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:


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,


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.