What Happened
A player from Kyrgyzstan says Whale.io restricted their account after a failed Level 2 check and will not pay out 245.56 USDT, of which they say 150 USDT is their own deposit. They say the verification tool gave no reason and support called the result final. Whale.io says its identity provider rejected the check on AML grounds and that it cannot override that.
How It Developed
- 2026-07-14The player said a second full attempt at Level 2 also failed without a stated reason and asked for a manual review or video call.
- 2026-08-05A resolver asked Whale.io why the withdrawal was held. No answer came, and the case was closed as unresolved on 20 August.
- 2026-08-27Whale.io asked for the case to be reopened and apologised that support had wrongly said nothing could be done.
- 2026-09-08Whale.io then said the account had failed Level 2 after a full internal review and that a balance alone does not give a right to withdraw.
- 2026-09-16Asked what Level 2 requires, Whale.io said an ID and a live selfie, judged by its provider, which cited AML reasons. The player said the same provider had passed them elsewhere days earlier.
- 2026-10-12The resolver has asked three times for the provider's report, the casino's own assessment and the account ledger, and says what arrived by email is not enough. Latest: waiting on Whale.io after another extension.
Ongoing
Whale.io blames a third-party AML rejection it says it cannot override; the mediator is still waiting for evidence of it.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
The first unresolved mark got Whale.io back to the table within a week, but it has not yet produced proof of the AML flag. If a casino blames its verification vendor, ask the mediator to request the vendor's actual report; that is where this case now sits.