Complaints

On 26 October 2024 at 062148 I sent an unequivocal permanent exclusion request because of problematic gambling and gambling addiction

The request expressly stated that all of my accounts should be closed permanently without any possibility of reopening and that the exclusion should apply to every relevant brand subsite company and licence structure I did adress this request directly to luckypaysio and 16 other brands

CoinKingsassociated with luckypays confirmed the closure of my account at 062431 only two minutes and forty-three seconds after the exclusion request had been sent

The response stated

As per your request we have closed your account with us

The speed of this response establishes that the gambling-addiction notification had been received read and actively processed almost immediately

CoinKings response sent through LuckyPays infrastructure

The CoinKings closure confirmation was sent through authenticated LuckyPays email infrastructure

The message

was sent from supportluckypaysio
used the LuckyPays domain in its technical email routing
contained the subject CoinKings Account Closed
was signed by CoinKings Support
formed part of a support thread handled through the same infrastructure later used for my LuckyPays complaint

This establishes a direct operational connection between the receipt of the exclusion request the CoinKings support response and the LuckyPays support environment

I do not rely on this fact alone to allege that LuckyPays and CoinKings must necessarily be the same legal entity However it clearly demonstrates that the exclusion request was known and processed within support infrastructure directly connected with LuckyPays


LuckyPays remained open despite immediate knowledge of the exclusion

Although the request had been processed for CoinKings within less than three minutes my LuckyPays account remained accessible

Deposits and gambling remained possible after the permanent gambling-addiction notification

On 1 November 2024 I replied to the CoinKings closure thread and expressly stated

Hello my LuckyPays account wasnt closed why was I able to deposit

Instead of addressing why the exclusion had not been applied to LuckyPays the support team later responded

Kindly note that we are supporting only CoinKings Casino

This response is inconsistent with the documented support and email infrastructure

The team claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings even though

1 the CoinKings closure confirmation was sent from supportluckypaysio

2 the original permanent exclusion request had been received through that LuckyPays address

3 the request had been processed within less than three minutes

4 I raised the continued availability of LuckyPays directly within the same support thread

5 a separate LuckyPays account-closure confirmation was subsequently sent from the same email address and support environment

The statement that the team only supported CoinKings therefore does not explain why CoinKings support was operating through LuckyPays infrastructure or why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion had already been received and processed

LuckyPays closed only after the renewed complaint

My LuckyPays account was not closed until 1 November 2024 after I had repeatedly complained that the exclusion had not been implemented and that deposits had remained possible

LuckyPays then confirmed

As per your request we have closed your account with us

This was approximately six days after the original permanent gambling-addiction notification

LuckyPays subsequently rejected a refund on the basis that the deposited funds had already been gambled

That response does not address the actual responsible-gambling failure The relevant issue is not merely what happened to the deposited funds after they were accepted The issue is that the deposits should not have been accepted at all after a clear permanent gambling-addiction exclusion had already been received and processed through the connected support infrastructure

Payment evidence and amount to be determined

My Revolut data contains completed card payments using the merchant descriptor BitSent after the exclusion request

Payments of EUR 210 and EUR 279 were made on 31 October 2024 shortly before I complained that deposits had remained possible at LuckyPays

The available evidence strongly supports that these payments relate to the relevant casino activity However the external banking descriptor alone does not permit a final allocation of every transaction between LuckyPays and any other connected account

I therefore do not present a fixed final refund amount at this stage

The exact amount must be determined from records controlled by LuckyPays CoinKings the relevant operator and their payment providers including



The refund claim should cover the complete verified net loss accepted by LuckyPays after the permanent exclusion request

Wider group concerns

The present complaint is focused on LuckyPays and the documented CoinKings support connection

There is also evidence of further failures concerning other brands that received or should have been affected by the same permanent gambling-addiction notification Deposits or continued account access appear to have remained possible elsewhere after the request

Those matters may be submitted as separate complaints once the relevant transactions and responsible entities have been fully allocated

