Delayed payment - Withdrawal under review

Dear all,

Following a careful review and consideration of all the information, details and/or proof presented by the parties during the complaint process, including the fact that deposits were wagered and played off, the AskGamblers Complaint Team reached the conclusion that Shuffle Casino management acted in accordance with their Terms and Conditions.

Based on the abovementioned information, the AskGamblers Complaint Team considers this case resolved and it is now officially closed. While we understand this might not be the outcome expected by the complainant, we would like to remind you that, in case of a disagreement with our decision, further assistance on the matter could be requested from the relevant regulatory body and/or appointed ADR entity.

Thank you for the update.

I take note of Shuffle’s reference to clause 3.4 of their Terms of Service. I would like to raise several points that deserve serious consideration.

On the sequence of events. Multiple deposits were made on May 2nd. The earlier ones were fully wagered and lost on the platform: Shuffle accepted these deposits, allowed me to play them, and kept the losses. The two final deposits of that day (currently worth approximately $37,000 and $34,000 in SOL) were never played, never wagered, and remain untouched on the platform to this day. If clause 3.4 had genuinely been identified as applicable, the proper compliance response would have been to block the account at first sign and prevent any play. Instead, Shuffle accepted the deposits, processed the play, retained the losses, and only invoked clause 3.4 when funds needed to be released, not when funds came in.

This raises a serious question of selective enforcement.

On the account still being open to deposits. Even more telling: as of today, the account has not been set to withdrawal-only. Deposits can still be made on the platform. If Shuffle’s compliance team genuinely considered the account in breach of clause 3.4, the standard practice would be to close all deposit channels immediately while the dispute is being resolved. Allowing deposits to continue while withholding existing funds is, by definition, not consistent enforcement.

On procedure. A full source of funds documentation was requested by Shuffle: three detailed PDFs covering the on-chain pipeline of each deposit, supporting business documents, and Sumsub verification, all submitted in good faith over the course of a month. If a Terms of Service issue was the actual basis for the hold, requesting that level of effort while the decision was effectively already made raises a clear question of procedural fairness.

On the funds. The two deposits in question are now worth approximately $37,000 and $34,000 in SOL. These are pure deposit funds, not winnings. No advantage of any kind has been derived from them. They were never at stake.

Clause 3.4 states such funds “may be deducted”, not “will be deducted”. The wording is deliberate: the deduction is discretionary, not automatic. Even where a violation is established, retaining deposited but unwagered funds is disproportionate.

On proportionality. Shuffle is fully entitled to close the account, ban the player and apply their Terms of Service. That is their prerogative, and I do not contest it. But the proportionate industry-standard response is: close the accounts, confiscate any gains tied to the breach, and return unwagered deposits. Keeping the player out of the platform and keeping the player’s untouched money are two separate decisions, and only one is justifiable. The latter goes beyond enforcement and amounts to confiscation of funds that were never at stake.

To the AskGamblers team: I would respectfully ask for a formal position on the following questions:

1. Is retaining unwagered deposit funds, under clause 3.4 invoked in this manner, aligned with the standards AskGamblers applies in its mediations?
2. How does AskGamblers view selective enforcement, where Terms of Service breaches are invoked only when funds need to be released, but not when they come in, nor while they are being lost, nor even now while the account remains open to further deposits?

These are the core questions of this dispute. I remain available for any clarification.

Our investigation determined that the user's account was linked to the operation of multiple accounts on the platform in breach of Shuffle Terms of Service, including the following:

3.4. You are permitted to have only one Shuffle Account. If you attempt to open more than one Shuffle Account, any and all such accounts may be blocked, suspended or closed, and any sums credited to those accounts will be frozen and may be deducted. If you realise that you have opened more than one registered Shuffle Account you must notify us immediately by email at [email protected].

Based on these findings, the account will remain restricted in accordance with our Terms of Service.

Additional information and supporting evidence have been provided directly to the AskGamblers support for review.

I want to make one thing very clear: the funds in question were deposited and never played. They have been sitting on the platform, untouched, since May 2nd, almost a month ago, despite full on-chain source of funds documentation being submitted for all three deposits.

Holding deposited but unwagered funds for a month without a clear resolution is simply not acceptable. At this point, Shuffle has two options: either process the withdrawal as the documentation provided fully supports it, or refund the deposits in full. Either way, the funds belong to me and need to be returned.

I’ve cooperated fully throughout this process and I expect a concrete decision, not further delays.