Quote from: Woodie on Today at 07:35:29 AM

I want to take a neutral stand here and still give @Joana226 the benefit of the doubt!

Personally if I was asked about any other sportsbook or casino am registered with about their incentive features and the alike, I don't think I would be able to answer because I don't take advantage of them, unless I do then they have the right to ask questions related to this.

Secondly, if a translator was available I don't understand why the son got in the picture, which also puts Joana226 in a bad position and saying there is a language barrier doesn't sit well here as your English is above average !

Lastly, just to be deliberate...@BC.game were any questions relating to deposits,games played, coins used asked just to ensure this is the account holder you having the KYC interview with because these are the basic questions that really need to be asked, unless they avoided the most obvious questions as they might suspect user rehearsed this part, hence the extra questions otherwise $90K is alot of money and hope something can be worked out to close this chapter.
**Once revised all accounts including family linked accounts should all be closed/banned to end the business relationship**

I am quoting BC's findings below, so people reading this discussion can get the context easier.

I believe when BC said that OP is uncertain, unable to answer, and unfamiliar with features like game types, cashback and recharge, and the VIP levels, they're referring to OP's own details, which she should have been familiar if she really operates the account herself.

For example, I assume the question were like: what VIP level are you on, what games were you playing, can you describe in short what game was it and how do you played it, how many multipliers are available for [name of game], on which game did you win the big prize [that's being the root of issue here], things that are not too technical that someone that's not a gambling-geek will not be able to answer, yet technical and specific enough that an individual operating the account will be able to, as the question is specific and related to their activities.

As for the translator, I think they prepared him, in case she needed help, or even perhaps the interviewer himself is the translator, he speaks the language, but before they can let the OP knows that they speak the language [or have someone present who speak the language], upon realizing that the son is leading and dictating answers, which made them suspicious of the extent of her knowledge regarding the account, they refrained from telling her, in concern that the son became aware that their attempt to cheat the interview [by him [the actual account operator] supplying answer to her [the clueless someone else]] and instead they just let the interview rolled in, with the translator supplying them with what the son actually said, as they'll get a broader --and more true in nature-- understanding of OP's situation.

Suppose they let her know that they understand the language and know that the son is supplying information, having her to answer on his behalf, OP probably will end the conversation soon and walled up, saying the internet connection was poor and it ended by itself, or refused to take the video call any further with their invented reason, while the son prepared her with broader knowledge of the account.

Quote from: BC.Game Support on March 24, 2024, 12:24:21 AM

Following a detailed review of the complaint and subsequent video KYC verification, we have concluded that the individual presenting the complaint lacks direct knowledge and familiarity with our platform and its various features. During the verification process, it was evident that the respondent relied on assistance to answer basic questions related to gameplay, VIP levels, cashback schedules, and site-specific terminologies.

Key observations include:
- Uncertainty and inconsistency in identifying game types and features, with reliance on external prompts to answer questions about the platform's games and VIP levels.
- Lack of knowledge concerning transactional details, such as recharge icons and cashback timing, further indicating unfamiliarity with the platform's operational aspects.
- Dependence on a secondary individual for information, who appeared to have direct knowledge of the account and its activities.

Based on these findings, we have reasons to believe that the person presenting the complaint is not the genuine player or account holder but was attempting to represent the account without adequate knowledge or authority. This conclusion is reinforced by the need for external prompting and the incorrect responses to standard operational queries of our platform.

We take matters of account security and representation very seriously and must ensure that all activities and complaints are genuinely and accurately presented by the actual account holders. Therefore, we cannot proceed with the claims or requests made in this complaint as it fails to meet our verification standards.

Edit: Additionally, the individual prompting the user in the video call (self-identified as the son) has documents linked to another ID on our platform (ID: 25022188), with KYC-supported documents belonging to a different user. It is reasonable to infer that the individual operating these accounts is indeed the son, who has previously submitted misleading information and incorrect KYC details twice.

Quote from: Joana226 on Today at 10:56:45 AM

Quote

But, to be short, from BC side, and about what violation you did, they suspected you trying to circumvent a restriction they put on you [the son], be it account limitation, self exclusion, account ban, falsifying ID, and the likes, that your mom shows duress because she performed that KYC against her will, i.e. you forced her.

That makes no sense, because my account is closed but not his account. We don't live together, and his account isn't limited so why would he make a new account in my home in my name, if he could play on his own account?
Can you consider this? Also he never played Big Win but me.

No one forced me to create any account. In that scenario I would appeal for help during a video call, no?

I waggered over 13 million USD. I got lucky and BC refuses to pay those winnings.

Everything beyond that is debatable, but if you look at the facts I exist, I have an account in my name, I played and won.
I have never even switched devices with any other player. In India BC.Game is very popular as you may know and it is normal for several adult family members to have accounts.

My son wouldn't be mentioned in this conversation if the interview had not been in another language.

Umm... your son doesn't live with you? So he just happened to be there during the video call to... translate?