[WARNING] Rainbet confiscating $1,367 USD deposit after Level 3 KYC completion

[ilmari63]

Scammer Website: https://rainbet.com

Company Name: RBGAMING N.V. (Anjouan License: ALSI 152406029 FI2)

My Account Username: ilmari63

Son's Account Username: kapusta123

Disputed Amount: $1,367 USD (Initial Principal Deposit Retention)

Summary of the Issue:

My son and I were flagged for a duplicate household/IP account restriction on Rainbet. We cooperated fully with the platform. Both of us successfully completed and passed Level 3 KYC verification, submitting valid state documents, selfies, and proof of identity. This proves beyond doubt that we are two distinct, real adult individuals.

Financial Breakdown:

    Total Lifetime Deposits (ilmari63): ~$1,650 USD

    Total Prior Withdrawals: $0 USD

    Pending Withdrawal Request: $1,367 USD

The Problem:

After passing Level 3 KYC, Rainbet processed my son's withdrawal, but completely froze my account (ilmari63), rejected my pending withdrawal of $1,367 USD, and confiscated all funds.

My net balance with the platform is strictly NEGATIVE (Deposited $1,650, trying to withdraw $1,367). Rainbet is refusing to return even my initial principal deposits.

While an operator may restrict future play for household violations, seizing verified principal deposits from a net-negative player after a successful Level 3 KYC is direct funds expropriation.

Proof & Deposit Transaction Hashes (TxIDs):
TxID 1: https://bscscan.com/tx/0x1bfed10b78be975342eb7e10ca9eb500c91844e815149729186d6a3ff34e9376 ,
TxID 2: https://bscscan.com/tx/0x7bb14cb67c43bf7992853beaa1734776a934a2962b4e579f4e1f445c5e0cb564  ,
TxID 3: https://bscscan.com/tx/0x2db82a1ebf8795398a982b00323f5f067efb4e232341b8c6824dd0c478b6d985

Current Status:

Rainbet support claims their decision is "final," refuses to return the principal deposit, and has ignored direct emails for several days. Complaints have been escalated to Anjouan Licensing Services and public ADRs.

I am posting this to warn the community and demand the immediate return of my original principal deposit ($1,367 USD) to my wallet.

[ilmari63]

https://imgur.com/XYrqvhZ
https://imgur.com/KDs5dFv
https://imgur.com/2wWSuZu
https://imgur.com/VHhmPSC

[348Judah]

Summary of the Issue:

My son and I were flagged for a duplicate household/IP account restriction on Rainbet. We cooperated fully with the platform. Both of us successfully completed and passed Level 3 KYC verification, submitting valid state documents, selfies, and proof of identity. This proves beyond doubt that we are two distinct, real adult individuals.

You may think this is not necessary or an important challenge that should prevent you from making withdrawals from your account on the platform, but the issue of multi accounting has been taken advanced step with ultimate seriousness to act accordingly to those violating their stand on it, how would they believe all the convinced that you are truly different people under the same household as long as the IP address connected you both together.

[ilmari63]

I understand your point, and I completely agree that casinos need to protect themselves from real multi-accounting and bonus abuse.

To answer your question: "how would they believe you are truly different people?"
The answer is straightforward: Level 3 KYC verification.

An IP address only shows that we share the same internet router in the same house (which is standard for family members living together). But Level 3 KYC requires government-issued IDs, live facial biometric recognition (selfies), and utility bills. Both of us submitted our real identity documents and successfully passed Level 3 verification. This proves biologically and legally that we are two completely distinct human beings. If full biometric and document verification doesn't prove identity, then what is the purpose of the KYC process?

Furthermore, let me clarify the numbers:

    My total initial deposits equal $1,650 USD.

    The withdrawal request was for $1,367 USD.

    I have $0 profit and a net loss of -$283 USD to the house.

Even if Rainbet strictly enforces a "1 account per IP" rule to restrict future gameplay, closing an account does not give them the legal or ethical right to confiscate principal deposit funds from a net-negative player who passed full Level 3 KYC.

Voiding net profit for a TOS breach is standard industry practice. Expropriating original deposit money when the player is down $283 is direct theft.

[suzanne5223]

I understand your point, and I completely agree that casinos need to protect themselves from real multi-accounting and bonus abuse.

To answer your question: "how would they believe you are truly different people?"
The answer is straightforward: Level 3 KYC verification.

