What Happened
A player from Germany says Instant Casino verified her, took around €2,500 in deposits from the joint bank account she shares with her husband, and only objected when she asked to withdraw €4,000. She says the casino asked for her husband's passport, which she sent, then said joint accounts are banned, voided the balance and closed the account. The casino told the mediator the closure followed a terms breach. The mediator found a jointly owned account is not third-party funding and said the winnings should be paid; the casino then stopped replying.
How It Developed
- 2025-05-10Complaint opened: the player asked whether a casino may do this and said she had never had the problem elsewhere.
- 2025-05-12The player explained she had been verified on sign-up, cancelled an earlier withdrawal to keep playing, lost, deposited more, won and requested €4,000; she also said the casino's terms page would not load.
- 2025-06-11A resolver invited Instant Casino, which replied the same day that the account was closed and funds voided under a specific clause of its terms.
- 2025-06-18The mediator set out Casino.guru's view: both names were on the statement, the player part-owns the account, and confiscating the balance for that was disproportionate; it asked the casino to reconsider.
- 2025-07-02The mediator reported private talks with the casino and extended the deadline.
- 2025-07-10The casino went quiet and would not move; the complaint was closed as unresolved with the mediator stating there was no justified reason to keep the €4,000.
Confiscated
The mediator found the joint-account reason did not justify confiscation, but Instant Casino stopped responding and kept the €4,000.
What Helped
The mediator came down firmly on the player's side, but without the casino's cooperation that changed nothing. If you deposit from a joint account, expect some operators to call it third-party funding; a statement showing your name as co-owner is the right evidence, and here even that was not enough with this casino.