BC.GAME - CASINO-SPORTBOOK, OFFICIAL SPONSOR LEICESTER CITY!

[rigs3130]

For transparency, I’m closing my updates here.

I followed all internal escalation paths provided by BC.Game, including live support, VIP support, and the CEO Letterbox, which BC.Game states is specifically for algorithm transparency and VIP service quality concerns.

My issue falls under both categories. I submitted a detailed CEO Letterbox report (with screenshots) and received no acknowledgment or response, while live support continued to redirect me back to the same channel without taking ownership or issuing a written position.

At this point, internal resolution has been exhausted. I’m no longer engaging with live support and will proceed through external review channels if needed.

I’m not making accusations or asking for tags — just documenting the process and outcome for the record.

[PX-Z]

I wouldn't consider the KYC cases to be confirmed scam attempts either... BC.Game doesn't require KYC from its customers for fun, but is forced to do so by the various licenses the site holds. What you can hold against them – and many other sites – is that KYC is often only required for larger payouts. Unfortunately, this is common practice in the crypto online casino industry.

There are lots of withdrawal issue of bcgame lately even on the first page of scam accusation board. As well as deposit issues, i guess there is wrong with their banking/disburesement account/s.
Also, if they require you to submitted kyc info, they reject your submission (probably blurred, not clear details) don't allow to resubmit again, then eventually close the account, live support don't answer your question and automatically close your ticket. It's unfair, right? That's how bcgame complaints on that board.

[Haunebu]

Assuming you’re referring to scam accusations posted on the forum, which I honestly haven’t checked yet, it does make me wonder why the community still hasn’t tagged them. That makes me think the accusations might lack solid evidence, or at least not enough to completely damage the casino’s reputation. Around here, tags aren’t given lightly. So if nothing has happened so far, it probably means the claims aren’t strong enough yet, or they’re still being questioned by the community.

There's lots of solid evidence out there supporting those accusations, but they are primarily related to their unethical ways of withholding player funds and not outright scamming which is why they were not tagged though that could change in the future as their reputation keeps sinking.

What accusations are you referring to here? I haven't really been following the scam accusations here in the forum lately, but the ones I remember were all cleared up and 90% of them were legitimate payment refusals by BC.Game.

They have proven themselves to be one of those sites that use KYC as a tool to try and avoid paying out(Small or Big amounts). Their FIAT payment processor is completely broken these days. They aren't outright scammers, but there are far better alternatives than these greedy morons.

[Questat]

There are lots of withdrawal issue of bcgame lately even on the first page of scam accusation board. As well as deposit issues, i guess there is wrong with their banking/disburesement account/s.
Also, if they require you to submitted kyc info, they reject your submission (probably blurred, not clear details) don't allow to resubmit again, then eventually close the account, live support don't answer your question and automatically close your ticket. It's unfair, right? That's how bcgame complaints on that board.

I guess in that case it really depends on how gamblers evaluate it. Even if there are a number of scam accusations against a casino, as long as their rep account here is still clean, most gamblers will assume everything is fine.

Personally, I’m using this casino for both betting and casino games, and I haven’t faced any problems so far. Of course, my experience might not be the same as others.

As for deciding whether they’re guilty or not, I think that’s up to DT members in the end. But if you ask me right now, I’ll still continue using the casino.

[mirakal]

Assuming you’re referring to scam accusations posted on the forum, which I honestly haven’t checked yet, it does make me wonder why the community still hasn’t tagged them. That makes me think the accusations might lack solid evidence, or at least not enough to completely damage the casino’s reputation. Around here, tags aren’t given lightly. So if nothing has happened so far, it probably means the claims aren’t strong enough yet, or they’re still being questioned by the community.

There's lots of solid evidence out there supporting those accusations, but they are primarily related to their unethical ways of withholding player funds and not outright scamming which is why they were not tagged though that could change in the future as their reputation keeps sinking.

