BC.Game Casino Review

The player from Russia had their account blocked after trying to withdraw $850, despite completing the verification process. Support cited rule violations without specifying which rules were broken and stated the decision was final.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal of 47,919 INR a month ago, which was marked as successful, but the amount had not been credited to their bank account. The player claimed to have contacted customer support multiple times without receiving a satisfactory response and had provided proof of the issue. The casino stated that the payment had been made and provided transaction receipts. Upon reviewing the bank statement from the player, we confirmed that the transaction had been completed, and the complaint was rejected as unjustified due to a misunderstanding.

The player from Canada attempted KYC verification but was informed that his ID had already been used, despite having no account on the site. As a result, he was unable to withdraw over $800. We requested additional information from the player but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The casino had requested specific documentation and video proof to verify the transaction. The player had declined to provide the requested proof, citing previous efforts and an alleged bank error. Due to the player's lack of cooperation in providing the necessary documentation, the complaint was closed.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal two weeks earlier, which was marked as successful, but the funds had not been credited to his bank account. Customer support had provided a transaction slip that the bank could not verify. The player had contacted his bank multiple times, but they confirmed that no such transaction existed. The issue was resolved successfully after the player provided all necessary information and communicated with the casino.

The player from Belarus had their account closed by bc.game casino after trying to withdraw roughly $35,000 following a successful verification process. Despite providing the requested information, their account remains inaccessible, and they were informed of rule violations without specific details.

A player from the Philippines deposited 32,809 PHP through GCash to BCGame, but the deposit was denied by the merchant for 25 days. Despite confirming the successful transfer with their bank, the player requested a statement of account to retrieve the funds. The casino stated that the issue had already been resolved and refunded. We attempted to confirm this with the player, but received no response. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Michigan experienced a malfunction with the casino's Stop Loss Feature, resulting in two unauthorized bets totaling $613.35. Despite being promised a swift refund after the issue was confirmed and fixed, he did not receive his money after over a week and multiple follow-ups with support. Upon review, it was determined that the Stop Loss Feature worked based on the total win/loss amount, not individual bets. Since the casino's system was set automatically and no error was found, the complaint was rejected. The player was advised to contact licensing authorities for further assistance.

The player from Russia attempted to withdraw money but faced repeated rejections of his KYC verification despite submitting high-quality documents. After three unsuccessful attempts, the casino support refused further KYC attempts, preventing withdrawal.

The player from Japan had successfully completed the initial KYC process and continued playing at BCGame. However, during the June 23rd withdrawal, his account was flagged, necessitating an advanced KYC, which he provided. The approval was delayed, and he could no longer log in to his account, fearing his funds might be confiscated. We determined that the complaint related to sport-betting activity, which fell outside our scope. The player was referred to other websites for assistance, and the complaint was closed.

The player from Nigeria made a deposit of 25,000 to their Bc account, but the transaction failed after hours of processing, despite showing as successful in their wallet. We advised the player to contact their payment provider, who confirmed the transaction's success. The casino was asked to investigate, and the player's deposit was eventually returned to his wallet. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Colombia deposited money into a BC.Game account, but the funds were not credited. We requested additional information from the player, including a payment receipt and any communication with the casino. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player did not provide the requested details. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Russia had his account permanently locked after allegedly violating the casino's Terms of Service by engaging in prohibited techniques. Despite passing verification, he sought clarification and his winnings back, asserting that he had only placed bets. After reviewing the information and evidence provided by the casino, which showed the player was involved in opposite betting on sports and live games, we concluded that the casino's actions were justified. Therefore, the complaint was rejected, and no further assistance could be provided.

The player from India mistakenly enabled 2FA on their casino account and subsequently lost access. We inquired about the player's communication with the casino, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from India had deposited ₹10,000 to the casino, but the money was credited to another account. Despite providing evidence and raising a ticket, the issue remained unresolved. The casino requested further information and video proof from the player but received no response. Due to the lack of cooperation from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom experienced a technical issue while playing Immersive Roulette, which resulted in a winning bet on 26 Black being removed. Despite discussing the issue with their VIP host, the casino found no error, and the player sought either the winnings or a refund of the overall roulette bet. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from Belgium was unable to log in due to an account verification error despite already being verified. After contacting support and providing the requested information, he did not receive a response for over a week. The casino provided evidence that the account was blocked due to a breach of terms in sports betting and slots. We concluded that we could not assist further as the issue was related to sports betting, which was outside our expertise. The player was advised to seek resolution through specialized sports betting complaint platforms.

The player from Japan, a VIP member, had their withdrawal locked on May 10th and was asked to complete advanced KYC. Despite successfully authenticating with a passport on May 27th, the account remained locked, and repeated inquiries to the VIP host did not resolve the issue. After escalating the matter to our team, the account was eventually unlocked, and the player successfully withdrew and received their funds. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Japan deposited 1800 RM on 6/3/2024, but the deposit was not received despite providing proofs and contacting live support several times. The player was repeatedly asked to wait different time frames but still received no resolution. The casino confirmed the deposit was credited on June 9th. We extended the response time for the player, but due to no further communication from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Cuba faced issues with the reactivation of his BC.GAME casino account, which had restricted functions such as withdrawals. He had initially created an account that was put at risk status after meeting rollover requirements. Forced to create a new account, he then found it restricted due to KYC complications, as the KYC process had previously been completed for the first account. He requested the transfer of KYC from the risk account to his active one. The issue was not resolved as the creation of multiple accounts breached the casino's terms, leading to potential permanent restrictions and forfeiture of funds.

