Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 04:34:34 AM

First of all, I'd like to say that this is a very confusing situation. Every time I think I've reached the bottom of the case, new fact introduce itself. A same frustration that, if I may point out, shared by the mediator on CG. I know, part of it was because I give my best to obscure the real point of my questions to both parties, so they will "accidentally" tell me what I really want to know, while I asked for other info.

With the complex nature of this case and the amount being involved, I can understand if overseers will not take my statement below at face value. On the other side, I can't exactly "substantiate" my own findings by evidence given to me as they're provided under for-my-eyes-only basis. Both from OP and BC. Thus, whether these findings below are accepted as the truth and the findings of my weeks of inquiring both parties, or a baseless statements, I'll have to leave it to the overseers.

So, these below are my findings after asking both parties, which mostly were done in double-blind basis, where both the user, gh0573d, and my contacts on BC didn't exactly know what I'm asking as I slipped the point I tried to verify in some babbles and/or they accidentally spill during our course of conversations, be it in form of posts from OP, or screenshots from BC:

First, multi-accounting: yes, correct.

I find evidences of accounts connected to OP's device.

BC gave me screenshots where several accounts are tied to same devices. With several accounts being tied, the chance of accidentally duplicate those accounts through Google auto-sign-in is somewhat minimal, as the player should only have two accounts with this "bug" [first when they manually type their credential and click sign up, and second when they click the google button].

Not only that, the statement that OP signed in with email and later with phone number, were somewhat questionable as not only BC tie the accounts to same devices, but these accounts are also tied to email addresses. One that OP said he never use as a method to sign in, excepting the first time he signed up, with c****e@gmail.com. Interestingly, I find the email addresses that BC tied to OP's alleged accounts bear similarities with OP's "typo", "88", and OP's username preference on other platforms. This is something that BC could not have learned and manually add to the list to fabricate the evidence to work in their favor.

Second, "touch-and-go" situation: incorrect.

I find that OP's statement that he never use the first account [35733412] anymore after the date of creation to be somewhat inaccurate.

BC gave me proof that the accounts active months after the date of creation. On both devices. I will stress again that this is not given deliberately to me. I asked for something and they gave an evidence that revealed that info. If it's one device, I can understand the chance that OP accidentally logged back in somehow with the credential he used to create the first account. On two devices though, where each last active date varied, this open to a question how do the account still online and logged back into BC, from two devices, months after the supposed day they're deactivated.

Of this, I tried to reason [to myself] that it might be the KYC link, that they sent KYC link that redirect OP to his first account instead of his main account. And though it's never confirmed as I never get the chance to ask this [nor that I need to], I find that this is correct. The link apparently sent OP to his first account.

However, during my attempt to inquire to BC without revealing what I exactly want to know, by asking --loosely reworded-- "can you tell me which device used to perform KYC?", and while I wait for them to provide me answer to it, I realized that the last online date of the account 35733412 on both devices predated the email sent. Thus, the reason how and why 35733412 were still online after it's supposed to be not-accessed anymore can safely be concluded not due to the KYC email.

And when BC returned to me with my inquiry of the details...

Third, OP verify his account with his main device, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold: inconclusive but somewhat incorrect.

Though BC confirms that the KYC link was accessed through both iOS-based Chrome and Android-based Chrome, OP verify with a whole new device.

I was hoping that the new device that was tied to OP's 35733412 was due to he changed phone, as per his statement on CG where his company phone were upgraded from Infinix GT Pro 10 to Infinix GT Pro 20, thus, a possibility that he verify with Infinix GT 20 Pro, and a reason why new device latched to 35733412.

I did not confirm further to BC what is the type of the device that OP use to perform KYC, as it'll reveal my intention and I'd like to keep both parties in the blind. Thus I asked OP instead, in similar obscure question, of which he assured overseers that:

Quote from: gh0573d on May 28, 2025, 08:24:21 PM

[...]
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold was main phone and was used for verification of that account. Other devices were used just to play on the account when the battery on Samsung was low and needed to be re-charged. Nothing more, nothing less. As for specifics, I've read it from Galaxy, opened it from Galaxy and filed the documents from it as well.
[...]

Fourth, and last, of self-referral: correct

This is the first thing BC showed me, that the account in question and being alleged as the self referred from OP's main account [LuckyWalker69] is tied to the said main account, both by device and by email address [that strangely, bear same pattern and preference as OP's other username on other casinos].

These are all my findings so far.

Is it possible that BC manipulate the data? From several factors brushed above, I personally don't think so.

If they try to manipulate by latching random UID to OP's device, then yes, we can argue that maybe they'll try to cheat their players with this dirty trick. But by having both accounts also bound by similar emails, of which if I may repeat myself, I am rather sure BC won't have any idea that OP owned [since OP always sign in with phone number], where the email tied to the accounts bear similar element as his username on other platforms, the fabrication is somewhat minimal.

Also this,

Quote from: gh0573d on May 29, 2025, 07:24:43 PM

[...]
But yeah, I used phone + password to login to that account, and specifically through bcgame.sk.
[...]

Both OP and BC provided the information without my prompt, where BC's information about it came before OP's. And their narrative matched.

Sounds like I'm defending BC, yes, I know and accutely aware of that. I've re-read this draft several times before posting, and wished it could be worded in a way that paint me like I'm not favoring BC much, because, well, I don't. TBH, I even secretly want OP to win this case so OP's next thread that I'll address right after this one closed won't give me much migraine [literally]. But it is what it is, and all above were facts that I find after weeks of going back and forth between the player and the contacts on BC.

