Richard Casino - Die Auszahlung des Spielers verzögert sich aufgrund von Verifizierungsproblemen.

Hello,

When I made my second withdrawal (the first was €1,500), I was asked to verify my identity. Since this is standard practice at almost all casinos, it wasn't a problem.

For the deposit, I used my bank account and a virtual credit card from Klarna.

Richards Casino has been requesting a photo of this credit card since June 12th.

Since the credit card doesn't physically exist, that's difficult... (I'm surely not the only Klarna user)

Despite numerous emails and chats with support, Stampede insists on this photo or a screenshot of the card with name and number (which is also not possible with Klarna).

Since 3 weeks have now passed and despite Klarna's monthly statement, various screenshots of the payments, a photo of the card (taken with my mobile phone), and transaction confirmation from Klarna, I only receive the standard response from support.

Since I can hardly provide a document that doesn't exist (a screenshot of the Klarna chat was also sent to support this statement), I need assistance.

Hallo,

bei meiner zweiten Auszahlung (erste war 1.500€) wurde ich zur Verifizierung aufgefordert. Da das ja bei fast allen Casinos gleich ist, erstmal kein Problem.

Zur Einzahlung hab ich mein Bankkonto und eine virtuelle Kreditkarte von Klarna genutzt.

Richardscasino fordert nun seit dem 12.06 ein Foto dieser Kreditkarte an.

Da die Kreditkarte physich nicht existiert, geht das schlecht... (ich werd ja nicht der einzige Klarna nutzer sein)

Trotz diverser Emails und chats mit dem Support, wird stampede auf diesem Foto beharrt oder einem Screenshot der Karte mit name und nummer ( auch das ist bei Klarna nicht möglich)

Da mittlerweile 3 Wochen vergangen sind und trotz Klarna Monatsabrechnung, diverser Screenshots der Zahlungen, Foto der Karte !!( Foto vom Handy gemacht), transaktionsbestätigung von Klarna bekomm ich nur den Standard zurück vom Support.

Da ich schlecht ein Dokument liefern kann, was nicht existiert (auch zu dieser Aussage wurde ein Screenshot des Klarna Chats gesendet) , benötige ich Unterstützung.

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.

Dear Grml,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your problem with verification.

Please understand that KYC is a very important and essential process, during which the casino makes sure that the money is sent to the rightful owner.

To better understand the issue, please answer the following questions.

• Could you please confirm that you still have access to your account?
• Could you please let me know which documents you have already provided and when exactly you sent the last one?
• Have you accumulated your winnings with or without an active bonus?
• Could you please post a screenshot of your verification page so we can review which documents are already successful or still pending?

I hope we will be able to help you resolve this issue. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Best regards,

Jean

Hello,

thanks for the quick reply.

The verification process was completed today.

However, another problem has arisen. The €2000 payout was cancelled and reduced to €500 due to allegedly existing bonus funds. The remaining amount has disappeared.

To my knowledge, I have not used any credit that was not subject to the wagering requirements.

The balance overview previously showed: available: 2000, blocked by bonus: 0

In the overall context of the verification problems, this naturally takes on a triple connotation.

I asked the casino for a detailed explanation of the process and the reasons they based the credit cancellation on.

Should I open a new complaint for this, or is this one sufficient?

Hallo,

danke für die schnelle Antwort.

Die Verifizierung wurde heute abgeschlossen.

Jedoch hat sich ein weiteres Problem ergeben. Die Auszahlung von 2000€ wurde storniert und aufgrund angeblich vorhandenen Bonusguthaben auf 500€ reduziert. Der restliche Betrag ist verschwunden.

Ich habe meines Wissens kein Guthaben genutzt, welches nicht durch die Umsatzbedingungen umgesetzt war.

Ebenso stand vorher in der Guthabenübersicht verfügbar:2000 , gesperrt durch Bonus : 0

Im Gesamten Kontext der Verifizierungsprobleme bekommt das natürlich einen dreifachen Beigeschmack.

Ich hab das Casino um einen Detailierten Verlauf uns Begründung gebeten, worauf sie die Guthabenstreichung stützen.

Soll ich hierfür eine neue Beschwerde eröffnen oder reicht diese hier ?

As part of my complaint, I requested and received the complete account details from Richard Casino in accordance with the GDPR.

After evaluating the data submitted by Richard Casino itself, I have significant doubts about the actual application of the bonus conditions.

1. Conclusion of the sales terms and conditions

The data set "bonus_issues" submitted by Richard Casino shows that the granted 7% VIP cashback bonus had reached the status "Wager Done".

