Loophole in stopping Money Laundering through Wagering

[BitcoinPanther]

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%.

This percentage does not guarantee a win,  I believe we have all experienced wagering this kind of strategy and at the end we lost something even before reaching a 1x wagering if we happen to wager a small amount just to be to minimize the possible losses. 

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

I do not think that this kind of requirement has a loophole since casino can always tag accounts they are suspecting of money laundering and disable their withdrawal function until they submitted the needed requirement to prove that the money deposited is not intended for money laundering.

[1715475247]

1715475247

[1715475247]

1715475247

[1715475247]

1715475247

[famososMuertos]

I really it doesn't matter how you bet, it is something that the casino evaluates regardless of the type of bets you make, it is relative, at the end of the day, AML, KYC is independent of the wager, there are simply other variables involved that They not only depend on each deposit, but individual, country, betting habits, etc.

[o48o]

You want to test the system out and deposit $1,000,000 and play dice at x1.01? What are you going to do when you lose 1 of your bets and say $250,000 goes in the toilet?

I'm not sure why they have a wager requirement really except to make a user wager on the site. They say for anti money laundering but essentially making a wager 1x is pretty easy no matter the amount. Where you really need to be concerned is when they ask you for proof of funds. If you cannot prove where the funds came from in a way that satisfies their requirement, you could lose it all.

I am guessing that op means that you would get washed money. As i imagine it would cost lot to wash it anyway. And you still would have to pay taxes for your wins in order it would be clean. But there's one problem OP didn't thought about, and that's FATF travel rule where you have to provide a proof where you got that money in the first place. Casinos are legally obligated to freeze your funds for inspection if they suspect it's dirty money, because of AML laws.

I personally don't think that casinos are used to wash money. At least anymore. Laws are too strict on that. NTFs however...

[stomachgrowls]

You want to test the system out and deposit $1,000,000 and play dice at x1.01? What are you going to do when you lose 1 of your bets and say $250,000 goes in the toilet?

I'm not sure why they have a wager requirement really except to make a user wager on the site. They say for anti money laundering but essentially making a wager 1x is pretty easy no matter the amount. Where you really need to be concerned is when they ask you for proof of funds. If you cannot prove where the funds came from in a way that satisfies their requirement, you could lose it all.

Going into that 1.01x wont guarantee because in order to hit up that 2x then it would really take a while plus you would be needing to make huge bets if you are really that in a hurry. What if you lost that bet? For sure you

would really be ending up on chasing those losses until you do lost all of your bankroll and this is something that not good to look at. ITs true that no matter what the amount if you do even play on that 2x odds then it wont really be that so hard on reaching or breaking that threshold if you are really that eager on getting out those laundered money but well we do know that gambling is risky and there's no assurance where you could
really conclude that you are lucky on that moment.What if you would be that on the opposite? You would be losing it all.

Its true about that KYC possibility because if there's some huge deposit that would ring out that bell then expect that there would really be further verifications.

[suzanne5223]

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.

It is not every casino that requires their user to wage all their deposit balance before they could make a withdrawal.

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?

When you mean money laundering, are you referring to gamblers that use casinos to clean their crypto? If yes, the idea doesn't look right from my own belief and instead of doing that there are crypto tumbler websites and there are also some exchanges that provide anonymous service for this.

[BitDane]

I personally don't think that casinos are used to wash money. At least anymore. Laws are too strict on that. NTFs however...

I think otherwise, many people still use casinos to wash money.  I think this is one of the problem that will stay no matter how strict the casino is.  A player can provide the proof where the fund came from but the person on the receiving end of that fund will never know where it is coming from nor the source of that money since it has been mixed in the casinos hand.  In cryptocurrency, the fund is often released from the hot wallet of the casino and not from the address of the person who withdraw the money.  

But if we talk about money laundering, the casino has the separate security for that.  The wagering requirement is not to prevent mone laundering or washing coins but rather as a requirement so that a casino can have the chance to at least eat some of the gambler's balance.

[AmoreJaz]

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.

It is not every casino that requires their user to wage all their deposit balance before they could make a withdrawal.

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?

When you mean money laundering, are you referring to gamblers that use casinos to clean their crypto? If yes, the idea doesn't look right from my own belief and instead of doing that there are crypto tumbler websites and there are also some exchanges that provide anonymous service for this.

well, most of the time, it is none of casino's business where you got the money but the player should always check the ToS of the site to avoid possible problem. because once they saw some unusual activities or amounts in your account, they might flag you down.
there may be gamblers who are washing their money via casinos, but it is how you play your cards not to get caught. so the probability of washing money in casinos is always there, especially if the wagering requirements is low.

