Taste Vegas

VISA

Hi ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ - welcome to CasinoReviews.com!

Please read our Complaint Guidance and Complaint FAQs to ensure that you fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As this report will ultimately be published, your username cannot contain information that could be used to identify you, like parts of your name, your date/year of birth or email address. Could you please pick a new username and we'll change it for you?

As we are the ADR for the Elvel Ltd license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – https://casinoreviews.com/terms-of-use

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

If you have any questions about the above, let us know.

Please forward all communications you have had with the operator, including any documents you may have submitted during verification, to complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Please use the forward function on your emails rather than taking screenshots.

Thanks,
CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi,

Thank you for the information.

Please change my username to “Butterfly”.

Kind regards,
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇

Hello

Somehow I overlooked this part:

“Please forward all communications you have had with the operator, including any documents you may have submitted during verification, to.”

That has been sent now

Hi Butterfly,

Thank you for your response.

The documentation you provided is from 3 different casinos, so we'll need to go one by one.

**Slotheart Casino** -  It is your responsibility to ensure that you read and understand all the Terms and Condtions that you have agreed to when signing in and registering with the operator. If you had read the Terms and Conditions quoted below, you would have known you couldn't deposit and use bonuses with Skrill -


> 2.5. Deposits made by specific payment methods like E-wallets (Neteller, Skrill, Paysafe Card, etc.) will not be eligible for any casino deposit bonuses. Sportsbook bonuses carry no restrictions. If a payment method is not allowed, this will be notified in the Promotional Specific Terms and Conditions. We reserve the right to forfeit any bonus along with the accumulated winnings for any bonuses claimed using the deposit methods mentioned above at our discretion.


Casinos are under no obligation to enforce these terms and the responsibility lies solely with the player. As the term states, the operator is within their right to forfeit the bonus and winnings if the term is not ahered to.

There is nothing we can do for you on this matter and the terms will stand.

**Madrush Casino -** it looks like the operator was performing a source of wealth check on your account. They asked you for information and documents which you weren't able to provide. You also refused to share documentation pertaining to the individual who paid the funds into your account. When you do not co-operate with these kind of security checks, which the operators are bound to by their regulators, the operator must follow procedure. We always recommend full cooperation with such wealth checks, as it could come down to the result we have on your account.

Unfortunately, here as well, there is nothing we can do for you, since you did not co-operate fully in the verification and security checks the operator required.

**TasteVegas Casino -** we need more information in this case as we do not have anything substantial. Could you forward all the TasteVegas Casino communications so we can give you more guidance.

Please also forward all original verification documents you may have provided the operators, to to complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Thanks,
CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

I wan't to respectfully remind you that the following is on you website. You say that "this service cannot support the continuance of the circumstances that cause these complaints to arise." but at the same time you rule in favour of the casino? It is almost exactly this situation - they continuously granted me bonuses that I apparently wasn't eligible for, then when I had won some money instead of loosing they confiscated it all. That is the same thing as you are talking about:


Systematic Problems

- Maximum Bet Terms – Max bet terms continue to be a problem representing 9% of all claims that were ruled Found for the Operator and over $146k worth of claims. Whilst these rulings are technically correct – in each case the player has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bonus that they agreed to – this service cannot support the continuance of the circumstances that cause these complaints to arise. The blunt reality is that these terms can and should be enforced automatically. Other licensing regimes require that these terms are enforced automatically and by allowing this loophole to persist, regulators create a situation where licensees effectively free-roll players, allowing violations to go unchecked where the player loses, but voiding any winning promotional play.



Second; are you actually telling me that I am obligated to send over someone else's information, someone who has nothing to do with and want nothing to do with gambling?



Kind regards,

▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇

Hi Butterfly,

Thank you for your response.

When we say that "this service cannot support the continuance of the circumstances that cause these complaints to arise." - we mean that we will investigate genuine cases where we feel the operator is unfair to players. We do this every day.
However, we do not mean that we will allow players who refuse to read Terms and Conditions, or refuse to do their due diligence and then expect for everything to go the way they expect.

