Topic: [SCAM] BC Game closed account with my winnings! >$90.000 - page 8. (Read 2237 times)

It is not that simple, the forum prizes privacy so much and we frown to doxxing [though if you give your consent and agreement, technically it's allowed]. This is what I try to get from the higher highest-ups, their permission to make an exception. I will specifically ask BC to refrain from doing so while I try to get green light from them.

But, suppose they allow it as an exception and you give your consent, I somehow think we [the forum] will still find it quite unethical for such information to be available for public on this section, not to mention BC perhaps think it violates their ToS with you regarding privacy. I think this is why BC is silent for a while, they weighted all the options carefully and try to come with the best one.

To be transparent [yet still without being specific as the nature of what I asked and they replied is personal and private] one actually gave his greenlight, as long as you gave your consent and words that you will not consider it as an attempt to doxx you [which you already gave] but the others suggested other approach. And unless I get a green light from all of them, in an absolute, uncontested, all-in-the-same-agreement way to get to verify this photo, I'll ask to refrain from walking this path.

Thus, I think the best approach, if we don't want to wait for the absolute permission, where we'll [most likely] still adhere to forum's rule, and perhaps not violating BC's privacy policy ToS, as well as preserving the sensitive info contained in that picture in the best way we can for your sake, I am suggesting you to take the second alternative: to have multiple people to check and validate the real circumstance around that photo, instead of just you and me.

If you [and BC, in regards to their privacy policy] are agree with this approach, I will propose several names, of whom are DTs, whose neutrality [I think we can all agree] are without doubt, and some are frequently attending cases on scam accusation boards and probably even familiar with your case as they follow the development in silence.

From those names, you can choose [to be sure that this entire process is on a neutral ground and free of any manipulation] which users you're willing to have your personal info being shared to. I'll then send each of them PMs, asking if they're willing to bear the burden to check and validate the photo and give their statement here regarding what they think of the photo. If one or two of them refuse [which, completely within their right], I will then ask you to choose another name from the list until we reach... I think five people [seven with you and me included] agree to validate it is enough? Or will that be a tad bit of an overkill?

Alternatively, if you want to turn the table, here's the list of this month's DT, you can choose the ones that you think is trustable and write their name here, I'll see from those names, which DTs are most likely will want to help verifying your case, if we all agree on that name, I'll ask their help through PM.

I think you'll also need to give a written statement, as in here, in form of a post, that you waive your rights on BC's privacy policy and allow them to publish that specific personal information of yours.

And I'm still waiting for this,

---

BC.Game Support, this proposal is also open for you. I'll repeat what I say above, that I highly urge you to refrain from publishing it here in public prior to the greenlight from the mods. However, I also understand that casinos have a privacy policy that they have to adhere.

I believe your silence is because you're conflicted with whether to comply with OP's proposal [about posting here or through PM to selected high ranked member] in regards to their privacy. Though everything should be approached with case-to-case basis, if you believe the approach I propose above will jeopardize this specific user's privacy and you want to keep it safe from public in accordance to your privacy policy, the best way that your team can take is, perhaps, a video call. If you're willing to do it?

OP it is your fault that BC.Game Support left the forum. (kidding but it's a funny coincidence)
Since your claim he stopped making replies to all the cases.

Don't expect any reply contacting CIL - their license holder. I'm gonna open a Scam accusation about it on next week if I still don't hear from them.

Yes I give my permission to them to publish it here in public.
I accept all your recommendations. Although it seems their OP is away for too many days already.

Later today I'll answer your pending questions. We are going in circles, and without bc.game intervention we will not get into any conclusion together. Please tell them to answer it and to publish the photo so everyone can judge.
There are no hands tied there are no weapons...

BC.game hello?

I am snipping the irrelevant post and merging parts of your post in single reply as [even though they're separated by a paragraph or two talking about different things] they're related.


Thanks for clarifying. I guess, yes, that's highly logical, the kidnapper tries their best to take the best picture prior to uploading it and can take as much of the captive's photo to get it.

It brought a new possibility to my mind, though, namely what if [in our imaginative scenario], Blo is simply an account seller and not related to Joana at all? His business is with Johan, Joana's husband. For argumentative purpose, it's quite logical for a KYC seller to finally tapped out his ID [there are only so much of his relatives' ID that he can sell before he need to outsource], and that's when he met Johan. Promised Johan some cash to lend him ID, and Johan gave him both his and his wife's. Blo then sold the account to Bo, of whom use that ID to play in BC, because he previously got banned and he tried to get around that limitation.

