Vavada Casino Review

The player from Japan faced account bans and confiscation of winnings due to alleged duplicate account information after using an initial deposit bonus. The player stated they had never played at this casino before. The Complaints Team reviewed the case and determined that the casino provided evidence of multiple accounts, which was against the casino's rules. As a result, the actions taken by the casino were deemed justified, leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Japan had deposited $1,000 at Vavada Casino and received a bonus, leading to winnings of about $6,000. Upon requesting a payout, the casino claimed suspicions of a duplicate account and confiscated his winnings, only returning the initial deposit. He believed this confiscation was unjust and requested an investigation. The issue was resolved after the casino acknowledged the error in judgment, unblocked the account, and agreed to withdraw $5,950 in winnings. The player confirmed his satisfaction with the resolution.

The player from Spain faced issues with withdrawing money from the casino. His withdrawal of 101,000₽ was pending, and he expressed concerns about a fraudulent site pretending to be the casino. Despite attempts by the Complaints Team to gather more information and extend the communication period, the player did not respond. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of further information.

The player from Mexico faced issues with depositing money into the casino, as after following instructions for online banking, the deposit had not been received. The issue was resolved when evidence from the casino confirmed that the $200 deposit had been credited to the player's account. The player subsequently used the funds for bets, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' in our system. We appreciated the player's cooperation and encouraged them to reach out for any future issues with online casinos.

The player from Japan had deposited 1000 USDT and received a 100% bonus, resulting in winnings. Upon requesting a withdrawal, only the deposit amount was returned, the account was frozen, and support remained unresponsive. We reviewed the case, contacted the casino, and found the account had been blocked due to suspected bonus abuse and multiple accounts linked to the same device. The complaint was rejected due to breaching the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested account closure due to gambling addiction but was able to continue playing and lost an additional 1,000 euros. The casino denied receiving the exclusion request, and the player sought a refund for the money lost after the request. We reviewed evidence from both parties and concluded that the casino had not received the player's email. Since the player made no further attempts to close the account, the request for a refund was deemed unjustified. The player was advised to contact the licensing authority for further action.

The player from Slovenia had requested a withdrawal of $1660, but his account was blocked, and only the deposit amount of around $360 was refunded. The player sought an explanation and the remaining $1300. The casino claimed the account was blocked due to suspected multi-accounting based on similar betting characteristics with other accounts. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we found clear indications of a connection between the player's account and other accounts, justifying the casino's actions.

The player from Palestine had been blocked from accessing their Vavada Casino account because their country was on the restricted list. Despite being told they could select any country when they registered and having made deposits totaling more than $2,000, efforts to obtain a refund had so far failed. The player's account had been technically verified as the casino did not ask for any verification. The player had no balance in the account when it was closed. We concluded that the casino could close an account with zero balance without any reason given. Due to this, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Turkey had deposited 50 TL into his casino account without any issue. However, when he had attempted to deposit an additional 80 TL via the QR method, the funds were withdrawn from his bank account but not credited to his casino account. We had advised him to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino usually could not assist in such situations. The player later confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

A player from Serbia, had issues getting their money withdrawn. The casino allegedly invoked unspecified rules as the reason. We attempted to gather more information from the player to better understand the situation. The player however did not respond to our inquiries within the given time frame. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Bulgaria had encountered an issue where their account had been charged twice for a 40 euro deposit. They had experienced difficulties in reaching out to the casino due to unresponsiveness via live chat and email. Despite multiple attempts by the Complaints Team to communicate with the player and extend the complaint's resolution period, the player had failed to provide further details or responses. As a result, we were unable to continue the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had attempted to set a daily deposit limit of €400 at Vavada casino, but due to inadequate responsible gaming tools, the limit had not been implemented. The player ended up depositing €3,000 and was then seeking full reimbursement, alleging that the lack of effective responsible gambling tools was a violation of licensing terms. Despite our team's advice to apply for self-exclusion and to inform the casino about his gambling issue, the player insisted on the casino's obligation to provide responsible gambling features. However, the player did not respond to further communication, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation. The player retained the option to reopen this complaint in the future.

The player from Greece made two small deposits to the online casino, but the funds were not credited to their casino account. The player has communicated this issue via live chat, but has not yet received a solution. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Canada is upset with Crazy Pachinko. After wagering $500, his bet was canceled due to game issues and his initial $25 bet was returned. Since there has been a technical glitch that was caused by the game provider, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Slovenia, after admitting a gambling addiction and losing 3000 euros, requested the recovery of their losses. The casino responded by closing their account citing addictive behaviors. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Bulgaria, who is banned from gambling by the NRA, was able to bet on a casino site. The casino doesn't have a Bulgarian license and continues to refuse to return his deposits, despite the player pointing out the illegality of their operation in Bulgaria. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The underage player from Austria deposited around €2000 at Vavada Casino but was denied a refund due to the casino's policy clause. The player asserts the casino's policy must conform to the law, especially since the casino's license is not valid in Austria. The player did not respond to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Romania had his account in the casino blocked due to accusations of creating multiple accounts. As the player contacted the Licensing Authority, we closed the complaint as "Waiting for decision of regulator" until a decision of the Licensing Authority is known. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Kazakhstan was accused of being involved in fraudulent cryptocurrency payments. The casino blocked her account, initiated an enhanced verification process, and scheduled a verification call with her. From the recorded conversation with the player, it was clear that the account holder was not the person who used the gaming account and/or the person who submitted this complaint.

The player's account got blocked for breaching the casino terms. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Russia has been blocked. The casino believes he created multiple accounts. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Estonia played in the casino with a bonus. The casino closed his account due to accucations of multiple accounts. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't have any withdrawable balance on his account.

The player from Finland has tried to self-exclude from the casino. Unfortunately, even if the account has been suspended initially, the player was able to reopen it few days later. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Malta is questioning bonus terms and conditions applicable for Deposit bonuses. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from the Netherlands is dissatisfied that the casino allowed them to create an account despite the fact they are from a restricted country. The casino decided to refund the player's deposits. Since this was the expected outcome for the player, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Russia had their account blocked due to an accusation of fraudulent activities. Later, it became clear that the player's account was blocked only temporarily due to the casino being notified by its game provider of the player's suspected use of card-counting strategies in Blackjack. The player's account was later unblocked. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.