The player from Estonia was unable to withdraw funds and received a message stating that withdrawal permission had been suspended. Despite completing KYC and contacting support multiple times, the issue remained unresolved while the player could still deposit and play games. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal issue was resolved successfully. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Argentina reported that the casino had closed his account, confiscated his winnings, and was not responding to his emails. We requested additional information from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Ukraine made a few bets and attempted to withdraw money, but faced verification issues. Despite initially passing the verification, it was later rejected, and she then had no more attempts to verify her identity, preventing her from withdrawing her winnings. We requested further details and communication from the player, but she stopped responding to our messages. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from India had been playing on BC Game for three months and had successfully made withdrawals using Paytm. However, on May 27, five withdrawals appeared as successful, but the funds were not credited to his bank account. We advised the player to wait for up to 14 days for the withdrawals to arrive, but after further communication, it was confirmed that two of the withdrawals were refunded while three were still pending. Eventually, the player confirmed that the issue was resolved successfully, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Ireland unsuccessfully tried to close multiple accounts with the casino due to gambling issues, which resulted in further losses. Despite numerous email requests for self-exclusion and blocking measures, the casino only provided generic responses and took no action. The casino neglected responsible gaming practices. We concluded that the player did not complete KYC verification and violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by using different email addresses and a VPN, preventing the casino from identifying him as a self-excluded user. Therefore, we were unable to assist in this case, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US had a gambling addiction and repeatedly requested permanent account closure without success. Despite contacting customer support multiple times, they were only provided with a self-exclusion link that could be canceled after 24 hours. The player faced severe financial and emotional distress due to this ongoing issue. We requested evidence of the player's communication with the casino, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Ireland claimed that the casino had taken their money and attributed this to their lack of security, with the casino refusing to issue a refund. The player was asked to cooperate with the casino's investigation by providing a video, which he found unreasonable. The Complaints Team determined that there was activity from two different IP addresses, however, this fact alone is inconclusive. The complaint was closed as a result.

The player from Morocco had requested a withdrawal of 900 USDT from BC.Game Casino and had completed verification as requested. Afterwards, the casino allegedly cancelled all the player's profits and bets, leaving no money in their account. The casino claimed the player's wagers were invalidated due to exploiting erroneous odds and that the account was locked after a self-exclusion request. We concluded that the player's issue pertained to sports betting, which fell outside our scope of assistance, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The casino closed player's account and told him his account was at risk. In order to reinstate it, he had to go through verification but the casino kept asking him supplementary verification documents, which he eventually refused to provide because they were too sensitive. No more updates since then.

The player had issues with depositing 4.000 NGN, so he deposited 1.000 NGN, and 4.000 NGN again becaise he forgot he'd already made one deposit. In the end, none of these amounts were credited to his account and the casino said he had sumbitted payments to wrong merchant. No more updates since then.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit by bank transfer for a promotion, but despite more than 48 hours passing, the deposit hadn't been credited to their casino account. Multiple complaints to customer service had not resulted in a resolution. We advised the player to contact their payment provider for further investigation, as the casino could not resolve this issue directly. The complaint was rejected due to the player not responding to our messages and questions.

A player from Venezuela participated in a 'daily' promotion, but the casino refused to payout the associated winnings. The casino stated the player's entry was submitted after the event's deadline and was therefore invalid. The player claimed other late entries were rewarded and requested proof. No sufficient evidence was provided by the player. The complaint was closed due to a lack of relevant proof supporting the player's claim.

The player from Cyprus had complained about misleading promotions at BC Game. He had been promised a personal host and bonuses upon reaching VIP level 38, and had deposited over 10k in the attempt. However, he discovered these rewards were conditional on eligibility that had not been previously mentioned. The player felt cheated and sought a refund. We had explained that we could not compel the casino to provide these benefits as each establishment had its own VIP tiers and rules. The player had provided evidence of the casino's promises, but the casino responded that the VIP program was invite-only. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, we had to reject the complaint as unjustified due to our inability to intervene in the casino's promotional offers.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited £100 via faster payment bank transfer to an online casino, however, the funds had not been reflected in his casino account. The player had provided evidence of the transaction to the casino but had received no resolution. The player had contacted his bank, which had confirmed the transaction was successful. It had been the player's first deposit with this casino. The issue was eventually resolved when the casino had credited the funds to the player's account.

The player, luciferrx0104, had requested to have his case closed and deleted. However, we had informed him that it was not possible to delete any case, but we could make it private so only he could view it. We wished him well and offered future assistance if needed.

The player from India had wanted to self-exclude and permanently cancel his account with an online casino. However, he had faced issues as the self-exclusion link provided was not functioning and the casino's support was unhelpful. After discussing with our team and understanding the difference between account closure and self-exclusion, he had decided to permanently close his account. We confirmed that his issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Ukraine couldn't withdraw money from his account due to difficulties passing the KYC "Advanced Verification". Despite several attempts and contacting the support service, the matter remained unresolved. After providing all necessary communication to us, the player was eventually allowed to withdraw his money, although his account remained unverified. The complaint was closed at the player's request.

