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

[gh0573d]

Okay, so here's an explanation. I created one account with bc.game. Logged me out while I was capturing KYC documents (because I normally don't play before completing KYC for reasons similar to this one). When I tried to log in into the account, I've used Google Sign On button to log in, which automatically created another one. Keep in mind that first one was never used. At some point I've uploaded documents and got verified. Started deposits and playing.

When I scored big, my account was initially "withdrawal frozen" state, which means I could play (I did not). Live chat requested from me to provide KYC documents yet again even though I was verified and gave me Sumsub link, which I followed and tried uploading documents, it said "Information was already being used to verify another account" or something like that [...]
This is the only account so far I know which has not been used at any point. My MO is never play on any casino prior doing KYC.


edit: keep in mind that before account going frozen and after kyc i had successful withdrawals

Okay, let me try to simplify it to the point I wanted to know as your narrative above is very confusing with language barrier and tangled timeline and accounts.
The one I marked in red, is it "Luckywalker69" or "35733412"? The one I marked in blue, is it "Luckywalker69" or UID 35733412? Or other UID? It should be easy, the one you edit the username to LuckyWalker69 [BC assign series of random characters during sign up, that player can edit later] is it the one you sign up manually or use Google log in?

I'm out and grab my dinner. If you still wish me to be out of your case, just say so and find someone else with contacts on BC who are willing to share their evidences. If you're still want me to deliver my findings with that final element I seek, then I'll better see that answer in this thread when I returned tomorrow.

Okay, let answer it to you and see the reason why I cannot say you specifically.

35865086 - Luckywalker69
35733412 - random username

And now, this is going to prove my point

is it the one you sign up manually or use Google log in?

I simply cannot say which one was created using Google SSO and which one manually. Either way, the bug I explained above works two-ways.

Video showing the bug working other way around - https://youtu.be/7VgPU9VVsMU?si=XreRudliWwzeBsh8

In reality, I've used my phone number later to login to the account I've actively used.

Other account was never touched. What I am trying to explain to you (and what I now see, based on the video Spyds provided me) is that the 35733412 was created prior my active account - LuckyWalker69. Which one is created how, I don't have a single clue. I know for a fact that both share same e-mail address, and the actual difference is one was created with Google SSO and other one with Manual.

Either way, I should NOT have been able to register two accounts sharing same e-mail (which should be unique identifier), which is the issue I'm trying to point all along.

The point in this case (and how we are proceeding in legal fight) is that due to their misconfiguration, I did created another account UNWILLINGLY and UNKNOWINGLY.

Scenario 1: If I first created account manually, I should have been either able to Sign in to that account or should notify me that account with that e-mail exist, and is not connected to Google.
Scenario 2: If I first created Google SSO account, I shouldn't have been able to register account manually using same e-mail address, but should've notified me that the e-mail is already in use.

This is exactly what I am saying here. In scenario 1, this mistake could have happened to anyone who already has account with BC.game and they could simply ban it because of their technical error, or other way around, new accounts that created account using Google SSO and trying to log into that account could try to use "password" (thinking that they've manually created account), getting error "account doesn't exist" and proceed with creation of another account manually...

Your conclusion (as I can see, but that's my thought only) is based on when were the accounts created (date/time), and which one used what method, and I am trying to explain that regardless of which one was first, and which method was used for which one, it was not my intention to do so, but can pretty much state here and legally that I was solicited in creating second account, after which they effectively invoked breach of Terms based on that solicitation. Whether that "bug" and solicitation was there intentionally or not, I won't discuss it for now, as this could've also been oversight by them, but considering I reported it last year, should've been fixed by now and my case finally resolved.

I'd appreciate the assistance if you can understand my pov.

[Pmalek]

@gh0573d
It looks like you might be losing holydarkness' support and with that your best chance of getting to the bottom of this case. No one else on this forum goes to such great lengths to discover the truth and support those who have been wronged or scammed by online casinos. If he gives up or you push him away, your chances to find closure on this forum drop by 90%. Keep that in mind, will you.

