1x wagering made sense

[Obim34]

So that requirement is not safe, casinos can still be used for money laundering.

The plan wasn’t to entirely eliminate money laundering, at least it gives an Idea that casinos are not comfortable at which money launderers will be using their service for the wrong purposes.

theymos adjusted the rule on the promotion of mixers in the forum for a reason, it was to disassociate the forum from mixers, since mixers were having many cases on money laundering, it was a new rule but never going to end money laundering. At some point, we saw new Defi system that was launched here, looked similar to what a mixer does, for every rule, there is kind of a back entrance, 1X rule wasn’t going to completely stop money laundering in casinos, loopholes are there and can be taken advantage of.

[TopTort777]

Is there anyone who see 1x wagering as a problem ? That dude should not gamble then if he is not ready to risk money he has deposited to casino Just show me the person who would make a deposit but then change his mind and withdraw money. Hard to believe there is anyone who would resist placing a bet if has deposited money. 1x wagering that is even a light protection from money laundering. Which isnt even working if previously gambler has wagered and played a lot in that casino as I think casino would allow him to deposit/withdraw without 1x wagering.

[Natalim]

So that requirement is not safe, casinos can still be used for money laundering.

The plan wasn’t to entirely eliminate money laundering, at least it gives an Idea that casinos are not comfortable at which money launderers will be using their service for the wrong purposes.

We always say the casinos as if it's their own initiative. the truth is, casinos just want what is simple, simple enough that it could attract gamblers to play the casino as the more will play due to simple requirements the more profit they make.   That KYC requirement ( 1x requirement ) is regulators' requirement they have no choice but to implement it or they will be penalized.  And of course, every policy and rule is not meant to fully eliminate the problem as it's just impossible to achieve it... the key is "minimize" the risk/problem  And don't use comfortable as it does not fit, it would look like they are aware but not comfortable, use they don't allow it. ( although they might not be aware someone is already laundering dirty money)

theymos adjusted the rule on the promotion of mixers in the forum for a reason, it was to disassociate the forum from mixers, since mixers were having many cases on money laundering, it was a new rule but never going to end money laundering. At some point, we saw new Defi system that was launched here, looked similar to what a mixer does, for every rule, there is kind of a back entrance, 1X rule wasn’t going to completely stop money laundering in casinos, loopholes are there and can be taken advantage of.

Bottom line is that many mixers are being seized for facilitating money laundering, Theymos just doesn't want to gamble to protect the forum. 

But I have never seen a casino being seized by authorities for facilitating money laundering, so they are safe to be promoted here.

[ZeroVinsonN]

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.

That may be, but what's the point in putting money in an online casino and then withdrawing it without a single wager? This can be phrased however way, say it's t the casinos advantage or what if the person ends up profiting from the bet the placed but this truth is that having a condition where you have to place at least 1 bet before you can withdraw your funds from a casino makes sense.
Money laundering is a thing and online casinos are one of the best ways to move money around without anyone finding out, as long as you are careful with how you are moving the money and while money launderers can still move their money through casinos even with the 1x wagering rule it will still deter some people from considering it.
I've seen complaints about KYC too, about how information leak can lead to harm to the individual whose information was leaked or hacked but that's doesn't automatically make KYC a bad thing.

[Charles-Tim]

[That may be, but what's the point in putting money in an online casino and then withdrawing it without a single wager?

Anything can come up. You can deposit the money in the morning and later something come up in the afternoon. If I want I can also deposit a coin on an exchange and withdraw the coin without exchanging it to any other coin.

This can be phrased however way, say it's t the casinos advantage or what if the person ends up profiting from the bet the placed but this truth is that having a condition where you have to place at least 1 bet before you can withdraw your funds from a casino makes sense.

You are not getting my point. Gambling sites are centralized and have their own terms of service, but that does not change that the money laundered will not become clean after it has been used to wager.

[Ziskinberg]

Is there anyone who see 1x wagering as a problem ?

None here based on what i read. But this is probably what he wants to connect.

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.

move money without actually gambling

That fits to the 1x requirement, if there's no 1x requirement then they can easily move money "without gambling".

