⚠️SCAM⚠️ BC.game - refusing to pay $1.5m, switched jurisdiction to avoid paying

[holydarkness]

Considering holydarkness conclusion, which is against me (we'll wait for him to provide the evidence), it is time to throw more data into equation.

Company that holds the license doesn't exist in Belize company registrar (aka never registered)?

[image snip]

Umm... sorry, but holydarkness what? I haven't publish my findings as I'm still waiting for BC's permission to share the sensitive information contained in it, so I can substantiate the statements there and it won't be taken as a mere words.

[gh0573d]

Sorry for not clarifying though:

You have already "tipped" that your findings goes against me (via personal message, at least that's how I interpreted last PM). As I said in previous post, I'd be happy to wait for your findings to be published (sorry for misinterpretation).

I believe this is a serious situation and sorry you are going through it. well thanks for the detailed explanation. Your analogy really helps clarify your case. Even that I personally never had issues with BC.GAME on smaller withdrawals, but your case clearly involves more complexity more activity and higher amounts. Hope they step up with some transparency and communication soon, I will be following to see how this unfold.
If all the details you have shared are accurate and true, then the casino definitely has a lot to clarify. Moreover, I have seen another [1] case here on Bitcointalk where a player also won about 7M million and eventually got paid after opening a topic and got help from community, so hopefully theres still a chance for your case as well to get resolved fairly.
About the licensing company if it truly doesn't exist in the Belize company registry, that surely raises serious questions in our community. Especially considering the weight of the case and how this casino is envolved in the forum with many campaigns and been always legit. For this one every detail matters, hopefully @holydarkness takes that into account when reviewing the evidence, Im certain Holy is always taking all details and evidence to help and provide a fair conclusio.

 I will try to follow up with this case, especially that it envolves a huge amount.

[1] : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5504423.0

sorry @GxSTxV, haven't seen your message previously.

I don't think this will change much outside of the court, which I am going to pursue in Cyprus, but this is fair representation of their fabrication of data all along, and nobody can persuade me that nothing such has happened in my case.

As for their "transparency" and "communication", that never happened in my case - everyone unrelated to the case saw "evidence", yet I was never able to. Now lets see how they plan to fight in court against both criminal and dispute resolution cases.

[Blossom15]

Umm... sorry, but holydarkness what? I haven't publish my findings as I'm still waiting for BC's permission to share the sensitive information contained in it, so I can substantiate the statements there and it won't be taken as a mere words.

What a joke. Not a single question publicly aimed at bc, even after the op shared proof of their shady stuff. Everythings happening behind closed doors, hush hush - why?

Considering holydarkness conclusion, which is against me (we'll wait for him to provide the evidence), it is time to throw more data into equation.

My issue with all of this is how bc has stayed completely silent. Not a single word from them. Does holydarkness speak for them now? If they can share evidence with him, they should at least be able to come on here and clarify that.

[BenCodie]

Considering holydarkness conclusion, which is against me (we'll wait for him to provide the evidence), it is time to throw more data into equation.

My issue with all of this is how bc has stayed completely silent. Not a single word from them. Does holydarkness speak for them now? If they can share evidence with him, they should at least be able to come on here and clarify that.

Yes, it's highly likely that bc.game have employed holydarkness to handle their PR for them, based on this trust rating left from bc.game to holydarkness in the past (removed since being pointed out ironically):


holydarkness doesn't explicitly deny that he is not incentivized or remunerated in any way though with the level of involvement he has specifically in bc.game's cases, it's quite reasonable to say that it's highly likely that holydarkness is employed by bc.game.

[holydarkness]

First of all, I'd like to say that this is a very confusing situation. Every time I think I've reached the bottom of the case, new fact introduce itself. A same frustration that, if I may point out, shared by the mediator on CG. I know, part of it was because I give my best to obscure the real point of my questions to both parties, so they will "accidentally" tell me what I really want to know, while I asked for other info.

With the complex nature of this case and the amount being involved, I can understand if overseers will not take my statement below at face value. On the other side, I can't exactly "substantiate" my own findings by evidence given to me as they're provided under for-my-eyes-only basis. Both from OP and BC. Thus, whether these findings below are accepted as the truth and the findings of my weeks of inquiring both parties, or a baseless statements, I'll have to leave it to the overseers.


