OP, I've got an answer from Razer. As they valued [your] sensitive data so much, they can't post it here or relied the TX ID to me through PM. They are more than happy to provide it to you privately if you asked them. Can you send them an email or chat their live support and inquiring this? Please let me know if you've try and if you find any difficulties.

Ahh, I see. Yes, it will be quite reasonable if the whole family were there in anticipation of the... winning, instead of just asking your son, specifically him, to be present at the interview because you require him to translate. As for your question about, "What is your explanation for the fact that he wouldn't know the answer for all the questions? would there be a 3rd person controlling him aswell?", I will say I couldn't answer this, given I have not witnessed what transpires during the interview and the length of what he know and what he did not.

While for being smarter by using a chat, yes, I will say that'll be logical, if you didn't know that a person speaking the language was present at the interview. Which, I believe, is the reason why BC refrained mid-way from letting their translator take over or informing you that they have someone speaking the language that can facilitate the interview, because when people don't think the other side understand what they talked about, they lowered their guard and let things known, which otherwise they'll keep for themselves and be more careful, if they know their counterpart knows what they're talking about. So yeah, I suppose if BC started the video conversation by informing you that they speak your language, there is a probability that you'll resort to chatting the answer. But given you don't think they understand what you said to your mom, you assume they'll think you simply translating it instead of dictating answers.

But let's not eliminate the doubt. BC.Game Support, can you tell us please, in one or two examples, what kind of answers that he supplied to his mother that make you sure he dictated answer to her about the technicalities of her account instead of simply translating?

I am quoting BC's findings below, so people reading this discussion can get the context easier.

I believe when BC said that OP is uncertain, unable to answer, and unfamiliar with features like game types, cashback and recharge, and the VIP levels, they're referring to OP's own details, which she should have been familiar if she really operates the account herself.

For example, I assume the question were like: what VIP level are you on, what games were you playing, can you describe in short what game was it and how do you played it, how many multipliers are available for [name of game], on which game did you win the big prize [that's being the root of issue here], things that are not too technical that someone that's not a gambling-geek will not be able to answer, yet technical and specific enough that an individual operating the account will be able to, as the question is specific and related to their activities.

As for the translator, I think they prepared him, in case she needed help, or even perhaps the interviewer himself is the translator, he speaks the language, but before they can let the OP knows that they speak the language [or have someone present who speak the language], upon realizing that the son is leading and dictating answers, which made them suspicious of the extent of her knowledge regarding the account, they refrained from telling her, in concern that the son became aware that their attempt to cheat the interview [by him [the actual account operator] supplying answer to her [the clueless someone else]] and instead they just let the interview rolled in, with the translator supplying them with what the son actually said, as they'll get a broader --and more true in nature-- understanding of OP's situation.

Suppose they let her know that they understand the language and know that the son is supplying information, having her to answer on his behalf, OP probably will end the conversation soon and walled up, saying the internet connection was poor and it ended by itself, or refused to take the video call any further with their invented reason, while the son prepared her with broader knowledge of the account.

---

Umm... your son doesn't live with you? So he just happened to be there during the video call to... translate?

[CC: JollyGood]

It's actually explained by them in between-lines, and been explained to you by me [in form of educated theory] throughout the entire thread, sealed by BC.Game Support's report of the video call.

Initially, they suspected that your "mom" is performing KYC under duress, of which our suspicion gets stronger and stronger as the case and posts on this thread gets further and you show questionable traits, like the cluelessness of what "under duress" is about, that you basically has zero knowledge of your situation and surroundings when you took that KYC picture.

But, to be short, from BC side, and about what violation you did, they suspected you trying to circumvent a restriction they put on you [the son], be it account limitation, self exclusion, account ban, falsifying ID, and the likes, that your mom shows duress because she performed that KYC against her will, i.e. you forced her.

Bottom line,
What violation you did: a possible attempt to circumvent account limitation and providing fake KYC.
Physical evidence: the video call, where the "real player" [the mom] basically clueless about the game she's been playing for a while.
What terms in the ToS related to it: I have them safely stored for you in my gallery, but I believe it'll be best to start make that lawyer of yours useful. Here's the link to their ToS, I believe he can ventured a very-well-educated guess of what violation you did.

