrawals, his account was blocked, citing a new verification process. The disputed amount was 114,227.53 INR. We contacted Parimatch Casino, which cited rule 84 regarding multiple accounts as the reason for blocking the player's account and voiding his winnings. However, no clear evidence was provided to support this claim. The player was advised to seek further assistance through a notarized power of attorney or file a complaint with the licensing authority. The player opted to close the case due to financial constraints.

The player from India, who was a VIP and had completed KYC verification, experienced a delay in withdrawing 41000 INR that he had requested on 9th April 2024. He had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's customer support, citing a lack of live chat support and unhelpful email responses. The issue was eventually resolved, with the player confirming receipt of his withdrawal. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in their system.

The player from Brazil had deposited 30,000R$ in PARIMATCH, made a profit of R$17,067 but only received back his initial deposit. The site had cited 'unfair play' as the reason for deducting his winnings. The player had confirmed his account was fully verified and he had not used any bonuses. His primary activity had been sports betting. Despite our intervention, we had been unable to assist further due to the nature of the issue being related to sports betting, which was outside our area of expertise. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. His money hadn't been received yet. We had advised the player to be patient, cooperate fully with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, hence we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had faced problems with Parimatch Brazil who had blocked her account, preventing the withdrawal of her balance of R$1,165.00. Despite having made complaints on a Brazilian website, she had received no response. She had provided all necessary documentation and clarified that her bets were placed on sports games, without the use of any bonuses. However, we had informed her that we were unable to assist with issues related to sports betting due to a lack of expertise in this area, leading to the rejection of her complaint.

The player from India had been struggling for over ten days to get a refund of 1000 rs after the payment was deducted from his account but declined by the casino. Despite multiple requests to customer service, his queries were always forwarded to the transaction department. We requested the player to provide communication with the payment provider and a clear screenshot of his deposit history. The player failed to provide the requested information within the given time frame. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of necessary documentation for further investigation.

The player from Peru had attempted to deposit funds into her account at Parimatch Peru casino. After unsuccessful attempts with larger amounts, a smaller deposit had caused the account to be blocked. The player had provided the requested verification, but there had been no resolution so far. We had reached out to the player for more information to better understand the situation and assist effectively. However, due to lack of response from the player, we had to reject the case. We were unable to proceed with any further investigation or provide potential solutions to address the issue.

The player from Peru had experienced issues with Parimatch Casino PE after an additional verification process. His account had been blocked and upon clearance, he discovered that his balance of 2282.28 soles was missing. The casino claimed the funds were removed due to a violation of rule 64, which the player disputed. The player had been using the casino for approximately 5 months, primarily for eSports betting, and had not used any bonuses. We were unable to assist the player as his main activity was eSports betting, which fell outside our area of expertise. The complaint was therefore rejected, and we had offered to provide the player with a list of websites that might have been able to assist him.

An Indian player had requested a withdrawal on February 28 but had not received the funds. Parimatch had requested a bank statement, which was provided. They then suggested contacting the bank with a provided UTR ID. The bank suggested requesting a payment slip from Parimatch, which Parimatch refused to provide. We determined that the payment had not been received in the player's account based on the provided bank statement. Since the casino was unwilling to provide the necessary documentation, the complaint was closed as unresolved.

The player from India had deposited Rs-30000 to his Parimatch wallet, but the deposit hadn't appeared. Customer service had informed him that the money would be refunded by 24/04/2024, but he hadn't received it. Eventually, the player confirmed that his funds had been credited to his Parimatch wallet on 29/04/2024. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from India reported that his fully verified Parimatch account, which had seen multiple successful deposits and withdrawals, had been blocked due to alleged suspicious activity. He claimed to have INR 6363 in his account. The player alleged that after his account was unblocked, an unauthorized withdrawal of INR 6360 was made and he demanded compensation. The casino denied any suspicious activity or hacking on the player's account. We asked the player to provide evidence to support his claim that the casino changed the email linked to his account without his approval. However, without sufficient evidence from the player, we were unable to proceed with the case and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had won money on Parimatch Casino and completed KYC, but was unable to withdraw due to a technical issue that prevented the addition of an email ID to the account. Repeated attempts to resolve this with customer service had been unproductive. The casino had requested further proof of identity, claiming the player's appearance did not match the photo in the documents provided. Despite the player's insistence that he was the account owner, the casino maintained that the video evidence did not match the KYC documents. We had concluded that the player needed to provide valid video evidence matching the account holder's KYC documents to resolve the issue.