The player from Russia had an issue with his casino account. He claimed that due to a verification error with his first account, he created a second account where he placed a single bet. The casino initially blocked both accounts due to their policy against multiple accounts. However, the casino reopened the second account temporarily to allow the withdrawal of his winnings before closing it again. The player failed to respond to further communications, leading us to reject the complaint due to a lack of cooperation.

The player from India had deposited Rs 2500 to the casino, but after 15 hours, the deposit still had not reflected in the account. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino's ability to assist was limited in such cases. The casino had requested specific documentation and video proof to verify the transaction. Despite multiple follow-up requests, the player did not respond, leading us to close the complaint due to a lack of cooperation.

The player from the Philippines could not verify their account because the casino asserted that the player had another account. The player attempted to transfer their KYC (Know Your Customer) information to the current account, but it was rejected. The player explained that they created a new account because they could not access their previous account and were unaware of the prohibition against multiple accounts. Despite providing screenshots of communication with customer service, the issue remained unresolved. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

A player from the United Kingdom accidentally selected the 'permanent self-exclude' option on BC game, instead of a 24-hour time out. The casino did not allow the player to access the account since then, despite there being funds in it. The player wished to have the account unlocked and withdraw the funds. The casino confirmed the permanent self-exclusion was verified via email and advised the player to request a withdrawal through email. We were unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response, resulting in the complaint being rejected.

The player from the United States had been locked out of his account after he expressed dissatisfaction and made a threatening comment about self-harm to the casino's VIP host. The player had also had issues with the betting system of the casino, which he claimed had caused him to accidentally place maximum bets. The casino had permanently banned the player, citing the "suicidal threats" as the reason. The player had approximately $8.40 in his account at the time of the ban. We had concluded that the casino's actions were in line with its Terms and Conditions, which prioritized responsible gambling and the safety of its players. The player's request for a refund had been declined as the deposited funds had been used for gameplay.

The player from India had mistakenly submitted a friend's documents for KYC verification as he didn't have his personal documents at the time. Despite his attempts to rectify this error and offer his real documents, the casino had banned him from submitting any more documents. We had explained to the player that by providing false personal information, he had violated the casino's Terms and Conditions, which justified the casino's decision to permanently close his account. Despite the player's request for another chance to prove his identity, we had upheld the casino's decision due to the serious breach of their policies.

The player from Brazil was struggling to complete verification to access her old account after she had created and deleted a new one. She had requested a new link but was facing warnings about documents that had been used previously. The casino had responded stating that the player had over 40 accounts and had been abusing the bonus system by claiming bonuses from multiple accounts. As a result, all associated accounts had been locked in accordance with the casino's Terms of Service. The complaint had been rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

The player from Germany had been able to deposit funds on BC Game after requesting self-exclusion. He stated that deposits made after the self-exclusion should have been refunded, and asked for help connecting with BC Game. However, we discovered that the player had previously submitted an identical complaint which had been thoroughly investigated and subsequently rejected. Despite the player's request for assistance, we were unable to help him get his refunds due to the evidence provided by the casino. The complaint was rejected again for these reasons.

The player from India was facing issues with the withdrawal function on his online casino account, which appeared to be blocked. He had requested for it to be unlocked. The Complaints Team had tried to gather more information about the account's verification status, the reason for withdrawal issues, and the nature of his winnings. However, the player did not respond to these inquiries. The casino also claimed they could not find the user's email in their system. Due to the lack of response from the player, we were compelled to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had only a fraction of his winnings, approximately $500, credited to his account. Despite repeated contact with the support team, he received no response nor the remainder of his winnings, which he estimated to be around $6,000. The player had provided screenshots and other evidence to support his claim. We had investigated the matter and found that the casino's system had calculated the player's winnings as $3.42 based on his bet amount and the winning combination.

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The player faced issues with KYC verification and was unable to upload documents. The casino confirmed the KYC portal was unlocked and later stated transactions were proceeding normally. However, the player did not respond to follow-up messages, resulting in the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from India had been unable to withdraw his winnings despite having completed the KYC verification process and having reached out to support multiple times. The casino had clarified that after the completion of the KYC process, the player's account had been unlocked and he had opted for self-exclusion. The player later confirmed that he had been able to successfully withdraw his winnings. As a result, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from India had his KYC verification process rejected because he had submitted a friend's documents, which had been previously used on a now-deleted account. He wanted to restart the KYC verification process using his original documents. He had some balance left in his account and had reached out to the casino's support team for help. However, due to his breach of the casino's terms by using third party documents, we had concluded that the casino had the right to block his account. Therefore, we were unable to assist him further in this matter.

The player from India made three separate deposits to the casino, totaling Rs 30,000, but they were never credited to his account. The player was advised to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino claimed it had no control over the issue. The casino requested a bank statement and video proof to proceed. The player failed to respond to these requests, and the complaint was ultimately rejected due to a lack of communication.

The player from India made a deposit to BC games on April 26th, 2024, but the money was not deposited into their game despite being debited from their account. The live support did not respond. We advised the player to contact their payment provider for investigation. The player provided proof multiple times, but the casino requested additional video proof. The player expressed frustration and claimed to have met all requirements. The casino stated they hadn't received the necessary information. Due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, the complaint was closed.