Problem occured when the platform asked Bo to perform KYC, because even though Bo have Joana's govt. ID, he certainly can't show them the KYC profile, as it'll be completely different. So he reached Blo, asking for those selfie, Blo asked Johan to provide the photo, and Johan apparently did a very poor job because the KYC shown sign of duress.

The exact chain of people and the length of it may varies, but the gist was that the BC user simply bought an ID from someone, he was not the one taking picture, as such, he didn't exactly know what's the picture looks like, thus not knowing that it shows a sign of abuse, nor have the slightest idea of what happened, given he never had a chance to look into the picture.

As such, when he's asked to give his side, to explain from his side why would possibly BC marked the account under duress and rejected the KYC, he tried to be evasive, because he didn't have any idea of what's the picture looks like too.

Question for you: even though the scenario above is hypothetical, don't you think such even is a possibility?


For this, I'm actually very conflicted. Let's say they do what you and several other people asked, shared the KYC photo in question to both you and me [or any other trusted member of the forum], it'll be for our eyes only, strictly limited to a few couple of eyes. Won't it be another case of "he said, she said"?

I can say that "oh, yes, the picture indeed shows signs of force" and you said "he lied, it's a completely normal photo with me sitting in front of a chair."

Same thing will happen if you escalate it to a mediator, where things are handled by one person. Though their neutrality can be trusted, it won't stop someone from saying something like "The Pogg is in bed with BC, they lied to me" [ironically, such baseless retaliatory accusation actually happened, though not with BC and not with Pogg]

I believe this is what's also on BC's mind, and that's why they kept being silent, they're trying to get a better approach.

So, here I am, if I may propose a better but more extreme solution, do you give your consent for them to provide it publicly here, with your face being blurred, and only part that --according to BC-- showed you being under duress is visible. I am currently contacting the highest ups [plural] of the forum and ask their permission to grant it as an exception [with some precaution taken, like blurring identifiable markers, etc.] to get this case resolved and/or if they need it to be solved in other manner.

Some have already replied to me, but I am waiting for all of them to give their insight prior to taking any action. For the time being, though, if I may repeat: do BC and the forum have your permission to publish your KYC image, with most of the identifiable aspect being blurred and only point of interests that made BC sure you're under duress being visible? Do you give your consent to this and will not consider it in any form as a way of doxxing you?

Second alternative I propose is to have multiple people check and validate the claim instead of just you and me. For this, I think blurring is not necessary, given the information is limited to a selected few's consumption instead of for public, and those selected few might get a better context if they see the details in full.

Though it will still leave room for "he said, she said, they said", the doubt will somewhat minimized as well as the exposure to your credential. If you agree to it, I will propose this [through mentioning their username here as well as sending them a PM] describing the situation in brief and ask if they would bear the burden of validation. The users will be those of high ranking, some frequently overseeing cases here on this sub-board, and I believe the forum acknowledges their neutrality. Still, for such, I'll need your consent in writing like above, that you agree to share that private information of yours to them and will not consider, in any form, that such action as doxxing you.


This highlight the possibility of "he said, she said" as explained above. It is not an unlikely situation that if we did what proposed, BC sharing the photo in question strictly to you and me, you'll say "it looks regular to me" while I said something else that contradicts that statement.


To put it into perspective, we are currently focusing on the point of "picture under duress". BC currently have made their statement, that they think the KYC photo is questionable. We tried to find a way around to prove this, as posting it here [for the time being] will be against forum rules. Thus, I tried to gain perspective from you, and thus, it looks like me only questioning you and not BC.

Of course, I can ask BC to give more details, just like I asked you. "BC, tell us whether she's tied to a chair or held at gun point? Describe to us, without being too specific, what made you think she's under duress", but I somewhat have a feeling that it will bring an undesired outcome.

To be blunt, I actually begin wondering why is it so difficult for you to answer the question I asked, if you're really wanted to get to the bottom of this, all you need to do from your part is tell us what were you looked like during the process that convince them you're under duress. If you're being completely normal, you can say that "I sit normally, hands on each side of my body, hair a bit messy, I smiled at the camera, with my jaw slightly opened due to my disbelief" however, what we get so far [at least according to my observation] was that you parroting me, without describing your past situation in your own word.

No, I'm not concerned about that because it's entirely false. You can confirm this by reaching out to this forum administrators and checking our authentications or wtv.
My point was regarding the heated argument in this thread, which isn't contributing constructively to the topic.