The player from India had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days, often due to KYC verification or high withdrawal request volumes. The team had extended the complaint resolution timer by an additional seven days but the player failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had deposited 29500 INR through UPI pay on April 12th. Despite the transaction having been successful, the funds did not reflect in his betting account, and there was a lack of support from customer service. We had recommended the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation, as the casino usually could not intervene in such cases. However, the player did not respond to our messages and inquiries, which led us to be unable to further investigate. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to lack of player's feedback.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player claimed that the casino had approved his withdrawal request but had not transferred the funds. Despite the Complaints Team's attempts to communicate with the player and extend the complaint's timeline, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Peru had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as delays could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had extended the timer for the player's response by 7 days. However, due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected. The investigation could not be conducted further.

The player from Brazil had faced an issue with an online casino, where despite completing multiple rounds of verification, his balance had been reset to zero, resulting in a loss of 1,926 reais. The player claimed to have all the necessary evidence to pursue legal action against the casino. The player stated that he had engaged in sports betting and after becoming profitable, the casino had requested additional verification. Due to the nature of the issue and our limited insight into sports betting, we could not evaluate the issue properly and had to reject the complaint. We provided the player with a list of websites that might have been able to assist him further.

The player from Peru had complained because his account had been blocked without a clear reason. Despite having uploaded all requested documents to the casino's support team for account verification, the player had not received a response. The player had joined the casino in January and was blocked four days prior. His winnings were accumulated through sports betting and not via a bonus. We had clarified that our forum only dealt with complaints regarding online casinos and suggested other websites that could assist with sports betting issues. However, the player did not respond to our suggestions or further messages, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from India had an issue with Parimatch Casino where his 30 free spins were not activated despite having deposited the required amount. He reported the problem and a ticket was opened, but it was closed without resolution after two days, leaving the free spins still inactive. The player had already played his deposit amount. We concluded that since the player had already lost the deposit that was supposed to activate the bonus, we were unable to assist further. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from India had been waiting for over three months to receive a withdrawal amount of 42100 INR. Despite having provided all necessary documents and having communicated frequently, he still got the same response that his request was being reviewed by the billing team. He claimed to have made successful withdrawals in the past and completed his KYC verification. The player also provided multiple bank statements as proof. However, the casino stated that the documents appeared to be edited and requested a video of the bank statement from the PayTM application, which the player failed to provide. Due to the player's lack of cooperation and abusive language, we rejected the complaint.

The player from India had initiated a withdrawal of 40,000 rupees in September 2023 and hadn't received the funds even after more than 5 months. Parimatch customer support had claimed the withdrawal was successful. The player provided screenshots and claimed that his bank, Paytm Payments Bank, confirmed no transaction had been made with the provided UTR number. After the Complaints Team had investigated the issue and asked the player for more details, inconsistencies were found in the player's statements and provided evidence. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to non-cooperation from the player's side and providing false, misleading, and unsubstantiated information.

The Indian player had difficulties withdrawing 50000 rupees from Parimatch. The withdrawal had been made on 26/09/2023 and had yet to be received. The player claimed that the casino had provided a fake UTR number and his bank confirmed no transaction was made. Despite multiple requests for proof of transaction from the casino, the casino failed to provide any. The player had provided his bank statement as evidence. However, we concluded that the evidence provided by the player was insufficient. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had made two withdrawal requests on 27th December 2023 but had not received the funds totaling 17500 rupees in his bank account despite his account having been fully verified. The player had been waiting for 46 days for a resolution. The casino had claimed the funds were paid on the same day of the request, and had asked for bank statements for further investigation. The player did not provide the requested bank statements despite multiple requests from us. Due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to further investigate the issue and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had faced a delay in the withdrawal of 30000 rupees from Parimatch, despite the transaction having been marked as successful on 14/11/2023. The player had not received the money even after three months. The player's account had been fully verified and he had made several successful withdrawals in the past. Upon contacting the casino's support, he had been informed that the issue was with the payment system. We had requested the player to forward any relevant communication with the casino regarding the delayed withdrawal. After our intervention and inviting Parimatch Casino to join the conversation, the casino had refunded the money back to the player's account. The player had confirmed the receipt of his funds and expressed satisfaction with the resolution of his complaint.