Which leads us to - maximum bet terms - as you rightfully said 'in each case the player has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bonus that they agreed to'. Thsi usually arises from players not reading the terms and conditions.
We work with multiple regulators in multiple jurisdictions and Terms and Conditions should always be read. Unfortunately, the operators retain their right to their own Terms and Conditions as long as they are in line with the regulations, and operators are not obliged to enforce these terms automatically, because they are usually easy to find and you have to physically agree to have read and understood them.

In the case of source of wealth checks - this service does not have the authority to define what operators should and should not request in terms of source of wealth information. This is a legal requirement that the responsible individuals within the operator's team have to satisfy. Unless it is physically impossible for you to comply with the document request, this is not a matter we would intervene in. But we always suggest you cooperate fully.

Gentle reminder:

**TasteVegas Casino -** we need more information in this case as we do not have anything substantial. Could you forward all the TasteVegas Casino communications so we can give you more guidance.

Please also forward all original verification documents you may have provided the operators, to to complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Thanks,
CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Dear Casino Reviews,

Thank you for your response.

I feel that my core argument has not been addressed.

My position has never been that I was unaware of the term or that the term does not exist. Rather, my complaint concerns the operator's conduct in repeatedly granting, activating, and allowing me to use bonuses that, according to its own rules, I was supposedly ineligible to receive.

In your responses, you repeatedly state that players are responsible for reading and understanding the terms and conditions. However, this does not address the question I raised: why is it acceptable for an operator to knowingly allow bonus play to proceed, retain all losses if the player loses, but invoke the restriction only after a player wins?

What I find difficult to reconcile is that this is remarkably similar to concerns that Casino Reviews has itself publicly identified elsewhere.

For example, in your discussion of maximum bet restrictions, you write:

"When a player doesn’t read the terms properly, or forgets about this restriction and ends up betting more than the maximum allowed bet, if they lose their balance, the operator doesn’t spot the term violation and keeps the deposit. If they win, the operator spots the term violation and refuses to payout. This creates a win/push scenario for the operator and a lose/push scenario for the player."

You further state that:

"There is no good reason that maximum bet terms should not be enforced automatically."

I appreciate that my case concerns a deposit method restriction rather than a maximum bet restriction. However, the underlying principle appears identical.

The operator's system knew exactly how I deposited. I did not disguise the payment method, use a third-party processor, or make the deposit through a method that could not be identified. I selected Skrill directly, entered my Skrill details, selected the bonus, and the casino repeatedly granted and activated those bonuses.

Unlike maximum bet restrictions, which may involve third-party game providers and technical limitations, there appears to be no comparable obstacle here. The casino knew the payment method at the exact moment the deposit and bonus were processed.

As a result, this was not a hidden breach that could only be discovered later. The operator could have prevented the bonus from being issued in the first place. Instead, it allowed the bonuses to be granted repeatedly and only relied upon Clause 2.5 after a winning outcome occurred.

This is why I continue to struggle to see how my situation differs, in principle, from the "win/push, lose/push" scenario that Casino Reviews has publicly criticised.

I also note that your recent response you say

"However, we do not mean that we will allow players who refuse to read Terms and Conditions, or refuse to do their due diligence and then expect for everything to go the way they expect."

However, in your own published discussion of similar issues, you describe players as those who "don't read the terms properly" or "forget about the restriction." Those articles recognise that the problem is not simply player behaviour, but the operator's ability to selectively benefit from unenforced restrictions.

Therefore, I would respectfully ask a very specific question:

If an operator can identify a bonus eligibility breach at the exact moment a deposit is made and a bonus is claimed, why is it fair for the operator to allow the bonus to be issued, allow gameplay to continue, retain any losses, and only enforce the restriction after a player wins?

I would appreciate a direct response to that point, as I believe it goes to the heart of my complaint.

