Vave Casino Review

The player from Ireland had reported experiencing issues with Vave casino. After some successful withdrawals, they had faced delays, and their account was subsequently disabled. The casino had suspected the player of fraud and confiscated their remaining balance without any explanation. The player had been a member of the casino for approximately six months, mainly playing slots and live casino games. Despite efforts from our team to contact Vave casino for clarification and resolution, there was no response. As the casino operated without a valid license and didn't refer to any ADR service, no further action could be taken. The complaint was marked as 'unresolved', potentially affecting the casino's rating.

The player from Croatia had experienced a withdrawal rejection and confiscation his winnings on Vave.com. The casino alleged that the player had two accounts. Despite the player's willingness to undergo any necessary verification process, the casino did not request any documents for verification. The player had only placed sports bets, which fell outside the jurisdiction of our forum, Casino.guru. We had recommended other websites that could assist him with his sports betting issue and closed the complaint due to our inability to intervene in sports betting disputes.

The player from Italy had reported that after making several deposits on Vave Casino, her withdrawal request was rejected due to a 'double account IP' claim. Despite providing additional verification, her subsequent withdrawal request had remained unprocessed. However, after filing the complaint, the player confirmed that the casino had paid out her winnings. We had therefore closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Albania had experienced difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino. His withdrawal requests had been repeatedly cancelled due to various reasons, despite having provided all necessary proofs. He also had issues with his account login and had changed his login email as per the casino's instructions. The casino had alleged the presence of duplicate accounts as the reason for cancelling his withdrawal attempts. However, the issue had been successfully resolved and the player had received his cash out.

The player from Germany had initiated three withdrawals two days prior and hadn't received any clear response from Vave Casino regarding the delay. We had attempted to understand the situation by asking the player several questions about his account status and the nature of the withdrawal issue. However, despite extending the complaint response time by 7 days, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Russia had reported a delayed payout from Vave Casino despite having fulfilled the bonus wager requirements. He had argued that his winnings were unjustly reduced from 987 TRX to 470 TRX. Despite having provided all necessary information, the player had stopped responding to our inquiries, which hindered further investigation. The complaint was initially rejected due to this lack of response. However, the complaint was reopened after the player had provided further details via email. Despite our attempts to engage Vave Casino in the resolution process, the casino had remained unresponsive. As a result, we had marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could have negatively affected the casino's rating.

The player from Moldova had his account blocked without explanation, which had prevented him from withdrawing his winnings from baccarat and sports betting. Despite having reached out to the casino, he had received no information about the reason for the block or the possibility of a refund. We had contacted the casino on his behalf and had invited a representative to join the conversation. However, the casino did not respond within the extended time frame and since it operated without a valid license, there was no gaming authority to appeal to. We marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which may have negatively impacted the casino's rating.

The player from Brazil had deposited some funds and played slots hoping to qualify for a 100% cashback bonus, which was denied despite the loss of the deposit. The player's request for the promised bonus had been rejected even after several interactions with customer support. We had attempted to contact the casino multiple times to resolve the issue, but received no response. The complaint had been marked as 'unresolved' in our system, potentially affecting the casino's rating. We had advised the player to contact the Gaming Curaçao Authority for further assistance.

The player from the United States had an issue with depositing money to the casino, claiming his funds had been stolen instead of being added to his account. The player had used Bitcoin for the transaction. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino had limited control over such issues. However, the player became abusive and made threats, leading to his permanent ban from the forum. Consequently, this complaint had been closed.

The player from Ontario had an issue with the casino not crediting a confirmed blockchain deposit to his account. He claimed the deposit was confirmed on the blockchain but not reflected in his account. We attempted to assist the player by asking for additional information and extending the response time. However, the player did not respond to our queries. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Russia had been placing sports bets at the Vave casino, but the sports betting section had been subsequently closed to him due to his location. At that time, the casino had required him to play slots to meet deposit wagering requirements, which he had felt was unfair as he hadn't been notified about these changes nor offered a chance to withdraw. Despite multiple attempts to engage Vave Casino in resolving the issue, the casino had failed to provide a satisfactory response. We had asked the casino to refund the player's deposit, but the casino had not responded to our requests. As a result, we had been forced to close the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from Mississippi had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player's account had been closed, and they had expressed dissatisfaction with the standard procedure of waiting 14 days for withdrawal. The player's language had become abusive, and they had threatened self-harm. We had provided information about mental health resources, but the player had continued to use abusive language. Consequently, we had banned the player's account and closed the complaint without the possibility of reopening it in the future.

The UK player had encountered a problem with Vave Casino, where his withdrawal of over $2k was voided after a significant win. The player had deposited and played with his own money and had also used some bonuses. The casino had claimed the winnings were cancelled due to exceeding the maximum allowed bet during gameplay with an active bonus. Despite our mediation attempts, the casino did not respond to our requests for more information. We had to close the complaint as unresolved, which could have negatively impacted the casino's rating. We had advised the player to lodge a complaint with the Gaming Curacao authority.

A player from Belgium deposited 100€, received a derivative bonus of 40€, and subsequently won 600€. Despite meeting the wagering requirement, the casino confiscated their winnings citing a terms and conditions violation, which the player denies. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from France requested a withdrawal after winning but was told to first meet wagering requirement. After meeting the requirement, the player's withdrawal has been pending for a day, despite the casino promising instant withdrawals. The complaint was resolved as the player's withdrawal arrived.

A player from Hungary reported that his account on Vave was mistakenly marked as duplicate after attempting a withdrawal. Despite his insistence on being the sole user and only logging in from one IP address, he hasn't received any specific information from the casino. Casino has provided us with evidence of multiple accounts, therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Hungary requested a withdrawal more than three days ago, exceeding the casino's specified maximum wait time, but hasn't received their payment yet. The player confirmed the withdrawal was successfull.

The Russian player had encountered issues with withdrawals at an online casino after he had converted his negative balance into a positive one. After his third withdrawal request, the casino had asked him to verify his account. Despite complying, his request was denied due to a new policy against Russian players in sports betting. Out of his total funds of $18,000, $15,000 had been confiscated, leaving him with only $3,000. The casino had justified their actions by stating the player had violated the terms and conditions, which were in effect before his gaming session. The casino had returned his initial deposit as a goodwill gesture but confiscated the winnings. The complaints team had disagreed with the casino's stance, arguing that the casino should have clearly communicated any changes in terms and conditions to the player. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the casino had remained firm in their decision. The player was advised to file a complaint with the regulator, and the case was marked as unresolved.

The player from Germany noticed a 'balance correction' by vave.com after his initial bet. The winning bet was cancelled and the winnings were not credited to his account. He's seeking help to rectify the situation and retrieve his winnings. The issue was related to sports betting, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.