Loophole in stopping Money Laundering through Wagering

[noormcs5]

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.

Why do we think that when the gambling site requires that we do wagering against the deposit amount the motive behind is to stop money laundering ? Why can't they use the KYC data in case they suspect any money laundering cases ? Also that is the purpose of the KYC to discourage users involved in illegal financial activities and money laundering.

When the gambling site wants you to wagger that deposit amount before the withdrawal I think the main motive behind is that you gamble with that amount and they know that when you will gamble you will lose a big portion of that money and in that case the gambling site will make profit.

This is another point of view taking that kYC data into account.

[1715408426]

1715408426

[1715408426]

1715408426

[1715408426]

1715408426

[1715408426]

1715408426

[1715408426]

1715408426

[Reatim]

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.

This is not what OP did not understand completely , he only thought of the wager requirements but did not pay attention to the attitude of the casino nowadays.
there are even cases that even a small winning or withdrawal asking them to provide proofs like KYC and like what you said a where the funds came from and if this does not satisfied them then you are burn and may harder to gain back your money.
so if you have no other bad intention why not just use a legit way of transacting ?casino houses now knows why we tries to use them for sending and taking money and this is why they are now using that AML thing to take peoples money ,  because they believe that only legit gamblers will deposit and play and those wanted to deposit and withdraw has some red flags on it and yes they will also try to take advantage of that.

[Weawant]

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

The casinos shouldn't have more attention on money laundering because that's not their sole responsibility and when they try to introduce such control measures against money laundering, they may be loosing their customers at the cause of doing that and it may not be well enough for them to adapt on this kind conditions because they will record a low income due to reduced numbers of gamblers.

OP that's not a loophole as it seems easier to be down with your thinking than doing it practically. There is every possibility for you to lose one of your bet and since you're waging all your money that means you're staking big and one loss will lose you a big part of your money.

Casino can't ignore money laundering because they're required to report any defaulter they discover are trying to use their casino for that purpose. If they don't report and the culprit get caught and it's been disclosed that it was this particular casino they use, they're an accomplice.

They won't be closed down immediately but after investigation and it's discovered that they knew their casino was been used for money laundering without doing anything about it and they can't prove to be innocent then they'll get punished and lose their license.

[maydna]

~snip~

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.

By using the wagering requirements, the casino can spot a player with a lot of money and investigate the account immediately. And if they are not related to illegal activities such as money laundering and want to verify, the casino will have no problem with that and will verify their accounts in no time. But if the casino finds anything suspicious about its account, it must investigate more deeply. Perhaps, the casino will also ask for additional documents to ensure that the casino still controls everything. And the money launderers must have experience laundering their money, so they don't just use the casino.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

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.

     -  It's also not accurate because what the op refers to as a percentage is actually not accurate. Even if it is said that there is a 95% chance of winning, there is still a 5% chance of losing. And when you get the one you lose, the size of your funds will be lost.

Then the size of what you lost is long before you get back the amount you bet on what you gambled on, I have tried what the OP is talking about, it is not effective either, especially if you are unlucky while playing.

[yahoo62278]

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.

This is not what OP did not understand completely , he only thought of the wager requirements but did not pay attention to the attitude of the casino nowadays.
there are even cases that even a small winning or withdrawal asking them to provide proofs like KYC and like what you said a where the funds came from and if this does not satisfied them then you are burn and may harder to gain back your money.
so if you have no other bad intention why not just use a legit way of transacting ?casino houses now knows why we tries to use them for sending and taking money and this is why they are now using that AML thing to take peoples money ,  because they believe that only legit gamblers will deposit and play and those wanted to deposit and withdraw has some red flags on it and yes they will also try to take advantage of that.

A gambler can be legit and still not want to share all their info. The KYC process is pretty invasive IMO. I have money, I want to gamble. Why is it the casino's business to know where my money came from? Either you want my business or you don't IMO.

[klidex]

~snip~

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.

By using the wagering requirements, the casino can spot a player with a lot of money and investigate the account immediately. And if they are not related to illegal activities such as money laundering and want to verify, the casino will have no problem with that and will verify their accounts in no time. But if the casino finds anything suspicious about its account, it must investigate more deeply. Perhaps, the casino will also ask for additional documents to ensure that the casino still controls everything. And the money launderers must have experience laundering their money, so they don't just use the casino.

Actually I think someone who acts illegally laundering their money will not put that money into gambling because they know the risks that will be accepted when detected by the casino.
All casinos have various ways to detect illegal acts in gambling and gambling also does not want this action to concern the casino, so it is always warned that any gambling does not accept money resulting from illegal actions.
It's not the casino's fault if one day this problem occurs and all funds on the platform are confiscated by the casino.

[aioc]

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.

I doubt if there are loopholes for money launderers to use casinos the way they ask KYC for every action of players, casinos' security is bound by laws and regulations, and part of that regulations are tracing and prosecuting money launderers, I don't know but OP is just speculating that you can win and get your all your money that the money launderer washed.
It may be the case in the past but now with the upgraded security of casinos money laundering through casinos is hard to accomplish.
 

