Their User Agreement’s line:

We may refuse to process or cancel any pending Digital Currency Transaction as required by law or any court or other authority to which Bitcoin Wallet is subject in any jurisdiction.

only makes sense in a custodial wallet. Our verdict: not verifiable.

Verdict Explained

Custodial: The provider holds the coins As the provider of this app holds the users coins, verifiability of the app is not relevant to the security of the funds!

This verdict means that the app might or might not publish source code and maybe it is even possible to reproduce the build from the source code but as it is custodial, the provider already has exclusive control over the funds, so it is not a wallet where you would be in sole control of your funds.

Custodial wallets might not be the worst option for all users.

• Do your own research if the provider is trust-worthy.
• Do you know at least enough about them so you can sue them when you have to?
• Is the provider under a jurisdiction that will allow them to release your funds when you need them?
• Is the provider taking security measures proportional to the amount of funds secured? If they have a million users and don't use cold storage, that hot wallet is a million times more valuable for hackers to attack. A million times more effort will be taken by hackers to infiltrate their security systems. Will they detect when for some software error a hacker is spending other people's money before the losses are unrecoverable?

The app cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The app might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.