Snatch Casino Review

The player from Germany faced account deactivation for four weeks, during which his winnings were frozen. Upon reactivation, he made six deposits, but the casino claimed he hadn't met the bonus conditions even for deposits without a bonus, reducing his eligible amount to €180 out of €660. No detailed explanation was given. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

The player from Germany had deposited money into the casino, activated a bonus after losing their real money, and met the bonus requirements before hitting a 1500 Euro jackpot. After requesting a withdrawal, the casino paid out only 500 Euro and denied the remaining 1000 Euro, without providing a clear explanation. We contacted the casino, which then reviewed the case and decided to refund the remaining 1000 Euro to the player. The player confirmed receiving the full amount, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Portugal had a verified account and was attempting to withdraw €620. Despite sending the requested documents multiple times over 15 days, the casino still hadn't processed the payment. The player faced issues with the casino requesting unnecessary details for a bank account, which had already been used for a previous successful withdrawal. After intervention and follow-up by our team, the player confirmed receipt of his money. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Finland had completed the wagering requirements for a deposit bonus and won 400€ with real money. However, the casino limited the withdrawal to 124€, citing bonus rules, despite the player having played with real money post-wagering. After investigating, it was determined that the casino's bonus terms were not clear regarding the transition from bonus to real money. The casino eventually agreed to refund the remaining 276€, and the player confirmed receipt of the funds in his bank account, resolving the issue.

The player from Poland initially deposited PLN 2,500 and later won over PLN 12,000 after a second deposit, but then her account was abruptly disabled without explanation. Despite receiving three withdrawal payments of PLN 2,100 each, she was unable to process further withdrawals and sought reasons for the closure and needed her remaining winnings. After investigating, we found that the casino provided evidence indicating the player had used a delayed round strategy, which violated the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the casino acted within its established rules.

The player from Australia made a crypto deposit on the 1st, and it still hadn't shown up by the 3rd. Despite reaching out to customer service multiple times, the issue remained unresolved. We requested the player to provide payment confirmation and communication with the casino. 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 Sweden had initially been approved for a withdrawal but then faced extended verification requests from the casino. Despite providing the required information, complications arose because she shared her account with her husband. The casino then demanded that the deposit and withdrawal accounts match. We were unable to resolve the issue as the player did not respond to our follow-up questions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Sweden had trouble withdrawing winnings, experienced issues with purchased bonuses not opening, and described inefficient customer service responsiveness via both live chat and email. We requested additional information to understand the situation but received no response from the player. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of communication.

The player from Sweden had completed the verification process at the casino and had been promised their withdrawal within minutes. However, the casino had requested additional documents, which the player provided. After this, the casino had ceased communication and made further document requests. The player had then submitted a complaint and shared their email correspondence with the casino. After a period of waiting, the player had confirmed that the withdrawal was finally processed. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had his balance of €410 canceled by the casino while he was playing with a bonus. The issue had been raised regarding the unclear expiration terms of the bonus and the player's winnings. After thorough communication and investigation, the casino decided to issue a refund of €410 to the player's account. Subsequently, the player confirmed the partial receipt of the funds. Later, the player experienced issues with a €300 withdrawal to Mifinity, which had been initially rejected due to document verification requirements. After providing the necessary documentation, the player's account was verified, and the withdrawal was successfully processed. The case was marked as resolved once the player received all the funds successfully.

The player from Uzbekistan had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. He had undergone the verification process and provided the required documents, but the casino asked for additional ones, which he couldn't provide. The player had expressed frustration over the casino's request for bank account details and proof of residence even after providing a residence certificate. Later, the player informed the complaints team via email that his withdrawal had been successfully processed. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Norway had used a bonus successfully and made winnings, but encountered issues when he tried to withdraw. This was due to the casino's withdrawal options having changed after he deposited additional funds via Neteller. The player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Austria had won 1000 Euros at Snatch Casino and had been trying to verify her account. However, her selfie, which was part of the verification process, kept getting rejected. Despite reaching out to the casino via email, she had not received a response. The player confirmed that her passport and proof of address had been approved, but the selfie was consistently rejected. We offered to review the rejected selfie and provided advice, but the player did not respond to our messages. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had won 2,000€ in a casino, but had issues getting support from the casino to change the incorrect birthday he initially registered with. This prevented him from completing the verification process and withdrawing the winnings. After some back and forth with the casino, the player's account had been verified. However, he encountered a new issue with the withdrawal limit being exceeded. The player eventually lost patience and wagered all his winnings. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Portugal had deposited money during a bonus period and had earned over 400 euros. However, the casino allegedly deducted 300 euros from her account without any explanation or allowing her to use it. The Complaints Team had extended the response deadline twice, but the player had not provided the necessary information for further investigation. Due to the lack of response from the player, we had been forced to reject the complaint, halting any further investigation or potential solutions.

