Vulkan.bet Casino Review

The player from Poland faced account blockage due to alleged multiple accounts, although he stated that he only had one verified account. VulkanBet had blocked his account and refused to release his 13,000 PLN winnings, claiming that other accounts were created by his friend. The Complaints Team concluded that since the friend had used the player's device to register multiple accounts, it was deemed impossible to prove that these accounts were not created and used by him. Consequently, the complaint was rejected based on the casino's terms regarding duplicate accounts.

The player from Norway faced delays in completing the account verification process at Vulcan.bet, which had been ongoing since July 4th. Despite uploading the required documentation and having multiple chats with support, there was no clarity on what was missing. After further communication, the player's documents were verified, and the payout was processed. The player confirmed receipt of the funds, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Brazil experienced delays in withdrawing funds from the casino after submitting proof of her credit card and a Pay4Fun receipt. Despite having a verified account for over two years and the card being previously verified, the casino requested the documentation again, which caused frustration. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the documents submitted were sufficient for verification, and the funds were sent to her account.

The player from Portugal's account at Vulkan12.bet had been deleted after being accused of violating terms and conditions by using someone else’s payment method and having multiple accounts. The player denied these claims, stating he had only used his cards and had just one account, with close to 500 euros at stake. After reviewing the case and gathering information from the casino, it was concluded that the complaint was unjustified due to evidence of multiple accounts linked to the same crypto wallet and placing identical bets on the same events, which breached the casino's policies. The player was informed that the casino's actions were in accordance with their established rules, and further assistance could not be provided.

The player 'NAMANGUPTA' complained about slow withdrawals despite promised time frame of 3-5 days. The casino replied to the complained and said they would inquire with payment provider. No more updates since then.

The player 'BULBASOR' requested a 3.000 PLN withdrawal from Vulkan.bet and was advised to split it into three 1.000 PLN requests due to technical issues. One request was processed, one canceled without explanation, and one was still pending a week later. Chat support was not helpful, and no responses were received from the support email. The casino didn't react to this complaint and there were no more updates since then.

The player from Brazil had her verified account blocked after she requested a withdrawal on 06/26/2024. Support claimed she had been using funds for high-stakes betting and switching to casino games. Despite fulfilling both sports and casino rollover requirements, the player’s $450 winnings were withheld, and she sought at least a refund of her $150 deposit. The complaint was rejected as it involved sports betting, which was outside the scope of our forum.

The player from Iceland attempted to withdraw part of his winnings (3,700 DKK), but his account was blocked for unclear reasons. The total outstanding amount was about 24,000 DKK. The player had used his wife's card for deposits, which violated the casino's terms and conditions prohibiting third-party payments. Despite providing documents proving his wife's permission, the casino did not accept this due to anti-money laundering regulations. As a result, we could not assist further, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany was struggling with delayed withdrawal at Vulkan.bet. Despite repeated attempts and suggestions from the support to withdraw in smaller increments, all attempts had been cancelled. The player suspected a ploy to make them gamble away their winnings. The player's account had been verified since April 2022, and the winnings were accumulated with real money. The player had been limited to €600 in withdrawals per day, but the withdrawals were always cancelled by the casino. The player was advised to try withdrawing €200 per day. However, the player requested to delete the complaint thread and it was subsequently rejected as per the player's request.

The player from Chile had an issue with a delayed withdrawal request at an online casino. Despite having her account verified and submitting the required documents, the casino had cancelled her withdrawal request citing further verification procedures. The player had resubmitted a new withdrawal request and complied with the casino's verification requirements, but the funds were not processed within the stipulated period. After several interactions with the casino's customer service, the casino had admitted to a mistake and processed the payment. The player had since received her winnings and intended to close her account due to the casino's handling of the situation. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Georgia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days and might be delayed due to factors such as KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had encouraged the player to be patient and cooperate with the casino. The team had extended the complaint timer by 7 days but received no response from the player. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response.

As a VIP customer, the player from Austria had faced an issue with Vulkan.bet, after being accused of violating Rule 11.7, associated with bonus abuse. His account had been blocked and his balance of approximately €6000 had been confiscated. The player had refuted these accusations and sought to recover his balance. Despite being fully verified and a VIP member, the player had received no clear explanation for the account closure. The player had used both sports and casino bonuses and insisted he had complied with the casino's terms and conditions. We had contacted the casino for more information but had to reject the complaint as it involved sports betting, which was outside our remit.