So, these below are my findings after asking both parties, which mostly were done in double-blind basis, where both the user, gh0573d, and my contacts on BC didn't exactly know what I'm asking as I slipped the point I tried to verify in some babbles and/or they accidentally spill during our course of conversations, be it in form of posts from OP, or screenshots from BC:

First, multi-accounting: yes, correct.

I find evidences of accounts connected to OP's device.

BC gave me screenshots where several accounts are tied to same devices. With several accounts being tied, the chance of accidentally duplicate those accounts through Google auto-sign-in is somewhat minimal, as the player should only have two accounts with this "bug" [first when they manually type their credential and click sign up, and second when they click the google button].

Not only that, the statement that OP signed in with email and later with phone number, were somewhat questionable as not only BC tie the accounts to same devices, but these accounts are also tied to email addresses. One that OP said he never use as a method to sign in, excepting the first time he signed up, with c****e@gmail.com. Interestingly, I find the email addresses that BC tied to OP's alleged accounts bear similarities with OP's "typo", "88", and OP's username preference on other platforms. This is something that BC could not have learned and manually add to the list to fabricate the evidence to work in their favor.

Second, "touch-and-go" situation: incorrect.

I find that OP's statement that he never use the first account [35733412] anymore after the date of creation to be somewhat inaccurate.

BC gave me proof that the accounts active months after the date of creation. On both devices. I will stress again that this is not given deliberately to me. I asked for something and they gave an evidence that revealed that info. If it's one device, I can understand the chance that OP accidentally logged back in somehow with the credential he used to create the first account. On two devices though, where each last active date varied, this open to a question how do the account still online and logged back into BC, from two devices, months after the supposed day they're deactivated.

Of this, I tried to reason [to myself] that it might be the KYC link, that they sent KYC link that redirect OP to his first account instead of his main account. And though it's never confirmed as I never get the chance to ask this [nor that I need to], I find that this is correct. The link apparently sent OP to his first account.

However, during my attempt to inquire to BC without revealing what I exactly want to know, by asking --loosely reworded-- "can you tell me which device used to perform KYC?", and while I wait for them to provide me answer to it, I realized that the last online date of the account 35733412 on both devices predated the email sent. Thus, the reason how and why 35733412 were still online after it's supposed to be not-accessed anymore can safely be concluded not due to the KYC email.

And when BC returned to me with my inquiry of the details...

Third, OP verify his account with his main device, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold: inconclusive but somewhat incorrect.

Though BC confirms that the KYC link was accessed through both iOS-based Chrome and Android-based Chrome, OP verify with a whole new device.

I was hoping that the new device that was tied to OP's 35733412 was due to he changed phone, as per his statement on CG where his company phone were upgraded from Infinix GT Pro 10 to Infinix GT Pro 20, thus, a possibility that he verify with Infinix GT 20 Pro, and a reason why new device latched to 35733412.

I did not confirm further to BC what is the type of the device that OP use to perform KYC, as it'll reveal my intention and I'd like to keep both parties in the blind. Thus I asked OP instead, in similar obscure question, of which he assured overseers that:

[...]
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold was main phone and was used for verification of that account. Other devices were used just to play on the account when the battery on Samsung was low and needed to be re-charged. Nothing more, nothing less. As for specifics, I've read it from Galaxy, opened it from Galaxy and filed the documents from it as well.
[...]

Fourth, and last, of self-referral: correct

This is the first thing BC showed me, that the account in question and being alleged as the self referred from OP's main account [LuckyWalker69] is tied to the said main account, both by device and by email address [that strangely, bear same pattern and preference as OP's other username on other casinos].

These are all my findings so far.


Is it possible that BC manipulate the data? From several factors brushed above, I personally don't think so.

If they try to manipulate by latching random UID to OP's device, then yes, we can argue that maybe they'll try to cheat their players with this dirty trick. But by having both accounts also bound by similar emails, of which if I may repeat myself, I am rather sure BC won't have any idea that OP owned [since OP always sign in with phone number], where the email tied to the accounts bear similar element as his username on other platforms, the fabrication is somewhat minimal.