[maydna]

Casinos may try to investigate the accounts of gamblers who use big money and ask them to verify them to make sure they are not involved with money laundering. And I think money launderers can still do it because they have many ways, and gambling is not the only place to launder money. If they see that it is difficult to launder money in casinos, they will use other methods so that their activities can continue as usual. And they will keep gambling if they like to gamble, and maybe they will verify their account with the help of other people. Someone experienced in the field knows what to do when a road is closed.

[coin-investor]

But if we talk about money laundering, the casino has the separate security for that.  The wagering requirement is not to prevent mone laundering or washing coins but rather as a requirement so that a casino can have the chance to at least eat some of the gambler's balance.

Why would casinos have that house edge and wagering requirement for them to compel players to play and lose but casinos will mark you as a launderer if you use the casino as a transit point when you deposit you have to play, there is no reason why you'll deposit and not play, but casino is not a good choice for money laundering because they have wagering requirement as we all know and even if the chance to win is high, there's still a risk to lose everything, money launderer will take a chance on mixer, no requirements and no KYC involve.

[Cling18]

Casinos may try to investigate the accounts of gamblers who use big money and ask them to verify them to make sure they are not involved with money laundering. And I think money launderers can still do it because they have many ways, and gambling is not the only place to launder money. If they see that it is difficult to launder money in casinos, they will use other methods so that their activities can continue as usual. And they will keep gambling if they like to gamble, and maybe they will verify their account with the help of other people. Someone experienced in the field knows what to do when a road is closed.

That's the reason why casinos would ask for KYC to track and secure the safety and legitimacy of each transaction. The wagering requirement is actually their strategy just so players would bet more funds before the withdrawal process.
I agree that launderers will still find ways to transact or play with the funds that they have stolen.
There are plenty of ways to use their laundered money and if their illegal activity could be tracked by such casinos, they will surely find other methods to pursue their activity no matter how secure a casino is. Launderers already know how to play the game and I'm that they also know what to avoid.

[DoublerHunter]

But if we talk about money laundering, the casino has the separate security for that.  The wagering requirement is not to prevent mone laundering or washing coins but rather as a requirement so that a casino can have the chance to at least eat some of the gambler's balance.

Why would casinos have that house edge and wagering requirement for them to compel players to play and lose but casinos will mark you as a launderer if you use the casino as a transit point when you deposit you have to play, there is no reason why you'll deposit and not play, but casino is not a good choice for money laundering because they have wagering requirement as we all know and even if the chance to win is high, there's still a risk to lose everything, money launderer will take a chance on mixer, no requirements and no KYC involve.

^That is correct, I am a shoe of a money launderer I will not choose the gambling casino to mix money because that is very risky on my part as I know that the gambling casino always looking for a KYC verification. So ideally, that is not a good option to choose a gambling casino for a fraud like this, even if the chances of winning may be perceived as high, gambling outcomes are ultimately unpredictable, and there is always a possibility of losing the deposited funds. Money launderers tend to opt for alternative methods, such as cryptocurrency mixers or other platforms that offer anonymity and lack the stringent regulations and requirements of legitimate casinos and you are right.

[Yatsan]

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?

As we do know, lower odds won't guarantee winning. Anything could happen as long as the game is not done yet which should impose risk still for those who are planning to bypass their funds through gambling sites. Wagering requirement, as far as I know, does not work on betting all of your funds but with minimum and maximum amounts withdrawable in a certain period.  It would be unfaair as well if gambling sites would reqquire people to bet all of their funds just to withdraaw their funds 'coz what if they lose in that bet?

If it is avoiding money laundering, there are many ways to do so such as simply putting their money in this blockchain. The only problem they would get is not being able to withdraw all of it in a single transaction 'coz your bank would be larmed. So atleast it would be hidden from taxation.

[serjent05]

But if we talk about money laundering, the casino has the separate security for that.  The wagering requirement is not to prevent mone laundering or washing coins but rather as a requirement so that a casino can have the chance to at least eat some of the gambler's balance.

Why would casinos have that house edge and wagering requirement for them to compel players to play and lose but casinos will mark you as a launderer if you use the casino as a transit point when you deposit you have to play, there is no reason why you'll deposit and not play, but casino is not a good choice for money laundering because they have wagering requirement as we all know and even if the chance to win is high, there's still a risk to lose everything, money launderer will take a chance on mixer, no requirements and no KYC involve.