The player from Austria had had her Vulkanbet account suspended due to an alleged rule 11.7 violation. She insisted she had never played in the casino but her balance of €1,400 had been retained. The casino had stated this was a management decision. After reviewing the case, we found that the casino's terms and conditions did allow them to withhold funds under suspicion of prohibited activity. However, as we lacked the necessary expertise in sports betting disputes, we were unable to further assist the player in this matter.

The player from Germany had his account closed by Vulkanbet, with the casino citing a violation of bonus fund misuse. The player, who had approximately €6700 in his account, had argued that his winnings were from sports betting, not bonus misuse. As we primarily dealt with online casino complaints, we initially rejected the complaint due to its sports betting nature. However, upon the player's insistence that he had also participated in casino games, we had reopened the complaint and contacted Vulkanbet for further information. The casino acknowledged an error in interpreting the data, unblocked the player's account, and restored his balance. The player confirmed the resolution and the complaint had been closed as resolved.

The player from Austria had an issue with his account which had been suspended. He mainly participated in sports betting and casino games, ensuring not to have an active bonus. The casino accused the player of violating the terms and conditions with casino games. After examining the case, we had invited the casino to the conversation. The casino had provided evidence regarding the player's breach of terms, specifically regarding collusion and multiple accounts linked with similar IPs, device IDs, and reference codes. The player's winnings also mainly originated from sports betting, which fell outside our purview. We had concluded the complaint as unjustified due to these breaches and the casino's adherence to its terms and conditions.

The player from Canada reported that their account at Vulkan.bet had been closed and $250 confiscated on the grounds of rule 11.8 violation. The player clarified that the issue was related to sports betting, not casino games. However, we informed the player that we lacked the expertise to handle sports betting disputes and did not have a dedicated department for such issues at that time. Consequently, we were unable to assist in this matter and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had deposited 80 Euro to his online casino account, but the balance had not been credited. He had made multiple deposits prior to this issue. Despite having contacted his bank and the casino support, the problem had not been resolved. The player had provided necessary documentation to support his claim. The casino had responded stating that the transaction might have been declined by the player's bank or the processing system, and they had credited the player's account with the 80 euros. However, without confirmation from the player about the resolution, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Chile had been blocked from Vulkan.bet Casino without an apparent reason. The player had deposited 1030 euros across 5 deposits, had won up to 1300 euros but her account was blocked when her balance fell to 500 euros, losing more than half of her deposits. The casino had clarified that the player's account was terminated in accordance with their Terms and Conditions, which allowed them to discontinue services at their discretion. The casino also confirmed that all the player's withdrawal requests had been processed and the remaining balance was less than their minimum withdrawal amount. Despite extending the deadline for the player's response, we had received no further communication, leading us to conclude that the issue was resolved.

The player from Poland had his account closed by the online casino due to an alleged violation of rule 5.5.4, implying he had multiple accounts. He contested this, stating the second account belonged to his sister-in-law, and both accounts had passed KYC verification. The player's goal was to retrieve his stuck winnings. The player later reported that his account had been unexpectedly unblocked, and he had been able to apply for a withdrawal. The player later confirmed that he had received his winnings. The issue had been resolved successfully and the player's account was subsequently closed again by the casino.

The player from Norway had his account closed and winnings denied by the casino, as they claimed he had multiple accounts and had used his card for transactions on different accounts. The player disputed these claims and provided evidence that such transactions didn't occur. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino, which admitted to an error and unblocked the player's account. However, the casino then requested additional verification documents, which the player claimed to have sent multiple times. Despite the team's repeated attempts to communicate with the player, the issue remained unresolved due to lack of response from the player. The complaint was eventually rejected due to inactivity from the player's side.

The player from Bulgaria reported that his account had been blocked without any explanation or evidence provided after he won a large sum of €3500. The player stated that he had been using the platform for sports betting for over six months and had also utilized their bonuses. He encountered the issue after a successful bet on Valencia, which increased his balance to €3500. When he tried to withdraw his winnings, he found his account had been blocked. However, we clarified that our forum only handled complaints related to online casinos, not sports betting. We offered to provide the player with a list of websites that could assist him with his sports betting issue. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the nature of the issue being outside our jurisdiction.