Also this,

[...]
But yeah, I used phone + password to login to that account, and specifically through bcgame.sk.
[...]

Both OP and BC provided the information without my prompt, where BC's information about it came before OP's. And their narrative matched.

Sounds like I'm defending BC, yes, I know and accutely aware of that. I've re-read this draft several times before posting, and wished it could be worded in a way that paint me like I'm not favoring BC much, because, well, I don't. TBH, I even secretly want OP to win this case so OP's next thread that I'll address right after this one closed won't give me much migraine [literally]. But it is what it is, and all above were facts that I find after weeks of going back and forth between the player and the contacts on BC.

With the wall of text said above, as always, I'm not the judge here. I'm simply walking with both parties and inquire until we get to the bottom of the situation. Of which, I believe we finally do. I'll leave it to the overseers to decide the final outcome of this.

[gh0573d]

With the complex nature of this case and the amount being involved, I can understand if overseers will not take my statement below at face value. On the other side, I can't exactly "substantiate" my own findings by evidence given to me as they're provided under for-my-eyes-only basis. Both from OP and BC.

Just to address one thing here:

holydarkness, I, Chandrabayu Mardika, hereby give you my full consent to view and share any and all fata relevant to my case, that you mat have received from BC.game.

as for your findings, I'll be addressing them shortly (probably will disclose whole Curacao case to this matter, with redacted PII).

[gh0573d]

First of all, I'd like to say that this is a very confusing situation. Every time I think I've reached the bottom of the case, new fact introduce itself. A same frustration that, if I may point out, shared by the mediator on CG. I know, part of it was because I give my best to obscure the real point of my questions to both parties, so they will "accidentally" tell me what I really want to know, while I asked for other info.

With the complex nature of this case and the amount being involved, I can understand if overseers will not take my statement below at face value. On the other side, I can't exactly "substantiate" my own findings by evidence given to me as they're provided under for-my-eyes-only basis. Both from OP and BC. Thus, whether these findings below are accepted as the truth and the findings of my weeks of inquiring both parties, or a baseless statements, I'll have to leave it to the overseers.


So, these below are my findings after asking both parties, which mostly were done in double-blind basis, where both the user, gh0573d, and my contacts on BC didn't exactly know what I'm asking as I slipped the point I tried to verify in some babbles and/or they accidentally spill during our course of conversations, be it in form of posts from OP, or screenshots from BC:

First, multi-accounting: yes, correct.

I find evidences of accounts connected to OP's device.

BC gave me screenshots where several accounts are tied to same devices. With several accounts being tied, the chance of accidentally duplicate those accounts through Google auto-sign-in is somewhat minimal, as the player should only have two accounts with this "bug" [first when they manually type their credential and click sign up, and second when they click the google button].

Not only that, the statement that OP signed in with email and later with phone number, were somewhat questionable as not only BC tie the accounts to same devices, but these accounts are also tied to email addresses. One that OP said he never use as a method to sign in, excepting the first time he signed up, with c****e@gmail.com. Interestingly, I find the email addresses that BC tied to OP's alleged accounts bear similarities with OP's "typo", "88", and OP's username preference on other platforms. This is something that BC could not have learned and manually add to the list to fabricate the evidence to work in their favor.

Second, "touch-and-go" situation: incorrect.

I find that OP's statement that he never use the first account [35733412] anymore after the date of creation to be somewhat inaccurate.

BC gave me proof that the accounts active months after the date of creation. On both devices. I will stress again that this is not given deliberately to me. I asked for something and they gave an evidence that revealed that info. If it's one device, I can understand the chance that OP accidentally logged back in somehow with the credential he used to create the first account. On two devices though, where each last active date varied, this open to a question how do the account still online and logged back into BC, from two devices, months after the supposed day they're deactivated.

Of this, I tried to reason [to myself] that it might be the KYC link, that they sent KYC link that redirect OP to his first account instead of his main account. And though it's never confirmed as I never get the chance to ask this [nor that I need to], I find that this is correct. The link apparently sent OP to his first account.