[Blossom15]

@gh0573d
It looks like you might be losing holydarkness' support and with that your best chance of getting to the bottom of this case. No one else on this forum goes to such great lengths to discover the truth and support those who have been wronged or scammed by online casinos. If he gives up or you push him away, your chances to find closure on this forum drop by 90%. Keep that in mind, will you.

Lol, no disrespect, I actually respect you as a poster, but do you really think holydarkness is gonna fix this?

Like, this is a case that’s already gone to court. Are we seriously saying he’s gonna uncover something that judges and lawyers couldn’t?

I really doubt it.

His line of questioning is just dumb tbh, it’s not helping the op at all. And the op’s totally within their right to tell him to back off if he’s not adding anything useful.

If holydarkness actually wanted to help, he’d be calling out bcgames directly, asking real questions in public, not just cuddling them. Maybe get one of his contacts or a rep to show up here and explain why they won’t pay the op and why they ditched their curacao license for another sketchy jurisdiction.

Hyping him up isn’t solving anything. We’ve seen how this goes before, the second he loses control of the narrative, he throws a fit and starts gaslighting people.

[Pmalek]

Lol, no disrespect, I actually respect you as a poster, but do you really think holydarkness is gonna fix this?

That depends on what you consider fixing it is. I don't think BC.Game will pay the OP because holydarkness says they should or not pay him because holydarkness doesn't agree with it. But he can help to reveal if OP is in the right here and if he is telling the truth or not. With that (perhaps), we will discover if the casino has cheated the player, lied, and falsified evidence for their benefit. Such actions would then have an impact on their reputation on the forum.

I never claimed that holydarkness can and will get OP his money back.

[Blossom15]

Lol, no disrespect, I actually respect you as a poster, but do you really think holydarkness is gonna fix this?

That depends on what you consider fixing it is. I don't think BC.Game will pay the OP because holydarkness says they should or not pay him because holydarkness doesn't agree with it. But he can help to reveal if OP is in the right here and if he is telling the truth or not. With that (perhaps), we will discover if the casino has cheated the player, lied, and falsified evidence for their benefit. Such actions would then have an impact on their reputation on the forum.

I never claimed that holydarkness can and will get OP his money back.

Yeah I agree with you, I really don’t think anything holydarkness says or does is gonna magically get the casino to pay the op.

And as for whether bc lied or scammed the op, the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others.

So there shouldn’t be any doubt at all about who’s in the wrong here. It's bc games. full stop. And they should be called out publicly so other players know what they’re dealing with.

At this point, there’s really nothing more the op or holydarkness can do.

[gh0573d]

@gh0573d
It looks like you might be losing holydarkness' support and with that your best chance of getting to the bottom of this case. No one else on this forum goes to such great lengths to discover the truth and support those who have been wronged or scammed by online casinos. If he gives up or you push him away, your chances to find closure on this forum drop by 90%. Keep that in mind, will you.

I see that, and I'm sad that the problem with my case lies in which one is which account or when did I created what account, while trying to explain that there was no single valid reason nor intention from my side to do anything to abuse their system: used one account, second one opened by mistake and never deposited a single dime is what I was saying this whole time, I won't even mention third one.

Even when it seems otherwise, I do appreciate holy's support by now and whether or not he will help, it is up to him. I understand his position and haven't questioned his intentions here. Hell, even if this case is resolved, I'd be more than willing to compensate him for the time spent on resolving this case, because we're not talking about few bucks here.

My case will have continuous legal fight in Belize or any other jurisdiction they might switch to, and so far it's totally up to them whether or not they'll end up owning their mistake. I never defended my case saying I was not the reason for getting banned, because although it was not my intention, I did made that second account. I laid out what actually happened multiple times and never get any evidence showing other way or even having them reaching out to me giving explanation like they did to CG or to holy.

Claim here on BitcoinTalk was my attempt to get any glimpse of reasonable escalation and resolution to it before moving further with my case legally and publicly, as I did in past.

[holydarkness]

Yeah I agree with you, I really don’t think anything holydarkness says or does is gonna magically get the casino to pay the op.

