Parimatch Casino IN— player complaints: 21 in English

The player from Netherlands has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet.The player from Netherlands has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 28 Sep 2026 | Resolved : 28 Sep 2026Automatic translation:

The player from New Jersey has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet.The player from New Jersey has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 15 Sep 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from India has a pending withdrawal request of ₹4,084 that has not been processed for over 67 days. Despite multiple contacts with Parimatch support, he receives generic responses without a clear answer regarding the delay or a timeline for resolution. He seeks assistance in processing his withdrawal or obtaining a valid explanation for its withholding.The player from India has a pending withdrawal request of ₹4,084 that has not been processed for over 67 days. Despite multiple contacts with Parimatch support, he receives generic responses without a clear answer regarding the delay or a timeline for resolution. He seeks assistance in processing his withdrawal or obtaining a valid explanation for its withholding. Written by TomasComplaint Specialist Submitted: 07 Aug 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from India has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet.

The player from India deposited ₹2000 INR via UPI on 01 August 2026, but the funds were not credited to his Parimatch wallet despite being debited from his bank account. He provided proof via a bank statement, yet Parimatch support denied receiving the money and refused assistance. We advised him to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino’s ability to intervene was limited in this type of missing deposit case. The complaint was then marked as resolved after he confirmed the issue had been settled.

The player from India could not withdraw his balance and was unable to connect with customer support, as he did not receive any responses to his emails. We reviewed the case and found that his account was not verified, and the casino requested additional KYC documents, including a selfie with ID and a recent payment card or wallet statement, to assess his withdrawal eligibility. We extended the timer to allow him to respond, but he did not reply to our messages or reminders. As a result, the complaint was closed for now because we could not continue the investigation without his cooperation.

= 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 India successfully completed KYC verification after depositing $200 with a promotional offer, which increased her balance to $571. However, following her withdrawal request, Parimatch confiscated her entire balance without explanation, despite her compliance with all requirements. She confirmed that her account was accessible, said she played live blackjack and met the wagering requirement, and provided additional documents and chat proof. We asked the casino for evidence of the alleged breach, and after reviewing the evidence, we found the casino’s evidence conclusive and rejected the complaint because the terms were considered breached.

The player from India attempted to withdraw funds made on July 26, 2026, but the casino canceled the withdrawal and requested KYC documentation. Although he provided the necessary documents, the casino failed to verify one, ultimately writing off his withdrawal without explanation and zeroing his account balance. We asked the casino to explain the Rule 88 closure and provide evidence, but no cooperation was received. As the casino did not respond and operated without a valid license or ADR, we marked the complaint as unresolved.

The player from India had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. He stated that his KYC was complete and that the withdrawal was shown as successful in his account, but the winnings were not credited to his bank account. We asked him to wait for the payment provider timeframe and provide an updated bank statement if the funds did not arrive, but he did not respond to our follow-up messages. As a result, the complaint was closed due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from India has completed primary verification and previously made a withdrawal, but now the casino is requesting secondary verification. Despite sending 100 emails, he receives no responses.

The player from India reports ongoing issues with depositing money to Parimatch, including a deposit made on July 14th that remains unresolved despite multiple support requests. He claims he has provided accurate information but continues to receive excuses and has had his chat closed by the support team.The player from India reports ongoing issues with depositing money to Parimatch, including a deposit made on July 14th that remains unresolved despite multiple support requests. He claims he has provided accurate information but continues to receive excuses and has had his chat closed by the support team. Written by TomasComplaint Specialist Submitted: 17 Jul 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from India has a pending withdrawal of 15,300 INR from Parimatch Casino that has not been completed since September 10, 2025. Despite providing a bank statement to prove the funds were never credited, the casino offers only automated responses and has not issued a Unique Transaction Reference number for the transaction.The player from India has a pending withdrawal of 15,300 INR from Parimatch Casino that has not been completed since September 10, 2025. Despite providing a bank statement to prove the funds were never credited, the casino offers only automated responses and has not issued a Unique Transaction Reference number for the transaction. Written by BarboraCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 16 Jul 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from New Jersey faced issues with depositing money to his Parimatch account, as funds were debited from his account but not credited to his casino wallet. Despite contacting support, he had not received any resolution. We reviewed the case, but the complaint was rejected because the disputed transactions were too old to investigate effectively. The casino confirmed that the funds never reached its system, so there was no basis to request a credit or refund. We therefore directed him to his bank for any possible tracing or reversal.

The player from India had been waiting for two weeks for a withdrawal to be credited to his bank account, despite the casino marking it as "successfully processed." He requested an official payment receipt with specific details and insisted that the issue be thoroughly investigated. The player had completed all verification requirements and provided necessary documentation, but the withdrawal remained delayed beyond the standard timeframe. The casino later informed him that the withdrawal could not be completed and the funds were returned to his betting account. Due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, the complaint was closed without resolution at that time.

The player from India reported that his account at Parimatch had been permanently frozen, resulting in a total write-off of his legitimate winnings amounting to INR 4,792,013.34. He contested the operator's shifting allegations regarding multi-accounting and sports insider claims, provided documentation to disprove them, and sought assistance from CasinoGuru to address the dispute and recover his funds. The casino confirmed that the account closure and write-off were based on a completed investigation identifying multi-accounting violations, and denied any offer of refund or compensation. We were unable to assist with the complaint due to the significant time that had elapsed since the incident, which prevented effective investigation under our policy on cold cases.

The player from India faced issues with account verification at Parimatch, having submitted multiple emails with additional documentation but received no response. He expressed frustration over the lack of communication regarding his account. The player was requested to send specific documents, including a selfie with ID and a payment statement, to the casino's designated email for verification. Despite reminders and an extended deadline, no further response was received from the player. Consequently, the complaint was closed due to lack of cooperation, with the option to reopen if the player resumed communication.

The player from India, a VIP customer with a fully verified account, faced an unresolved issue regarding his deposits of INR 10,000 made via the MobiKwik wallet. Despite providing the necessary proof, the casino continued to request a bank statement that was irrelevant to the transactions. We intervened and confirmed with the casino that the deposit had been credited to the player's account after three months. The issue was resolved by acknowledging the deposit credit, while the player's request to increase the withdrawal limit was denied by the casino based on its internal policies. The complaint was marked as resolved following the player's confirmation.

The player from India had successfully deposited 2500 INR via Navi UPI, but the funds were deducted from his account and were not credited to his game wallet due to a declined transaction. The player was advised to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino was unable to resolve it directly. The complaint remained open for about a month while awaiting the player's updates, but due to the lack of response, the complaint was closed without resolution. The player was still able to reopen the complaint if he wished to continue communication.

The player from India had deposited 5000 rupees on May 28, but the funds had not appeared in his account. After reaching out multiple times, he learned that his complaint had been closed without reason, and he was then unable to get a response or lodge a new complaint, despite providing a bank statement showing the transaction. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the deposit had been successfully credited to his gaming account. The complaint was closed due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries from the Complaints Team.