BC.Game - general discussion (page 3)

Hello,

I understand your situation mainly from a human perspective, and I agree that those actions could hardly benefit you; therefore, I cannot imagine that anyone would do this for any kind of advantage. I also understand it was all just a terrible combination of misfortune.

Frankly, this isn't the only aspect; casinos will act when anyone breaches the terms, especially more than one player in a well-connected group. Take it from the opposite perspective for a second: how is the operator supposed to distinguish between who played or deposited under which casino profile and the difference between a natural occasion with a borrowed phone or a group operating multiple accounts? They can't, and once the breach happens, the casino cuts off all the related accounts and closes the matter. That's my experience.

I understand what you are saying; however, based on the description, the mediators have no ground to push the casino against their terms and conditions because you must do more than attribute the issue to bad luck and coincidence; each casino account must pass KYC (know your customer) verification exclusively to rule out multiple accounts and shared features used.

In this case, I'd say it was not possible.

It's not that we don't believe you, me, or the mediators, but there is no certainty for the casino because none of you can prove what you didn't do, whereas the casino can see matches between activities you all performed together.

Hello Radka,

I understand your position, and I know you may not be able to go against BC.GAME's decision. However, I have also filed a complaint with CADRE (Curaçao Alternative Dispute Resolution Entity), and I am waiting to see what happens.

You mentioned that each account must pass KYC verification to rule out multiple accounts and shared details. Could you please clarify whether BC.GAME verified the identity of every account allegedly linked to mine, and whether the evidence actually established that those accounts belonged to me?

I am not asking you to take my side without evidence. I am asking for a fair and transparent assessment of my case.

Thank you for your time.

Hello, I appreciate your understanding, because this is a very unfortunate situation.

So, CADRE is the dedicated ADR for BC.Games. That's very handy information, since AOFA is not very clear about this specific thing in a general manner of speaking.

I'd like to narrow the scope of the KYC—know your customer—procedure, which is a tool for determining whether a person played solely on his own account, among other things. According to the logic behind the "know your customer" procedure, if a player behaves in such a way that it is impossible to confirm that their actions were solely related to one account (including transactions and device usage), it is sufficient grounds to refuse payment. The casino does not need to verify all of the accounts; the matches you accept and the casino funds are sufficient, if you understand what I mean.

Following this, your complaint centers on you and your account. The question has never been whether you personally registered additional accounts under your name. The issue is that based on your description and confirmation, the other players playing in the same casino used the same device, internet connection, and payment method, which brings us back to the fact that the casino can no longer be certain whether you all play in cooperation using only our own accounts for each person. Thus, the KYC is at risk. Imagine it this way: the operator can no longer "know" the customer because they are indistinguishable.

So, your case for alleged reasons could not be accepted as a case for further investigation. Frankly, I have no idea what checks the casino did or did not perform.

A tip: You should always notify the casino in advance of your shared internet connection and the fact that you will be playing with friends. However, never pass your device to someone else to play in the same casino, as most operators consider this a potential breach if you use the same IP addresses.

However, the most serious issue is using someone else's payment method—this is a direct rule in most casinos. Specifically, when you all play at the same casino, it's a problem, which usually ends in the same way.

Does it make sense, please?

Hello Radka,

I previously explained that I was studying with a group of friends in another state. Sometimes, when their mobile data ran out, they asked me to turn on my Wi-Fi hotspot. It is possible that one of them may have used my internet connection to access a BC.GAME account, but I cannot say for certain whether they did or did not. I do not want to make claims about something I cannot verify.

However, I have never intentionally created or operated multiple accounts to violate BC.GAME's rules. You can ask BC.GAME to clarify the exact technical basis for locking my account, including whether the decision was based on a shared IP address, device, payment method, or other evidence. I want the actual reason to be verified rather than assumed.

There is another important point: BC.GAME had an account-linking feature that allowed accounts to be linked together. If my intention had been to hide multiple accounts or misuse the system, why would I need to conceal anything when an account-linking option was available? I understand that account linking does not automatically prove that every activity was permitted, but it is relevant to understanding my intentions.

Honestly, I believe BC.GAME deliberately locked my account and accused me of violations without giving me a fair opportunity to explain the situation. I am asking you to help verify the facts with the casino instead of simply accepting its conclusion.

I also have concerns about the independence of complaint platforms when financial relationships with casinos may exist. I cannot claim to know the details of any arrangement in this case, but when a platform appears unwilling to challenge a casino's decision, it naturally raises questions about impartiality. Please explain how users can be confident that their complaints are assessed independently and fairly.