And as for whether bc lied or scammed the op, the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others.

So there shouldn’t be any doubt at all about who’s in the wrong here. It's bc games. full stop. And they should be called out publicly so other players know what they’re dealing with.

At this point, there’s really nothing more the op or holydarkness can do.

A friendly advice here, next time you derail someone's thread and the situation they have, to satisfy your selfish need to paint me certain color, as always, try to read the posts and understand the situation? That way you wont make a fool of yourself and will have more weight to your words.

It has even been clearly pointed here through discussion between me and OP, in several posts, that there were no ruling by court in favor of OP. That is what make this things difficult. Because otherwise I'll be able to just kick my contact's ass and tell them to pay according to court's rule. Without it, we're here, trying to dissect why and how CG come with that verdict.

So, go busy yourself with that image of, "the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others." I'll wait here.

Okay, so here's an explanation. I created one account with bc.game. Logged me out while I was capturing KYC documents (because I normally don't play before completing KYC for reasons similar to this one). When I tried to log in into the account, I've used Google Sign On button to log in, which automatically created another one. Keep in mind that first one was never used. At some point I've uploaded documents and got verified. Started deposits and playing.

When I scored big, my account was initially "withdrawal frozen" state, which means I could play (I did not). Live chat requested from me to provide KYC documents yet again even though I was verified and gave me Sumsub link, which I followed and tried uploading documents, it said "Information was already being used to verify another account" or something like that [...]
This is the only account so far I know which has not been used at any point. My MO is never play on any casino prior doing KYC.


edit: keep in mind that before account going frozen and after kyc i had successful withdrawals

Okay, let me try to simplify it to the point I wanted to know as your narrative above is very confusing with language barrier and tangled timeline and accounts.
The one I marked in red, is it "Luckywalker69" or "35733412"? The one I marked in blue, is it "Luckywalker69" or UID 35733412? Or other UID? It should be easy, the one you edit the username to LuckyWalker69 [BC assign series of random characters during sign up, that player can edit later] is it the one you sign up manually or use Google log in?

I'm out and grab my dinner. If you still wish me to be out of your case, just say so and find someone else with contacts on BC who are willing to share their evidences. If you're still want me to deliver my findings with that final element I seek, then I'll better see that answer in this thread when I returned tomorrow.

Okay, let answer it to you and see the reason why I cannot say you specifically.

35865086 - Luckywalker69
35733412 - random username

And now, this is going to prove my point

is it the one you sign up manually or use Google log in?

I simply cannot say which one was created using Google SSO and which one manually. Either way, the bug I explained above works two-ways.

Video showing the bug working other way around - https://youtu.be/7VgPU9VVsMU?si=XreRudliWwzeBsh8

In reality, I've used my phone number later to login to the account I've actively used.

Other account was never touched. What I am trying to explain to you (and what I now see, based on the video Spyds provided me) is that the 35733412 was created prior my active account - LuckyWalker69. Which one is created how, I don't have a single clue. I know for a fact that both share same e-mail address, and the actual difference is one was created with Google SSO and other one with Manual.

Either way, I should NOT have been able to register two accounts sharing same e-mail (which should be unique identifier), which is the issue I'm trying to point all along.

The point in this case (and how we are proceeding in legal fight) is that due to their misconfiguration, I did created another account UNWILLINGLY and UNKNOWINGLY.

Scenario 1: If I first created account manually, I should have been either able to Sign in to that account or should notify me that account with that e-mail exist, and is not connected to Google.
Scenario 2: If I first created Google SSO account, I shouldn't have been able to register account manually using same e-mail address, but should've notified me that the e-mail is already in use.

This is exactly what I am saying here. In scenario 1, this mistake could have happened to anyone who already has account with BC.game and they could simply ban it because of their technical error, or other way around, new accounts that created account using Google SSO and trying to log into that account could try to use "password" (thinking that they've manually created account), getting error "account doesn't exist" and proceed with creation of another account manually...

