First and foremost, I'm reuploading your screenshots to talkimg --please use this image hosting site in the future, it'll make things easier-- so everybody can get access to the better context of the situation easier:



That done, addressing your issue, as I am quite sure you're well aware since it was mentioned by their support, they have the right to ask for KYC anytime they want, as per clause 4 on their ToS



And like Mahdirakib implied, KYC nowadays are not specifically need to be triggered by high amount, nor perhaps a strange betting pattern from your side. If we want to try to look from other possibility, maybe it was actually indeed triggered by a suspicious activity, only... it's not from your side.

From time to time we get cases of multi-acc abuse landed in our plate where the casino are very sure of the abuse, because they've identified the ID of the abuser through KYC. Maybe, this is the side that we finally privileged to witness, how they singled out the abuser from the legit ones.

What I tried to propose is, maybe your account was suspected to be a part of a cluster of multi-acc abuse, thus they asked for further KYC, to eliminate or to put you on the same box with the suspect.

I can understand the reluctance of KYC, though. Given you said that you won't mind providing  your document if they use a third party verifier, most likely, they do, many casinos use services like veriff. If you want to, I can try to find some info about this, though, whether they hire an independent third-party verificator or they do it themselves.

Let me know.

I'll ask BC.Game Support to cross-check this and confirm.


They did that when they noticed it, right away, that's when they approached to you with the peaceful strategy, to "pay" you while they attempted to set an exclusion on you, without putting much psychological stress on you, in concern of relapse. Upon realizing that it is not the best approach, they went to close your account right away. By this narrative, the only mistake they have, if any, is trying to be compassionate instead of strict.


I will very much appreciate if you can procure those screenshots.


I assume CIL will --like other license holders-- require you to exhaust every possible attempt of dispute resolution prior to reaching them. Have you?


As stated above, I am asking their representative to check and confirm this exchange of communication. But I figure you can also provide it from your side if you can provide us with the screenshot of those "confession". It'll be much appreciated if you can provide them here too, that you mentioned it from time to time about your situation, prior to the first and second of March.

I was trying to get to that betting history, the one provided to me through DM was not the whole history, and as such I did not post it here [neither giving it a thorough look as it doesn't contribute anything to the case, and I don't want to be nosy]. As you've give your permission, I think BC.Game Support are more than welcome to provide it here by themselves.

As for your pending and available fund, whether it is withdrawable, to be honest, I don't think you can as they won't allow it. As OP said, you're in overall profit. In the situation where this case was proven to side with BC, where you're actually abusing them, much like other casinos, they'll confiscate the winning of those in overall profit to cover their loss from the abuses done to them by the player.

Risking to induce headache to anyone reading this cluster-mess of pyramid quote, I'll dive. And for that very reason, I'll only quote snippets of JPR's post that I think is relevant. Some will not followed a quote, but rather a summary of discussion banter a brain abuse statement, marked in bold and underline.

First, regarding taking advantage and misleading people:

The only one being misled that when Pmalek talking about advantage he's referring about money is you. Pretty much sure anyone else understood what he refers to and tries to say: namely you utilizing the bug you discovered to [what I can only describe as] fulfill your personal vendetta because someone used it against you. You said and I quote:


Second, and still related to the first matter, about advantage; regarding never play BJ and/or on their platform:

You asked me this very similar question on your own thread, do I correctly assume the reason is [according to you] if no one ever played on their platform, that person will have no idea of how the game works, i.e.: the free roll etc.? Well, OP has nicely explained it to us, so it'll be very safe to assume that even no one ever set foot on that platform, just from reading the explanation Eva gave, they'll have a clear idea that there are two kinds of game on their platform, the real one [with real money, losing fund, winning a game, etc] and the beta testing [free entry and lose nothing when someone lose the game]. As you always read every post, I believe you understand and can find the posts I am referring.

As such, just like Pmalek said, the "real money", though someone has a potential of earning a winning money, it's still a free roll, the prize money coming from the owner. If someone lose, they lose nothing, they suffer no financial damage, of which you argued it's still real and people investing time and so on. In relation to the point above, I'd give you a chance to make your stance clear on this matter: it is a free roll and thus when you do what you did over and over [though you're not coming as the winner of that match], it is not taking advantage of anyone because there is no one suffering a loss, since they did not sacrifice anything to join the game, or is it a real money and real investment because even though the prize money coming from the owner, people are still investing their time on it, as such, when you did what you did, you're placing someone at a disadvantage because by manipulating the bug, you're denying someone of the chance that they win something, made them lose their time investment, and not to mention the moral and emotional damage branching from a frustration?