The player from India had deposited money, which had been debited from his bank account, but had not been credited to his casino account. The Complaints Team had suggested contacting the payment provider and had advised against making further deposits until the issue was resolved. The casino had requested a statement and video proof of the transaction. The player, however, did not respond to the instructions provided by the casino and the Complaints Team. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to the lack of player's response.

The player from India had deposited INR 20000 into BC Game, but the casino claimed they never received the funds, even though the player's bank had confirmed the transaction was successful. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue with the casino's support, the problem persisted. The player had provided all necessary proofs to the casino, but the issue remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had extended the timer for the player to respond, but due to lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

An Indian player's ability to withdraw and receive tips in an online casino game had been suspended unexpectedly. Despite wagering more than they had deposited, the player's withdrawal attempts had initially been unsuccessful, which led to the suspension. The player had registered with the casino a day prior and had not completed the KYC verification. The casino had requested the player to complete the KYC process but the player had expressed concerns about the assurance of withdrawal post-verification. The casino had clarified that their terms and conditions prohibited the use of multiple accounts, which the player seemed to possess. We had advised the player to submit the necessary documents for verification. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we had to reject the case.

The player from India had reported that his deposit made from a bank account had not reflected in his BC Game account. Upon investigation, we found that the casino was unable to assist without further details, such as the order ID, for the transaction. We extended the time for the player to respond but received no further communication. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to insufficient information to proceed with the investigation.

The player from Austria had been playing the slot 'Tome of Madness' on BC.Game when his entire 7.5k balance suddenly disappeared and his account was logged out. After regaining login access, he discovered a withdrawal transaction that he had not authorized. The player claimed he did not receive any notifications and had not shared his account details with anyone. The casino, after investigating, found that the account had been accessed from various devices and IPs using correct login credentials. The casino suggested that the account details might have been shared or a phishing link might have been used. The casino also highlighted that 2FA had not been activated on the account. The player denied sharing his account details or clicking a phishing link. We concluded that since the correct login credentials had been used without any failed attempts and the withdrawal was to a manually entered crypto wallet, there was little that could have been done. The player was advised to strengthen his account security and contact the casino's licensing authority if he wished to pursue the case further. The complaint was rejected due to lack of evidence indicating a fault on the casino's part.

The player from the Netherlands had experienced issues with a game on the BC Game site. Despite significant deposits, he observed lower RTP rates and had not scored any winnings. Additionally, he noted an absence of customer support and the disappearance of his game record. The player believed he was deceived by the casino, leading to a loss of funds. However, we concluded that the RTP information provided in-game took priority over outside sources. We did not see the request for a refund as justified. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit and verified KYC on BC.Game before his account was permanently blocked, locking his funds. The player had claimed to have only one account, but the casino had provided evidence of more than 30 accounts associated with the user. The player had admitted that a family member also played BC Game using the same IP address. Despite the player's insistence on having only one account, the evidence provided by the casino led to the conclusion that the account blockage had been justified due to multiple account violations. Therefore, the complaint had been deemed unjustified.

The player from India was unable to withdraw his funds due to issues with the KYC process. Despite the Complaints Team's attempts to understand the situation better by asking for more details about the player's verification problems, the player had failed to respond. The casino also requested additional information to assist the player further. However, due to the player's lack of response, we had to reject the complaint as we were unable to investigate the matter further.

The player from Georgia was facing withdrawal issues at an online casino. Despite basic account verification and subsequent full KYC, his withdrawal ability had been suspended. Customer support's efforts to rectify the issue had been ineffective. The player had previously made multiple successful withdrawals totaling over 20k USD. His current winnings of 7k USD were accumulated without an active bonus. The casino had then unblocked his withdrawal but there were two sports tickets that had not been refunded. The casino advised the player to contact support regarding this issue. However, the player did not respond to our recent messages and therefore, we rejected the complaint.

The player from India had faced difficulties with a cryptocurrency withdrawal from an online casino. His account had been fully blocked following suspicions of fraudulent activity and discrepancies involving commissions and tips. The casino's investigation had revealed significant irregularities, including accumulated commissions from a provider bug and multiple tips from the same source, which had led to the account's suspension. The player's balance at that time reflected a debt of $600 to the platform. Despite attempts to communicate with the player and resolve the issue, the lack of response had led us to reject the complaint.

The player from Cambodia had encountered an issue with BC Game, where after a withdrawal of 99 USDT to a Binance account, his balance was reduced to zero. The withdrawal history indicated the funds were sent to an unknown address, leading the player to suspect they were stolen. Upon investigation, the casino found no suspicious activity on the player's account and suggested that the player was responsible for the security of his account. We concluded that the player's use of a VPN made it impossible to track account usage. The player was advised to report the issue to local authorities, as the casino could not be held responsible for such actions.

