Donbet Casino – generell diskussion (sida 4)

Hello,

I think the main point we may be missing is that the complaint was not reviewed solely from the perspective of whether the outcome feels fair to the player.

At Casino Guru, complaints are reviewed in the context of the casino's terms and conditions and whether those terms were applied fairly, consistently, and in a way that can reasonably be supported by the facts of the case.

In your case, the investigation found evidence that the same individual attempted to complete verification on more than one account. Together with the other circumstances surrounding the accounts, this created a situation that casinos commonly consider a breach of their rules.

I understand that you continue to focus on the financial outcome and the amount retained by the casino. However, the complaint team had to assess whether the casino's interpretation and application of its rules could be reasonably challenged based on the available evidence.

After reviewing the case, the conclusion was that the casino had sufficient grounds to apply its terms in this situation. The fact that there may not have been any malicious intent does not automatically mean that no rule was breached, nor does it automatically make the casino's application of those rules unfair.

For that reason, the complaint team did not find sufficient grounds to dispute the casino's decision in this particular case.

Not that it matters but there's literally nothing I'm going to say that will make you go against the casino because they make you too much affiliate money but when I signed up to Donbet the T&C simply said "text". There was no terms and conditions. They've changed the page a million times since then. I did not agree to the terms and conditions they even laid out, which wouldn't hold up in court anyway as they have no license!!!

How can you give a safety index rate to a casino that literally answers to nobody??

Here's a further question to put to you. Is it not fraud for them to confiscate money from someone they do not believe an account belongs to? I've proven deposits came from my account and they have approved my ID. If they are saying it's my husband's account, why are they allowed to keep money from someone else? That's fraud. Their own T&C say that deposits must come from the person whose gameplay it is. If that hasn't happened then it should be returned.

Furthermore, my husband has a signed contract with Santeda that constitutes him being self-excluded for all of their sites, including Donbet. They are going against that by keeping these funds here. Again, I ask you, how is this a safe casino? They work the T&C and all the advantages of not being licensed anywhere to make it as risky a casino as you could ever play at. But yet you support them because they fund your website.

Hello,

I think we have reached a point where there is little more I can add to this discussion.

Throughout this conversation, I have tried to explain the reasoning behind the complaint outcome. However, we now seem to be moving away from the facts of the case and towards assumptions about motivations, business relationships, and matters that are unrelated to the specific issue that was investigated.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion regarding the casino, its licensing situation, its terms and conditions, or our Safety Index. However, those are separate topics from the complaint itself.

The complaint was reviewed based on the evidence available and the specific circumstances identified during the investigation. The conclusion was not based on whether the casino is liked or disliked, nor on any commercial relationship, but on the facts of that particular case.

I understand that you disagree with both the outcome and the reasoning behind it. However, repeating the same arguments while introducing new assumptions about motives does not change the facts that were considered during the investigation.

At this stage, I do not believe there is any benefit in continuing this discussion further, as we appear to have reached a point where neither of us is bringing new information to the conversation.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and I wish you all the best.

Donbet does not have a license to operate. That is not an opinion. But a fact that you can see through official channels. NOT AN OPINION.

Donbet did not have an active terms and conditions page when I signed up to the site. That is not an opinion. How can a user agree to terms and conditions when they are not listed?

Santeda have dissolved their companies in the past month. Not an opinion.

I've asked Chat GPT and in regards to Curacao's gambling license (which remember, Donbet don't even have, but let's live in a fantasy world that they do and a customer has ANY kind of protection) - the prudent question CHAT GPT says should be asked of the casino is;

"If the source of funds was verified and the casino accepts the money came from the customer, on what basis is the casino entitled to retain £6,000 of that customer's own money?"

That also seems to be a fair question for Casino Guru to help put to Donbet? Otherwise you are standing by and allowing a casino to steal someone's money. There is no justification legally, ethically, morally, gambling license related or otherwise for them to keep £6k. I've done more research than anyone imaginable could on this issue and there's no justification for it.

Yes, we inform players that the casino is unlicensed, and even though you appear to be from a highly regulated country secured under the GGL license, you chose unlicensed sites and violated the rules. That's another perspective. You know I can play this game too, but I empitize with you and have no intention of offending or disrespecting your feelings. Shall we end this now?

The issue is no longer about respect or justification.

I am currently having a very similar discussion with Jaroslav in the Rabona thread.

https://casino.guru/forum/casinos/rabona-casino---general-discussion/29

This is intended as constructive feedback. In my opinion, Casino.Guru should either adjust its rating criteria or provide a much clearer warning to new users that this casino operates without a valid license. Players should be made aware of the potential risks and consequences associated with using an unlicensed casino.

The licensing issue is a significant concern and, in my view, should be reflected more clearly in the rating or warning system so that users can make fully informed decisions.

Hello, this is the usual problem with regulations and content visibility; let me explain:

I guess you cannot see the review as well as the missing license because you also come from a highly regulated country and GGL (same for UKGC and many more) has forbidden us from showing casino reviews and the whole content to players from Germany. Their logic dictates that fair warning is equal marketing. I'm sorry you couldn't see casino reviews and the information that casinos lack licenses. Basically, players from many regulated countries are only allowed to see casinos licensed on their national level, which indicates the rest of those casinos are not recommended to them due to missing licenses.

So, this is how regulations help lower awareness. You are welcome to use a VPN to view casino reviews if it helps you stay away from problematic sites.

I appreciate the opportunity to explain this.

Hi Radka,

My attempt to re-open this complaint has been met with a rejection for duplicate complaint. Can you please try and speak to Atilla so they will look at my case? They have objectively made a mistake with my original submission. It's clearly not been six months since my issue when I made my complaint. I clearly still had access to my account on November 25th 2025 as I have shown in my emails to him, and yourself. You can see that?

My account wasn't closed until some days after. I don't know the precise date, it may even have gone into December. But objectively speaking it's not six months between Nov 25th and May 14th, when I filed the complaint.

This is clearly an error and my complaint should be looked at?

Hi,

I understand it's not convenient, but honestly I have nothing to add. I was trying to explain clearly that I am not involved. It's not my place to judge such decisions. I'm not here to reopen cases or dispute logic behind complaint situations I'm not fully familiar with.

I'm sorry.