The player from Germany had made a €25 deposit and received a bonus. After he had fulfilled the wagering requirements, his withdrawal request was cancelled due to a limit on the bonus amount. He had been seeking the remainder of his winnings, which totalled €1700. However, upon reviewing the casino's Bonus Terms and Conditions, the Complaints Team had found a clause limiting the maximum cashout amount to 5 times the bonus granted. As a result, the player's complaint was rejected, as the casino had clearly stated this rule on their website. Despite the player's dissatisfaction with the outcome, the Complaints Team could not provide further assistance due to the casino's established rules.

The player from Germany had had her account closed, which had resulted in the disappearance of her winnings of 2,500 Euros. She had disputed the casino's claim of bonus abuse as the reason for the account closure. The player had reported that the majority of her winnings were from Blackjack and had complained about the casino's lack of response to her inquiries. Upon investigation, the Complaints Team found evidence supporting the casino's claim of bonus abuse through multiple accounts. Consequently, the team deemed the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Japan had participated in the Treasure Tournament and believed he had won a prize. However, he was denied access to the final scoreboard for confirmation by the casino. He had contacted our Complaints Team for assistance. After our team's intervention, the player informed us that the issue had been resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Japan had had an issue with Snatch Casino, where his account had been closed, and his winnings had been confiscated due to an alleged violation of the casino's rules. The player had denied breaching the rules and had asked for specifics about the accusations. The casino had initially decided to refund the player's last deposit of 150,000 JPY, citing the player's alleged deceitful conduct. The player had not been satisfied with this resolution and had asked for a more detailed explanation. After several exchanges and requests for evidence, the casino had decided to refund the entire amount to the player's account for withdrawal, upon which the player's account would be closed. The player had confirmed the receipt of the full refund, marking the issue as resolved.

The player from Germany had his winnings of 299€ disappear after he switched games while trying to fulfil a bonus. The casino's live support claimed that the player had disabled the bonus, which he denied, and they refused to restore his winnings. Despite our efforts to assist him, the player did not provide the requested bonus history from his account. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had faced a delay in withdrawing his winnings of 450 euros from an online casino. The casino required several documents for verification, including a screenshot that the player couldn't provide due to banking restrictions. After the player had provided all other necessary documents, the casino kept asking for the same document, which the player had already submitted. We intervened and invited the casino's representative to the conversation. The casino confirmed that the player's account had been verified and the withdrawal request was processed after the player changed his bank and provided the needed screenshot. The player had confirmed receipt of his winnings, resolving the issue.

The player from Sweden had been unable to withdraw his winnings of €3600 as the casino had disabled his account. He had repeatedly contacted the casino support, only to be told that the casino reserved the right to close accounts without explicit reasons. The player had insisted that he had not violated the Terms of Use. After the Complaints Team had intervened and communicated with the casino, it was revealed that the player's account had been flagged for bonus abuse due to playing from different tabs in various games. However, the casino had acknowledged an error in their initial decision and agreed to credit the winnings back to the player's account. Following the completion of the KYC verification process, the player had confirmed receipt of his winnings, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from Poland had complained about their winnings being capped at a certain amount even after wagering the bonus. The player had won around PLN 1,500 from a bonus account and continued playing after reaching the maximum conversion of PLN 500. The player then won over PLN 4,000 and requested a withdrawal, but the casino capped the winnings citing a clause in the regulations. After the player's complaint, we had asked the casino to provide more information on why the winnings were capped. Following a thorough review, the casino had agreed with our assessment and reinstated PLN 3,500 to the player's account. The player confirmed the receipt of the funds and considered the matter resolved.