Kind regards,

Butterfly

Hi Butterfly,

Could you kindly let us know where you're quoting from when you say 'you write'?

I believe we have addressed the core argument. As mentioned previously, operators are not obliged by regulators to monitor each and every deposit - in your case since this is a deposit method complaint - and we are not in a position to challenge this. The operators will also not change their terms just because we ask them to.

We appreciate that it may be frustrating, but if there is a Term that refers to an action, and you have ticked the box which asks you whether you have read and understood the Terms and Conditions, that is a binding contract and will stand.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Dear Casino Reviews,

Thank you for your response.

The quotations are from your published article discussing maximum bet restrictions (Are Online Casinos Rigged?) under “Other Ways Casino Operators Tilt The Odds In Their Favour”, including the statements that “This creates a win/push scenario for the operator and a lose/push scenario for the player” and that “There is no good reason that maximum bet terms should not be enforced automatically.”

I understand your position that the terms are contractually binding. However, that is not the point I am disputing.

My complaint concerns the operator's conduct after already knowing the relevant facts. The casino's system knew that I was depositing with Skrill at the exact moment the deposits and bonuses were processed. The bonuses were nevertheless repeatedly granted, activated, and fully playable. The operator only relied upon Clause 2.5 after a winning outcome occurred.

You state that operators are not obliged by regulators to monitor each and every deposit. However, with respect, this characterisation does not reflect what happened in my case.

The operator did not need to "monitor" anything.

I was not using a payment method that had to be detected after the fact. I clicked the Skrill deposit option directly, entered my Skrill details, selected the bonus, and received the bonus. The operator's system therefore already knew the payment method before the bonus was granted.

Preventing this situation would not have required ongoing monitoring, investigation, or regulatory intervention. The operator could simply have prevented Skrill deposits from qualifying for bonuses at the point the bonus was claimed. This is a straightforward deposit-processing rule entirely within the operator's own control.

This is also why I struggle to reconcile your position here with the position expressed in your article on "The Maximum Bet Problem".

As I understand it, the only reason you tolerate the continued existence of many maximum bet disputes is that operators often do not have direct technical control over third-party game providers and therefore may not always be able to enforce those restrictions automatically.

My case is fundamentally different.

This is not a third-party game provider issue. This concerns the operator's own deposit system, something that is entirely under the operator's control. The operator knew the payment method before the bonus was issued and could have prevented the bonus from being granted in the first place.

Indeed, implementing such a restriction would likely require less effort than drafting, maintaining, and enforcing Clause 2.5 itself.

For that reason, I continue to struggle to understand why Casino Reviews would criticise and oppose a win/push, lose/push situation where automatic enforcement may genuinely be difficult, while simultaneously accepting the same outcome where the operator has complete technical control and could prevent the issue from arising altogether.

I am not disputing that Clause 2.5 exists.

I am asking why it is considered fair for an operator to knowingly issue bonuses to a player, allow gameplay to proceed, retain all losses if the player loses, and then invoke the restriction only after the player wins, when the operator had every opportunity to prevent the situation before any gameplay occurred.

That is the specific point I believe remains unanswered.

Kind regards,

Butterfly

https://casinoreviews.com/blog/are-online-casinos-rigged

https://casinoreviews.com/blog/the-maximum-bet-problem

Hi Butterfly,

Thank you fo ryour response.

“This creates a win/push scenario for the operator and a lose/push scenario for the player” - this is how gambling works. When the house loses, the player wins, when the player loses the house wins. The house will always have an edge. Yes, we do include it on one of our blog posts, but that doesn't mean we have any power in changing it. It is there for information.

“There is no good reason that maximum bet terms should not be enforced automatically.” - although this is true, this is beyond our jurisdiction, and asking for this to change when the regulators are not enforcing it will not change the fact that maximum bet terms are not enforced automatically. Therefore this is not something we can help with no matter how much we discuss it at length.

As for your last remark;

> I am asking why it is considered fair for an operator to knowingly issue bonuses to a player, allow gameplay to proceed, retain all losses if the player loses, and then invoke the restriction only after the player wins, when the operator had every opportunity to prevent the situation before any gameplay occurred.