However, during my attempt to inquire to BC without revealing what I exactly want to know, by asking --loosely reworded-- "can you tell me which device used to perform KYC?", and while I wait for them to provide me answer to it, I realized that the last online date of the account 35733412 on both devices predated the email sent. Thus, the reason how and why 35733412 were still online after it's supposed to be not-accessed anymore can safely be concluded not due to the KYC email.

And when BC returned to me with my inquiry of the details...

Third, OP verify his account with his main device, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold: inconclusive but somewhat incorrect.

Though BC confirms that the KYC link was accessed through both iOS-based Chrome and Android-based Chrome, OP verify with a whole new device.

I was hoping that the new device that was tied to OP's 35733412 was due to he changed phone, as per his statement on CG where his company phone were upgraded from Infinix GT Pro 10 to Infinix GT Pro 20, thus, a possibility that he verify with Infinix GT 20 Pro, and a reason why new device latched to 35733412.

I did not confirm further to BC what is the type of the device that OP use to perform KYC, as it'll reveal my intention and I'd like to keep both parties in the blind. Thus I asked OP instead, in similar obscure question, of which he assured overseers that:

[...]
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold was main phone and was used for verification of that account. Other devices were used just to play on the account when the battery on Samsung was low and needed to be re-charged. Nothing more, nothing less. As for specifics, I've read it from Galaxy, opened it from Galaxy and filed the documents from it as well.
[...]

Fourth, and last, of self-referral: correct

This is the first thing BC showed me, that the account in question and being alleged as the self referred from OP's main account [LuckyWalker69] is tied to the said main account, both by device and by email address [that strangely, bear same pattern and preference as OP's other username on other casinos].

These are all my findings so far.


Is it possible that BC manipulate the data? From several factors brushed above, I personally don't think so.

If they try to manipulate by latching random UID to OP's device, then yes, we can argue that maybe they'll try to cheat their players with this dirty trick. But by having both accounts also bound by similar emails, of which if I may repeat myself, I am rather sure BC won't have any idea that OP owned [since OP always sign in with phone number], where the email tied to the accounts bear similar element as his username on other platforms, the fabrication is somewhat minimal.

Also this,

[...]
But yeah, I used phone + password to login to that account, and specifically through bcgame.sk.
[...]

Both OP and BC provided the information without my prompt, where BC's information about it came before OP's. And their narrative matched.

Sounds like I'm defending BC, yes, I know and accutely aware of that. I've re-read this draft several times before posting, and wished it could be worded in a way that paint me like I'm not favoring BC much, because, well, I don't. TBH, I even secretly want OP to win this case so OP's next thread that I'll address right after this one closed won't give me much migraine [literally]. But it is what it is, and all above were facts that I find after weeks of going back and forth between the player and the contacts on BC.

With the wall of text said above, as always, I'm not the judge here. I'm simply walking with both parties and inquire until we get to the bottom of the situation. Of which, I believe we finally do. I'll leave it to the overseers to decide the final outcome of this.

Let me address this properly.


Multi accounts - Correct.

I never actually refuted this statement as there was technical issue, which in court I will be using as a reference to solicitation enforced by BC.game to break their Terms of Service. I believe you are already familiar on the basis how I am willing to address this and invalidate agreement between me and BC.game.

Any other account apart from those 2 are NOT MINE.

To show how far this goes, let's address third account they mentioned in their case - https://bc.game/user/profile/37958301, as they never hid this one from public eyes:

1 - In the barely-looking image, you can clearly see that this account was not banned when the two others were.
2 - If we go into public statistics of this account, apart from USDT being main currency used, we have "IDR" on second place. Any fiat currency attached to the account would be implication that this or any other account has deposited fiat currency at some point in history. Having said that, if they trace such transaction, they can most definitely find that this account was not mine, but God knows whose.
3 - Lets (for a second) think about my "data fabrication" allegations - how the hell this account has double entries of USDT and IDR in public stats? Okay, USDT might be due to different blockchain, but IDR, give me a reason for that?
4 - Did they ever attempt to do KYC check on this account and confirm their findings?

