Donbet Casino - Spelarens konto har stängts och klagomål ignorerats.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Hello,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I am truly sorry about your negative experience with Donbet Casino. Please allow me to ask you a few questions, so I can understand the whole situation completely.

• Could you please provide the timeline of events? Specifically, when did you open your latest accounts and when was your last deposit made?
• Could you please confirm whether you currently still have access to your account?
• Have you passed the KYC verification on either of your accounts?
• Could you please share your original self-exclusion request? Send emails or chat transcripts to my email at attila.g@casino.guru, or post screenshots here.

I hope we will be able to help you to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Best regards,

Attila

Hello Attila

In response to you message I can confirm the following

the first account was opened in 20/2/24 until 15/3/24 when it was closed under responsible gambling for life by www.donbet.com

The second account was opened on 13/2/26 until the last deposit on 17/3/26. It has also been permanently closed by donbet under their responsible gambling rules and regulations.

I do not have access to my account as it has been permanently closed with note added to say "user is registered on the account, he is a gambling addict". These are the same notes that were also added to my first account two years previously.

KYC was passed on both accounts. The first one included receiving my full passport and the second one included receiving my full passport and a verification video. I have made a full Subject Access Request from the Data Protection Officer at donbet.com but they refuse to comply with their legal requirements to send t to me. I have also contacted sumsub who processed the verification documents for donbet and made a Subject Access Request to them but they have told me it must come from donbet directly. Sumsub have also asked donbet to supply it to me but they have ignored them as well.

I will email you confirmation of the first account being self excluded due to my gambling addiction. This was confirmed by donbet themselves who even told me that the notes on the account said I was a gambling addict and that the account was closed under responsible gambling for this reason.

Finally I would like to add that my complaint is not about donbet closing my account and ignoring my complaint. It is completely due to the fact that donbet allowed me to open a new account with all of the same details and deposit and lose over £20,000 when they are fully aware that I have a severe gambling addiction and their own systems have had it recorded as such for more than 2 years.

Hello anonymous12345,

We would like to update you that due to Attila, your designated resolver, being on vacation, we have opted to extend the timeline by an additional 7 days. Since Attila has an in-depth understanding of your situation and maintains direct communication with the casino, we find this extension justified. Your patience is sincerely appreciated, and I assure you that Attila will contact you at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your understanding and ongoing patience.

Best regards, Casino Guru

Hello Attila

Thank you for the update

Can you just clarify one point please.

You have said "Since Attila has an in-depth understanding of your situation and maintains direct communication with the casino,"

I assume that if Attila "maintains direct communication with the casino" that therefore means they have already been in contact with donbet?

Thank you for your response and for the evidence provided. Could you please confirm whether you have opened your second account using the same personal details and email address? Additionally, could you please forward the receipts of your deposits made after the opening of your second account? Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

Dear Attila

I can confirm that the second account was using all of the following same details. Name, address, date of birth, telephone number and most importantly same computer and IP address which would have meant that donbet would have known immediately that I was permanently self excluded due to my severe gambling addiction. KYC was also carried out with my passport and bank statement a few days after the second account was opened. A selfie video was also sent at this time. I will now forward to your email address receipts of all of the deposits made on the second account. Thank you

Thank you for your cooperation and for providing all the necessary information. I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share everything with us so far.

Your complaint will now move to the next stage of our process and be handled by your dedicated Resolver, Martin (martin.l@casino.guru). This is a standard step in our procedure, as the Resolver will take over communication with the casino directly and manage your case from this point onward.

No action is required from you right now. Your Resolver will reach out through this thread if any additional details are needed. You can rest assured that your case is in very capable hands.

I wish you the best of luck and hope your case will be resolved to your satisfaction soon.

Kind regards,

Attila

Hello anonymous12345,

I am sorry to hear about your troubles. I am Martin and I will be taking care of your complaint from now on. As the first order of business, I would like to invite the Donbet representative to enter the discussion.

Dear casino representative,

could you please check the case and explain the matter to us?

To clarify our point of view, in case the player had previously excluded, we believe there should be sufficient safeguards in place preventing a duplicate registration.