The player from Mexico had had issues with BC Game casino regarding two withdrawals made on March 12th that had not been credited to his account. Despite having provided a March bank statement and screenshots as evidence, the casino had requested the most recent bank statement, which the player could not provide as the month was still ongoing. The player's account had been fully verified since February 22nd and the winnings had been made with real money, not bonuses. After a series of exchanges, the casino had agreed to contest the payments with their merchant and eventually refunded both payments back to the player's account. The player had confirmed that the money had been refunded and he had been able to withdraw successfully. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had expressed dissatisfaction with BC.Game Casino for having allowed him to deposit and gamble despite a previous self-exclusion request. As a result, he had suffered personal financial losses and had requested the reimbursement of €5000, which was the difference between all the deposits and withdrawals made. He had provided evidence of his previous self-exclusion and claimed that the casino's security system had failed as he was able to create a new account and continue gambling. The casino had responded by conducting a thorough review of the accounts associated with the player and found no issues regarding self-exclusion or unauthorized transactions. After reviewing all the evidence, we concluded that the player was not entitled to a refund of deposits as the first account was never verified and could not be linked to the second account. Therefore, the casino had no knowledge of the player's gambling problems until he mentioned it with his account created in 2024. The complaint had now been closed.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's complaint, the casino had requested a video proof and bank statements from the player. The player complied and provided the necessary documents. The casino was then able to recover the funds and refunded them back to the player's account. The issue had been successfully resolved with the cooperation of both parties.

The player from India had reported a problem with receiving his winnings from the casino. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawal delays could have been due to KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and suggested waiting for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino had requested more details to assist the player. However, the player did not respond to the team's messages and questions, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Japan had had an issue with a deposit not reflecting in his casino account, despite his bank having confirmed the transaction. After several live chat consultations, the issue had remained unresolved. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino had had no control over the issue. The casino had requested additional details about the deposit for further investigation. Upon receipt of this information, the casino had confirmed that the transaction had been successfully processed and credited to the player's account. The player had acknowledged that the deposit was successfully made. We then marked the complaint as having been resolved.

The player, originally from Ukraine and residing in Germany, had encountered issues with the KYC procedure while trying to withdraw $10K winnings from BC.Game Casino. Despite multiple attempts and communication with the casino, the player had been unable to upload necessary identification documents due to a document limit set by the casino's website. The casino had advised the player to email the required documents for verification. However, the player did not respond to this suggestion, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of further communication from the player.

The player from Canada had encountered a game issue with the online casino and subsequently, his account had been locked due to an 'account risk' error. He had $113 remaining in his balance. The casino had explained that his account was locked due to suicidal comments made by the player in their public chat. The player had failed to provide the requested information to the Complaints Team within the extended deadline, hence the investigation could not proceed further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States had deposited over $20,000 in crypto into his B.C. Game account. Despite his balance having stood at $10,000, his withdrawal attempts had been suspended. The player had completed the KYC process and had provided necessary account details, but the issue had persisted. The player had suspected that his U.S. residency might have caused the suspension, as B.C. Game's terms of service had prohibited services for U.S. residents. The casino had confirmed that the player's account was locked due to a violation of their terms of service, as the player had used a VPN to access the site. We had concluded that the casino was within its rights to suspend the account and void the player's winnings due to the breach of terms. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Japan was experiencing difficulty with depositing funds into his online casino account. Despite having transaction reports on his VEGA Wallet, all his attempts to transfer funds to the casino had been cancelled. He claimed the funds had been transferred to an unknown user without his permission. The Complaints Team clarified that they could not intervene in issues involving payment providers or misuse of bank details. As such, the player was advised to involve the police if he believed his funds were stolen and misused. The issue remained unresolved from our end as it fell outside our jurisdiction.

The player from Estonia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised her to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino had confirmed that the withdrawal was processed. After extending the complaint resolution period by 7 days, the player confirmed that she received her winnings. The issue was subsequently marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Japan had reported an issue regarding a bank transfer deposit that was not reflecting in his casino account despite his bank balance having shown a reduction. The player had provided screenshots and had waited over 48 hours, but the issue had persisted. He had made several deposits in the past without any delays. After he contacted his bank about the issue, the player confirmed that he had been successfully refunded. The issue had been resolved and the complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Japan was facing difficulties depositing money into the casino. Although the funds were deducted from his bank account, the deposit did not reflect on the casino platform. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's live chat support. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation and suggested he should not deposit more funds until the issue was resolved. However, due to lack of response from the player to our messages and queries, we had to reject the complaint. The player still had the option to reopen this complaint in the future.

The player from New Zealand had an issue with an online casino, where she had been unable to close her account due to the unavailability of the self-exclusion button and lack of response from the casino's support team. She had been losing money and was tempted by promotional emails. She had requested account closure and sought compensation for the period from the time the closure request was made. The player claimed to have a gambling problem and felt that the casino had failed to act promptly upon her request for self-exclusion. The casino, however, argued that the account had been closed immediately after the player admitted her gambling problem. Our team had concluded that without explicit admission of gambling addiction and request for self-exclusion from the player prior to March 14, we were unable to assist in recovering the lost deposits. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Japan had attempted a withdrawal from BCGAME, but had encountered an error in the memo entry. The player had corrected the error and received a refund from the destination, but the refunded amount did not reflect back in his BCGAME account. The player had reported this issue to the casino's support team. After a series of discussions and exchanges of evidence, the casino had acknowledged the problem and promised to process the refund within 48 hours. However, this timeline was not met, which caused further frustration for the player. Ultimately, the casino had provided a code for the player to claim his refund on their bonus page. The player had confirmed receipt of the refund, but expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's support. We had successfully mediated the complaint and it was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from India had made a 10000 INR deposit through UPI which was confirmed by the bank, but the amount had not been credited into the casino account. The player had exhausted the casino's complaint procedure and had submitted the required documents, however, the issue remained unresolved. After a lengthy back-and-forth with the casino and the complaints team, the casino requested additional proof, and after the player had provided this, the issue was eventually resolved and the funds were credited to the player's casino account.