Your conclusion (as I can see, but that's my thought only) is based on when were the accounts created (date/time), and which one used what method, and I am trying to explain that regardless of which one was first, and which method was used for which one, it was not my intention to do so, but can pretty much state here and legally that I was solicited in creating second account, after which they effectively invoked breach of Terms based on that solicitation. Whether that "bug" and solicitation was there intentionally or not, I won't discuss it for now, as this could've also been oversight by them, but considering I reported it last year, should've been fixed by now and my case finally resolved.

I'd appreciate the assistance if you can understand my pov.

Thank you for this clarification.

Now, a little explanation why I insist on knowing which account is which, with UID to make it very clear, its not to slowly insinuating you of anything, rather to --as I said-- crosschecking their narrative and yours. One of the current question hanging right now, one of the elephants in the room, as you also voiced on your other thread all while I'm trying to tackle that matter, is whether BC supply fabricated evidence to CG. Of which the same evidence probably the ones I saw.

Thus, the question and my attempt to not lead you into certain directive to answer, to let you free with your narrative and see whether your story matched with what they let me see. My thought, if they fabricate an evidence, then the series of the account being created won't match yours. Their evidence will say this comes first and that come later, and yours will say things differently, as they won't know what you'll sprout from your mouth and write here, as well you don't know what they let me see.

With above though, I think it's safe to say that the evidence provided to me [and we shall assume given to CG] is not fabricated, as the sequence matched. That established, and as promised, I'll address the other points:

Okay, as it turned out, I do need to be more specific. And since we're at it, let's be very very specific. In regards to 35733412:

1. How long do you use it before you realize it's a different account?
2. How much do you deposited and played?
3. IIRC, you mentioned you have three devices, and you access your account from the office issued phone, infinix? Is this the phone used to create and access 35733412?
[...]

1. Never used it. Even the blurry image slightly shows that there is $0 wager on that account. As I said, I am assuming that is the conflicting account (created with same email address).

I understand correctly from your narrative this far, it's pretty much a "touch and go"? You signed with normal sign up method, input your email and password manually and assigned 35733412, you logged out to take documentation needed for KYC, and "log-back-in" with Google icon, that prompt you the account 35865086, LuckyWalker69, and proceed with the rest of your BC experience under this UID? In short: 35733412 was created and active for quick seconds? You sign up, log out, and never touch it again?

2. On which one? I believe I've already told my total deposit/withdrawals on BCGame for my account. For the conflicting account, $0 deposited, $0 wagereted

Noted, 35733412, 0 activities.

3. I can't tell from which I registered my account, as I said at the time I had multiple phones. At some point, I might've used all three.
[...]

Help me understand this. They accuse you of three [four] accounts. One is clarified as above, that you sign up with one device, log out to take documentation, and log in into another [freshly and automatically created] account, LuckyWalker69, and you use the same sign-in method all the time across the three devices you own to LuckyWalker69, namely with that google auto-sign-in? So there is no chance that you accidentally replicate the mistake and created a third account, this time in reverse of what you did with 35733412, namely you signed up with your email and password, manually instead of clicking the google-auto-sign-in button?

Oh, quick question, might be irrelevant, but I'll ask anyway, do you happen to remember, in a ballpark, how long was it take for you to log out from 35733412, take pictures of your documents, and log back in with Google auto-sign-in? Minutes? half an hour? One hour? Hours? Just... wanted to be sure we cover every ground.

Furthermore, they also accused me of self-referral, which to this date was never even addressed, let alone proven. The only way I could've self-refer me would be doing exactly what happened to me.

[...]

edit #2:: It appears that you have been provided with the evidence of mentioned conflicting account being used to play on site, and based on the screenshot they provided for their court defense, it was never used. Although barely seen, if you take a closer look at circled items on the image:

[image snip]

User id: I can see starting 357 and 412
Wager (7 days) $0
Deposit total: $0
Net profit: $0

I would highly advise you to post what you've been told/shown as it appears we're going to prove what I've been telling all along.

I'm still in pursue to get to the bottom of this, to understand the image immersively, the way BC read that image, as it contains internal terminology, as well as from your side, that might related to above section [question #3], how that referral could even latched to your account. Did you refer someone?  

edit: had to say, this is going to be really interesting discussion as it seems. Also, would you mind telling me UID of fourth account as well? You already have decision made, so I'd appreciate to lay everything out to me and everyone else.