Their existence is nevertheless relevant here because it indicates that the failure at LuckyPays may not have been an isolated account-level mistake It may reflect a broader failure to distribute and enforce responsible-gambling information across connected brands support systems or operator structures

I remain interested in a coordinated group-wide solution However the present LuckyPays complaint should first address the directly documented facts

the exclusion request was received
CoinKings processed it within less than three minutes
the response was sent through LuckyPays infrastructure
LuckyPays remained open
deposits remained possible
the support team then claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings
LuckyPays was closed only after a renewed complaint approximately six days later

Any wider settlement would need to identify all affected accounts and transactions and must not require a waiver of unknown claims before the relevant account and payment records have been disclosed

Requested resolution

I request that LuckyPays and the responsible operator

1 acknowledge receipt of the permanent gambling-addiction exclusion request on 26 October 2024

2 acknowledge that CoinKings processed the request within two minutes and forty-three seconds

3 explain why a CoinKings support response was sent through authenticated LuckyPays infrastructure

4 explain why the support team later claimed that it only supported CoinKings

5 explain why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion request had already been received and processed

6 disclose the complete LuckyPays account deposit withdrawal wagering and bonus history


9 disclose how the LuckyPays and CoinKings accounts were linked or separated within the support CRM payment and responsible-gambling systems

10 calculate and refund the complete verified LuckyPays net loss accepted after the exclusion request

11 preserve all account payment support device IP KYC responsible-gambling and internal audit records

12 state whether a coordinated review of further related group violations is possible

The precise refund amount must remain open until the operator discloses the records necessary to calculate it The absence of a final figure does not undermine the complaint because the decisive account and payment information is under the operators control

I can provide Betpack with the original unredacted email files for confidential verification but I do not wish to upload or publish them publicly due to the personal data they contain

The sum entered is only a placeholder

Thanks for your help

I am an EMERALD LEVEL 25 VIP memberthe highest VIP status at LONGFU88 Between July 13 and July 19 2026 I incurred losses totaling Rp15162000 I should have received a 10 cashback bonusamounting to approximately Rp1516200for that week but unfortunately I have not received it I have attempted to contact the following channels without success
the VIP Manager viplongfu88com no reply for 3 days
General customer service supportlongfu88com no reply for 2 days
the VIP Manager via WhatsApp no response since June 22
The VIP Manager via Telegram provided no assistance whatsoever
Furthermore the Live Chat service ignored my complaints and offered absolutely no help

I am submitting this complaint because I believe there is a serious inconsistency between BetPandas publicly stated AMLrisk-monitoring framework and the way my account was actually handled

This is not a standard gambling-loss complaint I fully acknowledge that I voluntarily gambled and that the losses occurred through normal gameplay

My concern is that BetPanda publicly claims to operate transaction monitoring risk scoring AML controls and responsible gambling measures yet none of these safeguards appeared to function when confronted with objectively high-risk activity

Timeline
Account created on April 18 2026
Accessed from Spain
No VPN was used
Within minutes of registration I began depositing cryptocurrency
Approximately 19000 USDT was deposited within less than four hours
The deposits escalated rapidly from hundreds to several thousand USDT at a time
All funds were lost within a very short period

Despite this activity

No KYC verification was requested
No source-of-funds verification was requested
No enhanced due diligence was applied
No affordability assessment was conducted
No manual review was triggered
No restriction or cooling-off measure was applied
Evidence Collected

I have preserved and documented

Deposit history screenshots showing the rapid escalation of deposits
Blockchain evidence related to the dedicated BSC deposit wallet assigned to my account
BetPandas AML Statement
BetPandas Terms of Service
Correspondence with the operator
FrontendAPI configuration showing security-related settings
Contradiction With Published AML Policies

BetPandas AML Statement states that

Transactions are automatically monitored
Transactions receive risk scores
Critical-risk transactions may be quarantined and returned

However in my case

A newly created account deposited approximately 19000 USDT within hours
No verification or intervention occurred
No enhanced monitoring was apparent
No restrictions were applied