The player from Kenya had an issue with BC.Game casino after he had successfully deposited 520 USDT and won an additional 532 USDT. Despite having passed verification checks, his withdrawal section had been suspended without a clear explanation. He had been waiting for a resolution for over 48 hours. The casino representative clarified that the account had been temporarily locked for the KYC process and was restored once the process was completed. The player later confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Argentina had had an issue with her deposits at an online casino. She had been unable to use her funds for playing or withdrawing, and the casino had not listed Argentine Pesos as a currency option. Furthermore, her attempts to seek assistance via live chat and email had been unsuccessful due to delays and an incorrect email address on the casino's website. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the player had confirmed that the issue was resolved. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' by the team.

The player from Kentucky had won .013 btc but encountered an issue when the withdrawal reversed back to the casino after reaching her Cashapp. The player had deposited $1074 in the previous 7 days and felt that he had not been adequately compensated for his loyalty and the inconvenience caused by the reversal. He had expressed a feeling of exploitation by the casino, especially due to his gambling addiction. We had advised the player to inform the casino about his gambling problem and to apply for self-exclusion. However, the complaint was eventually rejected due to lack of further response from the player.

The player from Portugal had lodged a complaint against BC.Game Casino, alleging that despite making the casino aware of his self-confessed gambling addiction and requesting account restrictions, the casino had closed his account without implementing protective measures such as deposit restrictions or stake limits as per their terms of service. The player claimed to have lost $4,008 since making the casino aware of his addiction. The complaint team had requested evidence of the player's communication with the casino, which was provided. The casino, however, maintained that they had not received any such communication from the player until March 2nd, at which point they closed the player's account in line with responsible gaming practices. After a thorough review of all provided evidence and a call with the casino team, the complaint team concluded that the player's account had been closed promptly after the casino was directly contacted about the gambling issue. The complaint was closed as 'rejected' due to insufficient evidence to warrant a refund of the player's deposits.

The player from Vietnam had reported a $3000 unauthorized withdrawal from their account. They suspected it occurred during a maintenance period. The player was unable to reach support and believed their account security on BCGAME's platform might have been compromised. Despite their account being verified and using a known withdrawal method, the player's issue could not be resolved by the Complaints Team. This was due to the nature of the issue falling under the jurisdiction of the police and the player's bank, beyond the legal authority and resources of the mediator. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. After contacting the casino's support team multiple times, he was advised to send an email with his account details. The casino responded that his account had been restored, but it was unclear if the withdrawal issue was resolved. Despite our efforts to reach out to the player for an update, we received no response. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Japan had deposited money, and met the betting conditions, but couldn't withdraw the winnings. The casino had requested KYC (Know Your Customer) but rejected the documents the player submitted. The player admitted to having used her mother's ID for KYC, which was against the casino's policy. Unfortunately, the player had used up all the winnings in the process. We had advised the player to always use her own ID and deposit method when dealing with online casinos to avoid such issues in the future. We rejected the complaint due to funds being lost.

The player from Ukraine was struggling to withdraw funds from an online casino, despite having passed both regular and advanced KYC checks. The withdrawal option had been blocked without any clear reason given to the player. Upon the player's complaint, we had contacted the casino on his behalf, and the casino had responded that his account was back to normal after the KYC process and that he had set a self-exclusion for three months. We had asked the player to confirm this information, but without his response, we were forced to close the complaint.

The player from Germany was dealing with withdrawal issues after depositing 660 USDT to BC.game and playing Crash and Limbo games. He encountered an error message that stated withdrawal and tip permissions had been suspended and was advised to complete KYC verification. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player and help resolve the issue, the player did not provide the necessary information. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Italy, after getting approval from the support chat, had opened a new account on BC.Game. The player had deposited 1,000 USDT and won 997 USDT but had faced withdrawal issues due to KYC procedure, as there was another account registered in the player's name. The casino had refused to return both the winnings and the deposited money. After reviewing the case and communicating with the casino, we found that this had been the player's third time requesting a new account, which was considered abuse due to multiple bonuses being redeemed. As a result, the complaint had been rejected due to the player's violation of the casino's policy on multiple accounts.

The player from India had made a deposit on 07 Feb 2024. The money had been deducted from his bank, but did not appear in his casino account. He had sought resolution as the casino support was not being helpful. We had advised him to contact his payment provider and had forwarded his complaint to the casino. Despite our efforts to assist, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, which hindered further investigation. Consequently, we had to reject this case due to the lack of player's cooperation.

