1x wagering made sense

[Sanitough]

This report is from FATF...

I remember reading a thread before where users were complaining about casinos requiring 1x wagering before they could withdraw. Now this report makes that rule easier to understand.

According to FATF, gambling platforms can be used to move money without actually gambling, especially for money laundering. Maybe this is more common with illegal or unlicensed casinos that don't have the same controls.

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is alerting countries of how to spot abuse of the gaming and gambling sectors, including criminals using gambling platforms to move money without actually gambling, making multiple small transactions ("smurfing") to avoid detection and unusually large or co-ordinated bets on events flagged for possible competition manipulation.

Analysis by the FATF has identified new opportunities for criminal abuse in the gaming and gambling sectors, following an increase in market size globally, a rise in the use of online platforms, and as payment methods allow rapid, anonymous transactions across borders.

[Charles-Tim]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn? Or the launderer make money from it and withdraw the money and th le profit? That does not make the money clean.

Casinos like the rules because it is a huge advantage for them.

There is a fiat gambling site that I have used before that do not require wagering before you can withdraw the money that you sent to it.

[stadus]

With that report, we can say that many are still not implementing it. Some are licensed but probably under a lax regulator, thats why their platform is being abused, but in that case I think the casino itself is also part of the problem if they are allowing it.

And honestly, for regular gamblers we should not complain too much about the 1x requirement because we can just think, what's the reason why we are putting our money there in the first place? To gamble right? So either we lose it or win, then after that we can withdraw.

[Justbillywitt]

And you think paying 1x wagering will be too much fee to pay for people that have big amounts to launder through the casino? Casinos can make their rules I’m not against them doing that, but what I don’t agree to is you thinking that the 1x wagering requirement will discourage money laundering. If they like let them make it 10x wagering requirement, people that went to do money laundering through their casino will pay and go ahead with their business.

[Sanitough]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn?

That is possible of course, but this measure that requires 1x wagering requirement is just to minimize the risk.
At least with this policy,  those who are planning to launder will think twice because i he is require 1x wagering requirement there's also a possibility that he will lose it all.

Or the launderer make money from it and withdraw the money and th le profit? That does not make the money clean.

its never clean if we know in the first place that the money is being laundered. It's only clean when they are not caught, the very point of it.

Casinos like the rules because it is a huge advantage for them.

There is a fiat gambling site that I have used before that do not require wagering before you can withdraw the money that you sent to it.

its a fair advantage TBH, because if they will not implement that wagering requirement,  then they will become the favorite of the launderers.

And you think paying 1x wagering will be too much fee to pay for people that have big amounts to launder through the casino?

What? do you even understand what you are saying..

1x is not equivalent to just a small amount its 100% of your deposit.
So if you deposit $1 million, you need to wager $1 million, worst case scenario you will lose that and those money launderer will fair ( they'll cry for their stupidity).

Casinos can make their rules I’m not against them doing that, but what I don’t agree to is you thinking that the 1x wagering requirement will discourage money laundering. If they like let them make it 10x wagering requirement, people that went to do money laundering through their casino will pay and go ahead with their business.

its not me who are thinking that way, it has a basis dude ( read the news, link in the OP).

[rdluffy]

But that’s already well known among gamblers, isn’t it?
I don’t think this is even an issue anymore,  most of us know there has to be a 1x wagering requirement, and it makes sense

It really would be too easy for people to use a casino as a mixer for example, to simply deposit coins with high AML ratings and then withdraw everything, ending up with coins that have lower AML ratings, or using the excuse that they won it at the casino

I think a 1x wagering requirement is fair for both sides, the users and the casino, and the authorities are satisfied that casinos aren’t making it easy for criminals
It's not perfect, but I think it's the best they can do right now

[masulum]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

The 1x wager serves a purpose not only as a preventive measure against money laundering, even though its primary purpose is definitely prevention. However, the 1x wager also allows the casino to earn a percentage of the betting amount. CMIIW, as far as i know, every deposit transaction (especially via credit card, or payment gateway) requires payment processing fees which are charged to the platform provider. If a user just makes a deposit and then immediately withdrawing without playing, the platform still has to pay those gateway fees without generating any operating revenue. I’m sure all gamblers agree with this condition. If they really hard to meet the 1x wagering requirement, then don’t ever deposit money on a gambling site, just going to offline casino.