The player from Peru was struggling with an unauthorized withdrawal of 5,000 sol from his account by an alleged third-party hacker. He had not received a satisfactory response from casino support. He insisted that the casino should have verified the withdrawal as it was requested to an account not in his name. We explained that we could not assist with cybercrimes and suggested he contact the police. We also noted that some casinos did not require identity verification for first-time or smaller withdrawals. The player was advised to contact the casino's licensing authority for further help. Due to these circumstances, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from India had deposited 10,000 to his Parimatch wallet on December 31, 2023, which had been debited from his bank account but was not credited to the casino account. Despite the casino's assurance of a refund within 5 days, the player had not received it even after 20 days. Upon submitting a complaint, the player had been advised to contact his payment provider for further investigation, as the casino's ability to intervene was limited. Eventually, after the complaint had been filed, the casino refunded the amount to the player's Parimatch wallet, from where he had been able to withdraw it to his bank account. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' following the successful resolution of the player's issue.

The player from India had deposited money into his Parimatch account but the funds had been deducted from his bank without being credited to the casino account. Despite having contacted customer support and providing the requested details, the deposit problem remained unsolved. The Complaints Team had extended the complaint timeline multiple times to allow for further investigation and response from the player. However, due to lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Peru had verified his account, won a prize, and had been successful in his first withdrawal. However, the second withdrawal attempt had been denied and the casino had asked him to verify his information again. It had been about a month since his withdrawal request. The player had complied with the casino's request for additional verification, including submitting a new photo and bank statements. Despite the player's frustration over the repeated requests, the casino had insisted that they were necessary for security reasons. After the player had submitted the requested documents, the casino had confirmed that his verification was successful and that his withdrawal had been processed. The player did not respond to confirm receipt of the funds, but the issue had been considered resolved by the complaints team.

The player from Brazil had faced ongoing issues with withdrawing funds from an online casino. The casino had previously allowed deposits and withdrawals via PIX and Pay4Fun, but these methods were no longer available. Instead, PayPal was recommended. However, the casino had locked the player's account and requested an additional deposit of R$ 501 for further verification. The player was unable to access his account and refused to send the additional deposit. We had contacted the casino for clarification and invited them to join the conversation. After several exchanges, the casino had claimed that the player's withdrawal was successful and that the player needed to remember the email he used for his personal data. The player had disputed this, stating he hadn't been able to access his account since the previous year and hadn't received any withdrawal. The casino had maintained that the player needed to contact their support team for assistance. Eventually, the player had regained access to his account and the complaint had been resolved.

The player from India had tried to withdraw his winnings of ₹9800, but his requests had been repeatedly declined. He had been unable to resolve the issue with the casino's customer support team. His account had been verified on 7 December 2023 and he had played with real money, not using any bonuses. However, due to lack of response from the player, we had to reject the complaint as we couldn't investigate further.

The player from India had difficulties unblocking his account at Parimatch. The casino had asked for KYC documents, which were promptly sent, but after 17 days, the player had not received any updates or responses about the verification process. Despite the player's repeated attempts to provide all necessary documents, the casino's support team had not been responsive. We tried to mediate the situation by contacting the casino and asking for clarification, but the casino had not responded. As a result, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from Peru had experienced issues with his second withdrawal request at an online casino, which had led to a verification process. Despite fulfilling the verification requirements twice, the casino had continued to delay the process and kept all withdrawal options blocked. After the player lodged a complaint and engaged in daily communication with the casino's customer service, the casino had verified his account and processed the withdrawals. We had confirmed that the player received his funds in full and marked the complaint as 'resolved'. The casino's assistance in resolving the issue had been acknowledged.