[danherbias07]

Yeah, that's one purpose of it. That's why it's absurd when an online gambling site asks for a wagering requirement that is so much higher. It's possible that they don't want you to withdraw, and I won't trust an online casino that behaves like that.

Money laundering issues can be taken advantage of by those who own the gambling site. Still, those who are really trustworthy are just doing it to prevent the government or organization from questioning them. They must follow the rules and legal requirements to preserve the business, and I think it's just right to accept a 1x wager to make those money launderers worry that their money will be wasted.

[Findingnemo]

It doesn't stop money launderers, but it makes it harder for them to take this route and can lead to losses ranging from nothing to almost everything. It should be there or not, is not in our control to decide, for an ideal small gambler who might be changing their mindset quicly would require no wagering at all. But casinos like having wagering requirements atleast 1x stops the launderers and also adds more advantage for the casinos.

[Maslate]

Yeah, that's one purpose of it. That's why it's absurd when an online gambling site asks for a wagering requirement that is so much higher.

Is there a specific casino that are requiring higher than 1x wagering requirement?

It's possible that they don't want you to withdraw, and I won't trust an online casino that behaves like that.

Tell me what casinos,.. I want to verify myself, because what i know is that most casinos just require at least 1x wagering only.

Money laundering issues can be taken advantage of by those who own the gambling site. Still, those who are really trustworthy are just doing it to prevent the government or organization from questioning them. They must follow the rules and legal requirements to preserve the business, and I think it's just right to accept a 1x wager to make those money launderers worry that their money will be wasted.

Its possible that way, but I'm sure they are aware of the risk, so the chance of it happening in real life is quite very low. Imagine you apply for a license you give the necessary information, the incorporators if its a corporation, the names , address and any information and documents that could link to the owners, and you use it for money laundering. man, thats the best way of putting you to jail straight up.

[rdluffy]

...

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). 
...

To tell you the truth, I don't remember any casino that doesn't require a 1x wagering requirement

However, the situation you mentioned could happen because you're a regular, organic user, it probably wasn't a high enough amount to trigger any flags either

I only deposit what I’m going to bet, so I don’t recall ever having to withdraw any amount without having placed a bet first
The best approach for regular users like us is to deposit only what you plan to bet and to prefer depositing small amounts as you play, perhaps enough for one day’s worth of betting, since these days it’s very fast and inexpensive to make deposits and withdrawals

[hedgeh0g]

It doesn't stop money launderers, but it makes it harder for them to take this route and can lead to losses ranging from nothing to almost everything. It should be there or not, is not in our control to decide, for an ideal small gambler who might be changing their mindset quicly would require no wagering at all. But casinos like having wagering requirements atleast 1x stops the launderers and also adds more advantage for the casinos.

This certainly benefits the gambling ecosystem, given that money laundering is a highly pressing issue that requires at least some form of countermeasure. I also agree with you that the average player generally doesn't care about wagering requirements; if they intend to play or unwind by placing a few bets that evening, they are simply mentally prepared to spend the balance of their modest account and that’s all there is to it. That said, there may be other reasons why casinos implement these 1x wagering conditions.

[Wiwo]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site, and used to gamble so that 50% to 70% of the money remains after wagering and is withdrawn? Or does the launderer make money from it and withdraw the money and the 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 I have used before that does not require wagering before you can withdraw the money you sent to it.

The casino has no legal power over that 1x wagering, although it favours them because there is a possibility the money may be lost to the casino, but in the real sense of things, the regulators are the ones that make that wagering requirement to avoid exploitation and laundering.

If you check back, you will discover that the fiat casino you used previously that doesn't require wagering on deposits before withdrawal will not be operating under that Same rule by now; they will demand wagering x, maybe more than 1x in some cases.

1x wagering means that the deposits must be wagered entirely 100% before you can withdraw any part of those funds.

[Royal Cap]

Not only the 1x wagering requirement. Almost all casinos do not accept high AML deposits. So this may also fall under the FATF rules. Because if these rules were not in place, hackers would have easily deposited their hacked money in the casino and just withdrawn it. And that licensed casino would have been in trouble. So I don't think it's bad. For a genuine gambler, this option is bad. Because for someone who comes to gamble genuinely, this 1x requirement doesn't matter.