[Russlenat]

But that’s already well known among gamblers, isn’t it?
I don’t think this is even an issue anymore,  most of us know there has to be a 1x wagering requirement, and it makes sense

Its normal but there are still some who are complaining about this, probably the casino they used before does not require this.

Although I have not experienced this kind of problem myself since I don't use a casino as a wallet, I make sure when I deposit money I will gamble it. But there was a time I remember, I deposited in a casino and changed my mind and withdrew the funds, they did release it, so maybe they are just looking at the pattern as well. They will know if the user is abusing it or not, (me I'm no abuser so they let me withdraw). 

It really would be too easy for people to use a casino as a mixer for example, to simply deposit coins with high AML ratings and then withdraw everything, ending up with coins that have lower AML ratings, or using the excuse that they won it at the casino

I think a 1x wagering requirement is fair for both sides, the users and the casino, and the authorities are satisfied that casinos aren’t making it easy for criminals
It's not perfect, but I think it's the best they can do right now

It's happening now based on the report shared by OP.

So with that, it's possible that regulators have already looked into it and that will result in stricter implementation, but since they consider these as illegal casinos, that's a challenge on their part for sure. How will they go after casinos that are not under their jurisdiction?

[stompix]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn?

You will see that accountant who came with this floating in the river in a body bag the next day!
Money laundering is alrady costly because of the mules involved, out a 50% cut on the initial sum and you're bankrupt even as a cartel.

It's way better just to create your own casino at that point we have seen it right here how cheap that is for scammers, casinos with less than $5000 in bankroll money!

That is possible of course, but this measure that requires 1x wagering requirement is just to minimize the risk.
At least with this policy,  those who are planning to launder will think twice because i he is require 1x wagering requirement there's also a possibility that he will lose it all.

Nobody is going to put bets on sports or parlays with that money if they want to reach the wagering requirement, they will play dice and lose a max 5% if they are truly unlucky.

[acroman08]

I'm probably one of those who didn't like it when the 1x wagering started popping up(at least in crypto casinos), but over time, I kind of get why they had to implement it. But let's be real, a 1x wagering requirement is basically nothing, and a lot of money launderers could still launder money through it.

Anyway, they could increase the wagering requirement to actually deter money launderers, but that would also deter other gamblers. I guess a 1x wagering requirement is the best they could do in order to not negatively affect casinos.

[Agbe]

1X wagering is good for real gamblers but for those who's plan is to launder funds in the casino, might not understand the policy and might lost everything in the casino and be crying. There was a casino I deposited $20 and the wagering policy was 1X and I lost everything in the first deposit and from the second time that I got my lost and the second deposit back. 1x wagering is simple but don't underestimate it.

It can give you the one time winning and withdrawal and the same time you might lose everything at once.  It makes sense but be careful with it.

[Su-asa]

Many players think that gambling platforms just put those rules in place to make things difficult for them, but that's not the case, as that 1x wagering requirement is to prevent money laundering. If players start making deposits and withdrawals immediately without any wagering, it will look like they are using it to move money from one place to another, and each transaction might be monitored closely for necessary investigations.

For me, I think what we should be talking about is whether the rules are clear on all betting platforms or not, instead of talking about the 1x wagering requirement alone.
My reasons for saying this are that if the rules are not clear and a player makes a deposit and then tries to withdraw, there will definitely be an issue, so casinos need to make their rules very clear and bold for players to see. However, 70% of players don't really check the rules before creating accounts at a casino.

[MisFoxie]

The real reason the casino has kept a 1x wagering requirement is so that when the government investigates the money laundering case they cannot be blamed for it in any way. For this reason they have kept 1x wagering so that criminals do not use the casino for money laundering.

Although it is not possible to completely stop money laundering through this most of the time if they want to do this activity through the casino they will have to pay a much higher fee that's why they will not choose the casino but will choose another medium where they can do money laundering without high cost.

[maydna]

1x wagering requirement is the thing that gamblers like and I am sure casinos can identify suspicious transaction especially from the or the sender wallet and the destination wallet. So that will not make criminals easily to pass the identification from casinos. Criminals will not use casinos with that requirements but they might only use small money to test the casinos. Casinos will check all from members if they want to withdraw money so casinos will not make a problem. We might think casinos will be a place to lender the money but casinos will do they can to make sure that will not happens in their place.