I have it in my hand, yes. But rather than mudding the already so muddy water, I prefer to not introduce another mud if I can. Let's see if we can get those things above clarified, and perhaps this matter become irrelevant as we shed some light into what happened from your side, regarding the other matters pointed above.

[gh0573d]

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  

[Blossom15]

Yeah I agree with you, I really don’t think anything holydarkness says or does is gonna magically get the casino to pay the op.

And as for whether bc lied or scammed the op, the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others.

So there shouldn’t be any doubt at all about who’s in the wrong here. It's bc games. full stop. And they should be called out publicly so other players know what they’re dealing with.

At this point, there’s really nothing more the op or holydarkness can do.

A friendly advice here, next time you derail someone's thread and the situation they have, to satisfy your selfish need to paint me certain color, as always, try to read the posts and understand the situation? That way you wont make a fool of yourself and will have more weight to your words.

It has even been clearly pointed here through discussion between me and OP, in several posts, that there were no ruling by court in favor of OP. That is what make this things difficult. Because otherwise I'll be able to just kick my contact's ass and tell them to pay according to court's rule. Without it, we're here, trying to dissect why and how CG come with that verdict.

So, go busy yourself with that image of, "the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others." I'll wait here.

Ha ha ha…  you sound like you need a hug  .

I'm no law student but even I can highlight where the op mentions winning a court case against bcgame:

Initial claim of winning the lawsuit:

Later on, I've (and other players) filed a lawsuit against them for not fulfilling claims, which we won. And they were declared bankrupt. Only to avoid paying out our winnings and switch jurisdiction.

Further clarification:

8 - They were declared bankrupt by court of Curacao because they were ignoring the ruling and court appointed trustee.

And here:

- Considering they refused to provide guarantee note from the bank (which in any legal terms, they are not liquid), Court of Appeal declared them bankrupt and assign bankruptcy trustee (representative who will ensure that all claims are attended and if there is successful liquidation, claimants get funds disbursed as per laws.

At this point, trustee (Nagelmakers) reviews all the players' claims against BC.game and decide that all of those are valid (as there was insufficient evidence from BC.game) and that in terms of successful liquidation, all players will be provided with the funds they were owed to.

If you still don’t understand my point let me break it down further for you:

1. The op and other players won a legal judgment in Curaçao, leading to bc.game’s bankruptcy declaration.
2. bc.game did not comply with the ruling, leading to a trustee being appointed who confirmed the validity of the claims.

It's either you are dense or  maybe you are intentionally obtuse. You sound crazy and your delusions seem to be on overdrive.

[gh0573d]

Yeah I agree with you, I really don’t think anything holydarkness says or does is gonna magically get the casino to pay the op.

And as for whether bc lied or scammed the op, the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others.

So there shouldn’t be any doubt at all about who’s in the wrong here. It's bc games. full stop. And they should be called out publicly so other players know what they’re dealing with.

At this point, there’s really nothing more the op or holydarkness can do.

A friendly advice here, next time you derail someone's thread and the situation they have, to satisfy your selfish need to paint me certain color, as always, try to read the posts and understand the situation? That way you wont make a fool of yourself and will have more weight to your words.

It has even been clearly pointed here through discussion between me and OP, in several posts, that there were no ruling by court in favor of OP. That is what make this things difficult. Because otherwise I'll be able to just kick my contact's ass and tell them to pay according to court's rule. Without it, we're here, trying to dissect why and how CG come with that verdict.

So, go busy yourself with that image of, "the court already made that clear. they ruled in the op’s favor, along with 3 others." I'll wait here.

Ha ha ha…  you sound like you need a hug  .

I'm no law student but even I can highlight where the op mentions winning a court case against bcgame:

Initial claim of winning the lawsuit:

Later on, I've (and other players) filed a lawsuit against them for not fulfilling claims, which we won. And they were declared bankrupt. Only to avoid paying out our winnings and switch jurisdiction.