It's no longer needed, it's solved. It's a very simple case of impatience and cluelessness that KYC [as annoying as they can be] is a standard practice amongst casino and completely normal to be asked to perform such. I believe OP will not come back to this thread to lock it, I'll try to PM mods to lock it for us.

Oh wow, did you hurt your shin? Or you slipped and broke your nose hitting floor, perhaps? No? I'm glad. You know, it's quite dangerous to run and jumped ship that fast. Be careful next time, do it carefully and --if you can-- with much grace.

---

Done from BC's side. I believe after confirming my last query to them, whether there is a staff speaking her language being present at the session and informed the security team that the discussion between her and her son was not a simple translating what's asked, but rather leading her to answer details about "her account" [one that she should have a very intimate knowledge of], BC has full right to leave this case and not attending to OP's demands anymore, as it's proven that OP indeed abuses their system.

After their answer, if it's clear and explaining enough, I think the community can agree that this one can be marked as resolved.

OP, this is a friendly reminder that your time to reply to both your complaint on AG and CG are almost ran out, less than 24 hours as per when I write this post. You might want to update them with something so they will not close it without any desired outcome for your side.

The account freezing due to threat signals, or "under duress" according to their term, as previously and repetitively being mentioned, is a concern that the person conducting the KYC [with current info from recent development] is the mother, against her will, to facilitate the son's [or someone else's] attempt to multi-acc abuse. Which kinda proven by the video call, as she has zero clue of her own account


Casinos are most likely uses someone who speak the language of the user to conduct their video KYC. There was an instance where a video verification needed to be scheduled for days because the user speak a language that's only one staff speak of.  Just to give you a better picture the length a casino take to facilitate and validate a video verification.

Yes, maybe the one speak to you uses English [I'm asking BC's confirmation below] but we can almost certain that a staff speaking the language is present during the session, to help with difficulties and/or to simply verify if there's a foul play being involved during the KYC verification, much like what happened to your session.

---

BC.Game Support, is the language being used is OP's local language or English? I assume correctly that your staff speaking the language of OP is present? And they can vouch from his understanding of the dialog happened between OP and her... son is simply not translating her what's being asked, but rather prompting her to answer things and guided het to answer about details that's heavily related to the account?

[Sorry, missed this post and just noticed it during my weekly sweep]

Thank you for your generous words, it means a lot.

Regarding a team, I actually get help from many members. Not a team per se, but they're very helpful.

For example, I once reached efialtis to get him to reach his contact on a casino who barely get in touch with any cases and a case against them has been dragged for months. I always counted on mahdirakib to give his insight on some technicalities of casino, and kirito89 [without trying to give a shout-out to his casino] actually popped up from time to time to help with a surprising [and very much welcome] and very valuable insight from casino's side related on how things work from their side [consider it "an insider information", LOL].

And several casino actually started giving me their direct contact, that I resort from time to time when my PM failed to reach them [others are welcome to do this, it'll help me much as sometimes DM are way faster to get responded than PM or email].

I will still appreciate anyone to pop into my thread of list or to reach me through PM to inform me about a case or two on scam accusation board that I missed, though. I eventually bound to stumble upon this thread, given I give it a a sweep at least once a week, but yeah, a help to notify me if I miss any will be much appreciated.

One matter that I am somewhat sure I can't handle and help will be greatly beneficial, if I may, are cases that's not posted on scam accusation boards, but rather on gambling board, or on a post on the casino's ANN thread. I rarely ventured into these section, so it's very easy and [beyond] extremely possible for me to miss those cases. Unless they're moved to scam accusations board by the mods [as they should be], there is 99% possibility I didn't notice them and they won't be added to my list.

OP, I am doing my weekly sweep to update my list, can you please give us an update regarding your case? Has it been resolved? Has your account be verified? It's been nearly a month since your last update on this thread. I'll appreciate if you can tell us whether it's resolved or not, so I can reflect it to the list.

I'll second Cantsay's bet, "my lawyer is not present".


I have to agree with this one, and the saddest truth is, if she managed to get into this person [which, I believe she'll get her hand to her, eventually, sooner or later] BC can't do much but to release the fund [this part is not the worse actually] and people will think they're the wrong one here and they falsely accuses OP, given she can [eventually] prove her credibility, thus tainted BC's reputation.