The player from Alberta had deposited 100 CAD, won 9000 CAD, and tried to verify his account with the necessary documents. However, the casino had closed his account due to an alleged issue with third-party documents. The player had complained about the account closure and inability to withdraw his winnings. The casino had explained that the automated verification system had rejected the player's documents due to discrepancies between the photo and the uploaded selfie. Despite our intervention and request for re-verification, the casino had asked for additional documents. The player had expressed frustration with the process and decided to give up on the complaint. We had closed the complaint upon the player's request.

The player from Greece had utilized both their deposit and bonus money to place bets on football and slots. After winning a total of €312, the casino had deducted €127.5 from their withdrawal, stating that the winnings had come from bonus money only. The player had disputed this, providing evidence of the bets placed before and after the bonus activation. We had contacted the casino for clarification. The casino had admitted to an error in processing the winnings and agreed to refund the deducted amount back to the player's account. The player had confirmed receipt of the refund and expressed satisfaction with the resolution.

The player from Germany had faced a delay in receiving a withdrawal of 1741€ despite having a fully verified account. He was unsatisfied with the standardized email responses and felt his inquiries about the delayed withdrawal were being ignored. The player confirmed that his winnings were from real money and not from a bonus. He had been informed by the casino that his withdrawal would be processed in two parts on January 5th and 10th respectively. However, the player did not confirm receipt of these payments. After extending the timer for response, we did not receive any further communication from the player. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Canada had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. The player confirmed that their account was in good standing with all documents approved, yet they had not received an email confirmation for their withdrawal. The Complaints Team had attempted to extend the discussion period by 7 days for additional input from the player. However, the player did not respond within the given timeframe, resulting in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Russia had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had had issues with account verification, as the casino had requested documents he initially couldn't provide. After contacting us, his account was verified within a few hours. However, the casino had requested additional confirmation for his piatrix wallet. The player sent all necessary documents and after a delay, confirmed that the payment had been completed. We had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Denmark was struggling to receive 6200 Euros in winnings. After successfully withdrawing 1000 Euros, they received no response from the casino's support or KYC team. The player was further frustrated by a lack of communication and this had lasted for two months. We invited the Snatch Casino representative to join the conversation, who confirmed that 5700 Euros had been sent and the player's account was only frozen due to multiple unsuccessful login attempts. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we confirmed the payment and marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Armenia had his account closed after he won, with the casino citing a 'risk security test' failure. The casino had confiscated his deposits and hadn't allowed him to withdraw his winnings, and was unresponsive to his queries. He had lost a 300 euros deposit and 900 euros in winnings. After the player's complaint, we had initiated a conversation with the casino. The casino had accused the player of bonus abuse, which the player had denied. After examining the player's game logs, we had concluded that the player did engage in prohibited behaviour by using previous progress achieved with a bonus after losing the bonus amount. Consequently, we had agreed with the casino's decision. However, the casino had agreed to refund the player's deposit. The player had successfully withdrawn his deposit and the case had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Switzerland was experiencing an issue with a withdrawal. He claimed that after wagering winnings from free spins and playing with his own money, the casino had confiscated 220€, insisting that winnings from free spins were capped at 100€. However, the player asserted that the disputed amount was won using his own money, not bonus funds. Despite our attempts to gather more information and resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had made a deposit five days prior, but it had not been credited to his casino account, nor had the money been returned to his bank. The casino claimed that his bank wasn't sending the money, but the player's bank confirmed the transaction had been processed. The player had initiated a dispute process with the bank. This had not been his first deposit at the casino. After further communication, it was revealed that the player had requested a chargeback from his bank. We had informed the player that this action was considered fraudulent by most casinos and could result in restrictions on his ability to play at many online casinos. As a result of the player's decision to request a chargeback, we had rejected the complaint, as the matter was now in the hands of his bank.

The player from Brazil had had a pending withdrawal for over than 24 hours. Despite having won and completed the verification process, the casino had refused payment for various reasons. After communicating with our team, the player had confirmed that his withdrawal request was approved and he had received his winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Brazil had completed all verification procedures correctly but had received an error message when he attempted to withdraw funds. Despite having provided necessary documents for proof of address, the casino did not accept them. We had requested further details from the player to assist in resolving the issue, but the player failed to respond within the given timeframe. As a result, we were unable to investigate further, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Germany, who had a history of successful transactions with Snatch Casino, had his account suddenly closed due to an alleged 'bonus or promotion abuse'. Approximately €3,000 was trapped in the account. The player wanted to understand the exact reason for the ban and wished for the account to be unlocked. After a series of discussions with the Complaints Team and the casino, the casino had agreed to return the funds to the player's account. The player had confirmed that he received all his winnings, hence, we considered this complaint resolved.

