Loophole in stopping Money Laundering through Wagering

[Learn Bitcoin]

As long the chance isnt 0% then there's always a chance on losing up your entire bankroll or money in an instant.Its true that no one on their right minds would really be having that kind of wagering just to pull out

their laundered money.Its the most bad idea on doing so, although when we do speak about the odds then its really that less risk because of the odds but in overall if you dont want to blown up your money then
its better not to do so. Money launderers wouldnt really be so dumb on doing such thing which they do know that it is way too risky. They would rather be making use of Mixers
than on making up bets on 99% chance of winning or less which it cant really make out assurance that you would be able to get out without busting your balance.
They wont really be that so easily making out such decision if they do know that they cant really take out an advantage which its a common approach.

Imagine they deposited their money to a scam casino website like 1xbit and get scammed. There are some shady casinos as well which trigger KYC whenever a player makes a large amount of deposit. It's super easy to use mixers these days. But, have to choose a reliable platform like Yomix. If it's a small amount of money, I don't think any platform cares about it. But, casinos might trigger KYC if they notice some suspicious betting pattern from a particular user.

However, I have seen a wallet like freewallet.org which scams their user by asking for a KYC which is not possible to pass anyway. The only reliable way is using a mixer. Sometimes mixers get seized as well. So, have to be careful about that as well.

[1715432228]

1715432228

[1715432228]

1715432228

[1715432228]

1715432228

[Strongkored]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

Maybe you have to understand first with the 1x wager requirement, what is meant by the 1x wager requirement is not to make 1x bet and after that the player can immediately make a withdrawal, but what is meant is 1x rollover of the deposit amount that the player made, and also whether there is certainty win at gambling even for the odds that you mentioned the chance to lose is still there and this has often been experienced by gamblers, and if I'm not mistaken usually the wagering requirement that is carried out on sports bets will have a minimum odds that will be calculated for example the minimum is @1.50, and the wager requirement is not only to prevent money laundering but also because casinos are not exchanges or online wallets so naturally they apply wager requirements.

[adzino]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

How is that a loophole? The person who is going to launder money is already risking something. There  is still that 1% chance that he is going to lose his money. Do you really think he is going to take that chance? And don't forget, each bet has some sort of limit. You can't wager millions in a single bet. As far as I know, you will need to contact the casino if you wish to place such huge bet. I am sure they will start asking you questions before they let you place the bet. There are also security measures in the casino that can detect suspicious betting. And then most casinos require KYC. So casino isn't really a best place for someone random to launder his money.

[Hispo]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

How is that a loophole? The person who is going to launder money is already risking something. There  is still that 1% chance that he is going to lose his money. Do you really think he is going to take that chance? And don't forget, each bet has some sort of limit. You can't wager millions in a single bet. As far as I know, you will need to contact the casino if you wish to place such huge bet. I am sure they will start asking you questions before they let you place the bet. There are also security measures in the casino that can detect suspicious betting. And then most casinos require KYC. So casino isn't really a best place for someone random to launder his money.

Even if the casino did not require KYC verification as the user signs up for an account, I am sure that as soon as the new user started to deposit huge amounts of money and started to wager some of it, a member of the casino staff would notice and ask the user to go through the proper verification and even go as far as ask for proof of the origin of the money (if it is an amount big enough), in that case the person would lose their money which intended to launder. In the end, casinos are not the criminal paradise some conservative people claim. It is in their best interest to keep criminals away, so they can operate uninterrupted by regulators and the law.

[Beparanf]

Even if the casino did not require KYC verification as the user signs up for an account, I am sure that as soon as the new user started to deposit huge amounts of money and started to wager some of it, a member of the casino staff would notice and ask the user to go through the proper verification and even go as far as ask for proof of the origin of the money (if it is an amount big enough), in that case the person would lose their money which intended to launder. In the end, casinos are not the criminal paradise some conservative people claim. It is in their best interest to keep criminals away, so they can operate uninterrupted by regulators and the law.

That's you should not play on a casino that has KYC requirements if you don't have a valid documents to verify your identity. Bank account statements is just a requirement on extreme cases for user that has a problematic Identity Card that is currently live on country that restrict gambling. Not all casino use KYC to restrict user to withdraw but they are just using it if they find something shady on someone account that is close behavior for a money launderer such us frequently withdraw and deposit after few profit in the casino.

[bitbollo]

compared to other systems, recycling money in this way is something more or less "cheap", but compared to other systems you can easily lose everything, provide a KYC and you can always get controls by the casino/gambling platform: show me the origin of the funds.... in a certain way, dealing with such entities is difficult enough for honest people....