Further clarification:

8 - They were declared bankrupt by court of Curacao because they were ignoring the ruling and court appointed trustee.

And here:

- Considering they refused to provide guarantee note from the bank (which in any legal terms, they are not liquid), Court of Appeal declared them bankrupt and assign bankruptcy trustee (representative who will ensure that all claims are attended and if there is successful liquidation, claimants get funds disbursed as per laws.

At this point, trustee (Nagelmakers) reviews all the players' claims against BC.game and decide that all of those are valid (as there was insufficient evidence from BC.game) and that in terms of successful liquidation, all players will be provided with the funds they were owed to.

If you still don’t understand my point let me break it down further for you:

1. The op and other players won a legal judgment in Curaçao, leading to bc.game’s bankruptcy declaration.
2. bc.game did not comply with the ruling, leading to a trustee being appointed who confirmed the validity of the claims.

It's either you are dense or  maybe you are intentionally obtuse. You sound crazy and your delusions seem to be on overdrive.

Thanks for the support, but I would appreciate if you could tone down a bit and refrain from personal attacks. I do still pretty much appreciate what holydarkness is doing with dissecting this case to the tiniest bit, as it appears that based off of his questions I am getting to even more findings of what could have happened here.

Peace.

[Blossom15]

Thanks for the support, but I would appreciate if you could tone down a bit and refrain from personal attacks. I do still pretty much appreciate what holydarkness is doing with dissecting this case to the tiniest bit, as it appears that based off of his questions I am getting to even more findings of what could have happened here.

Peace.

No offense taken, but if you don't like what I have to say, you can simply put me on ignore and you won’t have to read my posts. This is a public forum, and the topic is now part of a public discussion.

[shasan]

If you had no other account on their site then you would not face this types of prpblem. If still you werr facwd then the support from curacao would be the different also it coild be different from casinoguru. Now we have nothing to say e,cept soorry for a big loss. I know how you felt as after a little loss I felt too much disappoint though amount is nothing considering the amount of you.

[gh0573d]

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  

Now that I think about it, why would they ask me to verify my account if it was already verified?

Even wording

Once your account status is successfully verified, we will be able to assist you further.

alludes that my account was not verified in first place, even though it was

Sorry, but more that I read this e-mail, I'm now confident that this is either mistake by their end or intentional screw up with me to avoid paying, especially since it was not requested via dashboard, but via e-mail, delivered by a representative. Lets see what will be their response...

[Cantsay]

Now that I think about it, why would they ask me to verify my account if it was already verified?

Well there have been cases of account being sold or false documents being used to verify accounts and if a user is asked to re-verify his/her account is unable to do it or does it but this time with a different document or the details of the old and new documents doesn’t match it would mean that either the account changed hands or a forged document was used initially for verification purpose.

I have seen other reputable gambling sites asked their users to re-verify their account so this shouldn’t be a big deal for you as long as you’re not doing anything wrong.

[gh0573d]

Now that I think about it, why would they ask me to verify my account if it was already verified?

Well there have been cases of account being sold or false documents being used to verify accounts and if a user is asked to re-verify his/her account is unable to do it or does it but this time with a different document or the details of the old and new documents doesn’t match it would mean that either the account changed hands or a forged document was used initially for verification purpose.

I have seen other reputable gambling sites asked their users to re-verify their account so this shouldn’t be a big deal for you as long as you’re not doing anything wrong.

It's not about the question whether or not it was re-verification, as I have provided the documents required from me.

It's about the wording after attempted verification (documents were used to verify another account) and after that, my account getting closed with $1.5m in it. If it was tied to my account in first place, it should've submit the documents to Sumsub, not receive this output from them.

If you've read whole complaint I wrote here, you would understand that I've been accused of double accounts and abusing their referral system which I never did.

[Cantsay]

If you've read whole complaint I wrote here, you would understand that I've been accused of double accounts and abusing their referral system which I never did.

Well, I didn’t read the new input on this thread but I think I’ve read some part in the past and also your complaint in casinoguru which was closed because there was not enough evidence backing your claims or something like that.