The player from Portugal had trouble getting his account verified despite submitting multiple proofs of residence. The casino did not accept his selfie with an identification document. We provided guidelines on how to successfully complete the KYC process and asked the player to forward any relevant communication. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Sweden, who self-excluded due to gambling addiction in a sister casino, was allowed to create an account and gamble at Snatch Casino, losing 11000 kr. Since the player has not informed the casino of her addiction prior to making deposits, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece is facing issues with Snatch Casino in withdrawing money, even after complying with their requirements to send personal and bank details, including IBAN and a photo of the card. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Portugal had issues with withdrawing €57,500 from Snatch Casino. Despite the player's account level allowing for €50,000 withdrawal per month, the casino limited withdrawals to €1,000 per week. The casino informed us that there are limits on the payment provider bank's side, which they cannot influence, and that the last withdrawals were successfully paid out. The player confirmed successful payments, but it turned out he only recently reached VIP status, and he was only asking a VIP manager for higher limits. The request was denied so standard limits were applied to his account. The complaint was later rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions after we asked for more information and details.

The player from Brazil registered for a casino with a 50 spins bonus promotion but didn't receive it. The casino support stated that they weren't eligible and subsequently claimed that the promotion was no longer active despite it being active during the player's registration. We eventually rejected the complaint since it was proven that players from Brazil were not eligible for this no-deposit bonus. Since the player did not lose their own funds and had not made any deposit, the complaint was classified as unjustified.

The player from Portugal had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. Their money hadn't been received yet. We had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The delay could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. However, the player confirmed that they had received their withdrawal. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Ireland had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as processing times could vary due to factors such as KYC verification and high volumes of withdrawal requests. After extending the response period by an additional 7 days, the player failed to respond to our messages. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany was unable to access the casino website despite having funds in his player account. After he contacted the casino's support via email and had three pending withdrawal requests, the player still couldn't access the site. We suggested using a VPN service to access the account and awaited a response. However, the player failed to respond within the given time frame, leading us to reject the complaint due to the lack of further investigation.

The player from Germany had reported difficulties withdrawing his winnings of 700 euros from the casino due to ongoing verification issues. The player had submitted all requested documents for verification but had not received any communication from the casino regarding the status of his withdrawal. We intervened and contacted the casino on the player's behalf. The issue was resolved as the player confirmed that he had received his 700 euro payout. We subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece, after clearing the wagering requirements and applying for a withdrawal of €1,500, had €1,250 inexplicably deducted from his account. He has been unable to access the casino website since then. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Baden-Württemberg could not access the snatchcasino.eu website where she reportedly had a balance of 200 Euros. After we reached out to her for more information, we extended the response time for her to provide more details. However, due to her lack of response, we were unable to investigate the issue further. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia had had an issue accessing the Snatch Casino website where he had had funds. He had been concerned that the site would never be accessible again as he had experienced with other casinos. Eventually, the player managed to access the site, initiated a withdrawal, and received his funds promptly. The issue has been successfully resolved.

The player from Sweden had been waiting for one month to withdraw 198 euros. The casino required a specific document that the player couldn't provide, despite successful verification and providing similar, relevant documents. After the player's communication with our team and the subsequent follow-up with the casino, the casino verified the player's account. The player confirmed that his withdrawal had been processed and he received his winnings. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Brazil is having difficulty with the account verification procedure. The casino is requesting documents that the player alleges do not exist. The player is unable to withdraw approximately 300 BRL due to these verification issues. Player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany had reported an issue with an online casino where she had requested a monthly deposit limit of 100 Euros but was allowed to deposit more than this limit. She had contacted the casino's support team but did not receive clear responses and suspected that the casino was intentionally delaying the resolution of the issue. The player had provided all necessary information to the Complaints Team. The casino had admitted to a system error which allowed the player to deposit over her limit and stated that the issue had been rectified. They had refunded 300 Euros to the player, which was the amount she had deposited on the day she exceeded her limit. However, the player had insisted on a full refund of all deposits made beyond the limit. The Complaints Team had agreed with the casino's decision, as the player had won over 1000 Euros using the funds deposited over the limit. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player failed to respond to further inquiries.