We would therefore like to ask you for a full breakdown of the similarities and differences in both of the player's accounts. Ideally, please provide us with system screenshots showing the entered personal information (name, date of birth, phone number, etc.), email, payment methods, or even technical identifiers such as device hashes or browser hashes. This way, we will be able to evaluate the matter conclusively.

Thank you in advance for providing us with your view of the issue.

Greetings,

I hope you are doing well.

First and foremost, we sincerely apologize for the experience and any inconvenience this situation may have caused. We fully understand the concerns surrounding the possibility of duplicate accounts, and we appreciate your patience while we carefully reviewed the matter.

However, we would like to clarify that the fact that two accounts may have the same IP address alone is not sufficient grounds for us to conclude that the accounts belong to the same person or to immediately close an account. An IP address is not considered a reliable standalone indicator, as the same IP address can be shared by multiple users or devices. Therefore, we need to consider additional factors and supporting evidence before making such a decision.

We have also conducted a further review of the accounts in question. Based on our findings user does not have the same IP address associated with both accounts, and we have not detected the same device being used for both accounts either. Therefore, at this stage, there is no sufficient technical evidence to confirm that the two accounts were operated from the same device or connection.

Additionally, we would like to clarify the KYC verification status. The player did not complete verification for both accounts; only one of the accounts was successfully verified. We will provide the relevant supporting evidence via email for your review so that you can independently verify this information.

Furthermore, we noticed that the user added a second name to the other account. This is an important detail because, in such circumstances, the KYC verification process may not automatically identify the accounts as belonging to the same individual. As a result, the fact that the accounts were not flagged as duplicates during KYC should not, by itself, be interpreted as confirmation that they are or are not operated by the same person.

We completely understand the importance of identifying and preventing duplicate accounts, and we take such matters seriously. At the same time, we believe that any action taken against an account should be based on sufficient and reliable evidence to ensure that legitimate users are not affected incorrectly.

We hope this clarification helps explain the reasoning behind our decision and the findings of our investigation. Please rest assured that we have reviewed the available information carefully and will continue to cooperate fully by providing the relevant evidence and documentation where necessary.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Kind regards,

Dear casino representative,

Thank you for the information provided.

I have reviewed the casino’s registration process and it seems that a player is required to provide only their name and email address before the account becomes operational and deposits can be made. No date of birth, telephone number, address, or identity verification was required at this stage.

This may raise questions as to whether excluded players may register and deposit before casino collects sufficient information to perform a meaningful responsible-gambling check. In addition, the newer account, k*****123, completed verification on 18 February 2026, as confirmed by the KYC records you provided.

I would therefore like to ask you, to disclose to us privately what safeguards are in place on your website. In particular, please clarify which personal and technical identifiers are checked during registration, depositing, and verification; how potential matches are identified; and which checks were ideally supposed to be but weren't triggered in this specific case.

The relevant records and confidential details can be sent to me privately at martin.l@casino.guru. Ideally, please also provide the complete transaction history for the newer account, including all deposits, withdrawals, bets, and results. This is necessary to establish and verify the player’s claimed financial position.

Dear Martin

In light of what Donbet have written in their reply to this complaint thread I have now sent you, via email further evidence that completely uncovers their misleading information and reveals their dishonesty.

Regards

Greetings,

I hope you are well.

Please note that, in cases of suspected duplicate accounts, we request additional verification; however, in this case, there was no sufficient indication to raise such suspicion, as the relevant account information did not match.

The information identified as matching between the accounts is limited to the user's date of birth and phone number. However, the second account contains the user's middle name, and the email address is different. More importantly, as previously mentioned, there is no IP address match between the accounts, nor is there any device match or other technical indicator linking the two accounts.

While the matching date of birth and phone number may raise a suspicion, these details alone cannot reasonably be considered conclusive proof of a duplicate account. Closing an account based solely on these similarities could lead to an incorrect decision and unfairly impact a legitimate player.

