Slotimo Casino Review

The player from Brazil had had her account closed after she requested a withdrawal. She had sent all the necessary documents to the casino, but the communication from the casino had ceased in June 2023. The casino later disclosed that the player's account had been linked to a fraudulent group and had been closed due to bonus abuse. We had requested evidence from the casino, which they had provided, confirming multiple accounts linked to the player. Due to this evidence, we had concluded that the casino had acted within their terms and conditions, and thus, we could not have provided further assistance to the player.

The player from Brazil had her account blocked following a withdrawal request. Despite her account having been previously verified and her having successfully withdrawn, she had been unable to contact the casino for clarification since June 2023. The casino had explained that the player's account was blocked due to a breach of their terms and conditions, specifically related to multi-accounting and the use of a fabricated utility bill for KYC purposes across multiple accounts. The player had admitted that she and her family members were sharing games and bonuses, unaware that this was a violation of the casino's rules. We had declined the complaint as the casino had acted within their terms and conditions. The player was advised to ensure all future KYC and AML processes were completed with genuine and valid documents under her name.

The player from British Columbia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. After submitting her complaint, she reported that the issue had been resolved and she had received her withdrawal 13 days after the request. The Complaints Team confirmed the resolution and marked the complaint as 'resolved' in their system. The delay had been attributed to slow and vague responses from the casino's support team.

The player from Germany had experienced delays in receiving a payout confirmation from the online casino. He had been initially told it would take two days, but after seven days, he was still waiting. The casino had reassured him that they had all the necessary documents and it was just a matter of time before the transaction was processed. The player had reached out to the Complaints Team for assistance. The issue was resolved when the player received his money. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The player had complained about the delay, stating that he had successfully made withdrawals in the past and that the casino was unnecessarily delaying the payout. However, the issue was resolved when the player received his money. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as resolved in their system.

The player from Germany had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received by that time. The player had made a successful withdrawal of €650 in April and had been playing without a bonus. We had advised him to be patient as withdrawals could sometimes take up to two weeks to process due to reasons such as unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. The player later confirmed that the money had arrived in his account. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Denmark had been facing issues with withdrawing his winnings from Slotimo Casino. Despite having submitted all required documents, including a selfie with his passport, and having them approved, he had not received any response from the casino for six days. After his complaint was escalated to the casino by our Complaints Team, the casino confirmed that the player's verification process had been successfully completed. However, the player had cancelled his withdrawal request and continued playing. As there was no further response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Brazil has had her account blocked by the casino for over three months with her winnings inside. Despite having completed her KYC verification and previously being able to make withdrawals, the casino has not provided an explanation. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Italy has been trying to withdraw funds since June. The first withdrawal was processed but subsequently cancelled by the casino. A second withdrawal attempt made in mid-July remains unanswered. Player stopped responding to our question therefore the complaint was rejected

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 Denmark was dissatisfied with the obligation to wager the amount he had deposited. This amount included deposits that he made previously and had played down before meeting the respective requirements. We believe that there was no valid reason for such a requirement. In this case, the player decided to keep playing and managed to meet the wagering requirement and even increase his winnings. Given the circumstances, the player's complaint was closed as 'Resolved', but points were deducted from our rating of the casino due the policy regarding wagering requirements of players' deposits.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal almost three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany had his winnings confiscated after he was accused of bonus manipulation. The casino provided evidence showing that the player bet more than the maximum allowed while wagering the bonus on multiple occasions. Consequently, as the casino acted in accordance with its terms and conditions there was nothing more that we could do and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had experienced a problem where his deposit had been booked twice via different payment methods. He had set a deposit limit and believed this issue had arisen due to a system bug. The player had requested a refund for one of the deposits. He had communicated with our team and provided all necessary information. We had attempted to contact the casino but received no response, leading to the case being temporarily closed as 'unresolved'. Later, the casino had requested to reopen the case. After further communication, the player confirmed that the issue had been resolved. Consequently, we had marked the case as 'resolved'.

The player from Baden-Württemberg 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 Ireland 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 from Germany has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Mexico requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Lower Saxony requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's account is disabled due to ongoing verification. The casino responded and stated that the account had been closed due to multiple accounts having been detected. The player confirmed that one account belonged to her mother-in-law. While this is against the terms and conditions of the casino, it seems that this happened in genuine error and that the player was not attempting to gain an unfair advantage. The casino was asked if it would be possible for both players to go through the verification process to confirm this, but there was no further response so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. Theh complaint was later reopened at the request of the casino. Evidence was provided that was sufficiently showed that the second account has not been opened accidentally. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany participated in a tournament that ended two weeks ago. The player was convinced that they should receive a better prize, however, the rules of the tournament were different than they thought. After the explanation from the casino, the player asked us to close the complaint.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria had her account closed due to gambling problem. Afterwards, she was able to open a new account and deposit funds. We did not receive any reply from the casino team, therefore the case was closed as 'unresolved'. Later, we reopened the case as per the casino's request. We were informed that the casino was not aware of the player's gambling problem. We requested evidence from the player; however, the player stopped responding. We had no other option than to reject the case.

The player from Germany cancelled his bonus before completing the wagering requirement due to being misinformed by a support agent about bonus terms. He believed that he could cancel the bonus without having his remaining balance forfeited, but all winnings were erased. The casino later compensated the player by refunding the voided winnings in form of a bonus. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved' after the player confirmed the issue had been resolved to his satisfaction.