The player from Bulgaria, who has a self-exclusion ban, deposited and lost 3500€ at an online casino that subsequently became blocked in Bulgaria due to lack of license. The player has tried to recoup lost deposits due to the illegality of the gambling in their country but the casino has not responded and restricted their chat access. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan has issues with uploading identification documents for verification and is unable to communicate with casino support due to a broken live chat link and unresponsive emails. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Portugal deposited 100 EUR and was awarded a 250% bonus. After gaming and raising the balance to 1,860 EUR, a technical glitch occurred and when trying to resolve it, the player accidentally cancelled the bonus and lost the entire balance. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Cyprus who had identified gambling issues had been attempting to close his account through email and online support, but the casino had not complied, resulting in a loss of over 8 thousand euros. The player had claimed that he had requested self-exclusion due to money problems, however, the casino had argued that the player had not clearly communicated his gambling addiction. According to the casino, the player had not deposited any money after his closure request was made clear. We, as the Complaints Team, had concluded that the player was not eligible for a refund as he had not deposited any money after informing the casino about his gambling issues. The case was rejected, but the player had been offered assistance in filing an official complaint with the casino's licensing authority.

The player from Portugal made deposits without a bonus and passed the verification process. The player won 1000€, but the withdrawal request has been pending for 3 days. The player is continuously receiving the same response from customer support. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

A player from Portugal has been trying to close their casino account, but requests via chat and email have been ignored. Meanwhile, the player has continued to deposit and lose money. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany criticizes the casino's approach to responsible gambling in the casino and requests a refund of his deposits. After gathering more information, we were forced to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Japan 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, despite being fully verified, has been unable to withdraw her winnings since June 19, 2023. The casino's support and finance departments have been unhelpful. The player later informed us that she received her winnings, so we closed the case as resolved.

The player from Brazil has made multiple deposits at the casino and faced issues with withdrawals after winning. Despite providing the necessary verification documents and following their instructions, they experienced unsuccessful withdrawal attempts, delays, and conflicting information about their PIX email. We ended up closing the complaint as resolved since the casino processed all the player's withdrawal requests. Even though the player failed to confirm receipt of the payment in the given timeframe, we assumed the information was correct.

The player from Argentina requested a withdrawal three days before submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, he has not received his winnings yet. The player later confirmed he received his winnings and we could close the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal played won from a bonus play. When he submitted a withdrawal request, the casino capped his winnings. After the player's winnings had been capped due to general bonus rules, the player confirmed receipt of the payment, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Sweden 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 Germany 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 the complaint as resolved.

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

The player from Brazil was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. We contacted the casino and found out the player hadn't uploaded all the required documents to complete verification. The player informed us that there was no need to examine the case anymore since she would close the account, the casino once again confirmed the player refused to send the missing documents and played the balance to zero. We finally rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany encountered a technical glitch while playing in the casino. Winnings from a bonus feature in a slot game were not credited to his gaming account. He provided the casino with the information necessary to investigate the issue, but allegedly, due to the information not being sufficient, despite that it contained the exact time of the disputed game round, the casino failed to investigate the issue. Shortly after, the player decided to apply self-exclusion to their gaming account and indicated gambling addiction as the reason for the request. At this point, as the player's bonus balance consisted exclusively of bonus funds, the balance was forfeited. Later, the casino investigated the issue related to the disputed game round. It was found out that the disputed amount was in fact, due to an error on the game provider's end, not credited to the player's account. Unfortunately, given that the player's access to his gaming acount couldn't be restored, due to self-exclusion, we were left with no option but to reject this complaint.

The player from Russia had his account blocked without further explanation. The casino replied to the complaint and explained that the player had used some "opposing betting strategies" to accumulate their winnings. The player refuted this, so the casino asked the game provider for further evidence. Shortly after, the casino decided that this process would take too much time, and so decided to pay the player his winnings in this instance. The payment was received and the complaint was resolved.

The player's account got blocked for breaching the casino terms. The player was accused of "Wonging", which is a form of card counting. We do not consider this to be a sufficient reason for confiscating the player's funds, in accordance with our Fair Gambling Codex. The casino reviewed the case and decided to pay the player's winnings to them. The complaint was then resolved.