For now, I don’t know who’s right and who’s not as we have no information to what’s actually happening behind the scenes and what actually transpired all we know is you both you and bcgame say - and that’s also the reason most people won’t respond to this thread because there’s nothing that can help them truly understand what happened. I only responded because of that your question and I’ve seen familiar thing happen in the past.

[gh0573d]

If you've read whole complaint I wrote here, you would understand that I've been accused of double accounts and abusing their referral system which I never did.

Well, I didn’t read the new input on this thread but I think I’ve read some part in the past and also your complaint in casinoguru which was closed because there was not enough evidence backing your claims or something like that.

For now, I don’t know who’s right and who’s not as we have no information to what’s actually happening behind the scenes and what actually transpired all we know is you both you and bcgame say - and that’s also the reason most people won’t respond to this thread because there’s nothing that can help them truly understand what happened. I only responded because of that your question and I’ve seen familiar thing happen in the past.

don't get me wrong, I appreciate any input/feedback

As for CG case, even this complaint publicly here, the problem all along is this is one-sided street: I'm trying to show my findings and show what I gathered so far, yet BC.game doesn't want to even talk to me privately, let alone address this matter publicly even though I explicitly am asking them to.

So, yeah, in reality everything seen so far here is either me backing my claims, or third party saying they've seen things otherwise, but those third parties are not even backing their claims. The only person willing to do that (and hopefully will) seems to be holydarkness, with which he could help me finally find out what's going on and hopefully help me resolve everything that's going on.

[holydarkness]

Ha ha ha…  you sound like you need a hug  .

You sound like you need to read the beslissing [#22]. Point us out where the verdict of the court that ruled in OP's favor is?

I'm no law student but even I can highlight where the op mentions winning a court case against bcgame:
[...]

Clearly. Otherwise you'll read the beslissing, which literally the court's decision, instead of posts laced with arguments.

I'll safe your face by snip those part of the posts from your quoted text. As well as to ensure that you didn't accidentally mislead people into thinking OP deliberately twist the narrative here as the posts you quoted as the "verdict" of the court, clearly bring different narrative with the actual verdict of the court.

Now, I'll leave you unaddressed from this point forward, to minimize the chance of further derailment. If you want to go with your agenda to paint me certain color, please do that in other thread. Not this one. This one is already confusing enough, and OP's fate is hanging at a balance here, I'll appreciate if you leave this one be instead of toying with OP's future just to satisfy your selfishness.

[...]
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. [...]

First of all, sorry that I snip half of your post it's too long, and my reply will be long too, and we create an enormous wall of text. Thus, I snip to the relevant point I wanted to know further.

Above, for example. It was what I mean by not further mudding the water, as I come to same theory in my head, though I don't want to give you the idea of using it as an "excuse", to accidentally prompt you into the narrative. Now that you say it yourself, safe to say to say that the scenario in my mind is a possibility, namely you sell your phone and someone access BC with it.

I'll have to ask my contact what happened when a phone is factory resetted [as you'll logically do when you sell your phone], whether their system will read it as similar device or not. In the meantime though, do you mind to tell me [ballpark is fine] when did you sell your phone?

[...]"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).[...]

Now, I am confused. Maybe the best approach is to tell me how exactly you log-in to your BC account, every time you log into it? Because first, I thought you use email, then you use Google auto-sign-in, and now phone number. I don't want to be too quick to assume, so maybe you better retrace retold us your "daily activity" with BC?

[gh0573d]

Ha ha ha…  you sound like you need a hug  .

You sound like you need to read the beslissing [#22]. Point us out where the verdict of the court that ruled in OP's favor is?

I'm no law student but even I can highlight where the op mentions winning a court case against bcgame:
[...]

Clearly. Otherwise you'll read the beslissing, which literally the court's decision, instead of posts laced with arguments.

I'll safe your face by snip those part of the posts from your quoted text. As well as to ensure that you didn't accidentally mislead people into thinking OP deliberately twist the narrative here as the posts you quoted as the "verdict" of the court, clearly bring different narrative with the actual verdict of the court.