^That is correct, I am a shoe of a money launderer I will not choose the gambling casino to mix money because that is very risky on my part as I know that the gambling casino always looking for a KYC verification. So ideally, that is not a good option to choose a gambling casino for a fraud like this, even if the chances of winning may be perceived as high, gambling outcomes are ultimately unpredictable, and there is always a possibility of losing the deposited funds. Money launderers tend to opt for alternative methods, such as cryptocurrency mixers or other platforms that offer anonymity and lack the stringent regulations and requirements of legitimate casinos and you are right.

I think cryptocurrency exchanges are easier to commit money laundering than a casino since a centralized exchange platform can easily wash the trace of money by exchanging Bitcoin to any other form of altcoins and voila, traces of the source of fund is hidden since the exchange will not give the information unless there is a court issue of in digging deeper on the source of fund that can be found on the exchange.

[danadc]

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%.

This percentage does not guarantee a win,  I believe we have all experienced wagering this kind of strategy and at the end we lost something even before reaching a 1x wagering if we happen to wager a small amount just to be to minimize the possible losses. 

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

I do not think that this kind of requirement has a loophole since casino can always tag accounts they are suspecting of money laundering and disable their withdrawal function until they submitted the needed requirement to prove that the money deposited is not intended for money laundering.

A casino to do something like this is when they have enough suspicions to do it, and sometimes when they suspect such a specific case it is because they have seen a movement of money that is not so usual, it is always for a lot of money and the person wants to withdraw quickly, that is the way I see that it can be done.

Those who launder money in a casino are somewhat stupid thieves, because if they put money in a casino knowing that they are going to ask for many requirements, that is not intelligent, it is a very novice act, for that it is better to put it in a mixer and that's it , you don't have to pass it through a platform where your funds are frozen and goodbye.

[dothebeats]

If that's the way you think then you don't know how cruel that odds are for gamblers that are looking to make some quick buck or to launder money. Even if you are successful on your first try to launder money through this means, the succeeding ones might not be the same. Also, the casino might flag your account for suspicious behavior if they see that a repeat activity of the same nature happens on your account, with the money going in, making one bet, then going out. This is outright daring but not smart, if I can describe it.

[Wexnident]

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 wouldn't say it's a loophole, just that from the way casinos try to guard against money laundering, what you said was the bare minimum to apply to it, which always exists in any type of restriction in general imo. Fact remains that the money was gambled after all. Plus, casinos keep a log of records of whoever does those kinds of stuff so who knows, they may just jave an internal monitoring that tracks those specific accounts that does those types of bets after depositing.

Plus, if they were to be somehow really unlucky and land on that 1%, free money for the casino.

[Bitinity]

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?

You may think that it is easy but in fact anyone may lose the bets with such low odds even in their first bets or even they can lose few times in a row. Actually I dont think that people who want to do money laundry will use online casino because the risk is bigger because wagering 1-2x of the whole balance just to launder is like risking the whole amount. I think smart people who want to do it will prefer to use mixer or even exchange than casino. With mixer, they simply pay the fee and with exchange they can do some safe trades (at least less risk than gamble it).

[Don Pedro Dinero]

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

If there is, they don't use it because there are still some casinos without wagering requirements, so they won't have to deal with the ones that do have them. Besides, there are mixers that are much better in this respect. And it would not be easy, compared to the other options.

You may think that it is easy but in fact anyone may lose the bets with such low odds even in their first bets or even they can lose few times in a row. Actually I dont think that people who want to do money laundry will use online casino because the risk is bigger because wagering 1-2x of the whole balance just to launder is like risking the whole amount.

That's it.

[danherbias07]

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?

But also imagine the risk he will take upon taking the bet. Yeah, let's say it's just 1.01 and most will say it's a sure win but what if that 0.01 wins? It might work with sports betting but in casino games, I have seen 1.00 come out a lot of times either in Dice or other original casino games like Crash especially if the amount bet was too high. One time there was one gambler who put in a bet of 1 BTC and I saw it gone in Crash game. It's a risky move that most gamblers won't take unless they have enough courage to do so.
I don't think it's a loophole because there is still risk involved. And, would that be enough for the gambling site to let you go just because you reach their wager amount? I think there's still an investigation that must be done and I don't doubt they will do that. A big amount of money still requires KYC and they may also look at your settled bets to see if you are just taking advantage of such things.

[benalexis12]

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?

What they are doing is still a risk that I can say, there is no gambling without the capital that you will use here. And there is no casino that will just let you deposit and withdraw immediately without even playing on their platform, nothing like that.
That's why all casinos implement that you bet this amount first before we allow you to withdraw money, that's their rules.