Any account other than these 3 (since them being provided in court defense), I can safely assume it is fabrication of evidence.

Also, I have recently sent you image, where their staff (Agness) claims that my account has 0 deposit, to which it clearly says that the second account was actually never used and came out off of error.

Touch-n-go - We're not on same page there.

If you have went through this case carefully there are several points to address:
1 - There was double account unwillingly created
2 - I used multiple devices and domain names to access bc.game
3 - None of domains create "global" cookie for all others

We can safely assume I could log in to either of those two accounts over 60 times to either one of them, willingly or not. I won't go further than that.

Third and fourth are basically answered in my first two responses, coming back to this again would be just going deeper into this pothole.

so when they requested additional KYC via e-mail, we can safely assume that this was well-intended action to establish intentional breach of their Terms of Service, which I already addressed publicly over 20 times

edit:

And I forgot to attach one image to you during public questioning, which I just found in my email confirming my story of 2nd account

Thanks for getting back. In regards to evidence fabrication, it was my speculation as the wording from CG was prompted that there was more than 3 accounts (4+). Before bankruptcy hearing and upon receiving defense documents from BC.game (I believe I sent you that 2 thousand pages long pdf), you can see at 30 something page, regarding my account that there were 3 accounts in total: one I actively used, second one originated from the technical error and third one unknown to me.

In regards to the timeline/narrative, whatever that was, in regards to these two accounts, one was never touched and second one was used actively. There is no question and no person who could convince me otherwise.

As for the third account, I truthfully state that I have no clue where it came from. Even with the bug I mentioned above, there is possibility to replicate it only twice (create two accounts) as far as I know (once with Google and once by manually adding that same e-mail, order of creation irrelevant).

As you may also have seen, my lawyer asked them to provide information (was KYC done for it and if so, when, sign up information used, mail or phone) in regards to that third account, and if there is any inclination that it was mine, that should not have been a problem in first place, especially since I am claimant in that whole case. To this date, I never got a reply from them nor I am able to answer any question in regards to third account, but I am 100% positive that third account is not mine. Simply as that.

I did sold my phones back in 2024 as I had to cover losses from my case in Indonesia, but those were wiped before handing them over, so I presume no "unique identification" should possibly conflict with my information. The only possible reason for that third account to be mine is Cloudflare IP address, as I previously said I used Cloudflare WARP (1.1.1.1) DNS and it appears that WARP option does give you public (shared) ip address. To the best of my knowledge as of this time, this could be a single reason for that third account to be flagged as mine. If they ever provided any information, I would've been more than happy to defend myself based on that info.


"touch n go" response (don't know how to quote same thing all over again)

One account was never played with, other one was the active one, that's what I'm 100% positive. No deposits, no plays on that one account, no nothing. Which one was which, I can't fully state, as I used my phone number to login to the account I've used. Based on what they provided, it appears I used account that was created second time (based on UID).

I think I've answered all of your questions above, but a bit freestyle (sorry for that).

oh yeah, timeline before creating first and second account - I really can't say it was a few minutes or an hour or a day, but I can definitely say that I had to wait a bit for my (now ex) wife to send me photo of my passport as I was not in my hometown at the time. Might've been few hours, up to a day at most.

edit: Quick update. Based on all of the questioning, I'm not sure I addressed this part properly at a time, so I will now. When my account was "freeze lock", even though it was fully KYC verified, they have requested from me to do another KYC verification, via e-mail:



and my response:



error message from SumSub (sorry for being black/white, took it from demand letter as I need to go through my e-mails to find it, will update once I find original image):



Reason why I'm posting this is because if they claim that I attempted to verify any of conflicted accounts, I did not intentionally, but was asked to do so via mail and could possibly be that the support agent provided me with someone else's KYC link and that Sumsub link they provided wasn't for any of my accounts.

If this was the case, I guess everything that happened is because someone within their team was overwhelmed and actually made a mistake? This thing never crossed my mind up until few minutes ago  

[gh0573d]

Most of the documents prepared to be filed. Tomorrow, I might be going radio silent

[CreepyUncleJoe]

I just finished reading all six pages of this discussion, and honestly, I can't believe what's going on here. People are debating the player's past in Indonesia, and whether he accidentally created a second, inactive account — but no one is even questioning the fact that he legitimately won $1.5 million! So yes, he won fair and square, yet the casino is using this nonsense about a duplicate account as an excuse not to pay him out.