We think it is very clear from the interview we have on our blog, which you are reading that we do not, in fact think it's fair. The issue lies, once again that since the terms and conditions for the operator align with what the regulator accepts and requests, we do not have the power to change the situation. That is why it is important that terms and conditions are read and understood by all players so we can prevent this from happening. If you read terms and conditions that you feel are unfair and you don't have faith in the operator, you have every choice to move onto the next one.

However, from where we stand, if the breach in terms happened and the operator is now invoking the term - which was in the terms and conditions for you playing and depositing on the operator site - thereis nothing we can do.

All we could suggest is that if you have lost confidence in the operator that you are playing with, that you choose an different site for gambling in future.

We will not be engaging with any further posts on this thread unless you can provide any helpful information which will allow us to look into the Taste Vegas case for you.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Found for the Operator - Based on the information submitted by this player, it is the opinion of this service that this account has breached the terms of use in a non-redeemable fashion. They also refused to provide sufficient information for us to look further into one of the operators.

Dear Casino Reviews ADR,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the confiscation of €5,720.49 in winnings by SlotHeart and its associated casinos operating under Infiniza, Hundise, Frenwall, and Elvel Limited.

The operator justified the confiscation by relying on Clause 2.5 of their bonus terms, which states that deposits made through certain e-wallets, including Skrill, are not eligible for casino bonuses.

I acknowledge that I used Skrill as my deposit method. However, the core issue is that the operator repeatedly granted and allowed me to use these bonuses despite the alleged restriction. This was not an isolated incident or a one-time mistake. I received both a welcome bonus and multiple recurring bonuses over an extended period of time.

At no point were these bonuses blocked, prevented, or flagged by the casino system. The bonuses were actively credited, accepted by the system, and fully playable. As a player, I acted entirely in good faith and relied on the offers that the operator itself chose to issue and honor during gameplay.

The operator is now attempting to retroactively enforce a restriction only after a winning outcome occurred.

This creates a fundamentally asymmetric and unfair situation:
- If I had lost my deposits while using these bonuses, the casino would have retained my losses without invoking Clause 2.5.
- Because I won, the operator instead used the clause to confiscate all winnings.

This effectively creates a “free-roll” situation for the operator, where they carry no risk while the player carries all of it. I note that Casino Reviews ADR itself has publicly identified this exact practice as a systemic industry problem, specifically stating that bonus restrictions such as these “can and should be enforced automatically,” and that failure to do so allows operators to “free-roll players.”

That description precisely matches what occurred in my case.

My complaint is therefore not based on ignorance of the written term itself, but on the operator’s failure to enforce it at the point where the bonuses were issued and used. Allowing repeated bonus activation and gameplay, only to retroactively void winnings afterward, is inconsistent with fair gaming principles and creates an inherently one-sided outcome.

I attempted to resolve this matter directly with the operator, but they refused to address the substance of the complaint and simply repeated the wording of Clause 2.5 without addressing the operator’s own conduct or system failures.

I therefore respectfully request:
- Full reinstatement and payment of the confiscated €5,720.49.
- A review of whether the operator’s conduct is compatible with fair gaming obligations and responsible bonus administration.

Kind regards,
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇

Taste Vegas - Unfair Confiscation of €5,720.49 in Winnings

To submit an online gambling complaint, register a new account or log in.

Create account

Log in

Got a complaint about a gambling site?

