COMPLAINT PROCEDURE · LICENSED PROVIDER
Complain with facts, not generic labels
Gov.gr has a branded complaint service for online games in relation to licensed providers. It is not the same route as reporting an illegal provider or reporting computer fraud.
Here is the incident
Describe a specific act or omission, the account involved, the dates and your request. First check that it is a licensed provider on the relevant white list.
Sort the evidence
Create brief summary, numbered timeline and attachment index. Hide unneeded data, but keep the originals intact. Do not send passwords, PINs or OTPs.
- Contract or related term
- Contact the provider
- Transaction identifiers
Submit to the correct agency
Follow the current instructions of the official service. Casino Control may in the future investigate cases journalistically, but is not an authority, lawyer or recovery agency.
Named complaint file
The official online gaming service is about a complaint in relation to a licensed online provider. For the file to be useful, it must identify the provider, describe a specific dispute, and link each claim to a date or record. Not to be confused with Whistlers or criminal reference.
- 01
Confirm the route
First check in the white list that the legal entity and domain correspond to the licensed activity. If the matter concerns an unlicensed provider, the information is directed to Whistlers. If it involves computer fraud, there is a separate police service.
- 02
Write a five-line request
State account or ID, event, date, previous communication and what you are requesting to be reviewed. Legal designations are not a substitute for description. Do not claim systematic behavior based on your own incident alone.
- 03
Organize the appendix
Number events and records. Keep originals and make copies with unnecessary personal data hidden. Don't cut out parts that change the meaning and don't recreate lost messages as verbatim statements.
- 04
Submit and track
Follow the current Gov.gr instructions, keep receipt and case number. Add subsequent responses to the timeline without changing the original complaint. The press release, when opened, will not suspend official deadlines.
| Objective | Official route | Main evidence | Is not |
|---|---|---|---|
| Difference with a licensed provider | Gov.gr / EEEP | Account and timeline | Report illegal gambling |
| Information about illegal provider | Whistlers | Domain and registries | Contract complaint |
| Computer fraud | Gov.gr / Hellenic Police | Message and technical trace | Regulatory license evaluation |
| Payment service | Payment provider | Movement and authentication | Gaming account decision |
Points that require pause and control
Bulk send of same text
Agencies need the part that falls under their jurisdiction. A plain text hides the request.
New complaint and supervision maps
Category undated
Any serious claim needs fact, time and relevant presumption, not just characterization.
Third party data
Remove family, other users, or employee information that is not necessary for the incident.
Absence of previous response
Record that a response was requested and what happened. Don't present silence as acceptance of your version.
Check before submitting
- White list before selection
- A clear difference
- Five-line summary
- Numbered timeline
- File index
- Data minimization
- Proof of submission
- New events as additions
Frequently asked questions
Is the complaint anonymous?
The Gov.gr source describes a named complaint. For current identification and submission requirements follow the official page. We do not reproduce steps that may change.
Can I report an unlicensed site there?
The package singles out this route from Whistlers for illegal gambling information. Check the registers first and use the channel that corresponds to the object.
Should I publish the complaint?
Not as a substitute for the formal process. Public posting can expose data and present unverified claims as fact. Keep proof of submission and wait for the relevant examination.
Can the publication co-sign it?
Not in Current control. In the future it may research material with consent and independent review, but does not act as a representative and does not guarantee publication or outcome.
Applied model without a ready indictment
The summary might read: “A withdrawal request was made to X with identifier Y. Documents A and B were requested and delivered. To Z the provider replied that a check is pending without specifying any additional element. I request that compliance with the applicable procedure be examined." The structure describes and calls for control, without prejudging intent or criminal liability.
In the attachment, file 01 is the application, 02 the document request, 03 the dispatch and 04 the response. Each reference in the text indicates the number. If a phone call is not legally recorded, it is described as a user note and not placed in quotation marks as an exact quote. Uncertainties remain visible.
Before submission it is checked again that the domain and the provider correspond to the white list and that the path is the named complaint. If a suspicious bank transaction also occurs, it is not simply loaded into the same request: the payment provider is notified. After submission, case number, date and any new official response are kept.
- Specific review request
- References to numbered files
- No manufactured quotes
- Route check before shipment
After submission
The case number is linked to the original version of the file. Each new document is given a date and an explanation of what is changing. If clarifications are requested, they are answered at the specific point without a new general narrative. The final decision or response is kept intact and carefully summarized. The release does not discount time, acceptance or sanction and does not present the existence of a complaint as evidence of its content.
Final reading by a third person
A person who did not draft the complaint only reads the summary and index and notes what he does not understand. If it cannot identify the event, the relevant date and the request, the file needs restructuring. It then checks whether each heavy word is based on an official document or should be replaced by a description. It does not change the facts and does not suggest exaggeration. The test measures clarity, not rhetorical power, and reduces the risk of obscuring useful information.
- A recognizable fact
- Date visible
- Specific request
- Features checked
Before closing the audit, it is also confirmed that the files are opened, their dates agree with the index and the proof of submission was saved separately. A damaged attachment or wrong ID can prevent consideration without changing the essence of the description.