You're honestly fighting a lost battle. Do you, by any chance, read the casino TOS on multiple account registration at all? Because if you dont you'll techniclly know they have the right to confiscate your the fund and also lock the account. This is what their TOS said about multiple account.

5.4. You are only allowed to register one account with the Service. Accounts are subject to immediate closure if it is found that you have multiple accounts registered with us. This includes the use of representatives, relatives, associates, affiliates, related parties, connected persons, and/or third parties operating on your behalf. In such cases, all associated accounts will be closed, and any remaining funds will be locked and withheld.
https://rainbet.com/terms

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Unfortunately it's a clear violation of the TOS, the same TOS you agreed to when opening the account.

5.4. You are only allowed to register one account with the Service. Accounts are subject to immediate closure if it is found that you have multiple accounts registered with us. This includes the use of representatives, relatives, associates, affiliates, related parties, connected persons, and/or third parties operating on your behalf. In such cases, all associated accounts will be closed and any remaining funds will be locked and withheld.

Obviously it can't be proved that only one person used both account but the possibility alone is always a no go for casino site, that's nothing new. I do agree though that at least the negative difference should be paid out (if the other account isn't in bigger profit).

[ilmari63]

@AHOYBRAUSE — Thank you for highlighting the core principle. I completely agree with your logic. Returning the principal deposit from a net-loss household is the only fair and standard resolution here.

@suzanne5223 — I am well aware of clause 5.4. However, looking at the exact numbers across both accounts, it's clear there was zero profit exploitation:
My account deposit 1650$ and frozen 1367$ (net loss-283$)
Sons Account deposit 199$ and withdraw 336$ (net profit 137$)
Overall Net Loss of -$146 USD.
 Not only has Rainbet already generated a net profit of $146 USD from our household overall, but now they are also seizing my remaining deposit in full.
In standard industry practice, terms allowing full "confiscation of funds" are intended to prevent fraud and syndicate bonus farming. Applying blanket confiscation to the original deposits of verified, net-negative players after a successful Level 3 KYC sets a dangerous precedent.
Closing the accounts for a household IP breach is entirely understandable and within their right. Seizing pure principal deposit money when the casino is already in profit from us is not. I am only asking for the return of my remaining principal deposit $1,367

[suzanne5223]

@suzanne5223 — I am well aware of clause 5.4. However, looking at the exact numbers across both accounts, it's clear there was zero profit exploitation:
My account deposit 1650$ and frozen 1367$ (net loss-283$)
Sons Account deposit 199$ and withdraw 336$ (net profit 137$)
Overall Net Loss of -$146 USD.
 Not only has Rainbet already generated a net profit of $146 USD from our household overall, but now they are also seizing my remaining deposit in full.
In standard industry practice, terms allowing full "confiscation of funds" are intended to prevent fraud and syndicate bonus farming. Applying blanket confiscation to the original deposits of verified, net-negative players after a successful Level 3 KYC sets a dangerous precedent.
Closing the accounts for a household IP breach is entirely understandable and within their right. Seizing pure principal deposit money when the casino is already in profit from us is not. I am only asking for the return of my remaining principal deposit $1,367

The amount the casino generated from your household is not important, as the casino TOS, or dont you understand what this means "Accounts are subject to immediate closure if it is found that you have multiple accounts registered with us. This includes the use of representatives, relatives, associates, affiliates, related parties, connected persons, and/or third parties operating on your behalf. In such cases, all associated accounts will be closed and any remaining funds will be locked and withheld." which shows that you and your kid going through the 3 KYC is never the solution.
Based on my experience with online gambling platforms, the chance of you getting your funds is low, and it's better to avoid anything related to breaking casino rules.

In the meantime, have you contacted their representative on this forum? Maybe you will get lucky as i have said you're fighting a lost battle.

