Powbet Casino - 일반 토론 (8 페이지)

How long should you wait for the casino investigate and respond? For context self exclusion was requested for indefinite period and applied to the account and confirmed as such. However account was reopened without consultation with me the account holder and I've now deposited and lost monies. Should the operator refund these monies as this was an error on their side lifting this self exclusion. I believe this to be the case be the correct course action. Should I log a complaint or I've been waiting 8 days for a response and have requested an update many times.

You should definitely file a complaint if you chose to close the account indefinitely and they opened it without your permission.

Our complaint team will try to investigate the whole matter with you.

Please follow this link to do so.

May I ask how you found out that the account got reopened, though?

I started to recieve promotional emails. I self excluded in 2022 and haven't received anything until March 2025 from them so it was reopened then. Been in correspondence with them for two weeks and no response other than it's with another department and they will come back ASAP but nothing is happening. Have no raised a complaint here and will do so with the license authority as the operator are eager to avoid resolving this issue when there is a clear error with operators internal systems.

Our team is already working on your complaint, as I can see, so soon we will try to get in touch with the casino to get a better view of this situation.

The good thing is that your account is closed again now, as you mentioned there, and you are not able to get in anymore.

The brand purposely avoids effective geo-blocking and relies on a disclaimer ("you should know if it’s legal") to target restricted markets while shifting compliance risk to users. The cashier routes payments to offshore processors and KYC is minimal despite gambling MCCs and AML obligations. After Curaçao reforms and the Rabidi N.V. insolvency, many connected brands moved to Anjouan (Comoros) licensing, chosen for low cost, fast onboarding, and crypto-friendly rules. This model undermines consumer protection and frustrates chargebacks/refunds by design.

Payments: front-end promises vs back-end pipes

Public pages advertise Interac, cards, e-wallets, and crypto for Canada. That implies multiple third-party PSPs (separate rails for fiat vs crypto) even when the cashier UI shows a single brand. Reviews list Interac/Visa/Mastercard and crypto among accepted methods; the site doesn’t name the underlying processors. And if you have a concern... they will not give you information on the merchants.

Anjouan is explicitly marketed to operators as fast, low-cost, crypto-friendly which is why casinos can run parallel gateways (one for fiat, one for crypto) behind the scenes

What the Anjouan complaint flow actually is

• You’re told to complain via the casino’s "site-seal/validator" page first; only then may it be "escalated" to Anjouan Gaming/Anjouan Licensing Services. Anjouan Gaming
• Several "validator/complaint" sites and domains exist (with even misspellings), all pushing you back to the operator and/or to an Anjouan Licensing Services form. The messaging varies by domain, which is itself a red flag. Anjo Aung Gaming

+1

• The escalation form demands uploads and "required information," and some instances explicitly require proof of source of funds (i.e., KYC/AML documents) before they’ll even "evaluate" the claim. Anjouan Gaming

+1

Why this is contradictory

KYC was not performed at deposit by the operator — yet KYC is imposed only when you complain. That’s a post-hoc barrier that shifts burden to the player and deters complaints.

• The Anjouan pages themselves limit/waive complaint handling for many territories and disclaim that disputes "will not be heard" if you’re in an excluded country — which further undermines the value of the "regulator" route. Anjouan Gaming License
• The multi-domain, inconsistent presentation (anjouangaming.com, "verificationanjoaungaming.org," "anjouangaminglicence.org," etc.) makes it hard to know who is the real adjudicator and what rules truly apply — not what you want in a bona fide ADR body. Anjo Aung Gaming
• +2Anjouan Gaming License

The core issue (in plain terms)

If a casino is truly subject to KYC/AML, KYC belongs at onboarding and cash-handling — not as a toll gate for complaining. Requiring KYC only after a dispute starts looks like a tactic to delay, data-mine, or deny.

• A regulator/ADR demanding KYC while the operator skips KYC at payment time is backwards: it creates asymmetric friction (easy to pay, hard to complain). Even sources promoting the Anjouan license talk up "KYC rigor," which clashes with your experience.