I asked BetPanda to explain how this activity was consistent with the monitoring framework described in their own AML documentation

Their response was that the monitoring measures primarily relate to identifying potentially illicit transactions rather than responsible gambling concerns

This response does not address the core issue

If transaction monitoring risk scoring and compliance controls exist how was a newly created account able to deposit and lose approximately 19000 USDT in a matter of hours without triggering any enhanced review whatsoever

Additional Observations

My review of the platform identified

KYC status remaining NOTVERIFIED
Withdrawal MFA protections disabled
Email verification not enforced
Public references to VPN instructions on the website

While none of these points individually prove wrongdoing they raise legitimate questions about the practical implementation of the operators stated compliance framework

Requested Resolution

I am asking for an independent review of the operators handling of this account activity and for BetPanda to explain how the events described above are consistent with its publicly stated AML and risk-monitoring policies

I requested a withdrawal of IDR 37000000 from the LONGFU88 site Typically withdrawals on this site take 3 hours with a maximum estimated timeframe of 12 hours however the process has now exceeded that 12-hour limit Therefore I am filing a complaint here to seek a fair resolution

I cannot recommend this casino based on my experience

My withdrawal was not processed properly Instead of paying the requested amount as one withdrawal the casino split it into several parts In my view this alone is already a delaying mechanism because splitting a withdrawal into multiple transactions creates additional waiting time and unnecessary complexity Only a small part was processed while the larger remaining amounts stayed pending

The KYC handling was also highly questionable My account had already been verified but after requesting a withdrawal I was asked for additional wallet-related verification I provided the requested material quickly The requirements then appeared to change or become stricter afterwards instead of being clearly stated from the beginning This is not a serious or transparent KYC process in my opinion it feels more like a tool to delay payment

What concerns me most is the handling of the official complaint process I explicitly requested the official ADR contact details according to the casinos Curaao license Instead of providing clear official ADR information the casino referred me to Casino Guru Casino Guru may be a public complaint and review platform but I have not been provided with any proof that Casino Guru is the official CGA-certified ADR provider for this license

In my opinion this raises serious licensing and compliance concerns delayed withdrawal handling unclear and changing KYC demands and failure to provide the official ADR contact details despite explicit request

To be clear this review is based on my documented experience screenshots emails and support communication I gave the casino the opportunity to resolve the matter and to provide the official ADR details They did not do so

For me this is not just a slow withdrawal It is a combination of payment delay absurd KYC practice and non-transparent complaint handling

Players should be very careful

Lucky charms casino still a pending withdraw from 19 march

They took around 8000 from me - they reviewed it then gave me 1700 GBP - stating this was the maximum they could - they continue to be unresponsive to emails i have sent and seem to think that this amount is enough for me to accept - way off my 8000 at least due - this is the amount i deposited - nothing to do with the winnings i had which i am willing to disregard - they basically stole my money

I deposited 2000 then 2400 - the second deposit was with a bonus which required meeting wagering requirements over 1 week - throughout this time i was playing sports and casino - my sports balance was up to over 11000 at one point - then near the end of trying to turnover the 21000 to meet wagering requirements they stopped me betting on sports and the available balance disappeared i contacted them and they said there was an issue they were looking into - never got a response - my balance was still showing in casino - when i met the wagering requirements my balance was over 8000 - when i eventually met the requirements the balance went down to 800 - it would appear they gave me the 700 odd which i would get by wagering but wiped all the money i won via sports - effectively taking around 8000 from me

So at the end of this i had deposited around 4000 - won a substantial amount of money in sports - i then met wagering requirements and they gave me around 700 while taking away all the money i won Clearly this is not right

I have been on for 2 days now and still awaiting a response to this clear error

dont give enough free spins when deposit and employers are very rude

I request withdrawal on January 10 but it is pending still I do not use any casino bonus so I do not need to meet any wagering requirement They ask me some documents I sent it 3 days ago and there is silence from them now I wrote in live chat They did not hive me answer how long I need to wait for withdrawal