I've been waiting for your response to reach their representative, in regards to your concern of data privacy and the involvement of 3rd party verifier, but as it seems you've done it despite your initial reluctance, as well as this new development of the situation, I am notifying their representative, and hopefully he'll come here and give what he thought as well as the best approach to this case.

Circumstantial, I know, which was the reason I didn't mention this and only keep them swirling on the back of my mind, I prefer a more smoking gun like a shared address and something more solid. But since we're going to circumstantial-spree... here's what I have in mind, noticed when I was/am overseeing all three acounts' case that they shared the same tiny writing quirk, but dismissed it as a mere [very uncanny] coincidence:




"wtv" itself is not that uncommon to abbreviate "whatever", a quick look at ninjasatic tell me that many users use them, but I noticed that they are not being used in a simple "wtv", like, "yeah, do what you want, wtv, I don't care", the quirk extend to the use of the format "... or wtv".

And I looked at macedounius' post history. Given I never oversee his case, I am not familiar with his lexicon, but here,


I didn't find this quirk on twentyon3x's post, so it might be an uncanny coincidence and it was nothing, that they're not connected, or it could simply means twentyon3x is not part of the cluster.

Further, it's been previously established through AHOYBRAUSE's finding as well his own confession [on a deleted post] that ghostingura2 and SimpleMachin34 is the same person. Another situation worth mentioning for those who are not following his accusation thread could probably miss [although it's been mentioned by AHOBRAUSE on his post here], was ghostingura2 has an addiction [as such, SimpleMachin34 also had it], and that he's notorious for weaponizing his condition to practically rob a casino, creating a lose-free situation where he asked for his bets to be voided due to his addiction, thus returning his deposit [and the amount he lost].

An interesting fact that I found upon looking at maceduonius' post was that he shared the same mental situation with ghostingura2, and I am not just talking about the addiction, it's the nuclear weapon he invented from his condition:

---

Note: sorry for not following the thread format. I can understand if you get annoyed and deleted this post, OP, but since this is just a circumstantial evidence and I merely voicing what's on my mind, amusing the theory of multi-acc...

That's what I actually try to get to know better. OP initially said on the opening post that she... he... s/he played only recently, and that s/he recently won big, where that's when the problem begin, implying it happened only a short time ago. Then come the added information of five and six months, with multiple attempt to resolve it to no avail. OP did not get into details on this, so we can't be sure about what actually transpires. I hope OP can revisit this matter.

But, my reply to your post was actually focused and limited to the topic about why a casino [and their provider] conduct an investigation following a big bet and flagged the account upon finding signs of abuse.

So, which one is it? What state are we currently in? Legal proceedings or not?




And this. Have you been reaching out to your lawyer and acting under his advise from when the issue first arose, or only recently? Or was it when you first started your thread?

You said [as shown above] that you reached to the lawyer by advise of another user, which wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that he told you to do so and give you the contact only after you made your situation known to public [unless he's somewhat a mind reader], and if that's the case, then it should be around 7th of March for the earliest, while your case has been around since September [if we count back six months from mid-March].


Yet, the once they asked, you refuse to provide?


No they doesn't have the right to freeze an account if the player can prove their credibility. And that's what we try to achieve now, verifying you. If you passed it, they shouldn't be allowed to confiscate your winning. But, instead of doing so and de-escalating it, you didn't even bother to come, which... understandably --especially with what transpires this far-- will probably make them even more suspicious.

Nonetheless, I'll say that you should be given another chance of that video verification. So, BC.Game Support, can you please arrange another one? This one through the channel and procedure that OP preferred?


It's actually "provable" [pun intended] and can be clarified if one do enough research [which, I believe, is actually part of your lawyer's duty] but here:



Did you also tell him that they attempted to do the verification [thus, an update], of which you didn't attend because he [the lawyer advised you to receive the invitation through email, because PM [a written statement from them] doesn't hold any weight in a court room while an email does?

What does he say about sarcasm being used against you in court, as a statement?


Now, talking about accounts being related, I'm not gonna comment further other than pointing out this coincidence, without prejudice, since I'll let people make their own opinion.