In that case, let’s just leave it to the gamblers to judge the casino themselves. At least the information is out there, and if they take time to explore the forum, they’ll see those scam accusations and decide for themselves. Since DT doesn’t seem to treat it as a serious issue, then nothing major is happening for now. Still, the important part is knowing how to minimize the risk on our end.

And if things eventually go downhill for that casino, others will simply take its place.  In the end, it’s not really a big loss for us as players since there are always other options.

[adultcrypto]

I guess in that case it really depends on how gamblers evaluate it. Even if there are a number of scam accusations against a casino, as long as their rep account here is still clean, most gamblers will assume everything is fine.

Personally, I’m using this casino for both betting and casino games, and I haven’t faced any problems so far. Of course, my experience might not be the same as others.

As for deciding whether they’re guilty or not, I think that’s up to DT members in the end. But if you ask me right now, I’ll still continue using the casino.

I have also used the platform for long and I have not had any issue. Sometimes I wonder what is going on that so many people complain of issues with the platform when I have not had such experience. It is already obvious that lost of those complaints are coming from Indians that use fiat deposit and withdrawals. This makes me believe that BC.Game may not entirely be at fault in all of these but the problem will be with the payment processors that refused to credit the money to the right people. I will be happy to see anyone who deposited or made withdrawal in crypto come forward to complain so we know if the issue is really different from what we know.

[Lakai01]

They have proven themselves to be one of those sites that use KYC as a tool to try and avoid paying out(Small or Big amounts). Their FIAT payment processor is completely broken these days. They aren't outright scammers, but there are far better alternatives than these greedy morons.

You probably mean the cases of Indian players who tried to cash out in their local currency (Indian rupee) and where the payout did not work, is that right?

As far as I know, this had to do with the payment provider itself and not with a specific casino. Several casinos were affected by the problem, not only crypto casinos but also large, internationally operating online casinos.

If you have other cases that are unrelated to the Indian rupee incident, I would of course be very grateful for any links.

But basically, your statement is correct of course: no one is forced to play at BC.Game. However, I would not describe the people behind BC.Game as "greedy morons." 

[rigs3130]

Since my winnings got taken forfeitted, back to BC Game (they are treating my bonus code I used as if it were a new player bonus, returning only the bonus amount being $5) - theres been new return to play 100% campaigns, and bc game giving back to players - - its just a bad experience at the moment overall, since my winnings come from genuine game outcomes, and there was a significant wager prior to the win that went into producing the win amount overall even if it come from a bonus code the original funds, i wagered it 40x and to be a SVIP4 and find out at this stage of my account and game play and VIP status.

[Questat]

I guess in that case it really depends on how gamblers evaluate it. Even if there are a number of scam accusations against a casino, as long as their rep account here is still clean, most gamblers will assume everything is fine.

Personally, I’m using this casino for both betting and casino games, and I haven’t faced any problems so far. Of course, my experience might not be the same as others.

As for deciding whether they’re guilty or not, I think that’s up to DT members in the end. But if you ask me right now, I’ll still continue using the casino.

I have also used the platform for long and I have not had any issue. Sometimes I wonder what is going on that so many people complain of issues with the platform when I have not had such experience. It is already obvious that lost of those complaints are coming from Indians that use fiat deposit and withdrawals. This makes me believe that BC.Game may not entirely be at fault in all of these but the problem will be with the payment processors that refused to credit the money to the right people. I will be happy to see anyone who deposited or made withdrawal in crypto come forward to complain so we know if the issue is really different from what we know.

Looks like it, which is why we shouldn’t be too quick to judge. There are people like me who don’t really have any issues with fiat deposits and withdrawals on this site.

Regulations vary from country to country, so problems like this can happen. If someone keeps running into issues, then trying crypto might be the easier solution, and if that still doesn’t work, just leave the casino. Simple as that.

[bitcoinchaserteam]

There are lots of withdrawal issue of bcgame lately even on the first page of scam accusation board. As well as deposit issues, i guess there is wrong with their banking/disburesement account/s.
Also, if they require you to submitted kyc info, they reject your submission (probably blurred, not clear details) don't allow to resubmit again, then eventually close the account, live support don't answer your question and automatically close your ticket. It's unfair, right? That's how bcgame complaints on that board.