The British Columbian player had initially been able to deposit and withdraw at a casino after verification without any issues. However, after they had turned a $500 deposit into over $4500, the casino had removed and started re-processing their verification. Despite the player having sent various documents and identification, the account had remained unverified. After multiple exchanges and requests for additional documents, the casino had finally verified the player's account. The delay had been due to the casino's strict adherence to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) procedures, and the player having provided an expired ID. The issue was resolved after the player had provided a valid passport for verification, and the player had acknowledged the resolution of the complaint.

The player from Peru had been experiencing withdrawal issues with the casino. Despite having three separate withdrawal requests and fully verifying the account, only two were processed. Around 2066.02 PEN was in dispute, and all withdrawal attempts were being denied without any clear resolution timeline. Upon contacting the casino, they claimed that all three withdrawals had been processed, causing confusion. The player insisted one withdrawal of 400 PEN was still missing and requested proof of transfer from the casino. After a prolonged discussion and the player providing their bank statement, the casino manually topped up the player's balance with the missing 400 PEN. The player confirmed the resolution of the issue and the complaint was closed as resolved.

A player from Peru is struggling with a slow document verification process, which has been ongoing for more than a week. This delay is preventing him from withdrawing his winnings. The player spent all their funds therefore we're unable to assist further and rejected the complaint.

The player from Brazil had reported an issue with an online casino, expressing his inability to permanently close his account due to a personal struggle with gambling addiction. The Complaints Team had advised him to follow the casino's self-exclusion process and submit the necessary documents for account verification. Later, the player had informed that his account was closed. However, no further communication was received from the player, leading us to consider the case rejected.

The player from Germany had been blocked from betting and withdrawals following a dispute about a cancelled tennis game. Parimatch had required the player to undergo a verification process again, repeatedly rejecting the documents provided. Despite the player's multiple attempts to provide the requested documents, the casino had eventually closed his account claiming suspicious gaming activity. However, after the player had contacted the licensing authority, Parimatch had returned his confiscated balance. The issue was then considered resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from India has had his account blocked and funds deducted without further explanation. After securing a winning from a free bet, the casino requested KYC verification which was completed, but his account was blocked for alleged violation of policies. We rejected this complaint as it was sports betting related.

The player from Quebec had disputed a case where his winnings were capped at 3000 from a promotion. He claimed no such term existed in the conditions available to him and had asked, without success, for the full terms and conditions that supposedly listed this limit. Despite our team's attempts to facilitate communication between the player and the casino, the casino remained unresponsive. We had marked the complaint as 'unresolved' due to the lack of cooperation from the casino's side. We recommended the player to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further assistance.

The player from Peru, who has been using the same casino for several months, is experiencing delayed verification process. Despite providing all requested documents including ID and bank transactions, he has received no response for 5 days. He is concerned due to the lack of response to his emails and abrupt end of chats. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from India deposited Rs.5,000 in August 2023, but the deposit has not yet been reflected in his casino or bank account. Despite repeated requests and being asked to wait, a month passed and the situation remains the same. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil deposited 100 reais on September 5, but the funds were not credited to his casino account. The player informed us that he received his payment, so the complaint could be closed as resolved.

The player from the United States had an issue with Parimatch Casino, where despite having deposited $20k and requested no bonus games, they were unable to withdraw their funds as they were still in the bonus pool, requiring a 35x wager. The player had then requested for their account to be closed due to gambling addiction, but the casino had made multiple demands for documents and photos for verification. Despite the player's compliance, the account had remained open, and they had continued to receive promotional messages from the casino. After intervention from the Complaints Team, the casino had finally closed the player's account. The player had confirmed the resolution of their issue.

The player from India had deposited to Parimatch. The transaction was successful, but the funds had not been credited to the player's account. The player had provided all necessary documents and bank statements to the casino but the issue remained unresolved. We had engaged with the casino to clarify the matter, but their response was insufficient. The player had not responded to our latest inquiries, hence we could not proceed further. The complaint was therefore rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from India noticed an unauthorized deduction of more than 14000 INR from his Parimatch account, along with allegations of fraudulent gameplay, after an inactive period due to health issues. We closed the complaint as unresolved since the casino failed to provide us with the requested evidence.