---

Edit: ackk... This hectic days of mine really kills me. I typed my long post in between spare time, and realized after posting it that BC already provide the invitation.

BC.Game Support, ignore my invitation above. I understand you've send the link through email? If asked and necessary, IF, are you willing to provide a screenshot to prove that you've invited OP through the channel they requested?

Edit: correcting mis-quote

I've sent Razer a PM, asking for a follow up for this. Please wait a bit for him to come back online and noticed my PM. I am going to send him another PM for a neighboring thread, if he is yet to be online and/or haven't reply here or to my PM for your case when I send him that PM for another case, I'll be sure to mention this topic again. For the time being, please wait a bit.

Ahh, my apology, in the swamped state I am currently in, I forgot about the sports-related nature at CG. May I recommend AskGamblers? Far as I know, they mediates sports-related issues, and BC is on their list too. They might be able to mediate.


I'll try to suggest this when I get in touch with them, but won't it be better to get it done through AG first? Especially with the previous concern about validating a minor league game over a year ago.

Rollback a bit. Initially, when you made your previous post stating "more than 5 months", I dismissed it as a small informative piece of statement. But when you repeated here, I can't help but recalled the timeline you initially described,


Can you please clarify how long was it since they locked your account and asked you for KYC? Recently, following a large amount of money? A short time ago? More than five months, close to six?

While you're at it, can you also tell us how many times have you actually trying to reach them and get it resolved prior to coming here?


I still don't understand why do you "lawyered up" even before you do the video call, the one that you previously wanted.

On point number 1, you also stated, "now all I have is a meeting request that doesn't mean I get my funds", yeah, but it also have a big probability of them releasing your fund as you manage to verify your identity, especially as you're sure [as you ought to be] that you'll pass, given you own the identity and/or the "under duress" situation that BC found is simply a misunderstanding.

If you're in doubt, I think people will normally try to build evidence to prove BC is with malicious intent with the KYC. Taking a video or a screen recording of the video call, perhaps, as it'll prove that [if we amuse a possibility that BC tried to avoid paying you by saying the video verification is invalid] no matter how you prove your credibility and you're not under duress, BC will lie and say other things.

Unless [if we amuse another possible scenario] you're sure from the start that you won't pass the KYC because it'll just strengthen BC's initial findings.

So, yeah, I still don't understand why you lawyered up, be it simply asking for advice [by the way, does the lawyer didn't even ask for a retainer money before providing his advise and guidance?]

And oh, I might be wrong, so if anyone here is familiar with such law it states otherwise, please correct me, but if I am not mistaken, any written statement from an official have weight in court room, so their invitation through PM [which clearly shows it's sent from them, in capacity of BC's representative, and specifically talking about this case] will have as much weight as the ones sent from their email. Huh?


What does your lawyer say about the agreement you entered where you acknowledge that they may request identification whenever they want and lock your account if they believe you're supplying false information? In this case, I think the "false information" come in form of having someone that is not you to perform KYC, perhaps add the fact that you didn't attend to their attempt to clear the issue, given they even already gave another chance by keeping the line open for hours.

And you're suiting [pun intended] yourself up for a legal suit is because...? Also, the reason you did not bother to come to the video call verification that they've arranged is because...? Further, after you throw this verification session away, without so much regard [as it seems], why do you think they should give a second session, and/or not being more suspicious with the authenticity of your account?

And what do you propose the campaign manager to do? While someone from the casino itself, who frequently handle complaints, and clearly has more access to the platform, has already presented himself?

You wanted the CM to reach to his contact [usually a CM are in contact with marketing team who are a separate division from support or whoever assigned to handle dispute] that'll then reach the division that handles dispute, to escalate it to someone else, and whichever chain-of-command that follows, that ultimately followed by and ended with asking someone who handle this forum's representative account to make a post? Oh wait, he's already here.


Nope, I give my best to make it a habit to read a post before looking at the left-most section of the post [the username, rank, merit, etc.] so I don't give prejudice against the content of a post. In fact, more likely than not, the reason why I give a glance at the username and the likes is because the post is very poor [or very nicely written] that the poster made me interested.


Yeah, I am.