We need to apply a consistent and objective standard when determining whether an account is genuinely duplicated. If an account is closed without sufficient supporting evidence, the same approach could potentially lead to legitimate accounts being incorrectly identified as duplicates simply because they share common information, such as a date of birth or name.

Our intention is not to overlook potential duplicate accounts, but rather to ensure that any decision to close an account is supported by sufficient evidence and is applied fairly and consistently to all players.

Kind regards,

Dear Donbet

So you are admitting that the date of birth, name and telephone number were the same on both accounts?Furthermore the exact same address was on both accounts wasn't it?. So the ONLY difference out of ALL of the account fields that were completed was a very slightly different email address . The two email addresses were actually my name so again very easy to check they were the same person. Your attempts to say that you weren't aware that the two accounts were duplicates/linked are quite frankly laughable.

So the exact same NAME

the exact same TELEPHONE NUMBER

the exact same ADDRESS

an almost IDENTICAL EMAIL ADDRESS

and furthermore whether you choose to admit it or not the EXACT SAME DEVICE and IP ADDRESS.

Martin asked you this 5 days ago and yet your reply doesn't provide ANY answers, just more deflection.

"I would therefore like to ask you, to disclose to us privately what safeguards are in place on your website. In particular, please clarify which personal and technical identifiers are checked during registration, depositing, and verification; how potential matches are identified; and which checks were ideally supposed to be but weren't triggered in this specific case."

You still haven't explained on what basis you check to see if a new account is linked to an account that YOU have permanently self excluded?

If the same name. address, telephone number and device are NOT considered enough then perhaps you'd be good enough to explain how you ever check for duplicate accounts?

The below statement in your latest post is nonsense based on the evidence I have provided both you and Casino Guru.

"Our intention is not to overlook potential duplicate accounts, but rather to ensure that any decision to close an account is supported by sufficient evidence and is applied fairly and consistently to all players."

It would appear , based on all evidence that your intention is when you discover a duplicate account is to let the customer continue to bet. If they win then you inform them that you have uncovered a duplicate account, void the winnings and return the deposits. If, as in this case the duplicate account is a known gambling addict and will therefore always lose you do nothing and keep "milking" the addict while turning a blind eye. Ultimately this is a win/win situation for Donbet. Only return the deposits from winners and keep the deposits/ignore the losses of known addicts.

This is about as far from fairness and consistency as you could get.

I would like to remind you that had I not contacted YOU then my second account would have been allowed to stay open forever!!!

I have already sent both you and Martin more than enough evidence that proves you were 100% aware that my second account was linked to my first account that YOU had permanently self excluded due to , in your words added to my account, "customer is a known gambling addict"

The fact that you didn't close the account within 24 hours hours is bad enough but the fact that 5 days later when you received FULL video/selfie/passport verification you still did nothing is just showing complete disregard for your supposed responsible gambling rules and regulations and your customer.

The fact that I'm even having to go through a complaints process to gets my deposits returned from you is bad enough, but for you to continue to try and deny your responsibility is disgraceful.

I will trust that you will have a long hard look at the facts and evidence and fully return my deposits immediately. You were/are 100% aware that I have a very serious gambling addiction and I have informed you of this on numerous occasions and taken all steps possible to stop betting with you. You on the other hand have failed in your responsibilities to me.

Dear casino representative,

the information currently available indicates the casino’s responsible-gambling protection failed.

As we have established, the original account was permanently excluded and due to gambling issues. As for the newer account, it seems it contained the same date of birth, telephone number, residential address, first name and surname. Moreover, the newer account’s passport, proof of address and video verification were confirmed on 18 February 2026.

There is also a further material inconsistency requiring clarification. A third account, napier123, was subsequently detected and closed as a duplicate within approximately 24 hours, although only the player’s name and a different email address had been entered. Please explain precisely which identifier or combination of identifiers triggered that detection, whether it was automatic or manual, and why the same mechanism did not identify knockhill123, which contained substantially more matching personal information.

Please support this explanation with the relevant system records.

Unless further information that could materially change the perception of this complaint is presented, we ask the casino to reconsider its position and refund the player’s net losses. The player claims £20,518.19; please either confirm this amount or provide the complete transaction history privately so that the correct net loss can be established.