Third, circumstantial evidence, you can rest assured that the DTs, especially those who oversee the scam accusation thread most likely are not light handed on leaving tag, waiting and looking for enough evidence, be it a direct or circumstantial, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or to a clear point of which most can agree to a conclusion. That's what Pmalek mean when he said the police and the judge [side note, lest you twist it to drive a narrative: in no way we claim that we are or we think we are the police or the judge] made their decision from evidence being provided, people does not necessarily have to have the exact experience playing on a specific platform just to think the evidence being provided held its weight or not, and whether they incriminate the "suspect".

I believe you should be very familiar with how this works, given that's the very reason why no DT is supporting your thread, nor leaving a tag on BJF [for the time being] in regards to your case, because it lack of proof, evidence provided are circumstantial at best, if not a hearsay, and you can't even spell it out to this point what's the scam is [well, actually you said it on your opening post, but it was not proven, so we demanded what's the remaining and actual scam is]

Next, mirror, mirror, oh mirror, you claimed that, "you can go back and read all my posts and you will not find me insulting anyone first. it is only when someone insults me that I will defend myself and I will be his or her mirror." You sure? Go back and read your exchange of communication with me. Up to this post, all I do was explaining things to you, asking for a clarification about the mystery of what the scam was, made it known that they can't return your deposit because you refused to provide an address, all in a polite manner, and your reply was, "Please stop with your lies and wrong info. just read the thread before you give your false info". Was that not an insult? And you're the one throwing it first. Contradicting your own statement of mirror, aren't you? Or did you forget? Or you didn't mean to? But... but... on the other post, you "accuse" those who didn't take your side and instead inquired more [thus, me included] as not reading the whole accusation thread, while factually everyone did.

What's that if not an insult? An attempt to paint someone the way they actually are not? Hmm... what's the term for it, again? Libel?

Now, this one,


Can we have a proof of it? You having a high IQ. Otherwise, it'll be a circumstantial at best, a hearsay at most. LMAO.

This single sentence itself is eligible to make us question your logic and [borrowing your way-overused word] IQ. It is honestly frown inducing. Can't you see how that sentence contradict and answer itself? I don't know if the bug is fixed or not [I am currently inquiring about that very thing to Eva], and since I don't know about it, how on earth can I say it in a yes or no? You want me to say "yes"? If then it's not fixed, that'll be misleading. If I say "no" and it actually already fixed, I'll be making a false statement. Can't you see this very simple equation?


Hmm... I think it'll be safe to assume and imagine the rough form of that glitch based on your explanation here, or perhaps the ones in a quite detail, given on the opening post. Can't people guess what's the exploit looks like?


And the reason it's brought and mentioned here if you can't prove it, is...?


On their platform, no. But playing BJ? Yeah, occasionally, for fun. I can't see how this is relevant to your explanation. If may elaborate, and perhaps begin explaining that way overdue explanation?

Based on their statement that I managed to immortalize in form of a screenshot here [post #551], they decided to go private, selling their product to private sectors and will reimburse their token holders from the profit they made, presumably in form of a buy-back.

However, judging from how they are right now, what I said on that post a couple of years ago still stands true: bleak. Here's what we know: their telegram group was not available anymore, their website is no longer accessible, and their representative --as you discovered it yourself-- deleted his Twitter account.

This time, I actually have to agree with this. What kind of "KYC under threat" do you mean and how is it justifies the account being locked and amount winning being held? She shows the distress hand signal on her KYC? If she did, notify the authorities to send help to her home, not confiscate her funds.

Please elaborate more.

I am snipping the rest of the post as I'll address them in whole on my later post, after these two points confirmed:


What I tried to say was, did you request an exclusion, informing them again about addiction, and other efforts to make it known to them about your situation, in other occasions aside from the one you had with "Doris" back in 18th of February?


A little correction, that is not their terms and condition. The points being referred here actually located on the responsible-gambling section of the help page. It is not on their ToS. That said and straightened, I'll try to get to the bottom of this, but if I may freely ventured a guess, I think that's a planned feature to have in the future, where you can set your maximum bets or maximum screen-time before you're locked for the rest of the day [or the week]. Or perhaps that's just a suggestion, to check if the casino someone about to play have such feature to help them with addiction, in case it happened, without necessarily means they offered such feature.

