Crypto Casinos vs money laundering.

[decodx]

KYC is not enough for crypto casinos? Crypto casinos should check all its players source of funds?

I'm not siding with the casinos on this, but that's probably what the regulators and authorities are asking them to do. Similar to how banks ask you for a statement about the source of funds when you want to deposit or withdraw a large sum of money. Only thing that I find unfair about casinos is that they do not ask for this information when making deposits or when registering, but when withdrawing money after winning. So basically, people that move large sums of money into the casino are not being asked to do this, but people that just won a moderate amount of money are.

[_act_]

I'm not siding with the casinos on this, but that's probably what the regulators and authorities are asking them to do. Similar to how banks ask you for a statement about the source of funds when you want to deposit or withdraw a large sum of money. Only thing that I find unfair about casinos is that they do not ask for this information when making deposits or when registering, but when withdrawing money after winning. So basically, people that move large sums of money into the casino are not being asked to do this, but people that just won a moderate amount of money are.

You are not wrong, KYC is necessary, especially on big and well know gambling sites that the regulators can easily know about, regulators have control over the gambling sites, so they (the gamble sites) have to comply and make KYC mandatory on their site.

I hate that about Casinos too, all of them that I have used before do not request for KYC during registion, but they will ask for it during withdrawal, these as been a means many of them are using to seize the fund of gamblers that has already won on their site.

I have preferred to just first complete the KYC first before I start to use the gambling site which I think is better. I have been doing it like this even before I started to use crypto gambling sites and no issue at all because I would have already gotten verified before using the site.

[SirLancelot]

Money launderers are wise enough not to choose casinos that require KYC. They prefer to keep their identities safe and private. Also, the source of fund doesn't really matter to some casino sites. They wouldn't mind checking on it one by one. Money launderers will also do everything so the authorities won't track their funds. They are even wiser now.

Although I know there's few trusted no KYC casino in this forum and they don't have any rules about money laundering, VPN usage etc, but I still hard to believe if they're not care anything about high illicit sources. As we know Tonardo.cash already got shutdown and they're a centralized mixer, there's a chance the no KYC casino might got shutdown too since they're helping fraudster. That's why I don't think they will take easy against fraudsters.

Is there truly a casino like the ones you describe? A no KYC can be normal, that's because we promote decentralization here when we talk about cryptos and blockchain but if they don't care about money launderers then I think that's not normal anymore and maybe they are one of those who launder money? Or they are being given by a share for them to allow the money launderers. While there are some who only cares about their business and they know that if they became too strict, their income can also get lessened.

I don't think authorities will shutdown a service easily but they will first check it if the service is following a protocol to avoid the money launders.

[qwertyup23]

KYC is not enough for crypto casinos? Crypto casinos should check all its players source of funds?

I'm not siding with the casinos on this, but that's probably what the regulators and authorities are asking them to do. Similar to how banks ask you for a statement about the source of funds when you want to deposit or withdraw a large sum of money. Only thing that I find unfair about casinos is that they do not ask for this information when making deposits or when registering, but when withdrawing money after winning. So basically, people that move large sums of money into the casino are not being asked to do this, but people that just won a moderate amount of money are.

This is somehow a difficult boundary to draw a line with- you are dealing with an online casino who abides with their respective laws in their country vs respecting the privacy of the person on your gambling website. Personally, there are lots of people who consider KYC as a make or break function in their choice of gambling due to the volume and amount of bets they do in a gambling website.

Though implementing more features and security may determine if a person is laundering money, this could be destructive in the gambling owner's perspective in attracting more users to its database.

[blockman]

I don't think authorities will shutdown a service easily but they will first check it if the service is following a protocol to avoid the money launders.

They can close it in an instant if there's a proper basis and court order. But for that first offense, they'll just give them a penalty and the establish has to pay for it.
They'll do an investigation and when it's proven, they'll have an assessment and basis on what action must be taken. The authorities won't just come and go without any evidence provided to these establishments without proper research and basis.

[Stalker22]

You keep writing nonsense.

Thank you for that. I think you are lovely too, in your own way.

