News

European casinos are experiencing a surge in bank transfer deposits, despite inherent risks including transaction delays, minimum deposit requirements, and currency conversion fees, according to a new analysis of data from December 2025 and January 2026.

The analysis, conducted across five European online casinos – Slotoro Casino, Winnerz, HitNSpin, Verde Casino, and LuckyWins – reveals that while bank transfers remain the most popular deposit method, accounting for 38% of all transactions according to a 2024 study by the Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA), the process is often fraught with complications for players. The average bank transfer takes between three and five business days to process, with international transfers potentially taking up to five days, a timeframe that can disrupt immediate gameplay.

A key issue identified is the minimum deposit threshold of €50 enforced by all casinos tested. Deposits below this amount are automatically rejected, potentially excluding players who prefer smaller initial investments. Players using non-Euro accounts face currency conversion fees averaging 1.5%, reducing the effective deposit amount. These fees, combined with potential delays, can significantly impact a player’s available funds before they even begin to play.

The inherent mathematical disadvantage for players remains constant regardless of the deposit method. With a typical slot game Return to Player (RTP) of 96%, a €300 wager is expected to result in a €12 loss (€300 x (1-0.96) = €12). Similarly, a €500 wager with a 94% RTP is projected to yield a €30 loss (€500 x (1-0.94) = €30). These calculations demonstrate that the house always maintains an advantage, irrespective of how funds are deposited.

Casinos are implementing security measures to mitigate risks. Each incoming bank transfer is reviewed by customer service for discrepancies, and additional identity verification may be required, potentially adding to processing delays. These checks are conducted in accordance with the Glücksspielstaatsvertrag (GlüStV) and OASIS guidelines, which emphasize transparency and player protection.

Despite these safeguards, the potential for technical issues and errors remains. Internal monitoring reports from European banks indicate a 14% chance of an additional 12-hour delay due to problems within online banking portals. While a smooth transfer reduces the risk of interrupted gameplay by approximately 11%, the overall risk assessment frequently outweighs the potential benefits.

The analysis too highlights the risk of chargebacks, occurring in 0.2% of all transfers when account details do not match bank records. A €200 chargeback results in a €200 loss for the player, a risk already factored into the casino’s risk portfolio. However, the high level of traceability offered by bank transfers – through unique account data and bank protocols – is confirmed in 99.7% of cases according to a 2023 regulatory analysis of the GlüStV. This traceability, coupled with a low risk of third-party fraud (under 0.05% according to a 2022 OASIS report), contributes to the continued popularity of bank transfers, particularly for high-value deposits, which are not limited by credit card restrictions. The average maximum deposit limit for bank transfers is €10,000, compared to approximately €2,000 for credit cards.

All casinos examined – Slotoro Casino, Winnerz, HitNSpin, Verde Casino, and LuckyWins – maintain consistent bonus conditions: a 30x turnover requirement within seven days, with no restrictions on game types. These conditions remain in effect despite the inherent risks associated with bank transfer deposits.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump vowed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday striking down his sweeping tariffs, announcing plans for a new 10% global tariff under a different legal authority. The decision, a 6-3 rebuke from the high court, invalidates tariffs imposed on billions of dollars worth of goods, marking a significant defeat for the president’s economic agenda.

The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, stating that IEEPA “contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion. “We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

The ruling stems from legal challenges to tariffs imposed by Trump on goods from various countries, including China, steel and aluminum imports, and a broader range of products justified under national security concerns. The court’s decision throws U.S. Trade policy into uncertainty, reversing a key element of the president’s approach to international commerce.

Responding to the ruling at the White House, President Trump expressed outrage, stating, “I’m absolutely ashamed of the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down my tariffs, calling the decision ‘deeply disappointing.’” He immediately announced his intention to sign an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of federal law, and indicated he is exploring additional tariff measures through other avenues.

The legal battle over the tariffs marked the first time the Supreme Court directly assessed the legal basis of one of the president’s second-term policies. While the court had previously allowed the tariffs to remain in place during legal proceedings, Friday’s decision represents the most substantial loss for the administration thus far. The ruling effectively limits the president’s ability to use emergency powers to impose tariffs without congressional approval, reinforcing the constitutional principle that Congress holds the power to tax.

The decision is expected to trigger a complex legal and economic fallout. The CNBC reported that the U.S. Could potentially owe $175 billion in refunds to importers as a result of the invalidated tariffs. Small furniture retailers, who had been particularly impacted by the tariffs, now face an uncertain future, according to reports.

The immediate impact on consumer prices remains unclear. While the removal of tariffs could theoretically lead to lower costs for imported goods, experts caution that other factors, such as supply chain disruptions and global demand, could mitigate any potential price reductions. The New York Times is maintaining live updates on the developing situation, noting the defiant tone of the president’s response.

As of Friday evening, the White House has not released the text of the executive order outlining the new 10% global tariff. The legal basis for this new tariff, and its potential to withstand further legal challenges, remains to be seen.