The player from Mexico had mistakenly sent a withdrawal from BC.game to Bybit with an incorrect memo. Bybit had managed to recover the funds but returned them to BC.game. The player had reported that BC.game was not crediting his account with the returned funds. After a series of communications between the player, the casino, and the complaints team, the issue had been resolved. BC.game had provided a code for the player to claim his refund. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had experienced issues with a delayed payout from the casino via USDT Tether on the Ethereum Blockchain. He felt that the casino's customer service had been ignoring his inquiries. However, our team had advised him that withdrawal processing could take time and suggested waiting for 14 days before escalating the issue. Later, the player informed us that he had received the disputed amount. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Cuba had deposited 59.99 xlm into BC.GAME casino but it hadn't been credited to his account. He had provided video evidence and opened a support ticket, but had received no resolution within the stated deadline. The casino later explained that the issue had occurred due to the absence of a memo while making the deposit. After addressing this, the casino had credited the deposit to the player's account. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue, leading us to mark the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Argentina had reported that $80 was missing from his account due to alleged hacking. He had stated that he hadn't shared his login information with anyone and his account had been verified. He had been playing at the casino for about four years and his last deposit had been $100. The casino had denied responsibility for the issue. We had informed the player that we couldn't assist with matters related to cybercrimes, which fell under the jurisdiction of the police and his bank. Despite extending the response period, the player didn't provide further information, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Latvia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The player had expressed frustration with the casino's delay in processing the withdrawal and believed it was an intentional tactic to make him lose his balance. Despite attempts to communicate with the player for further information, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had faced issues with depositing funds into his casino account. He had deposited a total of 3000 Rs and had provided valid proof of transaction, but the funds did not reflect in his account. We had suggested he contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as it was a complex process that could take approximately a month. The complaint was left open for a month for the player to update us. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had complained about the bonus mechanism at the casino, stating that the terms had been unclear and misleading. He had been unable to use his bonus, worth R$450, despite his continued gambling. The player confirmed that his withdrawal had been processed successfully and he no longer had any issues. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player had requested self-exclusion from the casino due to a gambling problem. However, the casino had failed to enforce this, having allowed her to continue gambling after three days. After intervention from the Complaints Team, the issue had been successfully resolved. The player's account had then been appropriately closed in line with her self-exclusion request.

The player from India had deposited 500 INR using UPI payment, but the funds were not credited to his casino account despite the transaction being successful. He had made several unsuccessful attempts to address this with the casino and his bank had confirmed the transaction was successful. The player had provided the necessary documents and screenshots as proof of transaction. The casino, after reviewing the provided documents, had claimed that the transaction was not received by the merchant. The casino then asked the player to get an official letter from his bank, after which they would investigate further. However, the issue had been resolved and the player was credited with the amount, hence, the complaint was marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Japan had been unsuccessful in withdrawing his winnings for over two months, despite several attempts to contact the casino's support. He claimed his account was verified and that he had accumulated his winnings through real money, not bonuses. However, the casino stated they could not locate an account associated with the details provided by the player. The player insisted on his claim and provided screenshots as proof. The casino representative claimed the screenshots were fake and that the player's original account had a balance of only $10 and a self-exclusion request. The player denied this and asked for help in resolving the issue. The Complaints Team reviewed all the provided evidence and found inconsistencies in the player's claims. The account with the substantial amount of funds the player claimed to own did not exist, and the evidence provided was either tampered with or insufficient. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Nigeria had deposited an amount of 49,000 which had not been credited to his account yet. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider, as the casino had limited influence over such issues. The casino had asked the player to provide the Order ID and a bank statement showing the transaction. However, the player failed to respond to these requests. As a result, we could not further investigate and had to reject the complaint. The resolution process was hindered by the player's lack of cooperation.

The player from Japan had reported a problem with a deposit that wasn't reflected in his casino account. Despite multiple deposits having been made successfully in the past, this particular deposit made on 1/13 was not credited. The player had attempted a refund procedure with his bank but was unable to proceed due to the account status. The issue was eventually resolved after the deposit was processed.

The player from Nova Scotia had reported fraudulent activity on his account, stating that an unidentified party had accessed his account, unlocked funds, and made several withdrawals. Despite his attempts to communicate with the casino's support, he had received no response and was unable to access his account due to a verification request. We had attempted to investigate his complaint, asking several clarifying questions and extending the response deadline by 7 days. However, as the player did not respond to our messages, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had lost his 2-factor authentication code for his online casino account on BC.Game. Despite there being an option to regain the Google 2FA code, he had not received the new code via email. The player had confirmed his account was previously verified and had provided his Aadhar card and other details for identification. However, the casino had requested transaction details for security reasons, which the player had struggled to provide due to the use of multiple bank accounts and the transactions being made to various UPI receivers. The casino had maintained that these details were necessary for security and user safety. The player had been unable to provide the requested transaction history, leading to an inability to resolve the issue. The complaint was subsequently rejected due to lack of response from the player.

An Indian player had faced issues while trying to verify his gameplay on the casino website. After a loss of $89,000, he had attempted to verify the game's 'Provably Fair' feature but encountered errors and received inadequate support from his VIP host. He questioned the fairness of the game and requested help to validate his gameplay. We had asked the player to provide his complete game history to address the casino regarding their Return to Player (RTP). However, the casino had resolved the issue, enabling the player to verify his bets. As a result, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from India had reported a security issue with his account in an online casino. The casino had responded that the player held multiple accounts and several self-referral accounts to earn commissions, which was against their policies. Consequently, all of the player's accounts had been locked and could not be reopened. We had sought further clarification from the player, but due to a lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The case had therefore been rejected.

