Ok, umm... I feel like a fool, but to further clarify, you made a complain when it happened, in 2023, got an answer, and when you discovered this forum, you reached to their support team again to see if their decision changed and the likes? Or... what?

If you would spare some time to weight the story from all sides while standing on a neutral ground, and try to take one or two steps ahead by guessing every possible scenario, I believe you'll see that you're jumping to conclusion. Talking about shady as hell and a clear case of... theft, though, I can't help but wonder where are you coming from?

I mean, not trying to accuse you of anything, simply weighting from all sides and trying to consider as much possible scenario as I can, here's some key fact:

1. You're caught as an identity thief, selling account with people's KYC, as reflected on your trust page
2. Your last post was by 2 June 2023, and you popped right into this thread
3. You insist that BC should accept her KYC or retake it

I have to say that I can't help but consider it is a very nice coincidence that fits the imaginery scenario in my head, about her being forced to do KYC as I described, "or pushed and forced to sit in front of the camera, perhaps they were concerned that the real operator of the user ID #23428479 is someone who tried to bypass account restriction by borrowing her ID, and upon the request of KYC, understanding that their picture won't match her ID, forced her to take her picture."

Can anyone else tell me if I am being way too imaginative and paranoid or is that a legit scenario and a way too eerie coincidence?

---

Actually... yes, there is an evidence of that. I can provide an evidence that BC's representative is currently trying to figure out what to do next, but I don't think that'll be wise of me to do so. As such, I hope, without going to much details, my words holds some water when I said that AHOBRAUSE's educated guess is actually correct, that BC's team are indeed trying to find a way and that their representative are not sitting on their hand.

---

Joana226, it'll be very much appreciated and helpful if you can answer my question on previous post.

We are still waiting for your supporting evidences. It will be very much helpful and easier if you can provide necessary details soonest possible. Otherwise, we can't see if any of your statement hold their weight, much like the conversation with support team mentioned above.

You made your complaint to their support team only recently too? Not when the situation first arise last year? I am confused. You made nine bets last year, one or a couple of them were marked as a violation by their security team, you got your account locked, and you waited for a year to email their team and to escalate it to the forum?

The forum, I can understand, though it is the biggest crypto forum, some might never heard of it before. But inquiring some details to their support team? Why do you wait for nearly one year, if I may ask?

If the deposit returned just after Razer made his post, it'll need some time to arrange the refund and for it to be confirmed and landed to the originating address. Wait and check periodically. I'll appreciate if you can tell us when you received it, so this case can be marked as resolved.

Roughly, what's happening to you is quite similar with other user on the neighboring thread, where the answer Stake's representative gave on CG [he choose CG over AG at that time] is different with the one being provided on other method [you through email and he through live support chat].

Currently, I asked a highly reputable member of this forum to reach to one of his contact at Stake and see if that staff can sort that case out. I don't want to burden him with another case simultaneously, so for the time being, I think it's best to see if having that contact of his looking into the neighboring issue can solve the case. And when it does, I'll try to ask his help to urge that staff to look into yours, suppose that your case is not resolved by itself yet or that staff does not take over one of stake's account here and start tackling issues.

If I am not mistaken, on your previous case with maverick, you mentioned that you traveled a lot and uses VPN, which could contribute to some other account [that is not belonged to you] to be linked to you if you use free VPN, though the possibility is somewhat small, given Rollbit usually matched several datapoints to be sure with their findings of multi-acc abuse prior to locking the account.

I have another theory about sportsbook limitation in my head, I think similar situation [regarding sportsbook] happened in the past, but it's a whole another level of mess I'm currently not interested to dive myself into, so I'll keep that theory for myself for the time being.

I am notifying Razer about this.

Thank you for stepping in and lending a hand. If I may jump in so that your contact at Stake can get this info right away, in case OP goes away for a few days, I believe his Stake username is roblator according to his complaint on AG.