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your message.

We would like to once again fully clarify the situation and, in particular, explain the chronology and circumstances under which each account was identified and handled, as we believe this is important to ensure that the case is assessed on the basis of the actual information and safeguards that were available to us at each relevant stage.

The player previously had an account with Donbet under the username callum12345. This account was never verified, and no live or video verification was completed on this account. The account was permanently closed when the player contacted us and disclosed their gambling problem. The account was closed under our responsible-gambling procedures with no possibility of reopening.

Therefore, the information available to us from this account was limited to the information actually provided and recorded on that account. There was no live verification or verified identity record that could subsequently be used as a verification or biometric match against another account.

The player subsequently opened another account under the username knockhill123. There were several differences between the information associated with this account and the previous account. In particular, a different email address was used, a middle name was included on the newer account, there was no matching IP connection between the newer account and the IP records available from the previous account, and there was no live/video verification available from the original account against which the newer verification could be compared.

At that stage, the available information did not generate a sufficiently reliable match within our responsible-gambling and account-monitoring processes to establish that the newly registered account belonged to the previously excluded player.

We would stress that this is different from saying that we would knowingly permit a previously excluded player to continue gambling. Rather, the issue was whether the information available to us at that particular point was sufficient to establish the connection between the accounts.

The newer account subsequently underwent verification. However, it is important to distinguish this from the original account. The original account had no live verification, whereas the newer account did. Consequently, there was no previous live-verification record from callum12345 that could be matched against the verification submitted for knockhill123.

Once the player subsequently contacted Donbet and confirmed that the original account belonged to them, the connection between the accounts became known to us, and the newer account was also permanently closed under the same responsible-gambling grounds.

Following the player's disclosure and our subsequent review, we applied an additional blacklist to the confirmed player profile. This ensures that future registrations containing precisely matching information are prevented. This is an important distinction when considering what safeguards were available before the player's complaint and what safeguards were implemented following the identification of the issue.

We would also like to clarify the point concerning napier123, as this account demonstrates that our account-monitoring process is not based exclusively on IP addresses or completed verification. Following the player's complaint and the concerns raised regarding the possibility of further accounts being associated with the player, we carried out additional manual checks of accounts that presented a higher likelihood of being connected to the same individual. In the case of napier123, there were zero IP connections to the previous accounts, zero verification records that could independently establish the connection, and a different email address was used. Nevertheless, based on the circumstances identified during our manual review and the high likelihood that the account could be associated with the player, we took a precautionary approach and closed the account. We are pleased that this additional review allowed us to identify and prevent any potential further activity on the account.

Therefore, the fact that napier123 was identified does not mean that the system automatically detected the account based solely on the player's name or another single identifier. The account was identified through the particular circumstances and subsequent manual assessment, despite the absence of IP and verification connections.

We would also like to clarify that we conduct manual reviews from time to time as an additional safeguard alongside our automated systems. These reviews are intended to identify potential accounts that may not have been automatically matched due to differences or insufficient information at the registration stage. (1/2)

(2/2)

As with any account-monitoring process, identification depends on the information available to us and the indicators generated by that information. We nevertheless continue to conduct manual reviews as an additional safeguard and will continue to investigate potential associations whenever sufficient indicators are identified.

We believe it is also important to clarify that verification is not required before an account can initially be opened on our website. Consequently, it is not technically possible to perform every possible identity and verification-based comparison at the initial registration stage.

The information available at registration is limited to the information that the player enters at that stage. If that information does not produce a sufficiently precise match with information already recorded in our systems, the account may initially be created.

This does not mean that responsible-gambling checks cease to apply. Rather, additional checks and information become available as the player interacts with the website, including when information is subsequently provided or when an account becomes associated with a previously identified player. As soon as Donbet becomes aware that an account is associated with a player who has previously been excluded due to gambling concerns, we take action to prevent further activity.