The player from Germany is trying to limit his exposure to the casino by requesting a cool-off period, but his efforts seem unsuccessful. We advised the player to request self-exclusion in the casino. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from the United Kingdom had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. She believes that she should have been prevented from depositing funds into Snatch Casino. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Greece allegedly deposited money into his casino account but the funds seem to be lost. The casino informed us that no successful deposit has been made to the player's casino account, so we asked the player for further details. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Spain has been trying to close the account due to a gambling problem. Unfortunately, all the enquiries were ignored. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria has requested a self-exclusion. Unfortunately, the inquiry was ignored. The case was rejected since the player did not provide sufficient documents for verification and refused to cooperate.

The player from Australia has requested a withdrawal one week prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Sweden had requested to close her account multiple times through chat and email, but the casino did not comply. She suspected game manipulation and low RTP, questioning the casino's integrity. The issue was resolved when the casino finally closed her account after her repeated requests. We acknowledged the resolution and appreciated her cooperation.

The player from Austria faced delayed withdrawals, receiving only 400 euros each time instead of the advertised 1,200 euros per day, with each transaction taking 2-3 days to process. She requested expedited payouts in line with the casino's Terms and Conditions. We requested additional details from the player for investigation. The player provided the necessary information, and the issue was successfully resolved. The complaint was then closed as resolved.

The player from Berlin experienced an issue with IWILD CASINO splitting her payout. She had never encountered this before and sought help with the situation. The Complaints Team inquired about her account verification status and the nature of her winnings. The player confirmed her account was verified. Subsequently, the player informed that the issue had been resolved. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Portugal had won 650 euros at Iwild Casino with a bonus and had 124 euros left after the excess bonus amount was deducted. Upon winning 800 euros and attempting another withdrawal, the casino deducted nearly the entire amount again, citing bonus criteria. After the Complaints Team intervened and communicated with the casino, the casino reviewed the game's history and restored 675.6 euros to the player's account. The player chose to cancel his account due to restrictions and limitations but expressed gratitude for the Complaints Team's assistance. The issue was marked as resolved.

The player from British Columbia had received free spins via email with no special terms mentioned. After completing the wagering requirements and attempting to withdraw CAD 150, the casino reduced the winnings to CAD 45 due to undisclosed terms. The casino acknowledged an oversight and agreed to refund CAD 121.85 to the player. The player confirmed receipt of the funds and expressed satisfaction with the resolution. The issue was marked as resolved by us.

The player from Brazil tried to withdraw R$763, but the casino requested another verification after she changed her address. Despite submitting proof for both old and new addresses, the issue remained unresolved. We explained the importance of KYC procedures and requested further details from her. After she provided additional documentation, the verification was completed, and she successfully received her winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Her money hadn't been received yet. After she submitted the complaint, the casino quickly verified her account and processed the withdrawal. The player confirmed that she had received her winnings only after lodging her complaint with the Casino Guru. The issue had been resolved successfully, and we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had purchased a bonus coin at iWild Casino DE and had faced an issue with deductions of balance. After meeting the wagering requirements, his balance had been converted to 'Real Money', which he had further increased. However, the casino had deducted the amount twice, once after wagering and again when he had requested a withdrawal. We had asked the player for evidence of these deductions and had forwarded the case to the casino for review. The casino decided to restore the deducted amount of €125 to the player's account, thus resolving the issue. The player had confirmed the restoration of his balance.