[paxmao]

If you have personally tried the strategy an method mentioned by the OP in question and found it ineffective, then it is  important to trust your own experiences rather than whatever other may tell you and have your own judgment. Strategies or systems claiming to guarantee consistent wins in gambling are often scams and can lead to further unhindered losses.

[Solosanz]

Why do we think that when the gambling site requires that we do wagering against the deposit amount the motive behind is to stop money laundering ? Why can't they use the KYC data in case they suspect any money laundering cases ? Also that is the purpose of the KYC to discourage users involved in illegal financial activities and money laundering.

Because if the casino ask the player to verify their account during registration in order to combat against of money laundering, the casino will lose a lot player because most people don't like to verify their account. People like to verify their account when they don't have any choice especially they're make money from the casino.

That's why they use wagering requirement as the step to combat against of money laundering.

[Doan9269]

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

The casinos shouldn't have more attention on money laundering because that's not their sole responsibility and when they try to introduce such control measures against money laundering, they may be loosing their customers at the cause of doing that and it may not be well enough for them to adapt on this kind conditions because they will record a low income due to reduced numbers of gamblers.

OP that's not a loophole as it seems easier to be down with your thinking than doing it practically. There is every possibility for you to lose one of your bet and since you're waging all your money that means you're staking big and one loss will lose you a big part of your money.

There's no moderacy in gambling and I don't think casinos can also get this done since they aren't forcing gamblers to gamble on their sites, they decided to place a particular amount of money to be used for gambling just as we have the right to spend our money in buying any item in the market without anyone giving query to the source of our money, same are these casinos expected to operate without being bias.

Casino can't ignore money laundering because they're required to report any defaulter they discover are trying to use their casino for that purpose. If they don't report and the culprit get caught and it's been disclosed that it was this particular casino they use, they're an accomplice.

I can't expect any casino to report any case of money laundering since it's for their own benefits for he gambler to use the money on their website gambling than for them to report him and everything went down to the hands of the government agencies and officials as loot, this is not to encourage money laund but there are agencies saddled with such responsibility and that's their own role to monitor such.

[FatFork]

Why do we think that when the gambling site requires that we do wagering against the deposit amount the motive behind is to stop money laundering ? Why can't they use the KYC data in case they suspect any money laundering cases ? Also that is the purpose of the KYC to discourage users involved in illegal financial activities and money laundering.

When the gambling site wants you to wagger that deposit amount before the withdrawal I think the main motive behind is that you gamble with that amount and they know that when you will gamble you will lose a big portion of that money and in that case the gambling site will make profit.

This is another point of view taking that kYC data into account.

Yes, maybe the gambling sites are secretly run by a gang of mathematically gifted, profit-seeking geniuses who have mastered the art of making us lose our hard-earned money!  

But in all seriousness, you make a good point. Wagering requirements are a common practice in the gambling industry to ensure that players actually engage in the games and don't simply deposit and withdraw funds without any gameplay. It's a way for the gambling site to keep people active and potentially increase their chances of making a profit. And as we all know, the house usually wins in the long run. It's a sneaky move, no doubt, but hey, they're running a business after all. What's the point of depositing money anyway if you have no intention of gambling, right?

[Sim_card]

Why do we think that when the gambling site requires that we do wagering against the deposit amount the motive behind is to stop money laundering ? Why can't they use the KYC data in case they suspect any money laundering cases ? Also that is the purpose of the KYC to discourage users involved in illegal financial activities and money laundering.

When the gambling site wants you to wagger that deposit amount before the withdrawal I think the main motive behind is that you gamble with that amount and they know that when you will gamble you will lose a big portion of that money and in that case the gambling site will make profit.

This is another point of view taking that kYC data into account.

Yes, maybe the gambling sites are secretly run by a gang of mathematically gifted, profit-seeking geniuses who have mastered the art of making us lose our hard-earned money!  

But in all seriousness, you make a good point. Wagering requirements are a common practice in the gambling industry to ensure that players actually engage in the games and don't simply deposit and withdraw funds without any gameplay. It's a way for the gambling site to keep people active and potentially increase their chances of making a profit. And as we all know, the house usually wins in the long run. It's a sneaky move, no doubt, but hey, they're running a business after all. What's the point of depositing money anyway if you have no intention of gambling, right?

Casinos hate it when you tempt them with funds and I believe that they have experience when a gambler deposits and the casino will be happy that they will benefit from your funds and before they know it that gambler has withdrawn back his funds and this is the reason why they came up with wagering requirements. So that if you deposit,they have assurance that it is no longer your funds but their own due to their wagering requirement. This is the tricky side of the casino to make sure that they benefit from you either by your loss or will not allow you to withdraw your deposit so that you must gamble by all means,since they know that the house edge always win.

[dezoel]

How can consider that a loophole when you can clearly lose a bet with even 1.01x odds? This has happened a lot in the past, a guy even lost $1.4m in a single bet with 1.01x odds maybe because he had the same thought that he will never lose and will win some money and stop, but what happened was probably shocking for him and for us as well, losing $1.4m in a single bet isn't a joke even if you are a billionaire.

