A source of funds request from a Curaçao licensed casino, or the lighter version some Anjouan licensed sites run, is usually genuine and worth answering properly rather than fighting. It becomes a stalling pattern when the same casino took deposits for months without a question, then produces a document list only once you try to withdraw, and keeps adding to it.
| Cause | How to tell | What to do | How long it takes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine check tied to a deposit or withdrawal threshold | Requested before you have asked to withdraw anything, or matched to a specific figure the operator names | Send exactly what is asked, in the format specified, and keep a dated copy | Set by the operator's own terms where one is published; Melbet's own rules set an initial seven business day window that can extend to 180 days |
| Request appears for the first time only at withdrawal | Deposits cleared freely for weeks or months, and the first document request lands the moment you try to cash out | Note the date of your first deposit against the date of the request, in writing, and ask the operator to explain the gap | No fixed period is published for this situation by any operator quoted on this page |
| Document list grows after each submission | A new item is added every time you comply, with no stated end point | Ask in writing for a single, final and complete list before sending anything further | Indefinite until the operator states an end point |
| Documents sent but never acknowledged | Support gives no confirmation of receipt or review status, and the account sits unchanged | Chase in writing, log every message and date, then use the operator's own complaints route | No timescale can be sourced; the wait itself is what you need to record |
| Withdrawal held citing "source of funds" with no document request made | No list is ever produced, only a general reference to a check in progress | Ask, in writing, for the specific documents wanted and the specific clause relied on | Not applicable until the request itself is made specific |
When a held-back sum is significant, it is worth checking in with the Curaçao refunds service before you draft a single letter; a free eligibility check will tell you plainly whether the record supports going further, so you are not chasing the wrong department for weeks on end.
What documents does a non-GamStop casino actually ask for?
The published terms of several operators in this space set out fairly similar ground, even though the wording differs. GodOdds' own KYC page lists payslips, bank statements, trust deeds and dated proof of an award as source of funds evidence it may request, and states plainly that withdrawals may be restricted while a check is under way. Stake's terms go further and leave the list open: "Stake reserves the right, at any time, to ask for any KYC documentation it deems necessary to determine the identity and location of a Player." Shuffle's own anti-money-laundering policy describes an unpublished, discretionary withdrawal threshold that suspends the account's withdrawal function until checks are done, with enhanced due diligence at that stage including both source of funds and source of wealth evidence. Crypto.games' terms condition any withdrawal on completed identity verification and separately permit source of funds and blockchain-analytics checks under its own clause. Melbet's and BetFury's terms each carry named clauses on source of funds and know-your-customer evidence within their wider rules documents, without the published text itself listing specific document types the way GodOdds does.
Not every operator publishes a document list at all. Cloudbet's terms set an identity-verification and monitoring policy, run through the Sumsub checking service, but no separate source of funds clause could be found in the version of its terms read for this page. That gap matters if Cloudbet is the operator asking you for evidence: a request with no clause behind it is one you are entitled to ask to see in writing.
When is a source of funds request genuine?
A request tied to a stated, specific trigger reads as procedure rather than obstruction. Sportsbet.io's terms name an enhanced check at EUR 2,500 within its withdrawal conditions, a concrete figure rather than a vague reference to "your account." Shuffle and Stake both describe screening every crypto transaction through blockchain-analytics tooling as a matter of course, which means a request following a large or unusual crypto movement is consistent with what the operator says it does for every player, not something invented for you. None of the operators quoted here answer to the UK Gambling Commission, so the specific UK rule against introducing a fresh check only at withdrawal does not reach them in the way it reaches a UK-licensed casino; our separate guide to source of funds checks at UK-licensed casinos covers that rule instead, useful if the brand you are dealing with actually carries a Gambling Commission licence rather than a Curaçao or Anjouan one. For everyone else, the licence-type route below this article sets out which regulator, if any, can be asked to look at the pattern.
When does a source of funds check tip into a stall?
The pattern worth documenting is the one where the request only appears once money is due to leave the account. A player complaint recorded against GodOdds on the LCB forum describes an account held roughly a year at a basic verification level with no documents requested, then, after a $40,000 win, identity checks demanded with the withdrawal function disabled; documents were supplied but the withdrawal was still refused and the account was later closed with the balance frozen. Complaint listings recorded against Melbet include entries describing know-your-customer checks delayed with a withdrawal pending, and Bitcasino's complaint record includes a case where verification on an 8,000 USDT balance was reported as delayed. These are player-reported complaints, not regulator findings, and outcomes vary, but the shape repeats: verification that was never an issue while you were depositing suddenly becomes one the moment you try to leave with money.
How long should a source of funds check take?
