What Happened
A player from Portugal with a gambling addiction says that after self-excluding from CoinCasino in September 2025 they were able to open and fully verify three more accounts with the same ID. They asked for a permanent exclusion and a refund of all deposits on those accounts. CoinCasino said it closed the duplicate account as soon as it was found and would refund the deposits on the second account; the player says only a $20 balance was paid, the refund was later declined by email, and support stopped answering.
How It Developed
- 2025-10-03The mediator asked for proof of the exclusion, the number of accounts and an explanation of small differences in name and address between them; the player said autofill and two phones caused them.
- 2025-10-23A resolver invited CoinCasino. The casino said the duplicate was closed and a full refund of its deposits was coming.
- 2025-10-31The mediator asked the casino to cover all the accounts, not just one, and to check the player's loss figures. The same day the player posted an email from the casino declining the refund as final.
- 2025-11-12The casino said it had sent evidence to the mediator, then went quiet; the player kept posting that nothing had been paid.
- 2025-12-04The mediator closed the case as unresolved: the casino blamed multi-accounting, but a self-exclusion was already in place, and responsible-gambling rules mean the casino should have caught the matching details itself.
Unresolved
CoinCasino promised a refund, which the player says it later declined, then stopped answering; the mediator faulted it for not enforcing the exclusion.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
Nothing got the money back. The useful point is the mediator's position: a casino cannot hide behind a multi-account rule when the player was already self-excluded with the same ID. Keep the exclusion confirmation and the ID submissions for each account; those are what a regulator will want.