The player from Slovenia had claimed that the casino had closed her account and her boyfriend's account, accusing them of having multiple accounts. Both had performed personal KYC processes, confirming they were separate people from different households. The casino later changed their reasoning, suggesting instead that she had been misusing bonuses. The casino had provided evidence showing the same device and IP address had been used for both accounts and similar betting strategies had been employed. The player had explained these similarities were due to their close relationship and shared environment. The casino had offered to return the last deposit made as a compromise, which the player had accepted. The casino then temporarily unblocked one account to allow for the withdrawal of the deposit. The complaint had been left open awaiting confirmation from the player about the receipt of the deposit, but there was no further response so the complaint was eventually rejected.

The Slovenian player's account was suspended after their first bet due to allegations of having multiple accounts. The player denies this, stating the so-called duplicate account belongs to his girlfriend. Both accounts have completed KYC verification and despite providing additional identity proof, the casino refuses to reactivate the accounts or refund the deposit. The complaint was closed as it was sports betting related.

The player from Germany had experienced technical issues on Vulkan.bet Casino, which had resulted in unexpected high betting amounts and a loss of 270€. Despite having reached out to customer support, he had received no resolution and was subsequently banned from the casino. He was then seeking a refund. We had requested evidence from the player to support his claims. However, the screenshots he provided were inconclusive. The player had mentioned the betting limit in Germany, but without concrete evidence of technical errors, we were unable to assist further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had been struggling with the account verification process for two months. Despite having uploaded the required document repeatedly, it kept getting rejected. He had made sizable deposits and was concerned about his withdrawal status. After the complaints team intervened and contacted the casino, the player's verification was confirmed. It seemed that the player might have submitted a withdrawal request following the verification, but without his confirmation, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had his account permanently blocked by the casino for allegedly violating rule 10.5, which pertained to fraudulent or inappropriate activities. The casino had confiscated his balance of approximately 10700 Reals. Despite having reached out to the player for more information to understand the situation better, the Complaints Team hadn't received any response. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Chile had experienced a delay in receiving her payout, despite multiple attempts at contacting the casino's support team. The casino explained that the delay was due to issues with an external payment provider. After our intervention, the casino advised the player to make another withdrawal request, which was successful. The player had confirmed receipt of her winnings and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from Bosnia and Herzegovina had his winnings blocked due to allegations of rule violation and account duplication by the casino. He had contested these claims, asserting that his friend's account was unrelated. We had informed the player about the universal prohibition of sharing login details in online casinos, which could have led to accusations of fraud, collusion, or multi-accounting and resulted in confiscated funds. Despite having extended the complaint resolution time by 7 days, the player had failed to respond, forcing us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Germany is facing an issue regarding withdrawal fees. Despite receiving a credit of €50 back into her account after cancelling a withdrawal, part of it was deducted as a fee during a subsequent withdrawal. Moreover, according to the player, this fee should not have applied as it was a matured bonus deposit. The casino's chat support has not been receptive to her concerns. The complaint was resolved as the casino refunded the player's fee.

The player from Portugal has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Portugal is having issues with a delayed withdrawal of 90€. The casino mentioned suspicions of money laundering as the reason for an account block and failed withdrawal. Due to the significant time that has passed since the incident the player described, which is over one year ago, we are unable to investigate further.

The player from Baden-Württemberg deposited 30 Euros into his Vulkanbet account but the amount was not credited. The casino support informed him that it may take up to 72 hours for the funds to show up. The complaint was resolved as the player's deposit got credited into her casino account.

The player from Germany 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 Argentina has been accused of opening multiple accounts. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there was sufficient evidence the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Germany cashed out from the casino but received less than anticipated due to incurred transaction fees. The player confirmed he managed to withdraw the remainder of his winnings successfully.

The player from Argentina was accused of opening multiple accounts due to an IP match. After gathering all the necessary information and details from the casino, we decided to close this complaint as unjustified. There are reasonable grounds to believe that your account was engaging in suspicious activity and was not used for gaming purposes, or there are even signs of possible money laundering. Considering the provided evidence, it would be very difficult or likely impossible to prove anything else. The casino acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, and we accept its decision.