It's outrageous. I seriously can't understand how anyone — unless they’re being paid by the casino — could take the casino’s side on this!

[gh0573d]

I just finished reading all six pages of this discussion, and honestly, I can't believe what's going on here. People are debating the player's past in Indonesia, and whether he accidentally created a second, inactive account — but no one is even questioning the fact that he legitimately won $1.5 million! So yes, he won fair and square, yet the casino is using this nonsense about a duplicate account as an excuse not to pay him out.

It's outrageous. I seriously can't understand how anyone — unless they’re being paid by the casino — could take the casino’s side on this!

Well, I can't believe either. But never mind. I wish it never got to this point where it is about to go, but meh. I guess their time of begging is about to come

Wish I never seen that ad on Etherscan...

At least, I could've played elsewhere, and getting paid elsewhere, as I did.

Here are withdrawals getting processed from every single casino (even them) at that time: https://blockscan.com/address/0x9d6201dc20db06fd4aa5a5cc8d465f90a0683a07#transactions



small victory!

Just been informed that court has validated our request for asset seizure in case against Fenice Tech Limited (owners of BC game) and has scheduled expedited hearing next Wednesday.

If approved, both domains bc.game and bcgame.com will be suspended after such request is approved. Including all of their assets in Cyprus.


another victory?

Asset recovery process by bankruptcy trustee (Nagelmakers) is also on the way, whereas she is pursuing ownership over the domain name bc.game. Can't say I'm surprised, but I believe there will be a lot of news very soon.

[shasan]

I just finished reading all six pages of this discussion, and honestly, I can't believe what's going on here. People are debating the player's past in Indonesia, and whether he accidentally created a second, inactive account — but no one is even questioning the fact that he legitimately won $1.5 million! So yes, he won fair and square, yet the casino is using this nonsense about a duplicate account as an excuse not to pay him out.

It's outrageous. I seriously can't understand how anyone — unless they’re being paid by the casino — could take the casino’s side on this!

It is correct that the user has won the game and the amount is not a smalll but it will not be a wise decision that the gambling site detectrd multiple accounts and that is prohibited. Inbthis case you cant say about any legitamacy while the entire procedure is in question.

[gh0573d]

I just finished reading all six pages of this discussion, and honestly, I can't believe what's going on here. People are debating the player's past in Indonesia, and whether he accidentally created a second, inactive account — but no one is even questioning the fact that he legitimately won $1.5 million! So yes, he won fair and square, yet the casino is using this nonsense about a duplicate account as an excuse not to pay him out.

It's outrageous. I seriously can't understand how anyone — unless they’re being paid by the casino — could take the casino’s side on this!

It is correct that the user has won the game and the amount is not a smalll but it will not be a wise decision that the gambling site detectrd multiple accounts and that is prohibited. Inbthis case you cant say about any legitamacy while the entire procedure is in question.

Procedure involves collecting the winnings, not anymore defending them. They are validated (in Curacao to be precise)

[CreepyUncleJoe]

It is correct that the user has won the game and the amount is not a smalll but it will not be a wise decision that the gambling site detectrd multiple accounts and that is prohibited. Inbthis case you cant say about any legitamacy while the entire procedure is in question.

Let me spell it out — again:

The guy wins $1.5 million — legit, clean, no exploits — and instead of focusing on that, we’ve got people bringing up the fact that he did time in Indonesia like this is some courtroom drama. What’s next, are we gonna subpoena his high school teachers to see if he cheated on a math test in 2004?

This is textbook character assassination. You can’t disprove the win, you can’t prove he cheated, so now the goal is to paint him as a “bad person” to make everyone feel like he doesn’t deserve the money. It’s transparent, it’s pathetic, and frankly, it reeks of desperation.

And let’s not pretend the “multiple accounts” thing is anything more than a fig leaf. The extra account(s) weren’t used to gamble, claim bonuses, or manipulate anything. They were inactive. Period. Maybe he’s bad with emails, or tech in general — big crime, I know. Let’s burn him at the stake for being digitally clumsy.

