RichPrize Casino Review

The player from Malta had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised him to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The Casino's representative had confirmed that all necessary verifications were completed and the withdrawal request was in the process of being handled. However, due to a lack of response from the player to confirm receipt of the withdrawal, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany was experiencing delays in the withdrawal process for his two requests. Despite having completed the required document verification, the online casino claimed it was not finalized and they had not specified the issue. The casino's representative clarified that both withdrawal requests were actually cancelled by the player himself, and the funds were used in the casino. Therefore, there were no outstanding withdrawal requests at that time. The player did not respond to this explanation, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further issues to address.

The player from Greece had faced issues with the KYC verification process at an online casino, which had led to delays in his withdrawal request of 700 euros in Bitcoin. The casino's KYC department had repeatedly asked for verification without specifying the problems. The player had provided all necessary documents, but the casino had required a copy of a card used for a deposit, which the player had by then deleted. After a lengthy back-and-forth and the player obtaining verification from Skrill for the card, the casino had finally completed the verification process. The player's withdrawal had been authorized and successfully processed. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds, and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had made a deposit at Rich Casino, used a bonus, and requested a withdrawal of €900.00. Despite the casino support having stated that withdrawals would take 24-48 hours, the player hadn't received the payout. The casino had offered a bonus for the delay and partially paid €300 out of €900. The player had declined the bonus and requested the full amount. After the player contacted a Twitch streamer who had advertised the casino, the player's payout was expedited. The casino had processed the full amount of €900 and the player had confirmed receipt of the payout.

The player from Switzerland had encountered issues with an online casino when he attempted to withdraw his winnings of $550. The player's account was unexpectedly blocked, and a portion of his winnings was deducted, which the casino referred to as a previous "compliment". Following a series of exchanges and explanations, the casino had agreed to pay the player the outstanding $400. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Greece had a verified account and had requested a withdrawal. Despite surpassing the maximum time of three days as stated by customer service, the player's winnings had not been received. The player later confirmed that he had received the first half of the funds, and with the assistance of the casino representative, the remaining half of the winnings. After a new deposit, the player's account had been closed as per his request. The issue had been successfully resolved with the casino's cooperation.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting the complaint. His money hadn't been received at that point. The player had expressed frustration over the delay, labeling the casino's withdrawal process as slow. The casino representative had apologized for the inconvenience and informed the player that his withdrawal had been processed. However, the player still hadn't received his funds nearly two weeks after his request. Eventually, the player confirmed receipt of his withdrawal, and we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The casino had stated that the player's ID wasn't approved and that the withdrawal request had been cancelled by the player himself who then lost his money. We had informed the player that since he played and lost his winnings, we couldn't ask the casino to refund the lost amount. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected due to the player's actions.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. His money hadn't been received at that point. We had advised him that withdrawal processing could take some time, potentially due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We had suggested patience and full cooperation with the casino. After approximately two weeks, the player had confirmed that his withdrawal was successfully received, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Arkansas had been waiting for more than five business days for his bitcoin withdrawal following accepted document verification. He had expressed his frustration with the delay and the vague responses he was receiving from the casino. The casino had apologized for the delay and assured the player that they were working on processing his payment. They also offered him a position in their Loyalty program as a VIP client. Despite attempts by the Complaints Team to extend the discussion and gather more information, the player did not respond. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to lack of further communication from the player.

The player from Germany submitted a withdrawal request on Friday. Despite assurances of a 24-hour review period for his documents, the process is still not complete by Monday. The complaint was resolved as the player got verified and received his payout.

The player from the United Kingdom deposited €680 and won €2030 at RichPrize casino. After some confusion with KYC, she was told her withdrawal would be delayed due to backlog. The casino offered a partial withdrawal of €700 and the restriction of future betting. However, her account was unexpectedly terminated and she only received a partial refund of her deposits, while her winnings have not been paid. The complaint was rejected as the account closure was related to sports betting.

The player from Australia has encountered an issue with a withdrawal of $340. They claim to have met the wagering requirements for a bonus, but the casino rejected their withdrawal request twice, saying the requirements weren't met. Since the player has not fulfilled the wagering requirements, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom, who was struggling with a gambling addiction, had requested the closure of his account multiple times to prevent further losses. Despite his requests, the casino had not closed his account, which led the player to spend $1700 more. The player had also requested a refund for the deposits made after his request to close the account. The casino had responded by closing his account but refused to refund the deposits. The player had communicated his gambling issues to the Complaints Team but had not directly informed the casino about his addiction. As a result, the Complaints Team could not assist the player in obtaining a refund. The player's complaint was rejected due to the lack of explicit communication about his gambling issues with the casino. The Complaints Team suggested the player use the Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool to block his accounts across multiple gambling establishments.

The player from Hungary, after having waited for 8 days, had received his substantial win. He had communicated with the casino's customer service and had been informed that his case was under review. The player had confirmed that his account was fully authenticated (KYC) and had previously received a payment of 1100 euros. The issue had been resolved when the player received his winnings and confirmed the resolution. The casino representative had apologized for the delay and assured the player of their commitment to prompt payouts. We had then closed the complaint as resolved.

A player from Hungary deposited 100 euros, received a bonus, met the wager requirements, and submitted documents for verification but is still unable to receive his winnings. The player confirmed his winnings were paid out.

The player from Poland has been waiting a week for his winnings to be paid out. We made several attempts to contact the casino but it didn't respond to our messages, so the complaint remained unresolved. However, the casino representative contacted the player via user reviews section, and informed them about processing their withdrawal request. The player confirmed receiving the funds, so based on these updates, we finally changed the status of the complaint to a solved one.

The player's account was blocked without further explanation. We ended up closing the complaint as unresolved but later we received information from the player stating that they eventually received their winnings. The issue was resolved.

The player from Australia had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. He believes that he shouldn’t have been allowed to open a new account with RichPrize Casino. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's requested a refund as he wasn't supposed to be able to register from his country. The complaint was rejected as the player lost his balance and at the time of account closure his balance was zero

The player from UK requested self-exclusion a few months ago. Despite this fact the casino decided to send her promotional emails and reopen her account. She is now asking for a deposit refund. Unfortunately, the player asked for account closure due to missing deposit limits, and not self-exclusion because of gambling problem, therefore we couldn't proceed with this complaint as 'failed self-exclusion' and we were forced to reject it.

The player from Lithuania had experienced an issue with his account being blocked after he requested a withdrawal from the casino. He had submitted all necessary documents for verification but had not received any communication from the casino about the status of his account or the reason for the blockage. The casino had initially claimed that the block was due to additional security verification but later alleged fraudulent activity on the part of the player. At first, the casino had failed to provide evidence to support its claim. The player's account had been repeatedly blocked and unblocked, which caused distress and confusion. Eventually, the casino provided evidence of a successful withdrawal transaction, and we concluded that the issue was resolved.