The following information is included in particular:

Bonus: 7% VIP Cashback

Status: Wager Done

Sales requirement: 0.00 / 0.00 EUR (100%)

Update: June 12, 2026, 3:34:26 PM

From the perspective of the data set, the sales conditions were therefore fully met.

2. Time of the relevant profit

The game progress ("bets") transmitted by Richard Casino only shows the relevant winnings after the wagering requirements have been met.

For example:

Game: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde 2

Time: June 12, 2026, 5:49:07 PM

Entry fee: €1.20

Profit: €1,833.60

Account balance before the game: €284.64

Account balance after the game: €2,117.04

More than two hours passed between the bonus marked "Wager Done" and this win.

Furthermore, this gameplay is included in the dataset with

"Bonus Issue: None"

marked.

As I understand it, this means that there was no active bonus at the time of this win.

3. Lack of transparency in the decision

Richard Casino justifies the reduction of my balance by stating that all winnings are still to be considered bonus-bound.

However, the transmitted data set does not contain any calculation from which it can be derived that

which is why the account balance was still classified as "bonus-linked" despite the sales conditions being fully met,

which is why winnings after the "Wager Done" status should still be fully subject to the bonus rule,

or on what basis my credit balance was reduced from approximately €5,000 to €500.

4. Objection to the bonus conditions

According to the bonus terms and conditions of Richard Casino, the limit on credit applies,

"balance tied to a bonus"

At the same time, the same bonus conditions contain the statement that this rule

This does not apply to credit balances from other deposits or other bonuses.

However, the bonus conditions do not state that

when a credit balance is no longer to be considered a "balance tied to a bonus",

especially not if

the sales conditions were fully met

the bonus has reached the status "Wager Done",

and subsequent winnings according to the game history are no longer assigned to an active bonus ("Bonus Issue: None").

Despite repeated requests, Richard Casino has not yet provided a comprehensible explanation for this distinction.

5. Please review

I therefore request an examination,

whether Richard Casino correctly applied its own bonus conditions in my case,

whether the classification of all profits generated after completion of the wagering requirements as still tied to bonuses is justifiable,

and whether the reduction of my credit balance to €500 was sufficiently justified based on the available data.

In my opinion, neither the data provided by Richard Casino nor the bonus conditions themselves allow for a comprehensible review of this decision.

Im Rahmen meiner Beschwerde habe ich von Richard Casino die vollständigen Kontodaten gemäß DSGVO angefordert und erhalten.

Nach Auswertung der von Richard Casino selbst übermittelten Daten ergeben sich aus meiner Sicht erhebliche Zweifel an der konkreten Anwendung der Bonusbedingungen.

1. Abschluss der Umsatzbedingungen

Dem von Richard Casino übermittelten Datensatz „bonus_issues" ist zu entnehmen, dass der gewährte 7 %-VIP-Cashback-Bonus den Status „Wager Done" erreicht hatte.

Dabei sind insbesondere folgende Angaben enthalten:

Bonus: 7 % VIP Cashback

Status: Wager Done

Umsatzbedingung: 0,00 / 0,00 EUR (100 %)

Aktualisierung: 12.06.2026, 15:34:26 Uhr

Aus Sicht des Datensatzes waren die Umsatzbedingungen somit vollständig erfüllt.

2. Zeitpunkt des maßgeblichen Gewinns

Der von Richard Casino übermittelte Spielverlauf („bets") weist den maßgeblichen Gewinn erst nach Abschluss der Umsatzbedingungen aus.

Beispielsweise:

Spiel: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde 2

Zeitpunkt: 12.06.2026, 17:49:07 Uhr

Einsatz: 1,20 €

Gewinn: 1.833,60 €

Kontostand vor dem Spiel: 284,64 €

Kontostand nach dem Spiel: 2.117,04 €

Zwischen dem als „Wager Done" gekennzeichneten Bonus und diesem Gewinn liegen mehr als zwei Stunden.

Darüber hinaus ist dieser Spielvorgang im Datensatz mit

„Bonus Issue: None"

gekennzeichnet.

Nach meinem Verständnis ergibt sich daraus, dass zum Zeitpunkt dieses Gewinns kein aktiver Bonus mehr bestand.

3. Fehlende Nachvollziehbarkeit der Entscheidung

Richard Casino begründet die Kürzung meines Guthabens damit, dass sämtliche Gewinne weiterhin als bonusgebunden anzusehen seien.