That the police caught someone trying to launder money still counts as "caught in the act," right? Money laundering is also a crime and in an ideal world they are also preventable. You can answer a simple question for me: if the fraudster is not caught, then which option is better: 1.) he paid taxes on his criminal income. 2.) didn't pay taxes? I continue to consider the first case a lesser evil than the second. What do you think?

If you could show me an example of a criminal paying taxes on his income from criminal activity, I would greatly appreciate it.

I wonder if in the case of payment of tax on winnings is checked on what means the person played? After all, in the case of verification questions may arise from where the person has such a large amount to play in the casino and whether taxes were paid on this money.

Exactly.

[darkangel11]

I feel like most casinos care about making money the safe way. They want high rollers but they also want to look legit in the way that they did everything they could to prevent laundering. The best thing they can get is a scammer launderer that is good and has all the fake documents they can ask for. They don't really care where the money comes from as long as their hands are clean and they can defend in court if it comes to that. 

There are some legal casinos that really cares about money laundering act and they do take normal precautions to make sure that gamblers will not come to there casinos and use funds that are stolen or illegal on there casinos because the government also can come for them if they don't regulate the rate funds flow into the casino.
This is why there is maximum amount we can use to gamble on a casino which is one of the reasons set aside to regulate and make sure that gamblers stick to rules of the casino.
There are so casinos that we never care about money laundering act because they can majorly after inflow of funds to there casinos with checking the risk it might post later to them.

IMO they don't care because it's business. If there was no KYC requirement they'd be making much more money and attracting more clients.
Why would they care if someone pays taxes or not? Those money mostly go to the pockets of politicians and government employees, the casino owner couldn't care less about that money.

The rules are imposed by governments. It's like that rule that you have to park in the marked spots. If there was no such rule you'd park wherever it fits you and you wouldn't obey their rules.

[serjent05]

I don't think authorities will shutdown a service easily but they will first check it if the service is following a protocol to avoid the money launders.

They can close it in an instant if there's a proper basis and court order. But for that first offense, they'll just give them a penalty and the establish has to pay for it.
They'll do an investigation and when it's proven, they'll have an assessment and basis on what action must be taken. The authorities won't just come and go without any evidence provided to these establishments without proper research and basis.

It is instant after the decree is issued but it will take some time depending on the severity of the crime.   Authority cannot shutdown a service easily unless proven guilty of the accused crime.  It takes process and often times when the attorney of the service provider is well versed with the system the process takes months to years before the decision is made.

That the police caught someone trying to launder money still counts as "caught in the act," right? Money laundering is also a crime and in an ideal world they are also preventable. You can answer a simple question for me: if the fraudster is not caught, then which option is better: 1.) he paid taxes on his criminal income. 2.) didn't pay taxes? I continue to consider the first case a lesser evil than the second. What do you think?

If you could show me an example of a criminal paying taxes on his income from criminal activity, I would greatly appreciate it.

Fraudster will never pay taxes on the money they laundered.  It will only bring them trouble if they do  .

[AmoreJaz]

I feel like most casinos care about making money the safe way. They want high rollers but they also want to look legit in the way that they did everything they could to prevent laundering. The best thing they can get is a scammer launderer that is good and has all the fake documents they can ask for. They don't really care where the money comes from as long as their hands are clean and they can defend in court if it comes to that.  

There are some legal casinos that really cares about money laundering act and they do take normal precautions to make sure that gamblers will not come to there casinos and use funds that are stolen or illegal on there casinos because the government also can come for them if they don't regulate the rate funds flow into the casino.
This is why there is maximum amount we can use to gamble on a casino which is one of the reasons set aside to regulate and make sure that gamblers stick to rules of the casino.
There are so casinos that we never care about money laundering act because they can majorly after inflow of funds to there casinos with checking the risk it might post later to them.

IMO they don't care because it's business. If there was no KYC requirement they'd be making much more money and attracting more clients.
Why would they care if someone pays taxes or not? Those money mostly go to the pockets of politicians and government employees, the casino owner couldn't care less about that money.

