1x wagering made sense

[TedMosby]

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on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn?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.
[...]

CMIIW, in money laundering, you don't always make dirty money clean at a 1:1 ratio. It's very rare for that to happen. In real life, money launderers may be willing to lose some percentage of the money in the process. Some even need to build businesses and report profits from them as legitimate business income. There are also people who use their companies to buy assets for them. It can hide the real source of the money.

IMO, a 1x wagering requirement doesn't work effectively to fight money laundering. People involved in money laundering may already be willing to accept some losses as part of the process. So even if the wagering requirement costs them a small percentage of their money, the rest of the money that can be withdrawn is still huge.

I also think that a casino itself can be involved in money laundering too. Imagine, the casino could be part of a scheme by faking gamblers' wins or losses. So IMO, a 1x wagering requirement has a bigger negative impact on players rather than a positive impact on fighting money laundering.

[PostQuantumBTC]

IMO, a 1x wagering requirement doesn't work effectively to fight money laundering. People involved in money laundering may already be willing to accept some losses as part of the process. So even if the wagering requirement costs them a small percentage of their money, the rest of the money that can be withdrawn is still huge.

It can not because it is easy to bypass. KYC may be used to discourage it.

I also think that a casino itself can be involved in money laundering too. Imagine, the casino could be part of a scheme by faking gamblers' wins or losses. So IMO, a 1x wagering requirement has a bigger negative impact on players rather than a positive impact on fighting money laundering.

Illegal gambling generate more money than legal gambling sites that are licensed. I mean illegal gambling is reported to be bigger than legal gambling sites. Who know if some illegal gambling are used for money laundering purposes. I think they can be used for it.

[SuperBitMan]

Illegal gambling generate more money than legal gambling sites that are licensed. I mean illegal gambling is reported to be bigger than legal gambling sites. Who know if some illegal gambling are used for money laundering purposes. I think they can be used for it.

Of course, illegal gambling will always generate more money than legal gambling. The reason why illegal gambling casinos will always generate more money than legal ones is because there are some tax that licensed casinos pay to the government where they are operating, and this tax are very huge amount of money depending on the profit and how big the casino is. But illegal casinos don’t pay it because they are not even licensed by any government.

Illegal gambling will always make money and profit than legal gambling, I believe we know a lot of illegal things that illegal gambling do to generate money and yes money laundering is one of it.

[dwyane36]

So IMO, a 1x wagering requirement has a bigger negative impact on players rather than a positive impact on fighting money laundering.

Well, those who launder money through gambling platforms probably find various loopholes, and it's unlikely that any wagering requirement will stop them.
As for regular users, a x1 wagering requirement is still more or less acceptable, whereas any requirements higher than x20-25, which are common at casinos, are unfavorable, since in most cases such requirements result in either breaking even or a loss, depending on the RTP.

[yahoo62278]

A 1x wager requirement is pretty easy to do with originals unless the casino prohibits the use of originals or only counts xx % of a bet placed on originals. I can do a 1x wager pretty easily and not lose my ass most of the time.

As long as things don't look sketchy, like betting both red n black on roulette as soon as the deposit hot or many other scenarios, I think people are going to be fine and free from AML worries. It's not rocket science though, you go to a casino to gamble not to cheat right?

[icebar]

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.

1x wagering in betting is certainly not an unreasonable rule. There are many who find various ways to legalize their money. If there is no wagering requirement for those people, then they can easily get the opportunity to legalize illegal money by money laundering, which is not good for anyone. That is why I am definitely not in favor of withdrawing money only after depositing it. I know that not everyone may deposit money in gambling to transfer money, but with such a rule, the frauds will definitely try to take the opportunity. Moreover, 1x wagering is not a problem for those who will actually deposit for the purpose of gambling.

[Zaka1221]

A 1x wager requirement is pretty easy to do with originals unless the casino prohibits the use of originals or only counts xx % of a bet placed on originals. I can do a 1x wager pretty easily and not lose my ass most of the time.

As long as things don't look sketchy, like betting both red n black on roulette as soon as the deposit hot or many other scenarios, I think people are going to be fine and free from AML worries. It's not rocket science though, you go to a casino to gamble not to cheat right?

No doubt 1x wagering is always pretty easy for gamblers but its never been ideal for casino because its always going to be achieved by gamblers like you those are having enough experience and expertise to do challenges like this without losing their anything. Here casinos are always looking for their own interest; just because of this, I am not expecting them to bring anything like this in the near future.

Recently AML has been having enough problems just because of this: casinos always want to stay on a good level and also keep things on their side. Cheaters always try to have their own way even though they are also always on the back foot and never have things on their side, but they try to have things that make more problems for many others.