The player from Peru has a problem with Parimatch account where she can't get a response or withdraw her money. She submitted all necessary documents for verification over 8 days ago but has received no response via chat or email. The issue is impacting her job income. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' because there was no response from the casino. We reopened the complaint as per the casino's request because they advised the player to contact the support team in order to resolve the issue. The player stopped responding though, so we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from India made a deposit to Parimatch Casino using Bitcoin that was not fully credited to his account. Despite providing all necessary proof of the transaction, including screenshots, wallet information, and Hash ID, the casino repeatedly requests the same information. The player asked us to close the complaint.

The player from India has been trying to implement self-exclusion measures on his account, but despite contacting the casino via their messaging platform and email, he has not received any response. The player did not respond to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Vietnam has an account with Parimatch, which closed operations in Vietnam at the end of 2022. The player states there is something over $500 in the account and Parimatch is not allowing this sum to be withdrawn. Although the casino did not contact us at all, the circumstances were unclear, so we asked the player to provide us with additional details. The complaint was rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina has been trying to verify their account with Parimatch Casino and withdraw winnings since June. Despite sending required documentation and cooperating with support, their account has been geographically restricted and blocked without clear reason. We tried to contact the casino, but there was no reply so the complaint was closed as unresolved. However, the casino requested to reopen the complaint later and advised the player to contact them again. We asked the player if they proceeded with contacting the casino, but they stopped responding to our messages, so the complaint was finally rejected.

The player from Brazil is requesting assistance in closing his account with the casino, which has been uncooperative. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Pakistan has had his account blocked for verification issues. He made multiple deposits, including two from Litecoin and one through a local payment merchant. He was able to withdraw once but faced rejection and account blocking for the second withdrawal. The user provided personal documents and wallet statements, but the casino keeps asking for PDF statements without specifying the issue. After contacting casino and their affiliates we still weren't able to get a response.

The player from Peru is seeking assistance with the validation of their account at Parimatch casino. They have submitted the required documents over 8 days ago but haven't received any response other than being told to wait. While we were trying to contact the casino, the player informed us about their account finally verified, but they were facing a new problem - their withdrawals were limited for an unknown reason. The player managed to withdraw only a part of their funds and then was informed about technical problems. We made another attempt to contact the casino but had no success, so the complaint was closed as unresolved. A month later, the casino contacted us back and asked the player to get in reach with it, however the player stopped responding to our messages so we finally rejected the complaint.

The player from Brazil has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has tried to activate Deposit bonus including Free Spins without being successful. Until now she received first part of Free Spins only. Even though we assumed that the issue had been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had her account blocked without further explanation. The casino replied to us and stated that they would not provide any information to a third party, so we were unable to assess the situation and the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'.

The player from Peru is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment afterwards.

The player from India 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's verification is delayed for over a month. The player later confirmed that the verification was processed successfully, and the player could submit a withdrawal therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from India has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player's withdrawal has been delayed for over a month. Though the casino representative reacted to the complaint and informed us about player's account to be completely verified and the withdrawals processed, the player stopped responding so we were not able to proceed with the complaint and were forced to reject it.

The player from India has been waiting for his withdrawal since March. The casino responded to say that the payment had been made, and requested the player speak to their bank. The player provided a bank statement showing that they had not received the payment. The casino requested further proof be obtained from the player's bank, and so eventually a new statement was sent to them. Upon receiving this, the casino re-enquired with the payment provider and it was determined that the payment had been unsuccessful, so the amount was credited back to the player's account. A new withdrawal was processed, the player received their payment and the issue was resolved.

The player from Ukraine is complaining about the lengthy verification process and lack of responsible gambling tools. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played before we could intervene.

The player from Ukraine had been accused of breaching the T&Cs by the casino, which had led to the confiscation of their winnings. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the casino had not provided any relevant evidence to support their accusation. The Complaints Team had suggested the player sign a Power of Attorney for further representation, to which the player had agreed. However, the casino had decided to only provide the requested information to the game regulator. The player had been advised to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority and submit a complaint. The case was eventually marked as 'rejected' due to lack of communication from the player.