I guess in that case it really depends on how gamblers evaluate it. Even if there are a number of scam accusations against a casino, as long as their rep account here is still clean, most gamblers will assume everything is fine.

Personally, I’m using this casino for both betting and casino games, and I haven’t faced any problems so far. Of course, my experience might not be the same as others.

As for deciding whether they’re guilty or not, I think that’s up to DT members in the end. But if you ask me right now, I’ll still continue using the casino.

You’re not wrong to question it. When withdrawal delays, failed deposits, and rejected KYC submissions with no resubmission option all start showing up together — and across multiple users — it stops being “isolated cases” and starts looking like a systemic processing issue.

What makes it worse is exactly what you mentioned:
tickets being auto-closed, live chat giving scripted replies, and accounts getting shut down mid-verification. Even if it’s not malicious, that’s still unacceptable risk for players with funds locked.

We’ve been tracking these BC.Game complaints and similar cases on BitcoinChaser, including:

withdrawal & deposit issue patterns

common KYC rejection reasons users report

what to do if your account gets frozen

and safer alternatives while issues persist

Anyone affected (or thinking of depositing) should at least read through the recent coverage first:
https://bitcoinchaser.com/?s=bc+game

Information like this helps people decide whether to wait it out or move elsewhere before funds get stuck.

[Synchronice]

I wouldn't consider the KYC cases to be confirmed scam attempts either... BC.Game doesn't require KYC from its customers for fun, but is forced to do so by the various licenses the site holds. What you can hold against them – and many other sites – is that KYC is often only required for larger payouts. Unfortunately, this is common practice in the crypto online casino industry.

This is what I don't understand about KYC requirements. The majority of crypto casinos hold Curacao license. How is it possible that one asks for KYC all the time while the other one rarely asks for KYC? Maybe I'm wrong but to my mind, the same license holders should be following the same, i.e. Curacao protocol. If they follow the same protocol, then why are they asking for KYC differently? And if they aren't, then what are the criterias? Also, can someone sue casino for asking for KYC? I mean, if the casino asks for KYC without a reasonable doubt? I'm not talking about BC but I really want to know answer about this question because I notice this trend in crypto casinos.

[Lakai01]

I wouldn't consider the KYC cases to be confirmed scam attempts either... BC.Game doesn't require KYC from its customers for fun, but is forced to do so by the various licenses the site holds. What you can hold against them – and many other sites – is that KYC is often only required for larger payouts. Unfortunately, this is common practice in the crypto online casino industry.

This is what I don't understand about KYC requirements. The majority of crypto casinos hold Curacao license. How is it possible that one asks for KYC all the time while the other one rarely asks for KYC? Maybe I'm wrong but to my mind, the same license holders should be following the same, i.e. Curacao protocol. If they follow the same protocol, then why are they asking for KYC differently? And if they aren't, then what are the criterias? Also, can someone sue casino for asking for KYC? I mean, if the casino asks for KYC without a reasonable doubt? I'm not talking about BC but I really want to know answer about this question because I notice this trend in crypto casinos.

Although Curacao eGaming licenses require compliance with AML/KYC regulations, the implementation itself varies and is, in part, left up to the casinos.
This allows casinos to set their own risk-based policies. Some enforce KYC for all withdrawals, while others only do so for large amounts, suspicious activity, or in response to regulatory pressure.

However, in my opinion, it is very difficult to sue for "unreasonable" KYC requirements, as these are usually included in the terms and conditions to protect against fraud and money laundering. You would have to prove that a casino has grossly violated its own T&Cs, which would be very difficult to do.

[holydarkness]

I wouldn't consider the KYC cases to be confirmed scam attempts either... BC.Game doesn't require KYC from its customers for fun, but is forced to do so by the various licenses the site holds. What you can hold against them – and many other sites – is that KYC is often only required for larger payouts. Unfortunately, this is common practice in the crypto online casino industry.