With the wall of text said above, as always, I'm not the judge here. I'm simply walking with both parties and inquire until we get to the bottom of the situation. Of which, I believe we finally do. I'll leave it to the overseers to decide the final outcome of this.

Let me address this properly.

Multi accounts - Correct.

I never actually refuted this statement as there was technical issue, which in court I will be using as a reference to solicitation enforced by BC.game to break their Terms of Service. I believe you are already familiar on the basis how I am willing to address this and invalidate agreement between me and BC.game.

Any other account apart from those 2 are NOT MINE.

To show how far this goes, let's address third account they mentioned in their case - https://bc.game/user/profile/37958301, as they never hid this one from public eyes:

1 - In the barely-looking image, you can clearly see that this account was not banned when the two others were.
2 - If we go into public statistics of this account, apart from USDT being main currency used, we have "IDR" on second place. Any fiat currency attached to the account would be implication that this or any other account has deposited fiat currency at some point in history. Having said that, if they trace such transaction, they can most definitely find that this account was not mine, but God knows whose.
3 - Lets (for a second) think about my "data fabrication" allegations - how the hell this account has double entries of USDT and IDR in public stats? Okay, USDT might be due to different blockchain, but IDR, give me a reason for that?
4 - Did they ever attempt to do KYC check on this account and confirm their findings?

Any account other than these 3 (since them being provided in court defense), I can safely assume it is fabrication of evidence.

Also, I have recently sent you image, where their staff (Agness) claims that my account has 0 deposit, to which it clearly says that the second account was actually never used and came out off of error.

Touch-n-go - We're not on same page there.

If you have went through this case carefully there are several points to address:
1 - There was double account unwillingly created
2 - I used multiple devices and domain names to access bc.game
3 - None of domains create "global" cookie for all others

We can safely assume I could log in to either of those two accounts over 60 times to either one of them, willingly or not. I won't go further than that.

Third and fourth are basically answered in my first two responses, coming back to this again would be just going deeper into this pothole.

so when they requested additional KYC via e-mail, we can safely assume that this was well-intended action to establish intentional breach of their Terms of Service, which I already addressed publicly over 20 times

edit:

Quote from: gh0573d on June 03, 2025, 12:28:47 PM

And I forgot to attach one image to you during public questioning, which I just found in my email confirming my story of 2nd account

Quote from: gh0573d on May 24, 2025, 08:00:02 PM

Thanks for getting back. In regards to evidence fabrication, it was my speculation as the wording from CG was prompted that there was more than 3 accounts (4+). Before bankruptcy hearing and upon receiving defense documents from BC.game (I believe I sent you that 2 thousand pages long pdf), you can see at 30 something page, regarding my account that there were 3 accounts in total: one I actively used, second one originated from the technical error and third one unknown to me.

In regards to the timeline/narrative, whatever that was, in regards to these two accounts, one was never touched and second one was used actively. There is no question and no person who could convince me otherwise.

As for the third account, I truthfully state that I have no clue where it came from. Even with the bug I mentioned above, there is possibility to replicate it only twice (create two accounts) as far as I know (once with Google and once by manually adding that same e-mail, order of creation irrelevant).

As you may also have seen, my lawyer asked them to provide information (was KYC done for it and if so, when, sign up information used, mail or phone) in regards to that third account, and if there is any inclination that it was mine, that should not have been a problem in first place, especially since I am claimant in that whole case. To this date, I never got a reply from them nor I am able to answer any question in regards to third account, but I am 100% positive that third account is not mine. Simply as that.

I did sold my phones back in 2024 as I had to cover losses from my case in Indonesia, but those were wiped before handing them over, so I presume no "unique identification" should possibly conflict with my information. The only possible reason for that third account to be mine is Cloudflare IP address, as I previously said I used Cloudflare WARP (1.1.1.1) DNS and it appears that WARP option does give you public (shared) ip address. To the best of my knowledge as of this time, this could be a single reason for that third account to be flagged as mine. If they ever provided any information, I would've been more than happy to defend myself based on that info.

"touch n go" response (don't know how to quote same thing all over again)

One account was never played with, other one was the active one, that's what I'm 100% positive. No deposits, no plays on that one account, no nothing. Which one was which, I can't fully state, as I used my phone number to login to the account I've used. Based on what they provided, it appears I used account that was created second time (based on UID).

I think I've answered all of your questions above, but a bit freestyle (sorry for that).

oh yeah, timeline before creating first and second account - I really can't say it was a few minutes or an hour or a day, but I can definitely say that I had to wait a bit for my (now ex) wife to send me photo of my passport as I was not in my hometown at the time. Might've been few hours, up to a day at most.

edit: Quick update. Based on all of the questioning, I'm not sure I addressed this part properly at a time, so I will now. When my account was "freeze lock", even though it was fully KYC verified, they have requested from me to do another KYC verification, via e-mail:

and my response:

error message from SumSub (sorry for being black/white, took it from demand letter as I need to go through my e-mails to find it, will update once I find original image):

Reason why I'm posting this is because if they claim that I attempted to verify any of conflicted accounts, I did not intentionally, but was asked to do so via mail and could possibly be that the support agent provided me with someone else's KYC link and that Sumsub link they provided wasn't for any of my accounts.

If this was the case, I guess everything that happened is because someone within their team was overwhelmed and actually made a mistake? This thing never crossed my mind up until few minutes ago Huh