The player's dissatisfied that he did not win anything and he claims that the RTP is manipulated. The complaint was rejected as there was not enough evidence of game manipulation provided by the player.

The player's account got closed for having multiple accounts. The complaint was closed as unresolved because the casino cannot share the necessary data with us due to its strict internal security policy.

The player's verification had been stuck for almost 4 months before the complaint was submitted. The player is accused of violating the casino's terms and conditions. The complaint was closed as "unresolved" because the casino was unable to provide us with relevant and sufficient evidence.

The player from Belarus has been accused of breaching the T&Cs. The casino confiscated all accumulated winnings. The casino tried to provide us with an evidence of multiple accounts made by the player, however the evidence was not sufficient and we have closed the complaint as unresolved.

The player from Canada is not able to withdraw his winnings due to an incomplete KYC. The player's winnings were voided due to unsuccessful KYC verification, The casino provided us with evidence related to breaking of rules specific to sports betting, thus we rejected the complaint.

The player from Ukraine has been accused of breaching the T&Cs. The casino confiscated all accumulated winnings. We ended up closing the complaint as "unresolved" because the casino didn't provide necessary evidence to support its claims.

The player from Belarus had their funds cancelled due to the accusation of using multiple accounts, but the casino was not able to provide us with sufficient evidence because of its strict internal security policy. The player filed a complaint with the gaming authority. The complaint was temporarily closed as unresolved while we were waiting for the regulator's decision. Although the regulator decided in a favor of the casino, we have not been provided with sufficient evidence and/or details to reconsider our decision. The complaint is considered unresolved.

The player from Ukraine had their winnings voided due to unsuccessful KYC verification and allegedly existing connection with 2 other gaming accounts created with the same personal data. The complaint was marked as 'unresolved' because the casino was not able to provide us with the relevant evidence due to the internal security policy.

The player from Ukraine has been accused of breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions. Allegedly, there is a certain connection between their account and other gaming accounts, however, the casino refused to provide us with any evidence that would support these claims. The player was therefore advised to submit an official complaint to the casino's regulatory authority, which ruled in favor of the casino. As we respect their decision and believe it was reached after a thorough and fair assessment of all relevant facts and evidence, we marked this complaint as ‘Rejected’.

The player from Ukraine was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing account verification. The issue was resolved. Two weeks later, the account verification was completed and the player was allowed to withdraw his winnings.

The player from India requested a withdrawal and the casino requested a selfie with a card. After the player provided this document, his account has been blocked. The complaint was rejected as the player did not respond to us within the given time.

The player from Ukraine had their winnings seized after an accusation of providing invalid documents. Later, it became clear that the reason for the casino's decision to confiscate the player's winnings was a mere suspicion of photo manipulation. Our position was that the casino should request another photograph or a video from the player to verify their identity. The casino failed to comply with our ruling, therefore, the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'.

The player from Ukraine was trying to close his account due to gambling addiction. The casino did not restrict the player's account immediately and asked the player to provide documents for their identity verification, including a picture of the player's passport near a handwritten note. The player provided all requested information but failed to include the note. Because of this, their account had not been blocked and the player was able to deposit and risk more funds. All in all, the player failed to follow instructions that were set out clearly and not in conflict with the requirements of the casino's regulatory body. Due to the player's concerns, we instructed the player to escalate their complaint to the casino's Licensing Authority and close the case based on its decision. After some time, we inquired the player about the outcome of their official complaint but received no response. For that reason, we closed the player's complaint as 'Rejected',

The player from Brazil is experiencing difficulties verifying his casino account and withdraw winnings. The casino failed to respond to this complaint and we were forced to close it as 'unresolved'. We have reopened this complaint per the casino's request and the player was able to receive his winnings.

The player from India has been trying to withdraw his winnings multiple times, but probably due to some technical issues, it isn’t possible. The player lost all his funds and asked for a refund. Since there was no balance left, we weren't able to help the player to restore his winnings.

The player from Portugal was struggling to withdraw his winnings due to a complicated verification process. The complaint was resolved. The player received his funds 2 months later, after providing all the requested information.