Apologies for the confusion. What I meant was, the "kidnapper/captor" is requesting the "slave" to take new photos until they achieve a satisfactory one. Is that task too challenging? Keep in mind, we're talking about a photo, not a live stream on platforms like Twitch. How can the "captor" make such a mistake as to include a knife or weapon in the photo?

It's BC.Game Support's turn to respond to this. I've already granted permission several days ago for the KYC photo to be sent to both you and me if necessary. I don't comprehend why it's taking them so long to address inquiries here or provide that evidence.

Only they have the answer to this; for me, it's just a regular photo.

This matter should be directed to BC.Game. As for me, there's nothing relevant to comment on regarding this photo. It's up to them to present the photo and clarify any issues with it, not me.

I was referring to the possibility that the "kidnapper" had complete control over the photo to be sent for KYC. So, if there was anything questionable about it, it would likely have been corrected before sending the photo, in my opinion. This is a practice observed on Dexter TV show, so I assume that individual would follow suit.

Could you kindly pose some questions to BC publicly as well? Otherwise, it appears somewhat biased from my perspective.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

I'm puzzled as to why there's so much contention in my thread.

@holydarkness, I fail to see the logic in your argument. Couldn't the genuine account owner simply review the photo in question? If it looked unfavorable, they could ask for repeats, right?

Do you think that would make any sense? forcing someone to take a photo, photo that would be previously prepared before sending?

Please let me outside this fights between you, and focus on this.

When will BC answer the previous questions? yours included? When will I have my funds?

So accordingly to you everyone can create an account, then if lose the bets they just need to take a selfie with a gun pointed for example and request the kyc? And all the bets would be voided? Is it?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Whatever my motivation may be—odd, off, oddly passionate, suspicious or whatever—it is not the issue here.

The issue is that BC Games has stolen $90,000 from the OP, which they seem to have won fair and square.

I’m just making my thoughts known, just like you, @holydarkness and every other poster on this thread. Is that OK with you sir?

Actually now that you react and reply so "passionate" it looks even more suspicious.
Why would YOU be so angry about this case without having a horse in the race, seems odd.
Not saying you have anything to do with it but your reaction looks really strange, I think other would agree.

Holydarkness just made a statement that your involvement here looks a bit off. He didn't accuse you of anything, just made his thoughts know.

I think everybody here should just hold their horses and wait until bc makes another statement. These things sometimes take time, as hard as it is. I totally understand the frustration is can cause. I have been in a situation where a site let me wait 40 days for a 20k withdrawal, without any updates or reasons given. So I know how it feels to be in a situation like that.

Yes, Inspector Clouseau, I sold KYC accounts back in the day. What does that have to do with anything? Why does my post history bother you? Does it make my opinion less valid?

You should go out sometime, you know, leave your room, spend time with real people. I bet you don’t have anything better to do with your useless time than to come on here pretending to help scam victims.

Stick to the facts or GTFO if you have nothing to contribute. The next thing you’ll be asking the OP is what they ate on the day and what the color of their shit was. If you were really neutral, you’d extend the same courtesy to BC Games.

Here are the facts:

1. The OP created an account, deposited, and won big.
2. The OP passed KYC before the big win.
3. The OP was able to withdraw some funds, which according to BC Games amounted to 14x their deposits, implying they have paid enough and it is acceptable not to pay the rest.
4. BC Games requested a second round of KYC, and the OP complied.
5. BC Games closed the account, denying the OP access to their account and funds.
6. The reason they gave was that the OP’s KYC picture is not the OP's, and that it seems coerced from a third party under the threat of violence. BC Games have not offered any proof to support their claims; it's solely their word and entirely subjective.
7. The OP has given BC Games permission to share the image while blanking out their name and other sensitive information.
8. BC Games is yet to respond.

I fail to see how your pointless line of questioning will contribute to resolving this issue. You speak as if you have insider knowledge of the inner workings of BC Games; I call bullshit

There isn't much I can contribute beyond what's already been expressed. It's evident I felt apprehensive given the circumstances and the significant sum of money involved. Personally, I don't see merit in dissecting the Mona Lisa painting in this context; only BC.Game possesses this interpretation.

To me, it seems illogical. I've provided all necessary information and cooperated fully. My interactions with BC.Game have ceased as my trust in them has diminished.

The funds in question represent a considerable profit that's currently inaccessible. As advised, if BC.Game has any allegations against me, they should address them through appropriate channels (police eg). Now, I simply request the owed payment be made promptly.