I actually sent one to Razer after you made this post. I saw that he was online on 10th of March, he probably missed it, or he logged into the account for a short time without looking at his inbox. I sent him another one just few seconds ago.

Ahh... thank you for clarifying. May I ask how is this relevant to the part of the post I made regarding the misleading people?


I think, for this one, I can see where the misunderstanding come from. First, I am inviting you to read the definitions of the word "term", I am using the one that google suggested, but Merriam-Webster also covered it nicely, albeit a little harder to understand, IMO.



I believe when "Mkulet" said the word "terms", she was referring to the definition described in point number 1, i.e. a phrase to explain a concept, while you take it as the one depicted in point number 4, a provision of an agreement.


If I may repeat my previous reply regarding this, I can't see where he actually acknowledged it as part of their terms [as in their set of agreement], perhaps you provided a wrong screenshot? Nonetheless, and unless proven otherwise, I actually think the link for that page actually describing enough,



It's "help/responsible-gambling", not "help/responsible-gambling-policy". For reference, their ToS and terms of sport links clearly describe the page is designed for terms for their service, "help/terms-service" and "help/terms-sport", meaning the sub-section of that help page contain terms of their service and terms of their sport.


I am going to be positive and try to not read that as an attempt to extort them again [if you're not getting 500 or your deposit, you'll escalate to CIL where it will cause much more hassle to them], but it will be cruel of me if I don't remind you that you violated your agreement with them, described on point 4.11. the instance you ask for exclusion on Rollbit and still creating an account on their platform. This point most likely will also be brought to CIL's attention, but if you want to go to CIL, believe you're more than free to do that.


Is it not? Please tell me how. It came to their awareness about your addiction by the end of February, of which they promptly tried to do an intervention.


If you gave that part of my post a thorough read, mentioned several times across this thread, actually, you'll see that I said, they will most likely "trap" you with a second agreement where you'll get your account locked. In other words, the 500 USD will not be able to be used to play. It can only be used to, as well as intended for, helping you with your life, regardless of how much USD 500 instrinsically worth to you.

While for "using his account" part, I believe this is where and why they decide to pull that "good gesture" attempt, because they noticed you're still using your account to gamble. They are not leaving you to use your account in the sense of deliberately not freezing your account, they attempted a way to resolve your situation without placing you in an unnecessary distress. When they noticed that you "can't be helped" they took a more drastic measure. I believe this is not hard to understand.


The Responsible-Gaming-Policy is explained on the earlier part of this post. As for CIL, you can try helpdesk@curacaolicensing.com as suggested by CasinoGuru.

Given the representative of their casino is inactive for way too long and most likely will not coming back to this forum, I am considering this one as casino without representative, adding this case to the group of those with lack of representative at the bottom of the list.

I stumbled upon this thread yesterday and refrained from commenting as I am waiting for OP to provide supporting evidence. But as I currently updating the list, I am posting to inform OP that I've add it to the list, it's marked as "invalid" for the time being as it is lacking supporting evidence, I encourage him to complete this thread so a better understanding of the current unfortunate situation that happened to him can be understood easier. I'll change the status to better reflect his situation once everything is completed.

Yeah, my apology, I usually updated the list right away after I am made aware of the scam accusation happened against a casino, as well as sweeping the scam accusation board to be sure all of the recent cases are already added to the list, as well as reviewing their status. But these past couple of days, there are two specific case that... took most of my activity time on the forum. I am updating the list right away.

Umm... I think I'll need some clarification. The bets you made that became the reason your account got banned, it happened only recently? I don't think they made bets that's been settled one year ago as an issue today. Or were you trying to say that you made those bets around one year ago, got them cancelled, you haven't make any bet these last few days, and only recently raised a complaint for those year-old bets?

So to clarify, according to your side, the distress shown by you during the KYC process were simply over-sweating and a "dreamy" eyes? To avoid miscommunication, I actually asked your current situation at that time, that alerted BC's team and prompt them to make this decision.