I can understand the annoyance, it's a very big amount being confiscated. If I may ask you to take one deep breath and help me understand better, have you "revised" your information and give the proper one that matches the entries between level 1 and level 2 KYC? As AHOYBRAUSE explained to you, maybe there was a typo or something that make the data you submitted for KYC level 2 doesn't match verbatim with the one you used to submit for level 1.

Have they facilitate you with a way to correct this? Or is there a way to correct it yourself manually? And have you try that?

Not a solution, but it'll at least corroborate your story, if they accessed the casino from their own device, and thus the log will shows that the accounts in question were probably owned by several people instead of you yourself, as the accessing device were varied. Unless... they all happen to be an iPhone or Android user with exactly similar browser preference?

And I think showing it publicly will be better. The information needed is the device details, not the IP. You're more than free to cover that part.

Are you not inquiring about addiction and was asking for limitation only by the early of March? With one instance before that was on 18th of February, when you're chatting with Doris and discussing about withdrawing with 99% wager requirement completed, reasoning that you're an addict?

As for me [and others] mentioning it on this thread, that you have a problem, though it is stated by 24th, there is a very big chance they're yet to read that post [their explanation actually confirm this] and it only come to their awareness when they attempted that peaceful approach of USD 500 compensation.

For the wager itself, even though it's just cents away from a million dollar deposit, which means it is infinitesimal, they still have to comply to the AML regulation, 1x wager requirement, means 100%. As previously mentioned, I somewhat sure they'll be more than happy to comply if you stated on that chat that you want the fund to be sent to the originating address, as it'll minimize the possibility of money laundering by a lot. Did you say this?

Lastly, you mentioned that by the end of 18 February chat, you should have been able to be blocked as you were able to withdraw your balance, which I assume means you made a small bet and fulfill that 1x wager requirement. The question is, did you return to their live support and ask for account closure by that time?

May I know how long has it passed since you made the withdrawal request and they investigate it? As mentioned by Learn Bitcoin above, an investigation following a big win is a known procedure. If you can tell us further how long has it been on investigation, it'll help us understand how serious this situation is.

---

Umm... three so far? One is a gambling addict with a known alt which previously had similar situation with Rollbit, one is under a counter-accusation of illegal betting and multi-acc abuse, of which that two currently being attended by their support, and this one which --depending on the waiting time-- is probably a non-issue, and that's most likely not addressed yet because even up to OP's explanation above, the situation is yet to be clear. I don't think BC can exactly be blamed if people are trying to take advantage of their casino, much like other casinos that become the frequent victim of baseless accusation.

Honey... did you bother to read my post on BJF's thread? I inquired them exactly that. If they are yet to answer to my question [that's also asked by several other members], how on earth can I give you an answer and 100% sure about it, if they're yet to answer it? Who do you think I am? NSA?

Due to that very same reason, their silence, is why I proposed to you the possibility that if no one complained on their platform or here, the bug is fixed, as there are chances other also find and could replicate the bug just as you did, tried the bug, and others complained about it. Of which your reply was that can roughly summed up as my proposal is invalid and only shows that I am clueless, and I ask [which yet to be explained up to this point] which part of it is invalid?

Feel free to evade it and give no explanation again, and blabber other things instead.

BC.Game Support, thank you for coming and explaining things from your side, it actually helps a lot and shedding light into this case.

---

If I may jump in and give my opinion, the short answer is, "yes, but only if...".

Yes, they could block your account and refund your deposit to the originating address... if you stated as such in details, that you have an addiction, afraid that if you place another bets to fulfill the wagering requirement you'll succumb further to your addiction and thus you asked them to drop your fund back to the originating address to minimalize the money laundering possibility.

Since you only mentioned that you have a gambling problem and wanted to withdraw your fund [that is yet to meet the AML requirement, no matter how small the remaining requirement is], and since they have similar situations in the past from bad people, it is quite understandable that they took precaution and still insisting on the minimum wager, marking your request as a money laundering attempt instead of a gambling addiction.

Jumping to your proposal of refund,


As their representative already explained and made it known to us, your situation was only come to their awareness by the first or second of March, when you reached to them about your addiction. As it turns out, though you said you tell them numerous times, you were never mentioned about it from the time you contacted them asking for withdrawal [18th of February], nor was my earlier post here informing them had managed itself into their awareness.

They discovered it, from which they immediately jump into action and take several attempts to help you, only from the beginning of March when you mentioned this to their live support, which ended up with your account being bricked because you refused to perform self-exclusion nor responding to it.