[Mr.right85]

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

Suey there isn't anything as sure bet but am sure your aware of that and a 0.1% risk is still a huge risk. This becomes the case and easily realisable when you've got your huge stake on the line.

It could be so disappointing watching such games as you would be so focused on not allowing anything to go wrong with the prediction because, it could always go wrong.

Yeah, money laundering is possible and it's something that is hoped to be avoided but, its often based on the agency following up the case to pursue it yo a point of truth. Your deposit becomes the first means to any traces.

[Slow death]

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

Suey there isn't anything as sure bet but am sure your aware of that and a 0.1% risk is still a huge risk. This becomes the case and easily realisable when you've got your huge stake on the line.

It could be so disappointing watching such games as you would be so focused on not allowing anything to go wrong with the prediction because, it could always go wrong.

Yeah, money laundering is possible and it's something that is hoped to be avoided but, its often based on the agency following up the case to pursue it yo a point of truth. Your deposit becomes the first means to any traces.

in addition to all the points you mentioned, there is a great point that we must not forget: when thieves steal money and need to launder the money, in most cases it is large amounts of money something like millions of dollars, they don't they are going to put millions of dollars in a casino where they can be asked for kyc and thieves are in a hurry, they need to clear their tracks early because the police will be chasing them, so time is something very important for thieves and they cannot afford it of leaving a lot of money in their wallets, which is why the best and only option for them is to use the mixers

if they used the casinos they would have to deposit small amounts of money and still risk losing everything in the casino and being tracked by the police, that's why using the mixer to launder a lot of money quickly is the option they used. I don't see why the governments keep putting pressure on the casinos knowing this logic that I mentioned, for example the casinos could adopt the 2x system for withdrawals, with that people would have to play in the casino until they managed to win up to the amount they deposited to withdraw and not needed kyc and would have to fear money laundering

[ScamViruS]

Many casinos now force gamblers to do KYC. So when a gambler's complete details are with the casino, there is not much for that gambler to do. At any time the casino can freeze the funds if they believe the gambler is involved in money laundering.

And this is why one should not gamble in casinos where KYC is mandatory, as this increases the risk of a gambler even if he is not involved in activities such as money laundering.

[bittraffic]

Many casinos now force gamblers to do KYC. So when a gambler's complete details are with the casino, there is not much for that gambler to do. At any time the casino can freeze the funds if they believe the gambler is involved in money laundering.

And this is why one should not gamble in casinos where KYC is mandatory, as this increases the risk of a gambler even if he is not involved in activities such as money laundering.

Once the casino asks for the source of funds and the user can't provide detailed info, that's when the casino is going to really suspect something and freeze the amount.

But I'm not really sure about the wagering requirement that one user has to lose it all. That's a mess up, I would certainly avoid that one even if I deposit a small amount all the time.
Depositing and then playing a bit and then withdrawing the funds seem not a good way to launder, ain't that a very obvious dumb way and the casino will indeed suspect.

[maydna]

As long the chance isnt 0% then there's always a chance on losing up your entire bankroll or money in an instant.Its true that no one on their right minds would really be having that kind of wagering just to pull out

their laundered money.Its the most bad idea on doing so, although when we do speak about the odds then its really that less risk because of the odds but in overall if you dont want to blown up your money then
its better not to do so. Money launderers wouldnt really be so dumb on doing such thing which they do know that it is way too risky. They would rather be making use of Mixers
than on making up bets on 99% chance of winning or less which it cant really make out assurance that you would be able to get out without busting your balance.
They wont really be that so easily making out such decision if they do know that they cant really take out an advantage which its a common approach.

Imagine they deposited their money to a scam casino website like 1xbit and get scammed. There are some shady casinos as well which trigger KYC whenever a player makes a large amount of deposit. It's super easy to use mixers these days. But, have to choose a reliable platform like Yomix. If it's a small amount of money, I don't think any platform cares about it. But, casinos might trigger KYC if they notice some suspicious betting pattern from a particular user.

However, I have seen a wallet like freewallet.org which scams their user by asking for a KYC which is not possible to pass anyway. The only reliable way is using a mixer. Sometimes mixers get seized as well. So, have to be careful about that as well.

If they deposit their money to the scam casino, it is their risk because there is a possibility they will be fooled and lose all the money. And that is a loss for them because they cannot carry out their plans to wash their money. Maybe they can make money laundering through other places and not in gambling because they can risk losing money if they don't get a suitable casino.

Yes, the mixer will also be their choice in washing the money because it looks like it will be safer for them to avoid tracking from the government or regulator. But they will look for comfortable places to wash their money, and washing money is not new to playing in the business because they must have had places they have often used to wash their money.