[ilmari63]

@suzanne5223 — I am well aware of clause 5.4. However, looking at the exact numbers across both accounts, it's clear there was zero profit exploitation:
My account deposit 1650$ and frozen 1367$ (net loss-283$)
Sons Account deposit 199$ and withdraw 336$ (net profit 137$)
Overall Net Loss of -$146 USD.
 Not only has Rainbet already generated a net profit of $146 USD from our household overall, but now they are also seizing my remaining deposit in full.
In standard industry practice, terms allowing full "confiscation of funds" are intended to prevent fraud and syndicate bonus farming. Applying blanket confiscation to the original deposits of verified, net-negative players after a successful Level 3 KYC sets a dangerous precedent.
Closing the accounts for a household IP breach is entirely understandable and within their right. Seizing pure principal deposit money when the casino is already in profit from us is not. I am only asking for the return of my remaining principal deposit $1,367

The amount the casino generated from your household is not important, as the casino TOS, or dont you understand what this means "Accounts are subject to immediate closure if it is found that you have multiple accounts registered with us. This includes the use of representatives, relatives, associates, affiliates, related parties, connected persons, and/or third parties operating on your behalf. In such cases, all associated accounts will be closed and any remaining funds will be locked and withheld." which shows that you and your kid going through the 3 KYC is never the solution.
Based on my experience with online gambling platforms, the chance of you getting your funds is low, and it's better to avoid anything related to breaking casino rules.

In the meantime, have you contacted their representative on this forum? Maybe you will get lucky as i have said you're fighting a lost battle.

@suzanne5223 — I hear your point, but standard terms (TOS) are frequently challenged in community disputes when "confiscation" turns into predatory retention of principal deposits from fully verified, net-loss players. That is precisely why public warnings and scam accusation threads exist on Bitcointalk — to highlight predatory behavior that goes beyond fair enforcement.

Regarding your question about the representative:
I have submitted my appeal through official support and regulators, but I am tagging their official forum account here so they can review this case publicly.

@Rainbet — Please review this case. We have passed full Level 3 KYC verification, proving two distinct real individuals. Our household is net-negative overall (-$146 USD). We are simply requesting the return of the remaining principal deposit ($1,367 USD).

[yahoo62278]

@suzanne5223 — I am well aware of clause 5.4. However, looking at the exact numbers across both accounts, it's clear there was zero profit exploitation:
My account deposit 1650$ and frozen 1367$ (net loss-283$)
Sons Account deposit 199$ and withdraw 336$ (net profit 137$)
Overall Net Loss of -$146 USD.
 Not only has Rainbet already generated a net profit of $146 USD from our household overall, but now they are also seizing my remaining deposit in full.
In standard industry practice, terms allowing full "confiscation of funds" are intended to prevent fraud and syndicate bonus farming. Applying blanket confiscation to the original deposits of verified, net-negative players after a successful Level 3 KYC sets a dangerous precedent.
Closing the accounts for a household IP breach is entirely understandable and within their right. Seizing pure principal deposit money when the casino is already in profit from us is not. I am only asking for the return of my remaining principal deposit $1,367

The amount the casino generated from your household is not important, as the casino TOS, or dont you understand what this means "Accounts are subject to immediate closure if it is found that you have multiple accounts registered with us. This includes the use of representatives, relatives, associates, affiliates, related parties, connected persons, and/or third parties operating on your behalf. In such cases, all associated accounts will be closed and any remaining funds will be locked and withheld." which shows that you and your kid going through the 3 KYC is never the solution.
Based on my experience with online gambling platforms, the chance of you getting your funds is low, and it's better to avoid anything related to breaking casino rules.

In the meantime, have you contacted their representative on this forum? Maybe you will get lucky as i have said you're fighting a lost battle.

@suzanne5223 — I hear your point, but standard terms (TOS) are frequently challenged in community disputes when "confiscation" turns into predatory retention of principal deposits from fully verified, net-loss players. That is precisely why public warnings and scam accusation threads exist on Bitcointalk — to highlight predatory behavior that goes beyond fair enforcement.

Regarding your question about the representative:
I have submitted my appeal through official support and regulators, but I am tagging their official forum account here so they can review this case publicly.

@Rainbet — Please review this case. We have passed full Level 3 KYC verification, proving two distinct real individuals. Our household is net-negative overall (-$146 USD). We are simply requesting the return of the remaining principal deposit ($1,367 USD).

It's not predatory if you broke the rules that you agreed to when you and your son both made accounts on the platform. I am sure you probably didn't even read the rules, as most of us do not, but by making the account you by default agree to the rules of the platform. There is no argument for you. You broke the rules and lost your money, learn the lesson and don't create accounts on the same platforms.

I personally disagree with 1 account per household. The sites are in such a competitive market that they really cannot afford to lose 25-50% of an increase in potential customers IMO, but they choose to keep the rule for whatever reason. Is there really even bonus abuse these days? Most casino bonuses require users to earn them through gameplay so what exactly are they abusing?