[Findingnemo]

It doesn't stop money launderers, but it makes it harder for them to take this route and can lead to losses ranging from nothing to almost everything. It should be there or not, is not in our control to decide, for an ideal small gambler who might be changing their mindset quicly would require no wagering at all. But casinos like having wagering requirements atleast 1x stops the launderers and also adds more advantage for the casinos.

This certainly benefits the gambling ecosystem, given that money laundering is a highly pressing issue that requires at least some form of countermeasure. I also agree with you that the average player generally doesn't care about wagering requirements; if they intend to play or unwind by placing a few bets that evening, they are simply mentally prepared to spend the balance of their modest account and that’s all there is to it. That said, there may be other reasons why casinos implement these 1x wagering conditions.

They are regulated and has to make sure the platform is not used for money launderers and if someone suggested that having wagering might stop them and also it makes people to bet more than they should then why not, just go for it. 1x is perfectly fine but it is not same for every crypto platforms, I had seen 1.5 and even 3x wagering required before they can withdraw the deposit which is kind of unfair and totall the casino is abusing the regulation for their own benefits.

[sotelorene]

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.

The funny truth is that there are folks who are high or heavy staker and some of them are not even pupolar which means that it is not every huge deposit that means money laundry. We can see the case of Drake, who sometimes deposit millions of dollars to gamble, the reason they won't say it is money laundry is because he is a celebrity, almost everyone knows him but imagine someone who is not a celebrity and has money but he or she is not known, they will start asking for KYC before he can even access the money.

[Alex077]

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...

Yeah, in this context, the requirement to wager a deposit at least 1x actually makes a lot more sense. Without it, a casino could basically be used as a payment service: deposit money using one method, not play at all, and then withdraw it using another method or to a different crypto address.
But in this case I think it’s important to separate normal AML requirements from situations where a casino simply uses the 1x rule as another obstacle to withdrawals. If this condition is clearly stated in advance and applied equally to all players, I don’t really see a problem with it.

And honestly, 1x seems like a pretty reasonable requirement compared to bonus wagering requirements of 20x, 30x, or 40x.

[Rashlyowl]

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.

Of course, the rule requiring 1x wager of the deposit amount aims to prevent money laundering. All of that is set out in the Terms & Conditions on each site, I have never really known whether there were cases of money laundering involving online casino sites in the past. However, the rule does make sense, given all the reasons for it. Nevertheless, there are actually ways to launder money, the sites simply do what they can.

[Charles-Tim]

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.

Are you sure about this? Those that are laundering money are smart and very wise. If you have been reading about how police and investigators know how some people laundered money, you will see how wise they are.

If you read the link in the OP, there is a lot that FATF discussed about that we are not discussing about on this thread. Just like I have posted before, I do not buy the 1x wager like that because illegal money is illegal irrespective of the 1x requirements.

Although, maybe it will discourage money laundering, but I am very certain that it does not eliminate it.

[Hatchy]

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.

Actually, this rule is more to their advantage, but they make it seem like it was created mainly to prevent money laundering. I've played on many casinos before, and wagering requirements are usually part of their rules. If we look at it from your perspective, it shows that these requirements may not really stop scammers from using casinos to move their money, especially casinos without KYC. If a scammer can steal money that doesn't belong to them, they probably won't mind losing a small portion of it just to unlock the rest and withdraw it immediately. The casino benefits more from this because there is always a chance that the money will be lost through wagering before the person is even able to withdraw it.

[Hispo]

It is actually common knowledge, the objective of casinos and regulators is stopping criminals from using casinos and bookies as crypto tumblers. So they attack on the consistency of withdrawals which is what criminals would be seeking when comes to tumblers.
Usually 1x wagering requirement is enough to discourage criminals activities related to money laundering, but I have seen some casinos taking it to the next level and imposing a minimum wagering requirement of 2x or even 5x, even if their gamblers get upset about it.

Thankfully the biggest and more reliable casinos go for the simpler and yet effective strategy of capping their min wagering requirement to 1x.
Hopefully that won't change in a long time because of regulators.