The player from Brazil had encountered issues with the KYC process required to withdraw his $97 winnings from an online casino. Despite numerous attempts and interactions with the casino's support, his account verification failed due to alleged age requirements. The player had provided all necessary documents, including ID and proof of residence, but the verification process had repeatedly failed. After multiple exchanges with the casino and the complaints team, the player managed to log into his account and complete the basic verification. However, he was still unable to withdraw his winnings. The complaints team had contacted the casino for clarification. Eventually, the player was able to successfully withdraw his funds and requested the closure of his complaint. The issue had been resolved satisfactorily.

The player from the Philippines had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received by that time. The player had issues with the KYC verification process, where his documents were initially deemed blurred by the casino. After resending his documents and communicating with the casino and us, the player was finally able to process his withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved with the player confirming he could then withdraw his winnings.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced delayed withdrawals on BC Games. Despite having provided extensive evidence of his wins, including screenshots and videos, the casino had refused to process his withdrawals. The casino allegedly owed him around $177.77. The player also mentioned that he had stopped playing and had asked the casino to remove him. He had refused to use the term 'self-exclusion', fearing it would be used against him. However, after a thorough examination, the Complaints Team had found the provided screenshots insufficient as proof of wins. The transactions in question were not documented in the player's gaming history, and his bets were not deducted during the reported session, leading to the conclusion that no wins were achieved. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland had created a ticket about a cryptocurrency exchange issue but had not received a response. Additionally, KYC documents had been rejected by the casino’s partner service. The player had claimed that his exchange service made a mistake in the refund amount and his account was subsequently blocked. After providing evidence, the casino had argued that the transactions didn't match and the issue lay with the player's exchange service. After reviewing the information, we concluded that this issue was related to the player's exchange service and not the casino. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Belgium had reported large losses in BC.Game Casino and accused the casino of lacking responsible gaming practices that would recognize and help manage his gambling problems. The player requested a refund of his losses. He had informed the casino about his gambling issues and had not initiated self-exclusion. He had also sought legal counsel, claiming that BC.Game Casino operated unlawfully in Belgium. His account was later restricted due to regional restrictions, and he was unable to access his bonus funds. We requested evidence of the player informing the casino about his gambling problems, but he was unable to provide it. As a result, we could not argue for a refund of his lost deposits. We advised the player to request self-exclusion from the casino. However, the player did not respond to our messages, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player claimed they hadn't received a Christmas bonus due to alleged multiple accounts. They insisted on having only one account, but admitted to having additional accounts for streaming or moderation, approved years ago. We attempted to investigate the case, asked for supporting evidence and inquired about the possibility of other people using the same IP address or device. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The case was therefore rejected, but the player retained the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from Argentina deposited 2000 pesos and won additional 6000, but the attempt to withdraw was blocked, including the initial deposit. Customer service has not responded to the player's inquiries. The casino joined the resolution of the complaint stating that the player's account is not blocked in any way. The player did not respond to this statement, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Romania had experienced an unexpected account closure at BC.Game casino due to a misunderstanding about his age. Even though the player had stated that he was 18 and ready for verification, the casino had ceased communication and prevented him from logging in for identity verification. The casino had provided evidence showing that the player had previously claimed to be 17, leading to the account lock for KYC purposes. Despite our attempts to mediate, we were unable to assist in resolving this case due to the player's failure to provide the necessary age verification.

The player from India had been waiting for three months to receive a withdrawal of 2,500 from BC.Game. Despite the withdrawal appearing successful on the platform, the player had not received the funds in their bank account and the transaction appeared untraceable. The player had provided all necessary documents and expressed his disappointment, choosing to withdraw his complaint. Consequently, we had rejected the complaint as per the player's request.

The player from Ukraine had faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino after successfully betting on NBA games. Despite having complied with the casino's requests for detailed information and two-step verification, he had received no response for over two weeks. After he submitted his complaint to us, and following our intervention, the player finally received his winnings. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had alleged that his payouts had been sent to an unknown Bitcoin Gold wallet. He had claimed that four transactions had gone to an unknown wallet and the casino had been unable to assist as they were not liable for transactions. The casino had responded by stating there had been no unusual activity detected on the player's account. They had advised the player to complete advanced KYC for account verification. However, the player had denied requesting a KYC and claimed he had always used copy and paste from his wallet for withdrawals. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, the player had failed to respond to further inquiries, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Louisiana had deposited money to BC.Game using VET and after her account was verified, the casino restricted her from playing due to her jurisdiction. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for more information and clarification. The casino had offered a refund, asking for a VET or USDT (TRC-20) address to process it. However, the player did not respond to the team's inquiries or provide the necessary details for the refund. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response, but it could be reopened if the player decided to resume communication.

The player from India had reported a problem with BC.Game Casino where his deposit of INR 50000 had been deducted from his bank account but was not credited to his casino account. The casino had denied receiving the funds, despite the transaction being done via their provided QR code. The player had sought help from the casino's support team and VIP host but to no avail. The player then provided evidence of the transaction, including screenshots and bank statements. The casino had requested further verification, including a complete bank statement and UPI transaction details. The player had complied with the requests but the issue remained unresolved. The casino had suggested that the player should contest the transaction with his bank for a refund, as they were unable to assist further. The player had not responded to our last messages and the issue remained unresolved.

The player from Portugal attempted to withdraw 106 LTC (equivalent to 6900 euro) from an online casino, but received a 'permission denied' message. The player also states that the casino's live support is very slow in responding. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.