This is what I don't understand about KYC requirements. The majority of crypto casinos hold Curacao license. How is it possible that one asks for KYC all the time while the other one rarely asks for KYC? Maybe I'm wrong but to my mind, the same license holders should be following the same, i.e. Curacao protocol. If they follow the same protocol, then why are they asking for KYC differently? And if they aren't, then what are the criterias? Also, can someone sue casino for asking for KYC? I mean, if the casino asks for KYC without a reasonable doubt? I'm not talking about BC but I really want to know answer about this question because I notice this trend in crypto casinos.

From what two or three different casino reps explained to me in the past [this is during the Curacao fever and prior to jumping ship to Anjouan], crypto casinos aimed to stick to the nature of crypto: pseudoanonym. But they were also pressed by the govt. to be AML/ATF compliant, thus KYC.

Stuck in between the desire to keep player KYC-free and to be compliant with govt, this is the situation that decorates SA board with players complaining KYC: in most casinos, unless you violate casinos ToS, they'll try their best to give you leniency and protection from AML/ATF obligation by not requesting KYC. When a ToS is breached or some alarm triggered, though. They will enact KYC/AML/ATF because one, it is within their right [and obligation] as per ToS, and second, because then they'll be curious of you as they'll want to know who tried to play them.

[DiMarxist]

I don't think that any crypto Casino will definitely wants to have the KYC of their customers this is because crypto gambling wants to eliminate the control of their customers, but the fact is that looking at this whole KYC stuff in one hand you can't even blame these Casinos who are actually wanting to have the KYC of their customers. This is because abuse from the customers is there, most people has use crypto Casinos to steal money. Again just like every industry the gambling industry is one that is not free from regulations from government, so Casino's are expected to take the KYC of their customers as part of the regulation process which is needed to keep the Casino running and out of problems from the part of the government.

[Synchronice]

Although Curacao eGaming licenses require compliance with AML/KYC regulations, the implementation itself varies and is, in part, left up to the casinos.
This allows casinos to set their own risk-based policies. Some enforce KYC for all withdrawals, while others only do so for large amounts, suspicious activity, or in response to regulatory pressure.

However, in my opinion, it is very difficult to sue for "unreasonable" KYC requirements, as these are usually included in the terms and conditions to protect against fraud and money laundering. You would have to prove that a casino has grossly violated its own T&Cs, which would be very difficult to do.

Shouldn't KYC requirement be done after substantial suspicion? I mean, can you challenge casino in the court if they ask you for KYC without solid suspicion? Or for example, if you sent them your ID, Bill photos and every valid document but still don't get verified by them? I hate how unregulated this field is. When the user submits all the necessary documents, they shouldn't be waiting for weeks and months to get that green verification mark on their account. What are AML experts doing in these casinos? It doesn't take weeks and months to review someone's documents and approve them when valid.

[Wapfika]

Although Curacao eGaming licenses require compliance with AML/KYC regulations, the implementation itself varies and is, in part, left up to the casinos.
This allows casinos to set their own risk-based policies. Some enforce KYC for all withdrawals, while others only do so for large amounts, suspicious activity, or in response to regulatory pressure.

However, in my opinion, it is very difficult to sue for "unreasonable" KYC requirements, as these are usually included in the terms and conditions to protect against fraud and money laundering. You would have to prove that a casino has grossly violated its own T&Cs, which would be very difficult to do.

Shouldn't KYC requirement be done after substantial suspicion? I mean, can you challenge casino in the court if they ask you for KYC without solid suspicion? Or for example, if you sent them your ID, Bill photos and every valid document but still don't get verified by them? I hate how unregulated this field is. When the user submits all the necessary documents, they shouldn't be waiting for weeks and months to get that green verification mark on their account. What are AML experts doing in these casinos? It doesn't take weeks and months to review someone's documents and approve them when valid.

There’s no written rule about when KYC should be applied. ToS states a general application of KYC anytime whenever they want.

Casino with license usually wants to regulate their customers as much as possible and they are legally allowed to know their customers regardless if there’s suspicion or non for violation of ToS.