[yahoo62278]

A 1x wager requirement is pretty easy to do with originals unless the casino prohibits the use of originals or only counts xx % of a bet placed on originals. I can do a 1x wager pretty easily and not lose my ass most of the time.

As long as things don't look sketchy, like betting both red n black on roulette as soon as the deposit hot or many other scenarios, I think people are going to be fine and free from AML worries. It's not rocket science though, you go to a casino to gamble not to cheat right?

No doubt 1x wagering is always pretty easy for gamblers but its never been ideal for casino because its always going to be achieved by gamblers like you those are having enough experience and expertise to do challenges like this without losing their anything. Here casinos are always looking for their own interest; just because of this, I am not expecting them to bring anything like this in the near future.

Recently AML has been having enough problems just because of this: casinos always want to stay on a good level and also keep things on their side. Cheaters always try to have their own way even though they are also always on the back foot and never have things on their side, but they try to have things that make more problems for many others.

The 1x really shouldn't be on any casinos mind except to show regulators that they do require their players to wager every dime they deposit at least once. Other then that, they really should be concentrating on how to make the player experience good enough to make them want to keep playing or come back multiple times a week or month.

If a player deposits $100 and loses in 2 minutes playing super high house edge slots and never really profits on a spin, they will likely lose the $100 and leave for good. If they play for an hour and win a little then lose it back, they likely feel ok about their entertainment and comeback a little here n there. If they win on the $100 and had some fun doing so, they'll be back often.

All 3 scenarios the player wagers the deposit 1x and all are happy.

[348Judah]

Some gamblers doing have miss interpretation on the wagering requirement and I don't think it is everyone that gets it right, sometimes we will have to get more clarification on this certain conditions that come with some of these offers before we interpret them in our own wrong way, but to receive a 1x wagering requirement is not something bad to me in gambling.

[lionheart78]

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.

Yeah, you made a solid point, even if we hate to think of it, we cannot escape to think that casinos want to take advantage of the AML regulation to trap people who are depositing to their platform into gambling to meet the 1x wagering requirement. But still, the wagering requirement, I think, is still effective in some way to drive away people who have the intention to wash the history of their funds.

But people who think that depositing in a gambling platform will wash away the history of their funds are naive.  The history of the funds can still be tracked because, as long as the casino is centralized, any online financial movement passed on that centralized platform always leaves traces.

[Patikno]

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.

I don't think there is anything difficult about meeting the 1x wagering requirement. This requirement can be met with just one bet, or someone can repeatedly place the minimum bet until the requirement is met. Fundamentally, the money deposited into the casino is for gambling, and it seems odd that someone would rush to withdraw without any gambling activity.

So, I don't think the 1x wagering requirement is anything to complain about, as it shouldn't be burdensome.

[Ryu_Ar1]

This rule should be tightened a little especially for sites that do have licenses and reputations because the purpose of making gambling sites should be used to gamble not for other needs. The stigma of gambling is always bad because of several things including money laundering practices that still exist on gambling sites so that this slowly undermines trust and when there are sites that have licenses and have a reputation this should be used as an initial guideline so that their sites continue to operate as they should.

For gamblers who still complain about this requirement also feels strange because what we deposit for if not playing so complain just because it can not withdraw without betting it needs to be questioned for what they are on a gambling site if the money they deposit is not used to gamble.

Gamblers can always complain, but when there's standard TOS in the background, it becomes difficult to complain because of ignorance what is demanded. So it may be frustrating to gamblers, but it helps protect the gambling business from breaching regulations and facing sanctions.
Perhaps it's because of not obliging to such rules that get some gambling business banned because gamblers use them for such neferous practices and that's why the 1x wagering requirements makes more sense to me.

But it still becomes strange when someone complains of a minimum bet limit of 1x before withdrawing because from the beginning when we are in gambling and depositing money then the goal is clearly to gamble (not to be withdrawn) if we are indeed a gambler, so when only complaining about something that is actually not necessary it feels like everything is complicated even though it is a basic thing that must be obeyed even though it is not in the ToS because it becomes an unwritten rule.

So in this case although indeed the complaint is also not wrong because all the will goes back to The Gambler himself but for me it seems forced when we just try to complain about something that should not be necessary.

[uneng]

This imposition is ridiculous. Gamblers should be allowed to deposit and withdraw their money even if they don't place a single bet. It sounds a trap while giving an excuse it's to make the whole industry safer. I don't fall for that and I don't feel comfortable with such impositions.

I see many people claiming it's easy to fulfill the 1x wagering requirement. And I tell them to be careful with what they say, because casinos and regulators may be watching, and since you claim it's easy and that it's not a problem, they may impose a 2x or 3x wagering requirement next time...

By endorsing an abusive measure, you are actually endorsing further abusive measures.

