SG Casino Review

The player from Spain had deposited over 30,000€ and had been trying to withdraw 1,500€ since February 2nd. She was frustrated as the withdrawal request had not been processed, and she kept receiving emails offering bonuses. We had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days and might be delayed due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. Despite extending the timer for her response, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of communication from the player. We were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions.

The player from Greece had attempted to withdraw winnings from an online casino but the transaction was cancelled due to pending account verification. Despite having provided the required documents, the casino had blocked the player's account citing a violation of their rules. The player had contested this, stating that they had played slots with an active 100% bonus and had completed the necessary wagering requirements. The Complaints Team had intervened and communicated with the casino on the player's behalf. After a thorough review, the casino had decided to pay out the player's winnings but maintained the account closure. The player had confirmed the receipt of the full amount, leading to the resolution of the complaint.

The player from Spain had been having issues with withdrawing his winnings for 14 days. Despite various attempts and even changing the withdrawal method, the casino had not processed the payout and was perceived as being nonresponsive. The player did not provide clear responses to the Complaints Team's inquiries, which made it difficult to understand and address the issue. As a result, we had extended the response timer multiple times. However, due to a continued lack of response, we had to reject the complaint. The issue remained unresolved due to the player's lack of cooperation.

The player from Ontario made a withdrawal request of $750, through Interac. However, the processing platform, Gigadat, rejected it due to the player not having Interac enabled. The player is waiting for the money to be credited back to the casino account or transferred to the bank. We contacted the casino to get more information, however, before it replied, the player informed us the problem was solved successfully as they received the money. We closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece had won a substantial amount of 9000€ but her account had been blocked due to alleged duplication, following her husband's creation of accounts in the same household. Despite her claim that her account was the original one, she hadn't received a response from the casino for over a month. We had acknowledged that while the situation was unfortunate, online casinos had policies against multiple account creation. As such, the casino had had the authority to block any associated accounts. We had advised the player to contact the licensing authority for further assistance. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected due to the casino's right to close duplicate accounts.

The player from Greece, after having made a withdrawal of €500, discovered that the casino had deducted €450 without providing any reason. Additionally, his account had been deleted upon his request. He had claimed to have received a €10 bonus from the casino, but the nature of this bonus had remained unclear. Despite our attempts to gather more information about the issue, the player had not provided the necessary details. As a result, we had been unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had encountered technical issues while playing the Chili Picante Megaways game on the casino site. Despite his attempts to reach out to the casino's support, he had received no response. We had attempted to understand the situation better by asking him several questions about the issue. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the given time frame. As a result, we were unable to investigate the matter further and had rejected the complaint.

A player from Cyprus attempted to withdraw his winnings. After making inquiries about the withdrawal status, the casino froze his account. The casino has provided us evidence that the player is from a restricted country, therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Ontario had won $400 and attempted to withdraw his winnings. However, he had faced multiple requests for various forms of identification and an up-to-date bank statement, which he had considered unreasonable. We had explained the importance of the Know Your Customer (KYC) process and asked for more details about the documents he had already provided. We also extended the response time by 7 days. Unfortunately, the player did not respond to our messages, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of further investigation.

The player from Finland deposited 150 euros, received a 100% bonus and won 1700 euros. After a week, he was notified that his account did not pass the verification process and was immediately closed under section 9.1 of the terms and conditions. The casino has ceased communication. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Spain had won a significant amount at the casino but had faced issues as his account had been locked due to an alleged violation of casino terms (using a different card for deposit). His last deposit had also been refunded without his request, and the casino had been unresponsive. After the player had provided documentation proving that he was authorized to use the disputed account, we had contacted the casino and urged them to reconsider their decision. The casino had requested additional documents, which the player had provided. Upon verification of these documents, the casino had re-credited the player's winnings to his account. However, the player had been unable to withdraw his winnings due to wagering requirements. After our intervention, the casino had agreed to manually pay out the amount and had requested the player's bank details. The player had confirmed that the withdrawals were being processed, and with the confirmation from the casino that all pending withdrawals had been successfully paid, the complaint had been resolved.

The player from Greece deposited money at SG Casino, expecting a 100% deposit bonus as advertised via a Twitch stream. However, the bonus was not credited to the player's account and a refund request was subjected to a 2 times wager requirement. Moreover, the Casino suspended the player's account.

The player from Finland won 4500€ at SG Casino but had their documents declined during the verification process. Subsequently, the casino shut down the account, claiming the documents submitted were incorrect. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany deposited funds into her and her husband's casino accounts, but was subsequently blocked for allegedly depositing from a third party. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Australia signed up at the casino and initially didn't need verification. They won $3750 but could only withdraw $750 per day. After the first withdrawal, the account verification process started and took two days. However, the second withdrawal was rejected, claiming an incorrect wallet address, despite it being the same address used before. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany deposited in the casino, but the amount wasn't credited to the casino balance. We rejected the complaint because the player declined to share the bank document, which was necessary for further investigation. After reopening the complaint upon the player's request and after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the disputed payment was sent to a different recipient than the casino, so we rejected the complaint again.