Der übermittelte Datensatz enthält jedoch keine Berechnung, aus der sich ergibt,

weshalb der Kontostand trotz vollständig erfüllter Umsatzbedingungen weiterhin als „bonusgebunden" eingestuft wurde,

weshalb Gewinne nach dem Status „Wager Done" weiterhin vollständig der Bonusregel unterliegen sollen,

oder auf welcher Grundlage die Kürzung meines Guthabens von rund 5.000 € auf 500 € vorgenommen wurde.

4. Widerspruch zu den Bonusbedingungen

Nach den Bonusbedingungen von Richard Casino gilt die Begrenzung für Guthaben,

„balance tied to a bonus"

Gleichzeitig enthalten dieselben Bonusbedingungen die Aussage, dass diese Regel

nicht für Guthaben aus anderen Einzahlungen oder anderen Boni gilt.

Aus den Bonusbedingungen ergibt sich jedoch nicht,

wann ein Guthaben nicht mehr als „balance tied to a bonus" anzusehen ist,

insbesondere dann nicht, wenn

die Umsatzbedingungen vollständig erfüllt wurden,

der Bonus den Status „Wager Done" erreicht hat,

und spätere Gewinne laut Spielhistorie nicht mehr einem aktiven Bonus („Bonus Issue: None") zugeordnet sind.

Richard Casino hat diese Abgrenzung trotz mehrfacher Nachfrage bislang nicht nachvollziehbar erläutert.

5. Bitte um Überprüfung

Ich bitte daher um Prüfung,

ob Richard Casino die eigenen Bonusbedingungen in meinem Fall korrekt angewendet hat,

ob die Einstufung sämtlicher nach Abschluss der Umsatzbedingungen erzielten Gewinne als weiterhin bonusgebunden nachvollziehbar ist,

und ob die Kürzung meines Guthabens auf 500 € auf Grundlage der vorliegenden Daten ausreichend begründet wurde.

Nach meiner Auffassung ermöglichen weder die von Richard Casino übermittelten Datensätze noch die Bonusbedingungen selbst eine nachvollziehbare Überprüfung dieser Entscheidung.

I am sorry to hear that after completing KYC verification, another problem arose.

To investigate the reduction of your winnings, please answer the following questions.

• Could you please confirm whether your casino account balance was divided into real money and bonus money balances?
• Did the balance you continued playing with appear as "withdrawable"/"real money", or were your winnings still displayed in the bonus balance?
• If possible, could you please share your bonus history and betting history for the relevant dates? You can post screenshots or forward it to my email at jean.s@casino.guru.
• Were you informed at any point that the bonus terms and conditions remain applicable even after the wagering requirement has been completed?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Thank you for your message.

The account balance was divided into real money and bonus funds. However, the winnings in question were permanently displayed as real money or withdrawable funds and not as active bonus funds.

I was able to submit multiple withdrawal requests without the system indicating that my balance was still subject to a bonus or maximum win limit. In particular, there was no indication that the winnings were not fully withdrawable.

I'm sending the bonus and game history. It shows that the 7% VIP cashback had the status "Wager Done" and that the subsequent game progress is documented.

No. At no point was I informed that all subsequent winnings would continue to be treated as bonus-bound, despite the bonus status being marked as completed. This interpretation was only explained to me after my payout was reduced, during correspondence with Richard Casino, and was even justified differently several times during that process.

In my view, this lack of transparency is precisely the core of the dispute. At no point was it clear to me that any profits subsequently earned would still be fully credited to the original cashback bonus.

Vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht.

Der Kontostand war in Echtgeld und Bonusguthaben aufgeteilt. Allerdings wurden die Gewinne, um die es hier geht, dauerhaft als Echtgeld bzw. auszahlbares Guthaben ausgewiesen und nicht als aktives Bonusguthaben.

Ich konnte mehrfach Auszahlungsanträge stellen, ohne dass das System darauf hingewiesen hat, dass mein Guthaben weiterhin einem Bonus oder einer Maximalgewinnregel unterliegt. Es erfolgte insbesondere kein Hinweis, dass die Gewinne nicht vollständig auszahlbar seien.

Die Bonus- und Spielhistorie schicke ich. Daraus geht hervor, dass der 7 %-VIP-Cashback den Status „Wager Done" hatte und dass der weitere Spielverlauf dokumentiert ist.

Nein. Zu keinem Zeitpunkt wurde ich darüber informiert, dass sämtliche nachfolgenden Gewinne trotz des als erledigt gekennzeichneten Bonusstatus weiterhin als bonusgebunden behandelt werden. Diese Auslegung wurde mir erst nach der Kürzung meiner Auszahlung im Rahmen der Korrespondenz mit Richard Casino erläutert und im Verlauf sogar mehrfach unterschiedlich begründet.

