What Happened
A player from Ireland who had permanently self-excluded at BC.Game sent two crypto deposits to an old deposit address linked to the closed account by mistake, and wanted them back. The player says the casino kept asking for transaction IDs their wallet could not show. BC.Game said its normal deposit route was blocked, that the player had reused an old on-chain address, and that it only needed a wallet address to return the money.
How It Developed
- 2026-07-30Complaint opened; the opening post and most of the player's replies are private.
- 2026-07-30The mediator asked whether the wallet's desktop view showed the transaction details, when the last normal deposit was, and for the casino emails.
- 2026-08-03BC.Game replied that it never refused the refund and was waiting for a destination wallet address.
- 2026-08-04The casino reported the refund sent; the player confirmed about 2.79 SOL had arrived but asked about a larger balance shown on the deposit address.
- 2026-08-05BC.Game said it found no such balance on the player's account and asked for the chat records where it was raised.
- 2026-08-06The mediator closed the case as resolved, saying the deposit-address balance was not relevant and that older complaints about crash-game cash-outs had already been turned down.
Resolved
BC.Game returned the two mistaken deposits, about 2.79 SOL, and the player confirmed receipt.
What Helped
Giving the casino a wallet address to send the money to, which was the one thing it said it was waiting for. The mediator also made clear it will not chase a casino for technical game logs without evidence from the player first.