The rules are imposed by governments. It's like that rule that you have to park in the marked spots. If there was no such rule you'd park wherever it fits you and you wouldn't obey their rules.

some casinos will only flag down players if they got huge amount of winnings. and that will entail checking the background of the player and maybe, check the source of funds, if in case this aspect is written in their ToS. but usually, most casinos don't care much where you got your money to play with. maybe, you can encounter the financial check to some casinos which don't want to release the winnings of the player or they are seeing suspicious amounts coming in.

[Vaskiy]

I came across an incident in which two persons who used the stolen funds on gambling to make it their winning amount. Online rummy is quite popular in my country and in one incident two persons have stolen a big amount and to make this money legal they've made a good plan. Both played one on one game and the losers amount moved to the winner. Here both are winners, finally they got caught. So, in all possible ways people do laundering. It is not limited to just casino platforms.

[RealMalatesta]

I don't think casinos, gambling websites couldn't stop money laundering what they can actually do is with the kyc data it can help when the investigation agency is approached for investigation. However, gambling websites have become one of the biggest part of money laundering by evading the investigators, but I think good reputable casinos require this kyc data to  stop it and I also think it plays a great role in the investigation.

you cannot just Imply KYC in crypto gambling because you knew that people here mostly wanted privacy and hates providing KYC when they gamble and also depends in how much are the amount being launder because criminal and syndicate nowadays knows how to use gambling platform as form of laundering .,

It's clear that they will find a loophole, but at the very least the casinos are following the laws and that's fine for them. Of course there are loopholes, bad people could pay people a thousand dollars each to get a new account everywhere, and could "gamble" enough to lose just like 5-10% and then withdraw, and I mean millions of dollars and if asked KYC they will show the KYC they bought from someone else.

But that's the casinos problem, they were asked to get the KYC from gamblers and they do, and that's it, there is nothing else they could do. The aim is not to stop them doing it, I mean if they could then they would but they can't, so the aim is to follow regulations.

[Jemzx00]

I came across an incident in which two persons who used the stolen funds on gambling to make it their winning amount. Online rummy is quite popular in my country and in one incident two persons have stolen a big amount and to make this money legal they've made a good plan. Both played one on one game and the losers amount moved to the winner. Here both are winners, finally they got caught. So, in all possible ways people do laundering. It is not limited to just casino platforms.

If you think about it, people can launder money in a lot of ways however gambling is one of the platforms that can be easily used to justify and launder illegal funds. Just as the story you've provided, Two people were able to make the stolen funds somehow clean just by challenging each other to intentionally lose to one another and keep and split the money afterward. This method is easy to do and with limited fees to do on the casino.

This is also why most online casinos require KYC for a certain amount to avoid these scenarios from happening so they'll be able to track the person in case something like this occurred. KYC might not avoid these from happening but it will make the investigation somewhat easier.

[LoyceV]

Let's be honest, money laundering is the best thing that can happen to a casino and there is where most of high rollers comes from.

I think you're right. I wrote this last week:

If I'd want to launder stolen money through a casino, I'd make one large high risk bet (say x10). If I win, I can prove that 90% of my money came from being very lucky at a casino! If I lose, I move on to the next casino.
So anyone betting $100k in one bet and winning $1M could very well be laundering money! Anyone losing $100k and abandoning their account could very well have attempted to launder the money! But someone who deposits and withdraws a couple hundred bucks doesn't mean he's he's laundering the money, and even if he would try that way, it wouldn't do him any good.

I guess casinos don't investigate users who lose $100k and leave

I've seen many cases in which a casino suddenly asks KYC after winning. That's because they don't like paying, but they totally don't mind taking the money when people lose.

Nowadays most casinos has KYC, but i don't think that is enough to stop the money laundering, what casinos should do is to investigate the source of the deposits to fight against this illegal activity, but that will not happen because is a win-win game from them.

If they'd truely care about money laundering, they'd ask KYC and details about the origin of the funds before allowing to deposit. But they don't care, and as long as they're hiding in shady tax havens, they get away with it.

But the case for "Money Laundry" most casino have a golden rules, each deposit need to have 1x turnover before they withdraw. So, the user need to completed first the turn over otherwise is gonna to get "KYC".