Aus meiner Sicht ist genau diese fehlende Transparenz der Kern des Streits. Für mich war zu keinem Zeitpunkt erkennbar, dass die später erzielten Gewinne weiterhin vollständig dem ursprünglichen Cashback-Bonus zugerechnet werden sollten.

Dear Grml,

Thank you for your cooperation and for providing all the necessary information. I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share everything with us so far.

Your complaint will now move to the next stage of our process and be handled by your dedicated Resolver, Mirka, (miroslava.d@casino.guru). This is a standard step in our procedure, as the Resolver will take over communication with the casino directly and manage your case from this point onward.

No action is required from you right now. Your Resolver will reach out through this thread if any additional details are needed. You can rest assured that your case is in very capable hands.

I wish you the best of luck and hope your case will be resolved to your satisfaction soon.

Kind regards,

Jean

Dear Grml,

My name is Mirka, and I will be assisting you in solving this case. Now I would like to invite Richard Casino representative to join this conversation.

Dear Richard Casino,

Could you please provide clarification regarding this case? Please also include evidence if needed.

Thank you in advance.

Dear Mirka,

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this matter.

We would like to emphasize that the player's complaint appears to stem from a misunderstanding of how cashback bonuses operate under our Bonus Terms and Conditions.

The player received a "7% VIP Cashback 🔥" bonus. Although this particular cashback bonus carried no wagering requirement, it nevertheless remained a cash bonus and was therefore governed by the general Bonus Terms applicable to cashback promotions.

Specifically, the following provision applied:

"The maximum winnings that will be paid out resulting from any cash bonus, cashback, personal bonus, free chip bonus (including, but not limited to Welcome Package, Weekend Reload, Special Bonuses for VIP Levels, Comppoints, Tournament wins, Lottery wins, etc.) will equal the bonus amount multiplied by 10 unless otherwise stated. Any winnings exceeding this amount will be forfeited upon withdrawal. Please note that until withdrawal of relevant balance is processed, funds on the balance will be considered a subject to maximum winnings rule."

In this particular case:

• the cashback bonus credited to the player amounted to €31.80;
• under the standard rule, the maximum cashout would therefore equal €318;
• however, as an exception in the player's favor, the applicable maximum withdrawal limit was increased to €500, allowing the player to withdraw more than the standard limit.

We believe it is important to distinguish between wagering requirements and maximum winnings restrictions, as these are two separate bonus mechanics.

The fact that the bonus appeared with the status "Wager Done" simply reflects that no further wagering conditions remained. It does not indicate that the bonus ceased to exist for the purposes of the maximum winnings rule.

Likewise, the "Bonus Issue: None" entry in the game history merely indicates that there was no active wagering requirement attached to the gameplay at that point. It should not be interpreted as meaning that the resulting balance automatically became exempt from the maximum winnings provision. These are separate mechanics governed by different sections of the Bonus Terms.

The applicable rule expressly states that bonus-derived balances remain subject to the maximum winnings limitation until the relevant withdrawal is processed. Consequently, the adjustment is intentionally performed during the withdrawal process rather than immediately after wagering completion.

The player previously requested and received their complete account history under GDPR. That data clearly demonstrates that, after receiving the cashback bonus, the subsequent gameplay session was conducted using the balance generated from that bonus. The previous balance had already been exhausted through earlier gameplay, meaning the player's subsequent winnings originated from the cashback funds.

Regarding the verification process, the player's withdrawal requests could not be processed immediately because the account verification remained incomplete. Unfortunately, this process was extended as the documents initially submitted did not satisfy the verification requirements, and additional documentation had to be requested.

Once the required documents were successfully provided and the verification was completed, the withdrawal was processed accordingly. At that stage, the maximum winnings rule was applied in accordance with the Bonus Terms, resulting in the balance adjustment and the successful payment of €500, which exceeded the standard maximum applicable to this bonus.

Additionally, we would also like to point out that the player received this cashback promotion via email, where the promotional offer itself clearly stated that the maximum cashout was limited to 10x the bonus amount. Therefore, the applicable limitation was communicated both in the promotional material and within the Bonus Terms governing the offer.

For these reasons, we respectfully maintain that the balance adjustment was performed fully in accordance with the Bonus Terms accepted by the player and that the applicable maximum winnings rule was applied consistently throughout the bonus lifecycle.

Best regards,

Richard Casino Team