[serjent05]

compared to other systems, recycling money in this way is something more or less "cheap", but compared to other systems you can easily lose everything, provide a KYC and you can always get controls by the casino/gambling platform: show me the origin of the funds.... in a certain way, dealing with such entities is difficult enough for honest people....

I believe reputable casinos tends to return the deposit amount of the player if they failed to show the source of funds and just nullify the winning amount.  Unless the casino is aiming for the deposited fund, then they will just ignore all the documents submitted and pretend that it does not comply with their requirements.  In this kind of event, the intention of the player to wash the trace of their funds resulted in a disaster where they fund are confiscated by the casino platform.

[ScamViruS]

Many casinos now force gamblers to do KYC. So when a gambler's complete details are with the casino, there is not much for that gambler to do. At any time the casino can freeze the funds if they believe the gambler is involved in money laundering.

And this is why one should not gamble in casinos where KYC is mandatory, as this increases the risk of a gambler even if he is not involved in activities such as money laundering.

Once the casino asks for the source of funds and the user can't provide detailed info, that's when the casino is going to really suspect something and freeze the amount.

But I'm not really sure about the wagering requirement that one user has to lose it all. That's a mess up, I would certainly avoid that one even if I deposit a small amount all the time.
Depositing and then playing a bit and then withdrawing the funds seem not a good way to launder, ain't that a very obvious dumb way and the casino will indeed suspect.

This may not really be a way of money laundering, but who knows there may be many players who are doing this. Before I deposit in a casino I think several times whether I can eventually withdraw my funds from this casino without any hassle. Casinos are also getting tougher by the day to catch those who engage in such activities.

Now if a gambler deposits his funds in a bad casino with the intention of money laundering, and if that casino freezes his funds with any excuse, then it becomes a nightmare for that gambler. So I also think this can't be a good way, and if the gambler gambles with his funds for the purpose of mixing then there will still be a risk of losing the funds.

[so98nn]

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

I think this is why we have KYC verifications and wagering requirements when entering in a casino and multiplying hundreds thousand dollars just like that.

If you check deposit bonuses or promos then they will always have wagering requirement so that means you will have to multiply your money to specific times and then you would be eligible for the withdrawal limits or else your money is stuck on the casino. This is one of the fraud protection practice.

The second that id wel known to all of us, KYC at different levels. Many of them have segregated the KYC levels according to the money that is being wagered.

This is refresher actually, this is discussed many times in different threads.

[piebeyb]

compared to other systems, recycling money in this way is something more or less "cheap", but compared to other systems you can easily lose everything, provide a KYC and you can always get controls by the casino/gambling platform: show me the origin of the funds.... in a certain way, dealing with such entities is difficult enough for honest people....

I believe reputable casinos tends to return the deposit amount of the player if they failed to show the source of funds and just nullify the winning amount.  Unless the casino is aiming for the deposited fund, then they will just ignore all the documents submitted and pretend that it does not comply with their requirements.  In this kind of event, the intention of the player to wash the trace of their funds resulted in a disaster where they fund are confiscated by the casino platform.

But most users are not very honest so that the casino freezes more users' money trying to launder money through the casino, many cases that I often encounter on this forum also the casino will ask for an explanation of where the funds are used also ask the user to verify to validate that the user clean.

This also prevents the casino from being involved in money laundering cases and is considered to support criminal acts being subject to legal sanctions, but not many casinos want to return user money and only freeze the winnings, it is rarely found, if the user does not meet the requirements requested by the casino then the account will be suspended also the money will be confiscated by the casino.

[Mauser]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

It's not really a loophole, because you still have to bet your whole balance a lot of times (maybe 100x times at 1.01 odds) to fulfil the requirements. There more requirements than just betting your full balance only once, some websites have minimum odds of 1.5 to bet on and other require you to fill up a bar of risked money where you would need a lot of bets if you only stick to low risk bets. It's been a while since I got a new bonus, so I am not too familiar what the industry norm is right now on clearing the withdraw restrictions. For me it was always combi bets that I used to combine multiple low risk bets to make one higher risk bet to clear bonuses. The problem with placing all your money many times on these low-risk bets is that there is no guarantee it's going to work. Only missed bet where the favourite plays a draw and not a win, is enough for you to lose all your money. It's a huge downside risk that I would rather avoid, because its more likely that in 100 games something will go wrong.

[tusandii]

But most users are not very honest so that the casino freezes more users' money trying to launder money through the casino, many cases that I often encounter on this forum also the casino will ask for an explanation of where the funds are used also ask the user to verify to validate that the user clean.

