RainBet Casino - KYCリクエストにより、プレイヤーの引き出しが遅れています。

I deposited $20 to test the Plinko game on this casino. I was fully aware of the 100% rollover requirement before withdrawal, and I completed it as required.

After completing the wagering requirements and deciding to withdraw my funds, I was suddenly asked to complete KYC verification, specifically to provide proof of address.

Unfortunately, I do not have the required documents to complete this verification.

The support representative informed me that if I do not complete the KYC process within 72 hours, my funds will remain on hold and my account will be locked.

My concern is the timing of this request. The casino allowed me to:

• Register an account
• Deposit funds
• Play and complete the wagering requirements

Only after I attempted to withdraw was KYC requested.

I believe identity verification should be required either before allowing deposits or at least before placing bets — not only at the withdrawal stage. Now, since I am unable to complete KYC, I cannot withdraw even my original deposit.

I am not asking for any bonus funds or additional winnings. I am simply requesting the return of at least my original deposited amount of $20.

From my perspective, blocking withdrawals after allowing full gameplay without prior verification is unfair and misleading.

I respectfully ask for Casino Guru’s assistance in resolving this matter and ensuring that I can withdraw at least my deposited funds.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Hello,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m truly sorry to hear about the difficulties you’re experiencing.

Please understand that KYC (Know Your Customer) verification is an important and mandatory process designed to ensure the security of both players and the casino. Since online casinos cannot verify identities in person, this is the only way to confirm that the account and funds belong to the rightful owner. Licensed and reputable casinos treat this step with great care, and although it can sometimes take a few working days to complete, it is carried out to protect you and prevent any misuse of your account.

To better understand your situation and move the process forward, could you please provide the following details:

1. Which documents have you provided to the casino for verification, if any?
2. Could you kindly explain why you are unable to send a proof of address to the casino?
3. Has the casino specified which documents would be accepted as your proof of address?
4. Have you completed your casino profile by providing full and accurate personal information?

I hope we will be able to help you resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance for your reply and cooperation.

Best regards,

Veronika

1. Which documents have you provided to the casino for verification, if any? - None
2. Could you kindly explain why you are unable to send a proof of address to the casino? - Because I don't have the required documents. I cannot pass KYC.
3. Has the casino specified which documents would be accepted as your proof of address? - No, but its like everywhere: utility bill or bank statement
4. Have you completed your casino profile by providing full and accurate personal information? - Yes

I understand that KYC is a mandatory compliance requirement once triggered. However, I fundamentally disagree with the way it has been applied in this case.

The verification request was made only after I had deposited and fully wagered my funds. Had KYC been required before deposit, I would not have deposited at all, as I am aware that I cannot provide proof of address documentation.

There are individuals who, for legitimate reasons, do not possess formal address registration documents. Allowing deposits and gameplay without prior verification, and then enforcing mandatory KYC only at withdrawal stage, with confiscation as the consequence, creates a structurally unfair situation.

If KYC is a strict requirement for access to funds, it should logically be completed before deposits are accepted. Otherwise, users are exposed to the risk of losing access to their own funds after wagering is completed.

To illustrate why the timing matters from a consumer-protection standpoint: if an underage person were able to deposit and gamble without verification, the platform would have failed the purpose of KYC/age checks at the point where it matters most (before gambling occurs). This is exactly why many operators require verification earlier, at least before allowing deposits or gameplay.

I am not requesting any bonus funds. I am requesting only a refund of my original $20 deposit.

I respectfully ask Casino Guru to assess whether confiscating the original deposit, in the absence of fraud, multiple accounts, or misleading information is fair practice.

Thank you for providing the details regarding your situation. I understand why this experience is frustrating, and I appreciate your patience in explaining it.

I’d like to clarify a few points regarding KYC procedures. Many offshore casinos request KYC documentation at the point of withdrawal, rather than before deposits or gameplay. This is a standard practice in the industry and does not constitute unfair treatment.

Regarding your comparison with underage users: all players are required to confirm that they are at least 18 years old during registration. The system relies on the information provided at account setup, and proper KYC verification is triggered later to ensure that funds are securely and correctly managed.

Unfortunately, if you are unable to provide the requested proof of address or other KYC documentation, we are unable to intervene. The casino is not acting arbitrarily — it is enforcing mandatory compliance requirements. Without the necessary documents, we cannot assist in releasing the deposited funds.

We understand that this may be disappointing, but this approach is a standard requirement for online casinos, and we are unable to require the casino to change its verification policy.

Dear Beelzebub,

We are extending the timer by 7 days. Please, be aware that in case you fail to respond in the given time frame or don’t require any further assistance, we will reject the complaint.

Thank you for your response.

I understand that KYC at withdrawal stage is common practice in offshore casinos. My concern is not about the existence of KYC, but about the consequence of permanent confiscation of deposited funds when verification cannot be completed — even in the absence of fraud, multiple accounts, or misleading information.

The key question here is proportionality.

If a player deposits funds and later cannot provide proof of address, does that automatically justify the permanent retention of those funds by the operator?

To clarify my concern: imagine this were not $20 but $20,000. Would the same principle apply — that the casino may permanently retain the entire deposited amount if the user cannot complete address verification? That would effectively mean that accepting deposits without prior verification transfers all compliance risk to the customer, while the operator retains the financial benefit.

I understand that withdrawals require KYC. However, I am not requesting a withdrawal to a third party or a new payment method. I am requesting a refund of my original deposit to the same source from which it was sent.

A refund-to-source does not introduce additional AML risk and does not constitute a new withdrawal destination. It merely reverses the original transaction.

My position is that permanent confiscation of deposited funds, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is disproportionate and raises a consumer-protection concern.

I respectfully ask whether Casino Guru considers permanent retention of the original deposit — solely due to inability to provide proof of address — to be fair practice.

Dear Beelzebub,

Thank you for your detailed explanation and for sharing your perspective. KYC verification is generally a mandatory requirement before any funds can be released from a casino account, regardless of whether it is a withdrawal or a refund to the original payment method. This requirement is related to AML regulations and internal security procedures that casinos must follow.

While some casinos choose to verify players earlier in the process, many operators request verification only when a withdrawal is attempted. Although this may feel inconvenient from a player’s perspective, it is a widely used practice in the industry and not something we can consider unfair on its own.

Regarding your suggestion of refunding the original deposit to the same payment method, please understand that casinos typically cannot process refunds without first verifying the identity of the account holder. For this reason, the KYC verification remains a necessary step even in such cases.

Unfortunately, since you have confirmed that you are unable to provide the required proof of address or any alternative document accepted by the casino, we are not in a position to request the casino to release the funds or issue a refund.

For these reasons, we are unable to pursue this complaint further.

If you manage to obtain the requested documentation in the future, please let us know, and we will be happy to review the case again.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,

Veronika