Parimatch Casino IN - Spelarens konto har stängts med konfiskerade vinster.

Dear CasinoGuru Complaints Team,

I am writing to formally submit a high-value player dispute against the offshore operator Parimatch (operating via pari-match.in in India). The platform has permanently frozen my verified account and executed a total write-off of my legitimate winning balance amounting to INR 4,792,013.34 (~€51,800 EUR) under Player ID: 732886245.

I am a retired and honorably discharged Indian Defence Services Veteran. I am escalating this to your team because the operator has reached a formal deadlock in their internal complaints procedure and is acting in severe bad faith.

1. Shifting & Contradictory "Rule 88" Allegations.

To avoid paying out this large balance, Parimatch's compliance department has completely fabricated changing justifications within a single week, proving they lack genuine evidence:

. The Multi-Accounting Claim: Representative Asnath issued an internal finding asserting my account was closed due to "multi-accounting" links to other profiles dating back to September 2025. In India, public cellular networks assign dynamic IP routing footprints to thousands of users simultaneously. Treating a shared cellular IP address as an ironclad link is technically invalid. The operator has refused to provide any transaction logs or forensic proof.

. The Sports Insider Claim: When I challenged this, representative Gadiel shifted their stance and sent an email stating my account failed verification because I am allegedly a "professional or collegiate sports athlete, coach, or sports insider" placing corrupt insider bets.

2. Definitive Proof of Identity

I have attached my official, government-issued Indian Defence Services Discharge Certificate to this email. This legal document completely disproves their "sports insider" allegation and confirms my true identity as a retired defense veteran.

3. Contractual and Regulatory Violations

Parimatch's compliance team stated in writing that an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) escalation requires a minimum threshold of €5,000. My balance is more than ten times higher than this hurdle. Despite satisfying all written preconditions, they have intentionally withheld the contact details and portal links to their certified independent ADR provider. Their support team (representatives Elson, Shumbana, and Helena) has now reverted to automated text loops to stonewall my inquiries.

I have already looped the Curaçao Gaming Control into this timeline. I request CasinoGuru's compliance team to launch an external review into this bad-faith balance write-off and help me recover my legitimate funds.

Regards

Manendra *****

Player id 732886245

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’m sorry to hear about your negative experience with Parimatch Casino IN.

Please allow me to ask you a few questions so I can better understand the situation.

• Could you please advise how long you were a player at the casino and when exactly your account was blocked?
• How did you learn about your account being blocked?
• What games did you play to accumulate your current balance in the casino? (slots, live games, betting on sports)
• Did you achieve your current balance with the help of a bonus?
• Could you please share with me your communication with the casino regarding the allegations raised against you? Send emails or chat transcripts to my email at tomas@casino.guru, or post screenshots here

I hope we will be able to help you resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Best regards,

Tomas

Dear Manusbaghel,

We are extending the timer by 7 days. Please, be aware that in case you fail to respond in the given time frame or don’t require any further assistance, we will reject the complaint.

Dear Mr. Manendra Singh Baghel,

The Compliance Team confirms that the player's account (732886245) was referred for Risk Verification on 28 August 2025. Following a detailed investigation completed on 17 September 2025, the Risk Team identified links between the player's account and multiple other accounts, constituting a violation of Rule 88 relating to multi-accounting. Based on these findings, the Company decided to close the account, cancel bets, and write off the balance. This decision was reviewed and approved by the Risk Team and was not the result of an automated process.

The Company rejects the player's claim that the action was an unlawful seizure of funds, stating that Rule 88 expressly allows the Company to invalidate betting agreements, refuse payouts, and take action against accounts involved in multi-accounting.

Regarding the Defence Services Discharge Certificate submitted by the player on 4 June 2026, the Company notes that the account investigation and final decision were completed approximately nine months earlier. As the document does not address the multi-accounting findings that formed the basis of the decision, it does not affect the outcome of the completed investigation.

The Company also disputes the player's interpretation of a communication sent on 2 June. According to the Company, that message was merely a notification of an already finalized account decision and did not constitute an offer of compensation, refund, or settlement. Therefore, the player's claim that they accepted a refund offer is considered incorrect.

With respect to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the Company explains that ADR can only be pursued after certain conditions are met. These include completion of the internal complaints process, meeting the applicable minimum claim threshold, and confirming that the matter is not already being pursued before another ADR body or court. The Company states that it currently cannot verify whether these requirements have been satisfied.

The player has been advised to submit a formal complaint through the official complaints procedure and provide the required information, including account details, a description of the dispute, the amount being claimed, supporting documentation, and confirmation that the dispute is not pending elsewhere. Once the internal complaint process is completed, any ADR escalation will be handled according to Company policy.

The Company also notes that copying the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) into an email chain does not automatically constitute a formal regulatory complaint. While the player is free to approach regulatory authorities, the Company maintains that disputes should first be addressed through the contractual complaints process.

Regarding the player's intention to contact Indian authorities, including the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the Reserve Bank of India, the Company acknowledges the player's right to do so but maintains that its decision was made in accordance with the Terms and Conditions.

Finally, the Company declines the player's request for detailed forensic evidence, such as IP addresses, transaction data, and internal investigation records. It states that it is not obligated to disclose internal compliance methodologies, risk indicators, or fraud detection processes where doing so could compromise its security and fraud prevention systems.

Conclusion: The Company maintains that the account closure, cancellation of bets, and write-off of funds were lawful and carried out under Rule 88 following a completed investigation and Risk Team approval. No refund, compensation, or account reinstatement is due, and the decision remains final. ADR remains available only after the required internal procedures and conditions have been satisfied.

Sincerely,

Compliance Team Parimatch

Thanks to both parties for your response, and thanks to Manusbaghel for the information shared via email.

I apologize for the delayed response

Dear Manusbaghel,

We’re sorry, but we are unable to assist you with your request. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the incident you described—more than six months ago—we are no longer able to investigate the matter effectively. Our policy does not allow us to pursue cases that are considered "cold cases," as collecting evidence and reconstructing an accurate timeline becomes too difficult after such a period.