KYC is just a standard procedure when someone violates the ToS but it can be ask too on all regular user without any violation.

[mitchr4]

I don't think that any crypto Casino will definitely wants to have the KYC of their customers this is because crypto gambling wants to eliminate the control of their customers, but the fact is that looking at this whole KYC stuff in one hand you can't even blame these Casinos who are actually wanting to have the KYC of their customers. This is because abuse from the customers is there, most people has use crypto Casinos to steal money. Again just like every industry the gambling industry is one that is not free from regulations from government, so Casino's are expected to take the KYC of their customers as part of the regulation process which is needed to keep the Casino running and out of problems from the part of the government.

I agree we need regulations to stop abuse and illegal activities like fraud and money laundering. But people choose crypto casinos for privacy and easy access. We need balance between security and making things easy for users just basic info like email verification and age confirmation, without requiring passport, selfies, or proof of address unless there's suspicious activity. If KYC is too strict from the start, users will just go to other platforms that offer more privacy.

[Haunebu]

If you have other cases that are unrelated to the Indian rupee incident, I would of course be very grateful for any links.

But basically, your statement is correct of course: no one is forced to play at BC.Game. However, I would not describe the people behind BC.Game as "greedy morons."  

The payment processor issue did not affect other sites like Stake etc which is why some blame still falls on BC.Game. Also, they use Betby as their betting provider which explains why there are plenty of KYC and other scam accusations against them.

You can easily find the plethora of scam accusations against them through the search button in this forum. This is why I feel that they are greedy morons though that's just my opinion.

[rigs3130]

I’m an SVIP player raising a documentation issue regarding BC.Game VIP promotions.
This is not a wager dispute, but a discrepancy between system-displayed outcomes, private VIP explanations, and public representations.

The issue is whether system-displayed balances and rollover outcomes are binding, and why accumulated winnings are forfeited after rollover completion without prior disclosure in the VIP promotion UI or metadata.

• Screenshot A (VIP Manager – Telegram)

States that only the original bonus amount is unlocked and all accumulated winnings are automattically removed.

https://ibb.co/TMXGw6hp

• Screenshot B (Casino Guru / Public Handling)

Indicates a different framing and acknowledges the issue is under review / not clearly disclosed.

https://ibb.co/zhnKbH66

• Screenshot C (Promotion rollover details and metadata)

Bonus promotion roll-over details and metadata

https://ibb.co/cSbXhYK7

• Screenshot D  (Bonus Unlocked - UI Ledger)

Shows balance accumulation and/or post-cancellation balance displayed as remaining

https://ibb.co/LD2x2RSS



I am posting this to ask the community:

• Are VIP promotions allowed to apply undisclosed post-rollover forfeiture logic?
• If system-displayed balances are non-binding, should this not be explicitly disclosed in the UI?
• Is this consistent with how other casinos document VIP bonus settlement?

The case is currently under third-party review by Casino Guru (link), which is why I’m documenting the internal inconsistency here for transparency.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bc-game-casino-player-s-bonus-winnings-have-been-voided

[Lakai01]

Stuck in between the desire to keep player KYC-free and to be compliant with govt, this is the situation that decorates SA board with players complaining KYC: in most casinos, unless you violate casinos ToS, they'll try their best to give you leniency and protection from AML/ATF obligation by not requesting KYC. When a ToS is breached or some alarm triggered, though. They will enact KYC/AML/ATF because one, it is within their right [and obligation] as per ToS, and second, because then they'll be curious of you as they'll want to know who tried to play them.

Thank you for the explanation and insight into your information.

I have read through the license terms and would have understood that KYC/AML is one of the casino's obligations—even with more relaxed licenses such as those from Curacao, not to mention other licenses such as those from the UK.

I would therefore be surprised if a casino turned a blind eye as often as possible and allowed payouts without KYC, especially for larger payouts – even though I would of course be very happy to see a return to the actual meaning and purpose of cryptos here. What is certainly true, however, is that KYC is not enforced for smaller payments. I myself have made several withdrawals of less than $500 and was not asked for KYC at any of the casinos.