In accordance to the narrative above, I don't think the option to rollback to the moment of your first deposit will be applicable, because they are not aware of your situation. Nor did the moment you stated your addiction on the first time as it was unclear to them whether you're really an addict or attempting to bypass a minimum withdrawal policy. And finally, the time the forum users informed them about it also didn't apply as it didn't reach them.

I hope this clears your issue with BC and we can mark this case as resolved.

Sorry for the bits of delay, I deliberately took one full day from your case, re-reading the exchange of PM over and over to consider things from different perspective, to be sure I am not biased when I serve my argument.

I believe what differentiate your "offer" and theirs is the intent.

First of all, I'll bring it to your awareness [and everyone else's reading this] that we are entering the realm of my pure assumption from the next sentence going forward.

And on we go.

Giving you both a benefit of doubts, that you both simply poorly wording your words, from their side, the intent is most likely benign; It's been brought to our awareness that the delay on the bet settlement was from the sportsbook provider's end, not theirs. They are actually not obligated to refund your loss. As such, the offer is most likely a show of good gesture, they even probably put your addiction into their mind when they offer the USD 500 and the [poorly worded] cease to reply from the thread.

In one of their PM, they said that they detected you're having a problem with gambling and strongly recommending you to take a self-exclusion, so I probably wrong when I said they locked you account due to me notifying them. They noticed that you need help, recommending you to voluntarily take action, and when you didn't do that, they take things into their own hand by limiting you. May I know when exactly your account got limited, just to be sure my theory is correct?

Probably, what they tried to achieve when they say to cease discussion is for you to stop discussing and having your mind on gambling right away, to minimize your involvement with gambling world [i.e. your "poison"] as much as they can help, as well as to keep you unprovoked, taking the slower and more peaceful approach to handle your situation; lest you experienced a frustration and express it by placing bets on other betting platform or perhaps even theirs [it is a known cases where gamblers with addiction take the comfort in going back to gambling when they're under pressure].

Suppose you get in time and replied to their PM, agreeing to stop yourself from getting involved in this case anymore, they'll probably "trap" you with a second agreement where once you get the USD 500 and withdraw it, you'll get your account locked and excluded. Thus, effectively handling your addiction with you thinking you're at the win as you got some compensation, they lose because they have to pay you on top of the bet being settled, while they actually fulfill their side of Gamble Aware regulation.

Noticing that their attempt of good-will was for naught, i.e. you kept troubling and frustrating yourself on this situation, and probably even gambled once or twice to get away from the stress it caused, they withdraw their offer altogether and get to a direct approach by going strict and tell you to apply for self-exclusion, and when you didn't, they lock you out.

Meanwhile, from your side, why I previously said it's an extortion, your reply to them can be simplified into: "pay me or I will make a lot of trouble and chase for a way higher number. So, you can pay me that USD 500 now and we settle things for good, or you'll lose way more than that."

To straighten things, can you tell us what you actually tried to convey with your PM?

If I am not wrong, you made nine bets so far? Let me try to get a way around your blockage and provide the betting history on your behalf so we can understand things better. But before I take any action... do I have your permission to get this information and post it here?

Were you referring to this thread by twentyon3x? I can't find the third one. Do you mind leading me to it?

OP's ID #23428479 is and twentyon3x's is #12808212. By the time I make this post, I haven't read twentyon3x's case, only a very quick glance [I'll head there right after this], so I am not familiar with it yet, I'll try to get an information if they're related, but from what I can gather from the very short time my eyes landed on that thread, I don't think this is the case.

---

OP, Joanna226, to complete the blank field on your report, the profile link will be: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2503677, and the proof of payment can be filled with TXID of your deposit. I think you can leave the reference link empty if you don't have any.

Further, your chat logs is inaccessible, at least for me, not sure if anyone else can access it just fine. I'll appreciate if you can reupload them to talkimg as it'll be very much helpful in helping us understand. I'll notify BC's representative after you've provide enough evidence.

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding you experienced from my post because I snip it rather poorly. When I said "noted", I was referring to his explanation about the rest of the screenshot with your live support, not his post about you ignoring him.

And OP, I am still waiting for that link. I was just from AG and CG, I still can't find your complaint.

Hi, thank you for going into so much trouble to sort this out.

OP, here's the answer to your situation. If you have anything to add that can disprove the explanation above, you're free to do so. Otherwise, I will be marking this case as resolved as I think Steve's explanation and one point or two you made on your posts matched this narrative.

I thought the last time you're here, you offered to show the log-in log of your girlfriend and friends? The ones that hopefully also shows some details about device to prove that it is not belongs to and accessed from your own but instead truly from your friends? What happened with that plan?