Only a few of the operators on this page put a number on it. Melbet's own rules document sets verification timing at clauses covering payout checks: an initial seven business day window that the operator can extend to as much as 180 days, with a one-month deadline for you to supply documents before the balance can be forfeited. Shuffle's policy describes its withdrawal-threshold check as triggered at an unpublished, discretionary level, with no stated review period once it is triggered. Where no operator states a timescale, none is stated here either. A stall is not proven by length alone; it is the combination of a late-appearing request, an undisclosed or moving deadline, and silence after documents are sent that is worth recording.
What if my deposits moved through crypto rather than a bank?
Crypto and voucher payments leave no bank dispute route, and none is described on this page for either rail. What they do leave is a transaction record. Since several of these operators (Shuffle, Stake and Crypto.games among them) say they run blockchain-analytics screening on deposits and withdrawals as standard, your own exchange statements and wallet history are the mirror-image evidence: they show the same movements the operator claims to be checking, and they are the strongest thing to send alongside whatever the casino has specifically asked for. If your deposits went through a bank transfer instead, a separate dispute route sits with your bank, and our page on getting a bank to reverse a casino deposit sets that process out on its own; nothing about running it is repeated here.
Register checked 7 September 2026 against the Curaçao Gaming Authority register edition of 3 September 2026 (662 licences: 63 Active, 206 Indefinite, 311 Assessment in progress, 50 Revoked at the operator's request, 32 Expired). Check the brand you are dealing with against today's register through the licence checker rather than trusting a footer claim on its own.
Where a request has stopped looking like procedure and started looking like a reason never to pay, the Curaçao refunds service reviews what the operator was told, what was sent back, and how the timeline lines up against the operator's own published terms, then prepares that record for a regulated legal partner. There is no minimum amount to ask about and no outcome promised in advance; requesting a free eligibility check is the straightforward way to learn whether your particular record supports going further.
Operator files with a verified licence position
Each operator below turns up in source of funds and withdrawal-verification complaints; every licensee, licence number and status shown was pulled straight from the Curaçao Gaming Authority's public register on the date given, not copied from what the brand claims on its own site.
- GodOdds: licensed to Usoftgaming N.V. under Curaçao licence CGA/2025/1353/1345, recorded on the register as Active.
- Stake: licensed to Medium Rare N.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/1451/0918, recorded as Assessment in progress.
- Shuffle: licensed to Natural Nine B.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/1337/0628, recorded as Indefinite.
- Melbet: licensed to Pelican Entertainment B.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/561/0554, recorded as Indefinite.
- Crypto.games: licensed to MuchGaming B.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/1336/1047, recorded as Assessment in progress.
- BetFury: licensed to Universe B Games B.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/1494/0942, recorded as Assessment in progress.
- Cloudbet: licensed to Halcyon Super Holdings B.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2024/328/0599, recorded as Assessment in progress.
- Sportsbet.io: licensed to mBet Solutions N.V. under Curaçao licence OGL/2023/110/0072, recorded as Indefinite.
Don't see your casino listed? The full operator directory covers many more brands, and the licence checker tool lets you check any name against the live register yourself.
Related reading
- Casinos not on GamStop: your rights: sets out what protections carry over to an operator sitting outside the UK licensing system, and where those protections simply stop.
- Curaçao casino help: the hub gathering every article written for someone dealing with a Curaçao-licensed brand specifically.
- Casino not paying out: for a withheld payout that isn't specifically a source of funds dispute, the wider escalation path across UK and offshore operators alike.
- Non-GamStop casino won't pay out: the route by licence type when the problem is a refused payout generally, not specifically a source of funds request.
- Non-GamStop casino blocked your account: for when the whole account, not just a withdrawal, has been frozen behind a check.
Sources
- GodOdds, KYC page: the source of funds document list and withdrawal-restriction wording quoted above. Page dated Sept 24, 2021, read 3 September 2026.
- Stake terms of service, Wayback Machine snapshot: the KYC clause quoted verbatim above. Snapshot dated 31 July 2026, read 4 September 2026.
- Shuffle, AML policy: the withdrawal-threshold KYC clause and enhanced due diligence wording. Read 4 September 2026.
- Melbet, General Terms (operator PDF): the verification timing and source of funds/source of wealth clauses. Read 4 September 2026.
- Crypto.games terms: the withdrawal-verification and source of funds/blockchain-analytics clauses. Version 2.0, January 2026, read 6 September 2026.
- BetFury terms and conditions: the clauses covering KYC, source of funds and wagering. Read 4 September 2026.
- Cloudbet terms: the AML/KYC policy referenced, and the absence of a separate source-of-funds clause. Read 6 September 2026.
- Sportsbet.io General Terms and Conditions: the EUR 2,500 enhanced-check figure. Read 4 September 2026.
Last reviewed: 7 September 2026.
General information, not legal advice. We are not solicitors or a law firm. We connect clients with regulated legal partners.