Now, I'll leave you unaddressed from this point forward, to minimize the chance of further derailment. If you want to go with your agenda to paint me certain color, please do that in other thread. Not this one. This one is already confusing enough, and OP's fate is hanging at a balance here, I'll appreciate if you leave this one be instead of toying with OP's future just to satisfy your selfishness.

[...]
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. [...]

First of all, sorry that I snip half of your post it's too long, and my reply will be long too, and we create an enormous wall of text. Thus, I snip to the relevant point I wanted to know further.

Above, for example. It was what I mean by not further mudding the water, as I come to same theory in my head, though I don't want to give you the idea of using it as an "excuse", to accidentally prompt you into the narrative. Now that you say it yourself, safe to say to say that the scenario in my mind is a possibility, namely you sell your phone and someone access BC with it.

I'll have to ask my contact what happened when a phone is factory resetted [as you'll logically do when you sell your phone], whether their system will read it as similar device or not. In the meantime though, do you mind to tell me [ballpark is fine] when did you sell your phone?

[...]"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).[...]

Now, I am confused. Maybe the best approach is to tell me how exactly you log-in to your BC account, every time you log into it? Because first, I thought you use email, then you use Google auto-sign-in, and now phone number. I don't want to be too quick to assume, so maybe you better retrace retold us your "daily activity" with BC?

I sold it somewhere around when I was questioned in relation to my account freeze. If it was earlier or after account was locked, I truly can't remember. But I do know who the phone was sold to, and if I was ever received any information to that third account, I could at least confirm or deny if he is one of the guys I sold the phones to. I can even name them both (privately) if that would help.

As for how you log-in to the active account, I used phone + password. What I am telling is I don't know which one was exactly which, but I am 100% sure that one of these 2 accounts without activity were created out of a technical bug I previously explained, and that second account was NEVER used. Retracing it back a year, especially now that I have not my old phones with me would be impossible.

And holy, I really appreciate your thorough questioning, and once this issue is resolved (either here on in court), I'll come back and compensate you for time. You gave me already few different insights that were right in front of me, but I wasn't even looking at them. My lawyers are already drafting claims for Belize and Cyprus courts and the things you pointed me to helped A LOT! Thanks!

edit:

Actually, I can re-trace it, based on e-mail confirmation link:



Unused account was created manually, and the one I've been using up until closure was the one created with Google SSO option. This is my understanding based on the account creation date (which I can barely see) and considering that for Google SSO, you don't need to verify e-mail address.

[holydarkness]

I sold it somewhere around when I was questioned in relation to my account freeze. If it was earlier or after account was locked, I truly can't remember. But I do know who the phone was sold to, and if I was ever received any information to that third account, I could at least confirm or deny if he is one of the guys I sold the phones to. I can even name them both (privately) if that would help.

Or... we can reverse the process, where you ask that person who buy your phone whether they created an account on BC, what UID they have, when, etc. intstead of guessing what and how?

And yes, if you can do that, it might help us advance with your case. I mean do as above, asking them the question above, not sending me their name... It'll be useless if they're not related to this case.

As for how you log-in to the active account, I used phone + password. What I am telling is I don't know which one was exactly which, but I am 100% sure that one of these 2 accounts without activity were created out of a technical bug I previously explained, and that second account was NEVER used. Retracing it back a year, especially now that I have not my old phones with me would be impossible.

And holy, I really appreciate your thorough questioning, and once this issue is resolved (either here on in court), I'll come back and compensate you for time. You gave me already few different insights that were right in front of me, but I wasn't even looking at them. My lawyers are already drafting claims for Belize and Cyprus courts and the things you pointed me to helped A LOT! Thanks!

And what about how you access the account all this time? To LuckyWalker69? Do you use Google auto-sign-up or phone number?

edit:

Actually, I can re-trace it, based on e-mail confirmation link:



Unused account was created manually, and the one I've been using up until closure was the one created with Google SSO option. This is my understanding based on the account creation date (which I can barely see) and considering that for Google SSO, you don't need to verify e-mail address.

What is this about?