We would also like to clarify that, at the time the activity on knockhill123 took place, Donbet did not have sufficient prior knowledge to establish that this account belonged to the individual whose previous account had been permanently excluded. The account was not deliberately permitted to operate despite Donbet knowing that it belonged to the previously excluded player. The connection between the accounts was only established subsequently.

Accordingly, we do not consider the subsequent wagering activity to be refundable on any grounds, as the relevant account association had not been established by Donbet at the time that activity occurred.

We have recently provided additional information and supporting material to Casino Guru privately by email regarding the matters raised in this complaint. We remain fully willing to cooperate further and provide any additional information or clarification that Casino Guru considers relevant to properly assess the safeguards and circumstances surrounding these accounts.

We hope this further clarification helps to distinguish between what information was actually available to Donbet at each stage, how the accounts were assessed, and why the subsequent identification of the player resulted in the appropriate action being taken.

Kind regards,

Dear Donbet

It would appear that rather admit your clear failures in this serious matter you appear determined to continue to provide zero evidence to they questions raised by both myself and Martin.

For the avoidance of any doubt Martin clearly asked you the following 5 days ago.

"Please explain precisely which identifier or combination of identifiers triggered that detection, whether it was automatic or manual, and why the same mechanism did not identify knockhill123, which contained substantially more matching personal information."

From the explanation which you have given above regarding the 3rd account napier123 you have replied with the following.

Following the player's disclosure and our subsequent review, we applied an additional blacklist to the confirmed player profile. This ensures that future registrations containing precisely matching information are prevented.

Therefore, the fact that napier123 was identified does not mean that the system automatically detected the account based solely on the player's name or another single identifier.

So the exact same NAME

the exact same TELEPHONE NUMBER

the exact same ADDRESS

an almost IDENTICAL EMAIL ADDRESS

and furthermore whether you choose to admit it or not the EXACT SAME DEVICE and IP ADDRESS., despite the absence of IP and verification connections.

So basically Donbet are saying that they were able to detect that the 3rd account was linked to the first two with only using my name and a completely different email address.

We are expected to believe that they were able to link this account by name only but couldn't link the 1st and 2nd accounts that had the following exact same identifiers from account opening.

So the exact same NAME

the exact same TELEPHONE NUMBER

the exact same ADDRESS

the exact same DATE of BIRTH

an almost IDENTICAL EMAIL ADDRESS

and furthermore whether you choose to admit it or not the EXACT SAME DEVICE and IP ADDRESS.

Would you be so kind to elaborate on the following

"The account was identified through the particular circumstances and subsequent manual assessment"

You haven't explained at all how you could possible link an account by NAME only. There are ZERO manual assessments you can make other that the 3 accounts had the same name.

So if you are saying you CAN identify a linked account by NAME ONLY then how to expect anyone to believe that you CANNOT do it when you have 5 of more identical pieces to identify the customer.

This is a complete contradiction on what you have poreviouilsy said during this complaint.

Previously you said

"We completely understand the importance of identifying and preventing duplicate accounts, and we take such matters seriously. At the same time, we believe that any action taken against an account should be based on sufficient and reliable evidence to ensure that legitimate users are not affected incorrectly.

While the matching date of birth and phone number may raise a suspicion, these details alone cannot reasonably be considered conclusive proof of a duplicate account. Closing an account based solely on these similarities could lead to an incorrect decision and unfairly impact a legitimate player."

So closing an account due to having the same date of birth and telephone number wouldn't be the right thing to do but on the other hand you closed napier123 even though it ONLY had the same name would be deemed ok? You are now becoming tangled in your own lies.

You mentioned blacklisting. Are you saying that you do NOT blacklist accounts that you have previously closed due to severe gambling addictions? If not why not?

Moving on to the clear lies you have told I will once again point them out.

I deal in clear evidence which has been previously supplied to both Martin and Donbet. You choose to ignore this evidence and stopped responding to me when it was sent to you. Clearly you weren't expecting me to still have documents and a phone call from March 2024 in my possession.

This is probably the most important and damning lies you have said below

"The player previously had an account with Donbet under the username callum12345. This account was never verified, and no live or video verification was completed on this account. The account was permanently closed when the player contacted us and disclosed their gambling problem. The account was closed under our responsible-gambling procedures with no possibility of reopening.