I am not asking you to support me blindly. I am asking you to investigate the actual facts, clarify the evidence behind the decision, and give me a fair opportunity to defend myself.

I have already submitted my complaint to ADR, and I will await its review. I sincerely hope that my case will be judged on verifiable evidence rather than assumptions.

Hello, I understand what you have been saying and how you feel. Let me just add one aspect you seem not to be considering enough:

Take it from a different perspective: You believe that the casino did not give you a chance to explain. That makes sense. However, you and your friends accepted their rules, and in your last post, you again confirmed that you acted against them—unknowingly, but that does not matter. Such confirmed actions can be the reason why the casino was not supposed to explain. Remember the closing info?

"After carefully reviewing the information you provided, I regret to inform you that we are unable to assist you further with this complaint.

You have confirmed that your friend accessed his own BC.Game account using your device and made deposits using your bank account.

From the casino's perspective, this combination of factors raises significant concerns regarding multi-accounting, even if this was not your intention. Sharing devices and payment methods between different casino accounts makes it difficult to reliably distinguish between independent players.

Furthermore, online casinos generally require players to use payment methods registered in their own names and prohibit third-party payments.

Given these circumstances and your confirmation of shared device and payment method usage, we do not have sufficient grounds to challenge the casino's decision.

For this reason, we will proceed to reject your complaint."

Just as I have been explaining here on the forum, casinos provide terms so you can avoid crossing those rules. Multiple accounts and associated rules do not necessarily cover just one scenario; I already explained that much:

"The question has never been whether you personally registered additional accounts under your name. The issue is that based on your description and confirmation, the other players playing in the same casino used the same device, internet connection, and payment method, which brings us back to the fact that the casino can no longer be certain whether you all play in cooperation using only our own accounts for each person. Thus, the KYC is at risk. Imagine it this way: the operator can no longer "know" the customer because they are indistinguishable."

I respect your disagreement; you had no idea the rules had been broken. However, your responses are primarily focused on the fact that you have not registered additional accounts - no one has stated that you have, and that is not the point, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry, and I hope you'll find the resolution you seek.

Hello Radka,

Ma'am, I kindly request you to please understand my situation from my perspective as well. I came to Casino Guru with great hope that someone would listen to my side and help me obtain a fair resolution. However, I feel that my explanation is being misunderstood.

First, I want to clarify something very important: I never gave anyone permission to use my bank account to deposit money into their BC.GAME account. My bank account was also blocked by the bank. When I visited the bank, I was told that I had earned money through gambling and that the money had come from BC.GAME. Now I am facing serious difficulties because my bank account has been blocked, and I have already suffered significant consequences.

Regarding the shared Wi-Fi connection, I previously explained that three of us were students who travelled to another state to take our examinations. We were under considerable exam pressure, and we had separate examination papers. Sometimes my phone remained in our room while we were away taking our exams. My friends occasionally needed an internet connection, so I sometimes shared my Wi-Fi hotspot with them.

It is possible that someone used my internet connection without my knowledge or used it in a way I did not intend. However, I never knowingly allowed anyone to use my bank account for deposits, and I never intentionally participated in any wrongdoing.

Ma'am, I request you to please distinguish between sharing an internet connection and knowingly authorizing someone to use my bank account. These are two different matters. Sharing my Wi-Fi does not mean that I knew what another person was doing with that connection, nor does it establish that I intentionally violated BC.GAME's rules.

I would also like to understand why the issue of my bank account and payment method is being interpreted against me without properly considering my explanation. I did not authorize anyone to make deposits using my bank account, and I would appreciate it if this point could be examined carefully rather than assumed.

I respectfully request that you ask BC.GAME to clarify the actual basis for its concerns regarding the shared internet connection and payment method. If the casino believes that my bank account was used for a deposit by another person, I would like to understand what evidence supports that conclusion and how it relates to my own actions.

Ma'am, I am not asking you to support me blindly or to ignore the casino's rules. I am simply asking you to consider my circumstances fairly and not interpret an occasional Wi-Fi hotspot connection as proof that I knowingly participated in someone else's activities.

I came to Casino Guru with the hope that my side of the story would receive fair consideration. My bank account has been blocked, and I am already dealing with serious difficulties. I sincerely hope you can understand my situation and help ensure that the facts are considered objectively.

Thank you for taking the time to read my message.

