Trustworthy people should have trustworthy justification for their actions: this situation is not an example of that.

My problem is the constant "x casino is reputable" rhetoric that I see not only here but on other, similar threads. The problem with this idea is that it is a form of denying the antecedent: you are changing the principle, "if they have scammed someone, then they will be marked as scammers," to "if they are not marked as scammers, then they have not scammed someone."

Reputation does not immediately absolve someone of the possibility to commit immoral actions. It is merely the rule, not the exception: to gain reputation, you must simply refrain from shady actions. It does not mean that you are incapable of doing so.