Question for you: If the situation were reversed, meaning if I had lost more than $90,000, would BC.Game return the bets I placed and lost using the same rationale? Please be honest. It's common knowledge that such a scenario is highly unlikely.

Since you mentioned that support is currently handling the case, I find it hard to comprehend why it would take so many days for a decision or review to be reached. In your opinion, what could be the reason for such a lengthy delay? Additionally, why is it that every time I've reached out to support via live chat, I've felt disregarded? Their responses seem automated, lacking in human empathy or consideration for my concerns.

Could you also include some questions directed towards BC.Game in this discussion? It seems like all the pressure is on me, and it's incredibly unsettling in this manner.

If you would spare some time to weight the story from all sides while standing on a neutral ground, and try to take one or two steps ahead by guessing every possible scenario, I believe you'll see that you're jumping to conclusion. Talking about shady as hell and a clear case of... theft, though, I can't help but wonder where are you coming from?

I mean, not trying to accuse you of anything, simply weighting from all sides and trying to consider as much possible scenario as I can, here's some key fact:

1. You're caught as an identity thief, selling account with people's KYC, as reflected on your trust page
2. Your last post was by 2 June 2023, and you popped right into this thread
3. You insist that BC should accept her KYC or retake it

I have to say that I can't help but consider it is a very nice coincidence that fits the imaginery scenario in my head, about her being forced to do KYC as I described, "or pushed and forced to sit in front of the camera, perhaps they were concerned that the real operator of the user ID #23428479 is someone who tried to bypass account restriction by borrowing her ID, and upon the request of KYC, understanding that their picture won't match her ID, forced her to take her picture."

Can anyone else tell me if I am being way too imaginative and paranoid or is that a legit scenario and a way too eerie coincidence?

---

Actually... yes, there is an evidence of that. I can provide an evidence that BC's representative is currently trying to figure out what to do next, but I don't think that'll be wise of me to do so. As such, I hope, without going to much details, my words holds some water when I said that AHOBRAUSE's educated guess is actually correct, that BC's team are indeed trying to find a way and that their representative are not sitting on their hand.

---

Joana226, it'll be very much appreciated and helpful if you can answer my question on previous post.

What information do you have regarding this matter?

All I can confirm is that I have yet to receive payment, as evidenced here: https://tronscan.org/#/address/TNPDxPWyQFFoj9mV6NPCNN7ZQG9jknVXhs"

I remain hopeful for a resolution, but given the absence of support and brief communication, my confidence in a swift resolution is waning.

If you have troubles with me, go to my thread. You are the one who is tainting. I got a GF dude, stop sending me nudes.

Any evidence of that? or just your guess? do you wear guess? <3 stay put.

You mean, what will be the next scam?

This case has more meaning than your's ever had.
You move from casino to casino to casino and try to play your addiction card to get refunded. Basically it's fair to say they you are a scammer.
Your presence alone in this thread already is bad for OP because your name is tainted.

About this case, bc support is just figuring out what to do next. Once they come to a conclusion I am sure bc will update here.

It seems their support representative is absent from the forum :\ convenient... or not.

I don't believe they would let him withdraw 14x without a valid KYC... just me saying.
Props to the BC Support for telling the "truth" and for the originality of it.

They could say the OP had multi accounts... or cheated... but it wasn't the case this time.

I also would like to know what ToS was violated and see some evidences from it. I suggest gathering all the pending claims of BC.Game, create a scam signature for it and contract a lawyer to fight it.
unbelievable...

To be honest, I wouldn't be so quick to prejudge until you know all the details from BC.Game. Payouts of this magnitude are certainly not uncommon at BC.Game, so I doubt that they are withholding the payout for no reason.

Of course, the case can only be cleared up if the relevant documents (videos from the KYC, etc.) are presented. As the support team has also actively contributed to this thread, I am sure that they are actively working on the issue, as a casino is unlikely to put up with accusations regarding its reputation.

I know you’re trying to help, but this is a clear case of thievery by BC Games. If they had concerns about the OP's KYC, a simple video call with the OP would have resolved that. They suspect abuse, they have the OP’s details and address from their documents, and have not reported it to the police, but they've happily decided to keep the money for themselves. Let's not pretend this is something else; it's a clear case of theft and it's shady as hell.

Resuming I did anything wrong. My kyc was valid. I was able to withdraw some funds still... And they just decided I couldn't withdraw more.

They cannot be free to interpret whatever they want. It is a lot of money, my winnings are legit and my Kyc is done correctly.

BC is a Scam and it proves it. As everyone can see they still didnt pay my winnings. Please ban them from this forum and add a red flag!