If I may clarify, by "contention", you mean I am being contentious by proposing the possible scenario of Blo and Joana? How, if I may ask? You don't agree that BC made a good call freezing the account if that's what really happens?


I believe they could, asked to repeat the KYC. There are instances where when photos [though it's not the selfie photos, but I think it also happened in many occasions] are unfavorable, like blurry or accidentally covered, the casino asked for them to re-submit the photo in a more clear details.

However, I can't say that I am not agree if some cases need different approach.

For instance, a case where domestic abuse are clearly visible, they should inform the authority instead of freezing an account [though logically, temporarily freezing the account until the authorities take action might be a nice approach, to minimize the possibility the funds, suppose it's actually rightfully theirs as in the account was indeed controlled and owned by them and they win the prize fair and square, were taken from the victim's hand by the abusive significant other], or when the user are clearly shown to be forced to do KYC against their will because their identity were [forcefully] "borrowed", like they're being tied to a chair to have their picture taken for verification purpose or --to a more extreme degree-- held at gun point.

There are many terms to describe "under duress", and though some are generally agreeable to a point that it is a sign of duress [those tied on a chair, held at gun point, signs of domestic abuse, etc.], some can also be highly subjective, that the observer are highly biased and over-reacting to a situation, like misjudging the dreamy eyes as a vacant and depressive look, messy hair as a sign of distress, etc. that is what I tried to get a better picture of; from you.

If you can help us understand how and why did BC conclude your KYC picture as "under duress", we might be able to get to the bottom of the situation, whether it is a clear sign, agreeable to a point, that the person performing KYC is unfit to verify their identity, or is it a biased situation where the staff performing KYC-check get overreactive and misread the dazed look as a completely different situation.

So, again, I ask, can you describe, in a not-too-descriptive manner, your situation when you took your selfie for KYC? What could possibly triggers BC to think you're under duress? Were it simply because you're get over-excited and have a crazy-looking eyes, you got nervous and sweats a lot?


Please rephrase, I don't think I fully understand the part I mark in underline.


You were left out, and I am focused on your situation as well.


I believe that's completely up to BC, to answer the previous questions, with mine included. All I can do is asking questions, proposing a solution, offering a possible scenario and educated guess, the decision to an action, as always, much like every other cases I've attended, is up to the casinos and their representative. But I believe the pace of you clarifying the situation will help.


What? Where did I say that, exactly? The selfie at gun-point is [clearly] an exaggerated situation of the scenario "performing KYC against their will", I don't think I've ever say, nor whatever I said this far can be interpreted as an encouragement in any degree that when someone lose a bet, they can simply take a selfie for KYC with a gun pointed on them to void the bets.

The explanation of voiding bets were a response and explanation to your inquiry about the situation being reversed, that when someone lost more than USD 90,000, and did a violation of the ToS they agreed, BC took a step that apparently [according to your words] highly unlikely according to common knowledge, by voiding all bets and credited the user back with their lost fund.

Oh, I see. To confirm, you and your friend are not accessing the site from the same computer that your other friend [the one recommending it and played around one year ago] use?

Still waiting for that screenshot with their support.

Other than these, do you mind to provide your betting history too? It'll probably help us understand what actually happened, because I find that your explanation is a bit contradictory. I'm not accusing you of anything, perhaps it's a language barrier and you mis-conveyed what you tried to say, that's why I asked for a screenshot of your betting history, it might help us understand things easier.

For reference, I am referring to this inconsistency:

Actually... I personally think it can't be more crucial to dissect Mona Lisa following my last imaginative [possible] scenario.

Let's assume that the real person whose ID used for KYC [we'll assume her name is Joana] had her credential borrowed by a guy named Blo-Somme because Blo was excluded from BC, or did a violation and was perma-banned, thus he borrowed other's credential to circumvent this limitation, and she was forced against her will to perform KYC, and since she was reluctant to sit in front of a camera and get her picture taken, Blo had to hold her shoulder and pressed her down to keep her seated, slapped her, etc.

Looking at this KYC picture, BC's compliance team got concerned if Joana really is the one who control BC ID #23428479, and thus rejected the KYC.

Question for you: won't you think [if the imaginative scenario above is what actually transpired], BC did a good decision by trying to froze the account? Since Blo was using it to circumvent his restriction and Joana never actually played on their casino?

As such, it can't be more crucial to dissect our beloved Mona. So, do you mind telling us, roughly and without being too specific, can you tell us what possible situation were you at when you performed KYC that prompt BC to think Joana226 shows a sign of duress?


Then, uhh... contrary to common knowledge, they actually took those steps, they've been there and they've done that. There were cases in the past where they refunded user who did a violation, voiding bets that also includes the losing bets [thus crediting the player back with the lost fund], and even paid a price difference from BTC's fluctuation from when the case started up to when it got resolved.

And oh, if you don't mind, can you tell us what you ate that day? What was the color of your poop? Of course, you don't have to answer these last two questions.

I'll ask once more, in case you missed that part of my post: that part of conversation with their support team, stating as you claimed, that he allowed you and your friend to access through the same PC, it'll be very much appreciated.


So which one is it, exactly? You and your friend were betting on the same computer or your friend played there somewhere around one year ago and have been stopped playing ever since? Make up your mind.

From the screenshot you provided, it shown as from 29th of February, this year, a couple of weeks ago, and not from last year. 29th of February only happened on a leap year, which the closest to an event occured last year will be this year, so it's safe to assume that email was not an old screenshot from last year. So I assumed you only reached to them recently.

So, you're contacting them from time to time, inquiring about the same issue?

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?