[Sanitough]

Nobody is going to put bets on sports or parlays with that money if they want to reach the wagering requirement,

Correct, we are on the same page here.

they will play dice and lose a max 5% if they are truly unlucky.

Correct again, but if that is the pattern, the casino would be able to notice it easily because normally we withdraw when we win, not when we lose. So it will be obvious to them that the user is probably just laundering money , but they cannot prevent them from withdrawing if the requirement is only 1x.

Smart launderers may still do that, but I'm pretty sure its already logged in the system, so once authorities investigate they can easily pinpoint those suspected users.

1x wagering requirement is the thing that gamblers like

no requirement is better ( 1x requirement is like a rule we have to follow).

and I am sure casinos can identify suspicious transaction especially from the or the sender wallet and the destination wallet.

Why would they investigate on their own? it does not work that way, AMLC normally coordinate with casino like giving them information to trace a certain address or people if they are using their casino and that is the patter the casino will follow.  what you are referring is investigation only when things gets deeper.

Criminals will not use casinos with that requirements but they might only use small money to test the casinos. Casinos will check all from members if they want to withdraw money so casinos will not make a problem. We might think casinos will be a place to lender the money but casinos will do they can to make sure that will not happens in their place.

I could not understand it...

[Obim34]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

I do not see any problem with the 1X rule in a casino, for whatever protective measures, it is valid and reminding ourselves that casino is a business, whatever will damage their reputation, needs to be looked into, with a solution or way to control the risk.

In as much as launder cases will be more if there are no 1X wagering requirement, the governments will be after every crypto casinos because they are part of the process aiding money launderers, it is wrong to have a system that stimulates money laundering, the rules are also there to protect the business, and not only for their interest.

[Ashawowo(OS)]

There is a fiat gambling site that I have used before that do not require wagering before you can withdraw the money that you sent to it.

You might want to go back and try doing same thing now, I'm 80% sure they've updated their terms of services. I used to do that in a local sports-book back in the days around 2016 or thereabout, but I tried it around 2020 when I mistakenly added an extra zero while depositing and I was mandated to wager with all of my deposits before I could withdraw.

I think off-shore casinos are the last to implement this, Local regulated casinos and sports-book have implemented this rule from many years ago

[Sim_card]

What's the point of what you are doing, having fun or what. If not, what will make you just deposit funds into your casino account and withdraw it. It's just like you are playing with the casino. They wouldn't release your funds if you don't gamble with it because they also want to have a share of that money you deposited because they know the the chance of you losing your bet is higher than winning. That's why they have the 1x wager requirements. Even with this 1x wager requirement, people will still use the casino for money laundering if they want.

[Natalim]

I do not see any problem with the 1X rule in a casino, for whatever protective measures, it is valid and reminding ourselves that casino is a business, whatever will damage their reputation, needs to be looked into, with a solution or way to control the risk.

I think even if they will not require 1x requirement, it has no significant change. 
Like @stompix mentioned, they can just play dice and lose 5% and they take the rest and that is already clean money. 
So that requirement is not safe, casinos can still be used for money laundering. 

I think what they fear most is their real names will be traced, so this is where casinos should look into whether the KYC documents and information submitted have gone through thorough checking to ensure it's all legitimate, because regulators could penalize them if they are not doing their job.

[Smartprofit]

This month, I've already read about the new FATF requirements regarding online casinos' interactions with their clients. It's a nightmare! 🙋

This isn't just about the mandatory 1x wager.....  Incredibly strict compliance procedures are being introduced, as well as other restrictions. For example, in roulette, you can't bet on both red and black at the same time. You can't bet on all outcomes of a sporting event. In poker, you can't lose money to another player too quickly and recklessly. All of this, according to FATF representatives, is intended to prevent money laundering.🥷

At the same time, it's worth noting that the ban on withdrawals without wagering is also very beneficial to the casino itself. Casinos have a powerful profit tool: the house edge in all gambling games. Any online casino benefits greatly from the players who play there.  Another question arises... We're all experienced users and know about these restrictions and limitations. However, newcomers may only encounter them when attempting to withdraw funds. For them, this would be a rather unpleasant surprise. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to inform all players of these restrictions and limitations in advance. 💁