Casino Review Site Logo

Log out

Account

Title

Complaint Details

Posted By

Disputed amount

Date raised

Date closed

Player’s Complaint

To protect the privacy of our users, all personally identifiable information has been redacted. If you see anything we've missed contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Player's Complaint

Player Complaint Responses

Complaint Title

This complaint may have been archived. If you are looking for information about your complaint, please contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com

This link is no longer valid

Dynamic Single Complaint 

Default

IGT DE

All British Casino UK

Playtech ZA

Bank Transfer CA

Online Casinos UK

Cookie Policy DE

PayPal

Neteller UK

Spin Casino

ecoPayz IE

King Billy Casino CA

Free Spins IN

Casinos en vivo PE

Terms of Use DE

Mirax Casino CA

Oasis Poker

Hellspin Casino NZ

Roulette ZA

Rizk Casino IE

Bonos de Casino

ecoPayz UK

Live Casinos AT

IGT NZ

Yabby Casino IE

Casinos Online CL

Condiciones de uso MX

Dave Ellefson - Founding member of Megadeth

African Grand ZA

GrandWin Casino

Mirax 

Bank Transfer ZA

Guts Casino CA

Ken Smith Blackjack Tournament Expert

Casino Games IN

Visa CA

bCasino.co.uk – A UK licensed operator with ties to the black market?

New Casinos IN

Queen Vegas NZ

All Complaints

Visa ZA

King Billy Casino

Skrill CA

PayPal NZ

500 Deposit NZ

32Red Casino

Paysafecard DE

Responsible Gambling IN

Casino War

21Red Casino

Game Providers UK

Qbet Casino

ecoPayz CH

Quickfire

Zahlungsmethoden CH

Ruleta CO

Betway Casino NZ

888 Casino

PayPal IE

Arctic Casino NZ

JackpotCity Casino Ontario

Responsible Gambling UK

Reclamaciones PE

Aristocrat

Microgaming DE

888 Casino CA

Grosvenor Casino

100 Deposit NZ

Online Casinos IE

Mirax NZ

Starda Casino IN

Casumo Casino Ontario

Bank Transfer IN

Wazamba Casino CA

Betsson CO

Baccarat CA

Vegas Crest NZ

Red Stag Casino IE

Live Casinos NZ

Casumo Casino NZ

KingdomAce Casino

Mobile Casinos

CasinoLuck

Dinero real

Blackjack MX

Playtech DE

Visa IN

SlotsMagic Casino NZ

Bizzo Casino CL

Craps UK

Boku ZA

WSM Casino CA

888 Casino Ontario

Slots UK

Cobra Casino NZ

JackpotCity Casino IE

Cobber Casino AT

Política de privacidad MX

Whistleblowing Policy

Baccarat IE

Casino4u AT

Juegos de Casino CO

Casino Classic NZ

Casino Bonus AT

VIP Casinos CH

Free Spins for Adding Card UK

Contacta con nosotros CL

Ultra Casino NZ

Royal Panda Casino

Bally ZA

Wildz Casino Ontario

Neue Casinos DE

Bitcoin AT

Best Payout casinos NZ

Dinero real MX

Jackpot Village Casino

Villento Casino

Wazamba Casino

Interac 

Playtech CA

Fresh Casino

Casino Games ZA

Spielautomaten CH

Fresh Casino IN

Quickfire NZ

Izzi Casino CA

LuckyWins NZ

Beste Auszahlungen in Casinos DE

Euro Palace Casino NZ

Ladbrokes Casino

Spielautomaten AT

Payment Methods

IGT IN

Neteller

SpinBetter Casino NZ

Bally CH

Aristocrat UK

Bank Transfer

New Casinos UK

Locowin Casino CA

Guides

Roulette CH

Fresh Casino PE

PlayNGo DE

Nuevos casinos PE

WinsRoyal Casino NZ

VIP Casinos

New Casinos IE

CasinoVibes Casino CA

Real Money ZA

Conquestador Casino CA

Bonos de Casino PE

Konami ZA

Turbico Casino

Affiliate Edge and retroactive term changes

Slots IN

NetEnt IE

Evolve Casino NZ

CasinoReviews PE

$5 Deposit Casinos NZ

King Billy Casino NZ

Barcrest ZA

Casino Bonuses IE

Miami Dice Casino

Infiniza Limited & Hundise Limited & Frenwall Limited & Elvel Limited

Got a complaint about a gambling site?