Hello,

I’m sorry you’re going through this. I understand that having your bank account blocked makes an already difficult situation even worse. I also hear you when you say you did not give anyone permission to use it.

But please understand why I keep referring to your earlier explanation. In your complaint, you said that your friend used your phone to log into his own BC.GAME account and made deposits using your bank account. So this was never just about sharing your Wi-Fi, and we did not assume those details.

I understand that, from your perspective, you each had your own account and you did not mean to do anything wrong. However, that still leaves the issue I have been trying to explain: when different players use the same phone and bank account, it becomes harder for the casino to tell who is actually using and funding each account. Saying that you only created one account does not clear up that concern.

I’m not saying you are a dishonest person. I’m explaining why our complaint team could not challenge the casino’s decision based on what you told them.

I respect that you see things differently. But I feel we are now going over the same points, and I’m afraid I have nothing further to add that would help move your case forward here. Since you have already contacted ADR, please make sure they have your explanation about the bank account and any evidence you can provide.

I’m sorry I cannot help you further here, and I hope you find the fair resolution you are looking for.

Hello Radka,

I think there may be a misunderstanding about my previous explanation. I never said that my friend used my BC.GAME account. We were students travelling for examinations, and I sometimes shared my Wi-Fi hotspot with my friends. Sharing internet does not mean I authorised anyone to use my bank account for deposits.

Have you personally reviewed BC.GAME's evidence, and can you explain what it proves about my own actions? If someone made a deposit using a third-party bank account, that transaction should be investigated individually. One person's actions should not automatically make another person responsible without evidence of their involvement.

I understand that BC.GAME has KYC and payment rules, but I believe concerns should be based on actual evidence, not assumptions. My bank account has also been blocked, causing me serious difficulties, so I sincerely want my situation to be considered fairly.

I am not asking you to take my side blindly. I only ask you to understand my explanation correctly. If anything I said sounded disrespectful, I sincerely apologise.

Thank you for your time.

I hear you, but it seems like we’ve been going around in circles on two main points.

First, you really don’t have to convince me. I’m not the mediator, I didn’t reject your complaint, and I can’t reopen it for you. So if you believe the information you provided in your original complaint was misunderstood, please submit a request to reopen it. The mediators will decide whether they can take the matter further.

Second, I’ve been commenting on what you actually said in the complaint, which is also the information the mediators had to work with.

Hello Radka,

It has now been 15 days since I submitted my request to reopen my complaint, but I have not received any update on its status.

I understand that the team may need time to review the request. However, 15 days have passed, and I would appreciate it if you could let me know whether my request has been reviewed or is still pending.

I submitted the reopening request because I believe some of the information in my original complaint may have been misunderstood. I respectfully ask that my request not be left without an update.

Could you please check the status and let me know when I can expect a decision?

Thank you for your time.

I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. The mediators will contact you if they need to. That’s why I said they’ll decide whether they can pursue the matter further.

I understand the situation may feel a bit strange since I’ve been talking here on the forum, but that’s fully separate from the complaint process, I’m afraid.

There is no status I can check. I'm sorry.

Hello Radka,

Thank you for clarifying the difference between the forum discussion and the official complaint process. I understand that you cannot check the status of my reopening request and that the mediators will make the decision.

I will wait for their response. I only hope that my request will be reviewed fairly, as I believe there may have been a misunderstanding of my original explanation.

Thank you for your time and for explaining the process to me.

Hello, there’s really no need to thank me. To be honest with you, I haven’t been able to do much, for the reasons I explained.

It’s always difficult to respond in a situation like this. On the one hand, I understand that you’re now giving a different account of what happened than you did in the complaint. On the other hand, considering the nature of the issue, the outcome could still be the same.

But I hear you. I’m sorry for what you’ve been through, and I hope the other issue you mentioned with your bank account can be resolved in your favor.

Hello Radka,

I understand what you are saying, but I would like to clarify one important point. It is possible that I made a typing mistake or did not express myself clearly in my original complaint. I am not trying to change my story; I am only trying to explain my situation more clearly so that there is no misunderstanding.

Could you please tell me specifically which part of my current explanation differs from what I originally stated in my complaint? I want to understand where the confusion occurred.

Sharing Wi-Fi or a mobile hotspot with friends does not mean that I knowingly authorised anyone to use my bank account to make deposits. I believe my situation should be assessed based on the actual facts and evidence, rather than assumptions.

I understand that the final outcome may remain the same, but I sincerely hope the mediators will consider my clarification before making their decision.

Thank you for listening to me and understanding my situation.