The player from Portugal requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Schleswig-Holstein 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 is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil 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 Baden-Württemberg has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from India had his account blocked without further explanation. The player confirmed his account has been unblocked earlier than we invited the casino to the thread. The complaint is resolved.

The player from India had his account blocked without further explanation. The casino informed us that the account was blocked due to additional verification. The player's account was unblocked for this purpose. After the player's verification was done, the confiscated winnings were re-credited to his casino account, and he received his withdrawal in a relatively short time. The complaint is resolved.

The player from India had his winnings cancelled due to an accusation of fraudulent activities and the account was blocked. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than 2 weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina 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's account got blocked for account duplicity. At first, we closed the complaint as "unresolved" because the casino replied with a delay. After reopening the complaint, the casino provided evidence supporting its claims. The player's complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal had his account blocked without further explanation. The casino responded and stated that the account was not blocked but that they were awaiting documents for verification. The player sent the appropriate documents, and then shortly after this informed us that the issue had been resolved.

The player's withdrawal was delayed for over 2 weeks. The withdrawals were canceled repeatedly, and the casino requested that the player attempt to withdraw again. After some time, the player received their payments and the issue was resolved.

The player from Mexico has been blocked. The casino accused him of opening multiple accounts. We were forced to reject this complaint because the player and his father both played from the same device and used no deposit bonuses.

The player from Poland requested a withdrawal two weeks ago prior to submitting this complaint, but it has not been processed. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal 4 days prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. Additionally, the player complained about issues with loss limit. The case was successfully resolved, and the player got withdrawal and relevant refund.

The player from Germany has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. Later, the complaint was reopened based on the update received from the casino. The casino reviewed the case, unlocked the complainant's account, and allowed him to withdraw, as the winnings were not gained by a no-deposit bonus solely. The player confirmed he successfully received the funds more than 9 months after submitting the complaint. The complaint is resolved.

The player was unable to withdraw as her payment had not been verified. The complaint has been closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. The complaint was reopened after receiving an email from the casino representative. The player was asked to provide the casino with documents verifying the used payment methods - virtual cards. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany had been trying to close his account due to gambling addiction, however, his requests had been overlooked. We closed the complaint as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to respond in the given timeframe. Five months later, we reopened this complaint as per the casino's request. The player has been adequately compensated. We closed the complaint as 'Resolved' after the player confirmed he considered the issue to be resolved.

The player was unable to withdraw due to being unsure how to complete verification of their account. The casino failed to respond so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. The casino requested that the complaint be reopened, stating that the player now had zero balance in their account, but asking if they were still experiencing issues with the verification. There was no further response from the player, so the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Vietnam has been waiting for a withdrawal since the beginning of December. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino failed to respond. The complaint was reopened at the request of the casino. They stated that the player's withdrawal had since been received. The player did not respond to confirm this, so the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Argentina is having difficulties withdrawing winnings probably due to incomplete verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan has been struggling to withdraw winnings. Requests are being rejected probably due to technical issues. The complaint was closed as 'unresolved' as the casino failed to respond. After some time, the casino requested that this complaint be reopened, and stated that the player had regained access to their account and continues to play at the casino. The player replied and confirmed that the casino had improved and that withdrawals were now possible, so the issue had been resolved.

The player from Peru was accused of using multiple accounts. At first, there was no response from the casino. After receiving an email from the casino, the complaint was reopened, however, the player didn't react.

The player from Russia was experiencing difficulties with the withdrawal of their winnings due to ongoing verification. The casino did not respond in the given time frame, therefore, we closed the complaint as 'unresolved'. We've reopened this complaint as per the casino's request. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved' after the player confirmed they had successfully passed the verification process and withdrawn their winnings.

The player from Malaysia requested withdrawal more than 2 weeks before submitting the complaint. The player later informed us that their withdrawal request had been canceled because it had been in the 'processing' state for too long. We closed the complaint as ‘unresolved’ because the casino failed to reply to the player's complaint in the given time frame. Over a year later, the complaint was reopened as per the casino's request. The casino team informed us that the player had played his remaining balance down to zero and that the issue with the player's withdrawals had not been caused by an error on their end, but rather on the payment provider's end. After these claims were proven by the casino, we closed this complaint as 'Rejected'.