I wrote something about that last week too:

Casinos want you to wager because they earn from it.

Wagering 1x doesn't change anything if it's money laundering, other than the casino taking it's house edge from the laundered money.

Check the definition:

Money laundering is the illegal process of making large amounts of money generated by criminal activity, such as drug trafficking or terrorist funding, appear to have come from a legitimate source.

Money laundering is the process of concealing the origin of money, obtained from illicit activities such as drug trafficking, corruption, embezzlement or gambling, by converting it into a legitimate source.

Money laundering is the processing of these criminal proceeds to disguise their illegal origin.

An abundance of black money leads to the origin of several illegal practices, and money laundering is one such process to disguise the source of such funds.

Money laundering is the practice of making money that was gained through criminal means, such as smuggling weapons, look as if it came from a legitimate business activity.

The intention of money laundering is to make illegally obtained money appear to come from a legitimate source.

Money laundering refers to a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money.

the crime of moving money that has been obtained illegally through banks and other businesses to make it seem as if the money has been obtained legally

Those definitions all have one thing in common: the money has to come from an illicit source. Simply depositing and withdrawing doesn't mean the source was illicit, and even trying to hide your money flows from blockchain analysis doesn't mean it's money laundering.

Depositing and withdrawing doesn't mean it's money laundering.

[Baofeng]

I came across an incident in which two persons who used the stolen funds on gambling to make it their winning amount. Online rummy is quite popular in my country and in one incident two persons have stolen a big amount and to make this money legal they've made a good plan. Both played one on one game and the losers amount moved to the winner. Here both are winners, finally they got caught. So, in all possible ways people do laundering. It is not limited to just casino platforms.

Those two are very smart to stole money, but dumb when they try to launder it through gambling platforms. While their plan is really good, perhaps they failed to realized that they might be caught with this style because I would say that this is a common thing that criminals do to launder money.

So I guess the gambling industry is also evolving, not just KYC, maybe they have human and then AI to detect any suspicious activities in their platform so that they be one step ahead, controls is the key for them not to be taken advantage and so mitigate the attractiveness of online gambling platforms for money launderers

[maydna]

When we talk about money laundering, it also happens in the gambling industry but unfortunately, we don't know for sure and can only guess it. Maybe people who want to launder money will look for a reliable casino site so that the casino does not suspect their actions. And sometimes, the casinos can also be tricked even though they have implemented KYC for their members because money launderers are very smart. And with the existence of crypto casinos now giving money launderers the choice to do so because there are still crypto casinos that do not strictly implement KYC so they are free to do so.

[KTChampions]

You keep writing nonsense.

Thank you for that. I think you are lovely too, in your own way.

Reminder:

In principle, I don’t see anything wrong with this, because if the police couldn’t catch the criminal while committing a crime, then there’s nothing to be done, and if he pays taxes, then that’s good.

Imagine if someone stole your car and then the next day showed up on the car market selling it. The police would be like, "Well, we could not catch him while he was stealing your car, and now he is free to sell it at the market." That cannot be right, because legally speaking, you are still the rightful owner of that car.

The same principle applies to money, because money obtained illegally belongs to the original owner(s) and not to criminals.

On my logical reasoning, you wrote nonsense (an incorrect analogy, and if you did not know, an analogy is always a mistake).
Either defend your position, or admit that you write nonsense 

That the police caught someone trying to launder money still counts as "caught in the act," right? Money laundering is also a crime and in an ideal world they are also preventable. You can answer a simple question for me: if the fraudster is not caught, then which option is better: 1.) he paid taxes on his criminal income. 2.) didn't pay taxes? I continue to consider the first case a lesser evil than the second. What do you think?

If you could show me an example of a criminal paying taxes on his income from criminal activity, I would greatly appreciate it.

Once again you avoided answering a simple question. Why am I not surprised  It is easy to write nonsense about a fictional ideal world, but it is difficult to be in reality.