The win happened on a single, verified account. No foul play. No edge taken. Just a casino scrambling to protect itself from a massive payout — and weaponizing a minor technicality to do it.

If he’d won a hundred bucks, no one would care about the second account. But $1.5 million? Suddenly everyone’s a TOS expert and a moral judge.

And of course, we’ve got the usual suspects like holydarkness doing their unpaid intern routine for the casino. If you think this is a righteous stand for “the rules,” and not just an excuse to screw a big winner, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you.

This isn’t enforcement. This is corporate damage control hiding behind a smear campaign.

[gh0573d]

I don't need to talk more, they already proven to be actual scammers by trying to avoid outcome of legal decisions in both Cyprus and Curacao in regards to asset seizure/recovery by trying to change domain ownership and switching registrars:



Thankfully, both court and registrars are aware of such behavior and this just developed further into criminal activities (as there are already such about to be filed in Cyprus).

[ziportan]

thats pretty disgusting. looks like all casinos with this software are kinda scammers.. hope you get your money soon

[gh0573d]

thats pretty disgusting. looks like all casinos with this software are kinda scammers.. hope you get your money soon

We're not in pursuant for the money anymore, now we're taking this criminal organization down.

They had enough time to consider taking actions in accordance to the laws and jurisdictions they were operating under. They did not.

This is just a proof that they are criminal enterprise, nothing more, nothing less.

Next time someone says they have "bulletproof case" against me, should know that these actions would've never been taken if that was true. Nor the bankruptcy ruling.

[ziportan]

thats pretty disgusting. looks like all casinos with this software are kinda scammers.. hope you get your money soon

We're not in pursuant for the money anymore, now we're taking this criminal organization down.

They had enough time to consider taking actions in accordance to the laws and jurisdictions they were operating under. They did not.

This is just a proof that they are criminal enterprise, nothing more, nothing less.

Next time someone says they have "bulletproof case" against me, should know that these actions would've never been taken if that was true. Nor the bankruptcy ruling.

and good luck with that

i would always side with the rightful bettors instead of the casinos unlike some weasels here who actually work for them

[Blossom15]

GARBAGE!

Alright, so I’ve been following this whole bcgame mess and the way holydarkness is handling it is just… off. He says he’s neutral, but come on, he’s clearly siding with bcgame. All he does is nitpick the ops  story, like what device they used, or how they logged in, while completely glossing over the real issue -  bcgame straight up refuses to pay out a legit $1.5M win.

And here’s the thing, there’s zero proof the player broke any rules. Unholydarkness keeps bringing up multiaccounting, but that second account? It was made by accident because bcgames signup system glitched out. Not even the player’s fault.

Even worse? He doesn’t mention the court ruling in Curacao that literally sided with the players and declared bcgames parent companies bankrupt over unpaid winnings. That alone should’ve ended the discussion. But nope, Unholydarkness just kept going with his onesided take.

Let’s not forget how shady bcgame has been either:
- No public statements, just dming with holydarkness behind the scenes.
- The whole “third account" thing was sketchy and unverified (wrong currency, no kyc etc)
- They ran off to belize and anjouan after losing in curacao, total jurisdiction hopping.
- oh, and trying to move their domain names right after the ruling? yeah, totally normal behavior for a trustworthy company… not.

At this point, holydarkness is looking more like a paid pr guy than someone giving a fair analysis. He never questions bcgame, never acknowledges the court ruling, and avoids explaining why he’s ignoring so many key facts.

The bottom line is simple:
- The player won fair and square.
- There’s no real evidence of cheating or bonus abuse.
- A real court already said bcgame has to pay.

Yet here we are, with holydarkness running interference while bcgame pulls every scammer trick in the book. Let’s stop pretending there’s some big mystery here - the player deserves his money, and bcgame is a scam operation.

End of story.

[holydarkness]

Let me spell it out — again:

The guy wins $1.5 million — legit, clean, no exploits — and instead of focusing on that, we’ve got people bringing up the fact that he did time in Indonesia like this is some courtroom drama. What’s next, are we gonna subpoena his high school teachers to see if he cheated on a math test in 2004?