Therefore, the information available to us from this account was limited to the information actually provided and recorded on that account. There was no live verification or verified identity record that could subsequently be used as a verification or biometric match against another account."

That is a complete lie and you are well aware of that.

Not only was the account verified but I also received a phone call from Kylie at Donbet on 21st March 2024 offering me the sum of £3000 which was just under 50% of the total losses on the account.

Furthermore before any payment could be sent to me I had to provide the following documents.

A copy of my passport

The front and back of the bank card used to make all of the deposits

A copy of my bank statement.

I would also like to point out that on account opening the following information was provided, before I had even made a deposit.

My full name, Date of Birth, Telephone number, including country code, Home Address including post code and email address.

ALL of the above details were confirmed by Donbet in March 2024. They had already informed me that it was against Anti Money Laundering Regulations for them to process a withdrawal to my Bank account without getting ALL of these documents. You needed to check that my bank account was where the deposits had come from. This bank statement included my full name and full address.

Donbet even put my passport number on one of the documents they sent me, so I'm not sure where they would have gotten those details from had I not supplied them with a full copy of my passport.. Clearly having a copy of my passport also meant they could confirm my address and date of birth from it.

To say they had no documents on my first account to allow them to identify the second account is at best incompetent and at worst a blatant lie.

All of this evidence has been previously supplied.

It would appear that I was correct in my earlier observation when I said the following

"It would appear , based on all evidence that your intention is when you discover a duplicate account is to let the customer continue to bet. If they win then you inform them that you have uncovered a duplicate account, void the winnings and return the deposits. If, as in this case the duplicate account is a known gambling addict and will therefore always lose you do nothing and keep "milking" the addict while turning a blind eye. Ultimately this is a win/win situation for Donbet. Only return the deposits from winners and keep the deposits/ignore the losses of known addicts."

Finally despite lots of words from Donbet you STILL have not properly answered Martins question from almost 2 weeks ago.

"I would therefore like to ask you, to disclose to us privately what safeguards are in place on your website. In particular, please clarify which personal and technical identifiers are checked during registration, depositing, and verification; how potential matches are identified; and which checks were ideally supposed to be but weren't triggered in this specific case."

What safeguards DO you have in place , if any to check if a new account is linked to another account? Do you have additional checks against known permanently excluded accounts in the names of known gambling addicts?

Finally just to summarise the seriousness of my complaint.

Either

Your checks were non existent when I opened my second account , especially when my first account was permanently closed by Donbet due to my gambling addiction

Your checks did pick up that I had opened a second account but you decided to ignore your responsibilities and "milk" a known gambling addict.

Either way you are responsible for your failures in allowing the second account to be opened and if you are serious about being part of this disputes process then you should immediately return my net losses without stalling the process any longer.

Dear casino representative,

Thank you for your detailed explanation and continued cooperation.

To clarify the registration process itself:

I understand that, during initial registration, the personal identifiers players are required to provide are their name, email address, and country. Nevertheless, players wishing to deposit through regular, non-cryptocurrency methods must subsequently complete additional personal information, including their date of birth, telephone number, and address.

Please clarify whether the same process applied when the two accounts were registered and used in 2024 and 2026. If so, please explain why the matching personal information did not trigger a connection with the permanently excluded account when it was entered or when the newer account was verified. If the process was different at either time, please describe the relevant differences.

As for the verification, it appears that although the first account did not undergo the standard verification process, the player was asked to provide identity documents as part of the refund procedure. Please clarify how documents obtained outside the standard KYC process are stored and whether they are added to the player’s account or otherwise made available for future account matching. Would the documents have needed to be uploaded to the account for an automatic match to occur?

To allow us to assess this conclusively, please also provide screenshots from your system showing both accounts' interface/profile. Information about when the personal details were entered or changed would also be helpful, but I understand such information may not be available.

The records may be sent privately to martin.l@casino.guru.

Dear anonymous12345,

thank you for your continued cooperation. I can confirm I have also received your email.