As for examples, there are many of them both now and in history. Look where the expression "money laundering" came from - this is exactly the case when the criminal whitewashed its money through a fake business, that is, it actually paid taxes on its criminal income. Personally, I know a butcher shop owner who only bought it to have an uncontrolled (weakly controlled) cash flow.

P.S. I understand that you, like most people who make a mistake, will never admit it. And I will never hear an answer to my question, what is better 1.) criminal not caught and not paying taxes, or 2.) criminal not caught, but paying taxes 

[Smartvirus]

Let's be honest, money laundering is the best thing that can happen to a casino and there is where most of high rollers comes from. I have seen some rollers in the past that runs some huge scams and then go to the casinos to play with the scammed money and with that justify where they get the money from after hitting some huge wins.

Nowadays most casinos has KYC, but i don't think that is enough to stop the money laundering, what casinos should do is to investigate the source of the deposits to fight against this illegal activity, but that will not happen because is a win-win game from them.

When huge funds are involved, KYC is something any user would be willing to give and fir Casinos to go above that and demand fir source of funds seems a little bit too much as, customer would have there suspicion and something to hold on to. The few that might go through successfully are likely not going to ever play on the casino and won't hesitate to paint the casino red as to warn orders of the potentiality of loosing there funds to KYC and other means of verifications.

So, what do you say, does crypto casinos really care about money laundering?

Don't they? I actually think they do but are likely to keep a low profile and focus on the wins rather than the deposits itself because they hope to collect from lost bets. Yeah, seizing funds while probing the source of funds could be one way to it but, it would immediately paint the casino red and they won't want that. Else, huge deposit is for sure a suspicious act and that's what the casinos watch out for.

[seoincorporation]

Wagering 1x doesn't change anything if it's money laundering, other than the casino taking it's house edge from the laundered money.

Depositing and withdrawing doesn't mean it's money laundering.

You hit the nail mate, if a user deposit and withdraw the authority could ask where the depo comes from, and that's why this practice isn't a smart move or a real way to wash that money. A huge win with a big multiplier should be involved.

And for those who say that it's easier to do this with cash, we are talking about how people wash their cryptos with casinos, we know there are tons of scams out there, and those coins comes from illegal activities.

[fullhdpixel]

I don't think casinos, gambling websites couldn't stop money laundering what they can actually do is with the kyc data it can help when the investigation agency is approached for investigation. However, gambling websites have become one of the biggest part of money laundering by evading the investigators, but I think good reputable casinos require this kyc data to  stop it and I also think it plays a great role in the investigation.

you cannot just Imply KYC in crypto gambling because you knew that people here mostly wanted privacy and hates providing KYC when they gamble and also depends in how much are the amount being launder because criminal and syndicate nowadays knows how to use gambling platform as form of laundering .,

Money launderers will always prefer casinos that won't ask for KYC so they can't keep their identities when betting. KYC is one of the reasons for authorities to track them as well as their transactions so they will definitely choose not to use sites that would ask for KYC. Criminals could easily keep their laundered money and use it to gamble. There were just unlucky gamblers who got caught through their gambling activities but most criminals nowadays already know what to do.

This may be the reason why some licensed casinos don't require a KYC but they will only surprise the money launderers once they are now in the withdrawal page. Of course if you are a money launderer you will be scared for this but if you know that you are innocent, you will choose to do a KYC only to prove the casino that they are wrong with their accusations.

If it's only the transaction alone, it will be hard for the authorities to find out the launderer because they can use a mixing service but KYC is more effective because this includes their name and addresses on where they live. Faking KYC will also be hard because KYC verification now are more stricter.

[erep]

If it's only the transaction alone, it will be hard for the authorities to find out the launderer because they can use a mixing service but KYC is more effective because this includes their name and addresses on where they live. Faking KYC will also be hard because KYC verification now are more stricter.

If transactions only on blockchain it will be difficult to detect whether money laundering or not, but if user has deposited funds into casino account then casino can restrict withdrawals or freeze funds before user verify KYC. if KYC only uses identity documents without selfies then it is not effective enough because it can still be manipulated from using fake data. However, even if casinos quibble KYC rules for safety factor but still not all gamblers will agree with strict KYC rules even to prevent AML on casino sites.