This also prevents the casino from being involved in money laundering cases and is considered to support criminal acts being subject to legal sanctions, but not many casinos want to return user money and only freeze the winnings, it is rarely found, if the user does not meet the requirements requested by the casino then the account will be suspended also the money will be confiscated by the casino.

Not most, but only individuals who have committed criminal acts of fraud or embezzlement of funds so that they try to remove traces by laundering money on gambling sites.
However, cases like this will not occur in casinos that have official licenses and KYC requirements because KYC can put pressure on criminals who want to launder large amounts of money.
Money laundering can damage the reputation and operation of gambling sites because there will be legal authorities involved in involving gambling sites in crimes committed by irresponsible persons, therefore many gambling sites monitor their customers closely so that there is no involvement in money laundering.

[bittraffic]

Many casinos now force gamblers to do KYC. So when a gambler's complete details are with the casino, there is not much for that gambler to do. At any time the casino can freeze the funds if they believe the gambler is involved in money laundering.

And this is why one should not gamble in casinos where KYC is mandatory, as this increases the risk of a gambler even if he is not involved in activities such as money laundering.

Once the casino asks for the source of funds and the user can't provide detailed info, that's when the casino is going to really suspect something and freeze the amount.

But I'm not really sure about the wagering requirement that one user has to lose it all. That's a mess up, I would certainly avoid that one even if I deposit a small amount all the time.
Depositing and then playing a bit and then withdrawing the funds seem not a good way to launder, ain't that a very obvious dumb way and the casino will indeed suspect.

This may not really be a way of money laundering, but who knows there may be many players who are doing this. Before I deposit in a casino I think several times whether I can eventually withdraw my funds from this casino without any hassle. Casinos are also getting tougher by the day to catch those who engage in such activities.

Now if a gambler deposits his funds in a bad casino with the intention of money laundering, and if that casino freezes his funds with any excuse, then it becomes a nightmare for that gambler. So I also think this can't be a good way, and if the gambler gambles with his funds for the purpose of mixing then there will still be a risk of losing the funds.

Maybe there are users doing it however it's more risky than doing it with fiat as it's traceable. When coins get into their wallets and are linked to a bank account, it's already identified. If authorities will really check the KYC of the casino, that user will be in trouble. From what I know, launderers mix their dirty money with clean money using a legitimate business with receipts making it cleaner and taxable for the government. They launder money but at the same time pay tax for it.

[noormcs5]

But most users are not very honest so that the casino freezes more users' money trying to launder money through the casino, many cases that I often encounter on this forum also the casino will ask for an explanation of where the funds are used also ask the user to verify to validate that the user clean.

This also prevents the casino from being involved in money laundering cases and is considered to support criminal acts being subject to legal sanctions, but not many casinos want to return user money and only freeze the winnings, it is rarely found, if the user does not meet the requirements requested by the casino then the account will be suspended also the money will be confiscated by the casino.

How will casino know that the black money is being deposited on any casino ? No casino checks where the money is coming from. They only care how much they get the deposits from their gamblers. Similarly if the specific gambler ( who is also a money launderer), wins and wagers the minimum requirement and cash out on the different side, the casino never care as to which address the money is being transferred.

So i guess that casino have least interest in catching the money launderers. All they care about is how they can get more people to gamble and increase their bankroll.

[Youngkhngdiddy]

As we know that most gambling sites will require you to gamble and wager your whole balance once, before you can cash out or withdraw from the gambling site and they take this measure so people do not do money laundering whereby deposit and withdraw without gambling.

Now the point here is that on the gambling site, there are many easy winning bets with odds like 1.01x etc. If the money lauder is sensible he can easily be wagering the whole amount by placing a few bets where the odds are very low and the winning chances are 99%.

So does this mean that there is a loophole here and the money launderers can easily by pass this wagering requirement?

I consider this strategy a good way of reducing the rate of money laundering through online casinos and gambling sites, because many money launderers to divert stolen funds through this means but this new implementations by most of this sites that require them to wager their money and stake on certain games would scare them away.
 Sometime ago in my country the government decided to set limitations of a certain amount to have in a personal account, asides from business account, to help regulate money laundering and punish suspected bank account holders so many individuals who are guilty decide to use sports betting as a means of saving thereby making it difficult for the government to discover them, so if this wagering system was implemented by then it would scares then away due to the fear of losing everything when they gamble on games,because in the world of gambling no matter how little the odd is no games is 100% sure if not there wouldn't be any predictions on it. So I think this wagering system is another means to to avoid money laundering through sport betting.