So, someone trying to place bets with his entire balance or maybe half of it using a 1.01x multiplier hoping he won't lose and quickly complete the wagering requirement is actually making a mistake, it is gambling and we all know that anything can happen in gambling, it's better to play it safe.

[goldkingcoiner]

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 am not sure if I would call that a loophole. Every 100 times that a money launderer launders money this way, they lose all their money once. They could of course do it all in one go but ALL your money for a 1% chance of losing it? Still too high for me.

Now, about money laundering: Obviously the casino has records of losses and wins and they would give these documents to any law enforcement or government agency anyway. So that person would still have to explain the source of the deposits of his funds.

I think it would be easier for the casinos to get their 1% of the money launderer's money, so they keep quiet because its more profitable for them.

[Jody.Drummer]

How can consider that a loophole when you can clearly lose a bet with even 1.01x odds? This has happened a lot in the past, a guy even lost $1.4m in a single bet with 1.01x odds maybe because he had the same thought that he will never lose and will win some money and stop, but what happened was probably shocking for him and for us as well, losing $1.4m in a single bet isn't a joke even if you are a billionaire.

So, someone trying to place bets with his entire balance or maybe half of it using a 1.01x multiplier hoping he won't lose and quickly complete the wagering requirement is actually making a mistake, it is gambling and we all know that anything can happen in gambling, it's better to play it safe.

Yep, no matter how big the chance of winning is given, if at that time we have to lose, then defeat will be unavoidable. Sometimes these things we take for granted, and remember that this is a gamble that allows anything to happen and I agree with what you say. Mistakes don't have to be something big, like trying to risk all of our balance with a minuscule chance of winning, but they can happen to things we might not think about before looking at things realistically.
Once again I say this is a gamble that we will not know what the outcome will be.

[danadc]

How can consider that a loophole when you can clearly lose a bet with even 1.01x odds? This has happened a lot in the past, a guy even lost $1.4m in a single bet with 1.01x odds maybe because he had the same thought that he will never lose and will win some money and stop, but what happened was probably shocking for him and for us as well, losing $1.4m in a single bet isn't a joke even if you are a billionaire.

So, someone trying to place bets with his entire balance or maybe half of it using a 1.01x multiplier hoping he won't lose and quickly complete the wagering requirement is actually making a mistake, it is gambling and we all know that anything can happen in gambling, it's better to play it safe.

Yes, it doesn't matter how much the chance of winning is given, if at that time we have to lose, then defeat will not be inevitable. Sometimes these things we take for granted, and keep in mind this is a gamble that allows anything to happen, so I agree with you. Mistakes don't have to be something big, like trying to put all of our balance on a bet with a very slim chance of winning, but mistakes can happen to things we might not have thought of before seeing things as realistic.
Once again I say this is a gamble that we will not know what the outcome will be.

The only solution I see to money laundering is already there and it is KYC, I don't see anything else that can combat it, casino security systems can do it, if not, I think these things would not make sense, I have seen cases where There are many players who play in a casino with a VPN, and when the casino detects that they have won and are going to make a withdrawal, they block their funds and say that it is wrong because they used a VPN, if they have that capacity, then when there are illegal movements of money They can stop it too, and I don't think that those who go to Laavar Diero do 100 counts and do 100kyc, this is the only thing that can stop it.

[Lida93]

.

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?

The 1% less risk as you reason it has championed many losses to gamblers as those very low multipliers could be so deceiving many times. Since the existence of gambling there's nothing like a sure or easy odd as a result of it's size so such presumed loophole-odds still establishes losses.

The gambling companies knows very well that gambling is a game of chance/luck that's why they imposed such wagering requirements clause as there's every possibility that 7 out of 10 money laundering bets ma incur a loss irrespective of odd size if such gambler is not lucky and smart put together. Gambling is a game of uncertainty nothing is sure

[suzanne5223]

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.

Yes, there's the probability of washing crypto through the use of casinos but if check the risk involve in losing all the funds I don't think it is something anyone should try. Remember "not your key, not your coin" especially now that most casinos are changing their TOS.
When privacy is a top priority it is better to use a crypto tumbler site and a good anonymous exchange than use a casino where the risk is high.

[Wiwo]

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 are low.

Yes, there's the probability of washing crypto through the use of casinos but if check the risk involve in losing all the funds I don't think it is something anyone should try. Remember "not your key, not your coin" especially now that most casinos are changing their TOS.
When privacy is a top priority it is better to use a crypto tumbler site and a good anonymous exchange than use a casino where the risk is high.

Aside from casino being used for money laundering being the reason for wager demands on deposits,  it is still a game by the casino to get the customer hucked,  since wager is a most on all deposits it then means the casino will make more money from players quest to meet the wagering requirement and failing in the process,  and sometimes some of the casino place unreasonable wager requirement on deposits balance and players continue to lose trying to fulfil that retirement on multiple times.

So the casino is not protecting the player or the government by enforcing wager requirements,  but they are also fulfilling their obligation to generate revenue for the business using that tactic.