Amonbet Casino— player complaints: 11 in English

summary short of this case Amonbet Casino – £5,350 confiscated: Player completed wagering on a £12 bonus, after which the balance converted to real money. He continued playing and reached ~£5,500, but Amonbet confiscated ~£5,350 based on a 10x bonus max-win rule that the casino says continues to apply even after conversion to real money. Casino has a No Reaction Policy, so the complaint is closed as unresolved.summary short of this case Amonbet Casino – £5,350 confiscated: Player completed wagering on a £12 bonus, after which the balance converted to real money. He continued playing and reached ~£5,500, but Amonbet confiscated ~£5,350 based on a 10x bonus max-win rule that the casino says continues to apply even after conversion to real money. Casino has a No Reaction Policy, so the complaint is closed as unresolved. Written by KarlaCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 23 Sep 2026 | Unresolved : 01 Oct 2026Automatic translation:

Player's self-exclusion request is ignored. [Self-exclusion] — fail_self_exclusion

Player's account remains open despite self-exclusion request. [Account] — no_react_reg_bad

Player's account closure request is being ignored. [Account] — fail_self_exclusion

Player’s account remains open despite self-exclusion. [Account] — fail_self_exclusion

The player from Hungary has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet.The player from Hungary has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 05 Sep 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from the United Kingdom had repeatedly requested self-exclusion from the casino over 100 times in the past 6-7 months due to a gambling problem, having lost more than 10k. His requests had been consistently ignored by the casino. He also confirmed that he had passed verification in mid-February and that his account was still open, while the casino kept replying with promotional messages instead of processing the ban. We were unable to secure cooperation from the casino, which had a history of no reaction and failed self-exclusion cases, so the complaint was closed as unresolved and marked to negatively affect the casino’s safety rating.The player from the United Kingdom had repeatedly requested self-exclusion from the casino over 100 times in the past 6-7 months due to a gambling problem, having lost more than 10k. His requests had been consistently ignored by the casino. He also confirmed that he had passed verification in mid-February and that his account was still open, while the casino kept replying with promotional messages instead of processing the ban. We were unable to secure cooperation from the casino, which had a history of no reaction and failed self-exclusion cases, so the complaint was closed as unresolved and marked to negatively affect the casino’s safety rating. Written by TomasComplaint Specialist Submitted: 10 Aug 2026 | Unresolved : 19 Aug 2026Automatic translation:

The player from Germany faced issues with AmonBet Casino, which ignored her self-exclusion requests since July 2026 and left her account open, leading to a loss of €420. She sought assistance in permanently closing her account and obtaining a refund of her deposits. She reported that her account was still accessible, her last deposit was €30 on August 5, 2026, and the casino replied only by suggesting a break instead of closing her account, while also continuing to send promotions. We were unable to secure cooperation from the casino, so the complaint was closed prematurely as unresolved due to the casino’s no-reaction policy and lack of response.

= 0 }).length === 0) { var date = new Date(); date.setTime(date.getTime()+(7*24*60*60*1000)); document.cookie = "restCSSIsCached=true; expires=" + date.toGMTString() + "; path=/"; } } LUX=function(){var n=Math.floor;function t(){return Date.now?Date.now():+new Date}var r,a=t(),e=window.performance||{},i=e.timing||{navigationStart:(null===(r=window.LUX)||void 0===r?void 0:r.ns)||a};function o(){return e.now?n(e.now()):t()-i.navigationStart}(LUX=window.LUX||{}).ac=[],LUX.addData=function(n,t){return LUX.cmd(["addData",n,t])},LUX.cmd=function(n){return LUX.ac.push(n)},LUX.getDebug=function(){return[[a,0,[]]]},LUX.init=function(n){return LUX.cmd(["init",n||o()])},LUX.mark=function(){for(var n=[],t=0;t

The player from the Netherlands had requested the closure of his casino account since May 17, but the casino continued to refuse his request. He wanted his account closed and his winnings returned. The Complaints Team attempted to assist by requesting further information and communication from the player to clarify the situation. However, due to the player's lack of response to inquiries and reminders, the complaint was closed without resolution. The player was informed that he could reopen the complaint if he decided to resume communication.

The player from Portugal requested the closure of her account due to gambling addiction, but the casino had not acted on her multiple requests over the previous two weeks. She expressed frustration at losing money and felt the casino had acted in bad faith by not closing her account as requested. The complaint was closed due to the player's lack of response to requests for additional information needed to investigate the matter further. The player was informed that she could reopen the complaint if she chose to resume communication.