This is textbook character assassination. You can’t disprove the win, you can’t prove he cheated, so now the goal is to paint him as a “bad person” to make everyone feel like he doesn’t deserve the money. It’s transparent, it’s pathetic, and frankly, it reeks of desperation.

And let’s not pretend the “multiple accounts” thing is anything more than a fig leaf. The extra account(s) weren’t used to gamble, claim bonuses, or manipulate anything. They were inactive. Period. Maybe he’s bad with emails, or tech in general — big crime, I know. Let’s burn him at the stake for being digitally clumsy.

The win happened on a single, verified account. No foul play. No edge taken. Just a casino scrambling to protect itself from a massive payout — and weaponizing a minor technicality to do it.

If he’d won a hundred bucks, no one would care about the second account. But $1.5 million? Suddenly everyone’s a TOS expert and a moral judge.

And of course, we’ve got the usual suspects like holydarkness doing their unpaid intern routine for the casino. If you think this is a righteous stand for “the rules,” and not just an excuse to screw a big winner, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you.

This isn’t enforcement. This is corporate damage control hiding behind a smear campaign.

Well, if you read carefully, that drama part was part of idle hand as I waited for my contact and tried to figure out things. The fact were sorted out with an apology to the OP, and stopped right there and then and was not discussed any further once clarified. Instead, things were focused on the topic and the points OP was/is/will facing and that drama was not factored in to the final findings.

If what I delivered is an attempt of smear campaign instead of fairly lying it out in the open of what I was presented with --from both parties-- there would or should be a point that's written like, "in regards of OP's past record, [...]", which was non-existent in the final findings I gave. So how is this a character assassination? Or, perhaps what should be asked is: whose character assassination is this you're pointing out? OP's? Or mine?


Oh, OP, gh0573d, as this case is out of our hand and I can no longer help in any manner, I'd be really happy if you wouldn't mind to shed some light to the mud-slingers here of the extent I am doing behind what's seen by public to get the matter resolved and deescalated.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It is correct that the user has won the game and the amount is not a smalll but it will not be a wise decision that the gambling site detectrd multiple accounts and that is prohibited. Inbthis case you cant say about any legitamacy while the entire procedure is in question.

Let me spell it out — again:

The guy wins $1.5 million — legit, clean, no exploits — and instead of focusing on that, we’ve got people bringing up the fact that he did time in Indonesia like this is some courtroom drama. What’s next, are we gonna subpoena his high school teachers to see if he cheated on a math test in 2004?

This is textbook character assassination. You can’t disprove the win, you can’t prove he cheated, so now the goal is to paint him as a “bad person” to make everyone feel like he doesn’t deserve the money. It’s transparent, it’s pathetic, and frankly, it reeks of desperation.

And let’s not pretend the “multiple accounts” thing is anything more than a fig leaf. The extra account(s) weren’t used to gamble, claim bonuses, or manipulate anything. They were inactive. Period. Maybe he’s bad with emails, or tech in general — big crime, I know. Let’s burn him at the stake for being digitally clumsy.

The win happened on a single, verified account. No foul play. No edge taken. Just a casino scrambling to protect itself from a massive payout — and weaponizing a minor technicality to do it.

If he’d won a hundred bucks, no one would care about the second account. But $1.5 million? Suddenly everyone’s a TOS expert and a moral judge.

And of course, we’ve got the usual suspects like holydarkness doing their unpaid intern routine for the casino. If you think this is a righteous stand for “the rules,” and not just an excuse to screw a big winner, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you.

This isn’t enforcement. This is corporate damage control hiding behind a smear campaign.

Man's got a point there. This whole story went into a strange direction while basically everybody in this forum ignores all the basic facts about BC that are out in the open. I mentioned the bankrupt declaration already 6 months ago when it happened, yet nobody believed it or said it's fud, same old bitcointalk. BC is collecting positive feedback with their countless 25-50$ giveaways, that's how easy you can buy a positive image here, very sad. This site is the worst large and yet well received casino on the forum, and they prove it day in and day out.