---

Though I agree that [as I said previously] if OP's KYC shown signs of duress or perhaps even domestic abuse, what they should do is notify the authorities instead of confiscating fund, I won't jump too fast to a conclusion before understanding every side. Perhaps, if the situation BC tried to bring to our awareness involved OP being in a situation where she is clearly "unfit" for a KYC or being forced, like [at an extreme] being held at gun point, or pushed and forced to sit in front of the camera, perhaps they were concerned that the real operator of the user ID #23428479 is someone who tried to bypass account restriction by borrowing her ID, and upon the request of KYC, understanding that their picture won't match her ID, forced her to take her picture.

This is why I ask her what was her situation during that KYC that could trigger BC to classify it as under duress. If it's a mere sweating etc, then it's probably a misunderstanding and an overreaction from BC.

Without being too specific [to avoid confusion: I actually urges you to avoid being very specific and detailed, to keep your anonymity, so a simple yes and no and the likes is good, I think] can you please elaborate more what do you mean when you said you're under pressure? On what situation and condition were you when you perform your KYC? Perhaps it's what BC classify as "under duress".

Perhaps like you're sweating on your forehead? Frowning? Bewildered eyes? Very messy hair due to you pulling it to every direction prior to taking the picture? Or is it something serious that one can easily relate to a domestic abuse like bruises, or redness due to recent slaps?

I am not being nosy, I was just trying to understand better from your side, if you can recall your situation when you underwent the KYC, if it's a simple misunderstanding from simple as a result of and a sign to a light distress, like perhaps your hair covered some part of your face because you're pulling it to every direction ["crazy hair", if you may], your eyes looks dazed and empty like someone in depressive state or withdrawing themselves while you're actually just in shock due to the win.

Let me try to pursue them further about this. But, for the time being, is what they said correct? That you bet on those games [women's handball, and basketball and baseball minor league]? Or was it not exactly correct? Given your bets were just... a few, I believe you can recall your bets quite easily?

I am not sure I understand what you try to say correctly. Do you mind to rephrase?


It is on the "help" section of their site, which host several useful articles like ToS, PF, fees they charge, 2FA, and responsible gaming as one of them. Having them displayed on the same "page" as ToS does not instantly translates it as part of their policy, much like how their 2FA sub-page does not necessarily means Google Authenticator is part of their policy. I hope you can understand these differences.



And on the screenshot you provided [uploaded right above], I can't actually see they confirm that it is part of their ToS. Perhaps you provided a wrong screenshot?


It does, point 4.8. on their ToS,




To be fair and to clarify, I am currently not pressuring anyone. Neither you nor BC. I am simply inquiring to know more and straighten some facts or clarify things. BC's process of answering my questions just happen to be happening through a direct communication with their representative. Yes, for those who follows my line of questioning, they'll be familiar with my preference, that I always urge communication to happen publicly here on the forum instead of privately through PM or DM.

However, it seems BC has concluded this case with their last post here, and I believe I am not the only one who think they have the right to do so, as their latest explanation actually explains about your situation quite nicely. In other words, your case can actually be ruled as resolved, however as you're still inquiring more, I am more than happy to help overseeing it, and thus I tried to get BC's answer from other source, which I believe they provided as a gesture of good will and maintain their honesty with me.

If you prefer me to stop trying to reach BC through DM, kindly inform me so, and I'll refrain from chasing this case any further by asking them some details. Whether they will come and answer here themselves after that, though, I can't guarantee that.


I understand that I will extremely sound biased with my answer addressing above points, but rest assured that I am not taking their side, nor yours. I am simply stating what I believe happened from the evidences [statements, screenshots, etc.] gathered so far.