[Z_MBFM]

The issue of 1x wagering is not only about preventing money laundering or keeping it transparent from money laundering. Yes, it can be a deterrent for money launderers, but the main thing is that it is a business strategy of the casino platform. And it is used by all casino platforms. The fact that you deposit money on a casino platform and withdraw money from there without playing any kind of gambling does not maintain transparency for their players. And it can often be used to carry out illegal activities as mentioned in the issue of money laundering.

Again, others can keep this requirement to prevent bonus abuse, fraud control and ensure the gambling activity of their users. However, I am not too worried about this issue because all platforms have this requirement so I think of it as a basic requirement. Without reading the ToS of any other platform, I assume that if you deposit there, you must do 1x wagering and I gamble by accepting that. And I do not consider this to be a very critical or unfair issue.

[Nwada001]

Some gamblers doing have miss interpretation on the wagering requirement and I don't think it is everyone that gets it right, sometimes we will have to get more clarification on this certain conditions that come with some of these offers before we interpret them in our own wrong way, but to receive a 1x wagering requirement is not something bad to me in gambling.

Why will someone who sends money into a casino account be afraid to use that same money to gamble? Because that’s basically what 1x wager means: the casino is asking you to make sure you use your money. to play and then withdraw what ever that you win after you have spend your money, which I don’t see anything wrong and anyone complaining did not really have the intention to spend their deposit in the first place.

[EluguHcman]

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.

Those who had got that kind of impression about the 1x being a spot to filter illegal transactions must be one who may had experienced or attempted to use that medium to run illegal transactions using the gambling platform as a means not to be tracked because I am wondering how they could come up with this very thought with the 1x wagering..

But let us be frank, what is really the essence of the 1x that it rarely outcomes profits, so what exactly would the player be betting for? I guess that is where the wrong impression came from and probably, some crooks may have been navigating it.
If the agencies are really that concerned about the threats, then every licensed casinos and regulating platforms should be forced to remove the 1x.

[Hispo]

This imposition is ridiculous. Gamblers should be allowed to deposit and withdraw their money even if they don't place a single bet. It sounds a trap while giving an excuse it's to make the whole industry safer. I don't fall for that and I don't feel comfortable with such impositions.

I see many people claiming it's easy to fulfill the 1x wagering requirement. And I tell them to be careful with what they say, because casinos and regulators may be watching, and since you claim it's easy and that it's not a problem, they may impose a 2x or 3x wagering requirement next time...

By endorsing an abusive measure, you are actually endorsing further abusive measures.

So, if gamblers are allowed to deposit and withdraw whenever they want. What system would you implement instead in order to prevent money launderers from laundering their money and using Casinos and bookies for that purpose ?
Because if there is no wagering requirement, there must be another way to stop criminals, am I right ?

So what would you do instead so people can do whatever they want with their deposit but at the same time keeping criminals at bay?

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Did people actually complain about a 1x wager requirement on deposits?? I mean that's the most normal thing ever and even in around 2002 when I already placed some bets online this rule was in place. AML requirements really are in place for a reason, there is nothing to reason against that obviously. If people have a problem with a 1x wager they shouldn't play online and go to a physical casino where you can enter with as much money as you want and walk out right after without making one single bet. 

[Natalim]

Did people actually complain about a 1x wager requirement on deposits??

There's none I can find here in the forum. What I found is that they complained about the deposit bonus wagering requirement. Not the usual stuff.

I mean that's the most normal thing ever and even in around 2002 when I already placed some bets online this rule was in place. AML requirements really are in place for a reason, there is nothing to reason against that obviously. If people have a problem with a 1x wager they shouldn't play online and go to a physical casino where you can enter with as much money as you want and walk out right after without making one single bet. 

It's not a big deal actually, but I think what we should emphasize here is if the casino did not implement that. Why? 
because when they just allow people to deposit and withdraw without gambling they are likely unintentionally helping people to launder money and they let their platform be used for that. 

They should be aware of their responsibility and the consequences for failure to monitor that so they need to set the rules to prevent that from happening.

[eisen33]

Yeah, you made a solid point, even if we hate to think of it, we cannot escape to think that casinos want to take advantage of the AML regulation to trap people who are depositing to their platform into gambling to meet the 1x wagering requirement. But still, the wagering requirement, I think, is still effective in some way to drive away people who have the intention to wash the history of their funds.

But people who think that depositing in a gambling platform will wash away the history of their funds are naive.  The history of the funds can still be tracked because, as long as the casino is centralized, any online financial movement passed on that centralized platform always leaves traces.

I think that if you’re playing at a no KYC casino, it’s still possible to do that. You deposit funds from one address to the casino, play and then withdraw them to a different address.

That way, the trail between the two addresses becomes much harder to follow, because many players are withdrawing funds from the casino. It would be difficult to determine which address the funds originally came from and which address they were sent to afterward, unless the casino requires KYC when you make a withdrawal.