The player from Greece had deposited 20€, but the payment hadn't been reflected in the casino account. Despite attempts to resolve the issue through communication with the casino, the problem persisted. Our team had advised the player to contact the payment provider and refrain from making further deposits until the issue was resolved. After a delay, the casino confirmed that the deposit had been credited to the player's account. Although the player expressed dissatisfaction with the delay, the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany had won €2000 at iWild Casino. Despite having a verified account and having received an initial payout of €400, the player had reported not receiving the remaining amount. He had attempted to reach out to the casino's customer service via Live Chat and email but had received no explanation regarding the delay in payments. After communication with the Complaints Team, the player had decided to wait for the pending payments. Eventually, the player confirmed that he had received all the pending payments. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from British Columbia had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. After the Complaints Team advised the player to wait for at least 14 days and cooperate fully with the casino, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. Following this, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Bulgaria had faced difficulties withdrawing 1,200 euros from an online casino as it did not recognize her Revolut account. The casino had requested a bank screenshot for verification, but she couldn't provide it due to security concerns. After six days of sending documents, the player had managed to pass the verification process. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Japan had his account deactivated after a security check had indicated a violation of rules. The casino had accused him of using strategies while playing with an active bonus, an act that was deemed as bonus abuse, and as such, all the player's winnings had been nullified. The player had claimed that he did not breach any rules and was merely utilizing the welcome offer. We had contacted the casino for clarification and they had decided to reinstate the sum of 790€ to the player's account balance. However, the player had faced difficulties accessing his account. The casino had confirmed that the player's account was reopened and the funds had been credited. The player had then been required to complete a KYC-verification before withdrawals could be processed. The player had confirmed that he was able to access his account and had completed the verification process. He then applied for a withdrawal and confirmed receipt of the funds. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited a total of 45€, won, and had raised his balance to 267€. When he tried to withdraw his winnings, his account was suddenly closed, citing a violation of playing with an active bonus rule. The casino had confiscated all his winnings and permanently closed his account. After the player's complaint, the casino had conducted a thorough review of the game history and decided to reinstate the sum of 267€ to the player's account balance, affirming the player's entitlement to request a withdrawal. The player confirmed that the money had been successfully transferred to his bank account, resolving the issue.

The player from Greece had initially struggled with the account verification process at an online casino due to an incorrect document confirming his location. Despite multiple attempts to send it, he had been blocked and hadn't received a response from the casino's support department. However, the issue had eventually been resolved with the casino verifying his account. The complaint had subsequently been marked as 'resolved' by our team.

The player from Greece had trouble making a withdrawal of 250 euros from iWild Casino. Despite having verified their account and provided proof of ownership for both their old and new bank cards, the casino had not yet processed their withdrawal. After communicating with the casino and providing the necessary documents, the player confirmed that the withdrawal had been verified and the money had been received. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been closed in our system.

The player from Germany had scored significant winnings at iWildCasino, increasing his balance to 2400€. However, the casino had limited him to withdraw only 5 times the bonus amount which was 750€, deleting the rest from his account and citing a clause from their terms. The player's account had been verified, and the bonus money had been converted into real money credit. We had contacted the casino about the player's additional winnings and asked for clarification. After our intervention, the casino had agreed to credit the player's winnings back to his account. The player confirmed that he had received the funds and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Ontario had reported a delay in the withdrawal process, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. After the casino had completed the verification process, the player's withdrawal request was cancelled due to the finance department's delay. The player had to resubmit the withdrawal request. The player later confirmed that he had received his withdrawal funds. The issue had been marked as resolved by the complaints team.

A player from the United Kingdom is experiencing a lack of communication from the iWild casino. Despite having their account closed as requested, their other concerns are not being addressed and their attempts to use online chat have been unsuccessful. The complaint was closed as the player resolved the issue with the casino.

The player from Alberta deposited $1000 into an online casino and received a $1300 bonus. She was not informed about a stipulation that required a $3000 expenditure before withdrawal. The player is seeking a refund and has not received assistance from customer support. The complaint was resolved as the player received his funds.

The player from Italy had faced withdrawal issues with an online casino after winning a significant amount. The casino had asserted that the maximum withdrawal from the bonus balance was capped at €1,185, which overrode the player's total winnings of €10,600. The player's previous withdrawals had been cancelled, and their balance had been reset to €1,185. The player had argued that the casino had capped his winnings twice, once after meeting the bonus wagering requirements and again after it was converted to real money. The casino had initially defended their actions based on their bonus withdrawal rules. However, after discussions with the Complaints Team, the casino had agreed to return €9,425 to the player's balance, which was immediately available for withdrawal. The player had accepted this solution, marking the issue as resolved.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Bulgaria has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was closed as resolved after the player confirmed that the casino had initiated the processing of withdrawal requests.

The player from India made three withdrawal requests of 400 Euro each, from the Iwild casino. While one request was successful, the remaining two withdrawals are still not credited to his MuchBetter wallet. The casino joined the discussion with the player and later it was confirmed that his winnings were paid out.

The player from Germany 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 Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money 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 Latvia 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.