Yes, they closed your account as soon as they found about your condition, this is true, although it need a slight correction. They became aware of your situation by 29th of February, when they DMed you but they did not close your account right away. They attempted an alternative way, offering you a "bribe" [if I may use that word casually] in hope they can "trap" you into exclusion without placing your state of mind in enough stress in concern of you having a relapse and succumbed to your addiction by playing in other casino. Upon understanding that they can't pursue this path, they take a more direct method by asking you to exclude yourself, and later on banning you themselves when you did not heeding their subtle request. So yes, they close your account as soon as they found out about your mental condition, but they tried to do it in a compassionate way.

I think this is actually a very positive attitude of BC and, to be honest, I am surprised that a representative can think of a very delicate approach and having a gambler's state of mind to their consideration when they attempted to exclude the user for addiction. This is the first time I evidenced such approach, as usually a casino will just ban right away.

Unless I understand things and read evidences this far wrongly, I think all of the explanation and screenshots actually lead to this conclusion above. And yes, though I, and AHOYBRAUSE, mentioned about your situation on this thread far before 29th of February, their representative has explained that they did not read those posts when it's made. The situation of your condition only came to their awareness around the time they attempted that "bribe". It is very a common occurance that a representative did not notice a post or two, or even a whole thread. I usually have to send a casino representative a PM notifying them and inviting them to give their side of an accusation just to brought it to their representative's awareness, just so you can get a better picture of how a post can be missed.

As I said earlier, I can understand that I will sound extremely biased, because my sentence above looks like I heavily leaning towards and favoring BC, but I am assuring you again that the statement above was made from what I believe happened, gathered from everything provided up to this point. You are more than free to point out where I understand wrongly.

29th of February as in around the time BC.Game Support reached you through PM to try their approach? Namely, in a simple yes or no, the answer to "have you mentioned about your addiction and tried to get your situation came to their awareness other than the instance with "Doris" on the 18th, and prior to the early or March" is a "no", excepting 29th, of which they promptly put things in motion, attempting a peaceful approach to handle your situation?

As such, your claim of mentioning about your situation many times to no avail is somewhat very misleading, given the impression casted by that statement will be that you in constant attempt to inform them, while actually you only mentioned it after that fact was unearthed and you seemingly [at least to me, and if I may be brutally honest] try to use that as a leverage.

Please feel free to correct me where I wrong.


For this, I've inquired to them and indeed that passage was a guide and a help page, as indicated by the placement of the page itself [not within the ToS page]. And, as such, you're also not quite right about that being their Responsible Gaming Policy. Taking the initiative to check them myself, their Responsible Gaming/Gambling Aware Policy as stated and covered on their ToS [of which both parties agreed] are:





In regards to this, it actually does not work in your favor, given you breached their policy on 4.11. the instance you ask for exclusion on Rollbit, which actually grant them the right to retain everything. While for the removal of the limitations "feature" from their page, I assume it's to avoid confusion like what happened right now, that people misunderstood it as a feature, or a part of their ToS of which both parties agreed, instead of a guide.

No one is attacking you, we are just trying to be sure every ground is covered and the situation is well understood, that you entered everything correctly, verbatim, and there is no typo at all that could be the reason why this situation arise. Accidentally pressing different letter, missed a character or two [or adding one too much] is something that can happen. From my own personal experience, I once had to spend an entire day going back and forth, having my phone calls transferred between departments in a bank because my data didn't match and they can't verify my credential.

Upon everything being cleared, as it turned out, the root of it was because I missed to input one digit on my personal phone number [the data I submitted on their database has one digit less than what my phone number should be], that's why they refused to grant me access to unlock my [accidentally blocked due to incorrect password] banking app.

The other reason why we need to be sure that we understand everything correctly, that you're sure everything is correct, or that Stake never give you a way to verify or revise your data on KYC 1 and 2, is because if you didn't do anything wrong [not in a sense of attacking you, but rather in confirming that you input everything correctly] and they still lock you out or not facilitating a way to revise your data [in spite of whatever they claim] and ask you to stop emailing them instead, then this will be the second case of KYC related issue with Stake, amongst many with different basis that is yet to be solved.