The card will not go through when the operator's domain is in the register

The obligation is written on the intermediary's side

The Gambling Act of 19 November 2009 directs the obligation at two kinds of entity. A telecommunications undertaking is to block access to sites using the listed domain names. A payment service provider is not to make its services available on those same sites. Neither provision makes the domain owner the addressee of the order. The addressee is the operator of the infrastructure through which the signal and the money pass.

Article 15g(1) says plainly that making payment services available on sites with a listed domain is prohibited. A card payment or a transfer from a Polish bank needs a payment service provider to carry that out. If the recipient's domain is in the Register, the provider is barred from settling the transaction. The card payment and the transfer never reach the operator, because there is no entity along the way that could handle them.

This difference concerns only the payment link, and not what you pay with — the coins accepted by the operators were written out from 30 lists in accepted coins. Why the site describes the money's route and not the casinos themselves is explained by the page about the site. The whole route is described by the page crypto casinos.

Cryptocurrency does not need that link. A deposit in bitcoin or ether goes from wallet to wallet across the network, not through a payment service provider covered by the prohibition. That is the mechanical difference between the bank route and the crypto route. It is why a crypto casino can accept deposits in coins even if its domain has been entered in the Register.

The domain register sends the list to providers automatically

The Register named in articles 15f and 15g of the Gambling Act is kept by the minister responsible for public finance. Its address is hazard.mf.gov.pl and it is public. Article 15f(2) gives everyone access to its data. Paragraph 3 of the same article requires the Register to be kept in an ICT system that automatically passes information to the systems of telecommunications undertakings and payment service providers.

An entry contains the domain name and the date of entry. Article 15f(6) provides that entry is made ex officio, so no complaint or customer application is needed for it. An entity entered in the Register has the right to object within two months, but the entry itself is made earlier and takes effect.

The automatic procedure answers the question of how a payment provider knows whom to refuse. It does not have to judge for itself whether a given casino operates lawfully. It receives the list of domains from the system, and the Act requires it to apply that list. Once a domain is struck off, the obligation disappears and access returns, which article 15f(5) sets down as a term of 48 hours.

Refusal deadlines come at two speeds

Article 15f(5) concerns access to the site. A telecommunications undertaking is to block access, free of charge, to sites using the listed domain names no later than 48 hours from the entry being made, and to redirect connections to a page run by the ministry. Once a domain is struck off, access is restored within 48 hours. That term is short because what is at stake is stopping traffic on the network.

Article 15g(1) prohibits making payment services available on sites with a listed domain. Paragraph 2 adds a term for the situation where the services are already being provided. The provider is to cease providing them within 30 days of the day the domain is entered in the Register. The Act therefore leaves the payment provider a month to close settlements that are already running.

The act does not, however, describe what the user will see at the bank or what message the terminal will show. It describes an obligation and a deadline, not the course of a single transaction. That is why this text contains no course of a refusal, only its basis.

The list of accepted coins shows the effect, not the cause

The library of terms, read on 26 August 2026, held 100 brands. The list of accepted coins could be read at 30 of them, and not at 70. Where the list was visible, BTC appeared at 29 brands, ETH at 28, LTC at 23, USDT at 23. The widest list belongs to Cloudbet with 40 entries. These figures show what the cashier looks like once the banking rail is cut off.

The absence of a list at 70 brands is not information that the operator accepts no currency. It only means that the version of the terms we read contained no such list or that it could not be read. The site does not treat an empty field as an operator's advantage. An empty field is a field we did not read.

Putting together the domains from the Register and the coin lists from the terms is not a ranking. The Register speaks of domain names entered by the authorities, and the coin lists speak of what the operator is ready to accept. Only combining both sources gives a picture of the money's route that the act actually cuts across. A detailed comparison of tickers is on the page about accepted coins.

The costs move to stretches outside the act

When the card and the bank transfer disappear from the route, the costs do not disappear. They move to three stretches the gambling act says nothing about at all. The first is the rate at which the cryptocurrency is bought on an exchange. The second is the network fee charged when sending. The third is the operator's terms, which describe the conditions of deposit and withdrawal.

In the 100 sets of terms read there was no field with a conversion rate or with a source for the rate. There was no field with a deposit commission either. That does not mean that the operator does not charge a spread or does not apply a rate. It means that in the documents the library had, there is no such information.

The act says nothing about network fees, exchange rates or the content of the operator's terms. These three stretches lie beyond its reach. The rules concerning network fees are described by the page about network fees, and the fields that cannot be checked are gathered by the page what cannot be checked before depositing.

The limits of this description are in the documents, not in guesswork

What the player's legal situation is, is a question for a lawyer, not for a comparison site. This text does not answer that question and does not replace legal analysis. It describes only the mechanism that means the card and the bank transfer find no route to the casino.

Neither the act nor the terms we read describes the course of a rejected payment. They contain neither the moment at which the transaction stops nor the wording of the message. What they do contain is an obligation and a deadline, and their addressee is the payment services provider.

Before the first deposit it is worth checking three documents: the coin list, the network fee rules and the identity verification rules. The last of these is covered by the page about identity verification. That is as much as can be established from the documents before the money sets off.