1x wagering made sense

[Floxynice]

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.

Wagering requirements cannot stop criminals who are so intentional about laundering money. 1x wagering won't mean any thing to them. There are many ways to prevent money laundering and wagering requirements is just the least of it all. Casinos will monitor transactions to look out for suspicious activities if their goal is to truly prevent money laundering.

By now, we should know that one major reason the casinos impose wagering requirements is to keep the gambler coming back. Ofcourse if your money is stuck with the casino, you will come back to gamble and make profits from your stake with them. Casinos make money from house edge on wagering. So when they ask you to gamble first before withdrawing either your bonus or your win, they are doing it for themselves.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

This makes sense why some of our online casino here in our country has no wagering requirements. I use that casino for sending money to my other account. If I want to move my money to another E-wallet ity will cost me a little amount for the trasaction fee.  What I do is to deposit in ot Arena Plus using my wallet and withdraw instantly to another wallet. What make sense? our country has so many corrupt politicians, and they are using this casino I think as the owner is a family of politicians also.

[Russlenat]

This makes sense why some of our online casino here in our country has no wagering requirements. I use that casino for sending money to my other account. If I want to move my money to another E-wallet ity will cost me a little amount for the trasaction fee.  What I do is to deposit in ot Arena Plus using my wallet and withdraw instantly to another wallet. What make sense? our country has so many corrupt politicians, and they are using this casino I think as the owner is a family of politicians also.

There's a big difference between fiat and crypto casinos. If this is all about anti-money laundering and they require 1x wagering requirement, should be the crypto casinos that should be more focused on this, because with fiat, even with 1x requirement, it can still be easily verified so those people who will plan on laundering money will think twice. AFAIK, launderers would rather choose physical casinos than online since it's harder to trace there.

[Alex077]

There's a big difference between fiat and crypto casinos. If this is all about anti-money laundering and they require 1x wagering requirement, should be the crypto casinos that should be more focused on this, because with fiat, even with 1x requirement, it can still be easily verified so those people who will plan on laundering money will think twice. AFAIK, launderers would rather choose physical casinos than online since it's harder to trace there.

I think your example actually shows pretty well why some casinos have at least a 1x wagering requirement on deposits. But I wouldn’t say that crypto is necessarily harder to track than fiat. Most public blockchains actually leave a permanent transaction history, and there are already pretty advanced blockchain analysis tools.
So I think the 1x rule makes sense from an AML perspective for both crypto and traditional casinos. But of course, this rule alone won’t stop money laundering - it’s just one tool alongside KYC, transaction monitoring, and source-of-funds checks.

[hedgeh0g]

I think your example actually shows pretty well why some casinos have at least a 1x wagering requirement on deposits. But I wouldn’t say that crypto is necessarily harder to track than fiat. Most public blockchains actually leave a permanent transaction history, and there are already pretty advanced blockchain analysis tools.
So I think the 1x rule makes sense from an AML perspective for both crypto and traditional casinos. But of course, this rule alone won’t stop money laundering - it’s just one tool alongside KYC, transaction monitoring, and source-of-funds checks.

Of course, this won't really bother the average player, as many simply don't give such matters a second thought however, those who genuinely want to launder funds and come out unscathed are well aware of numerous ways to legitimize their money. Personally, as a player, I’m not particularly interested in that aspect my focus is simply on playing, having fun, and taking a break from the daily grind. It is unfortunate, of course, but the number of people using casinos and betting for money laundering will likely continue to rise until regulatory bodies in various countries step in to stop them.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I so much agree with what was said on the first comment, this 1x wagering requirement can not really stop a stollen funds from being deposited to the casino, used a large portion of it to gamble and withdraw the rest. Luckily, the person could even win more money before withdrawing but for those thieves that operate like that, winning is not usually their concern, they just want to meet this requirement and move the amount that they can move, that doesn't still mean that the money is clean. The casino does put this rules for their own benefits too because they want people to gamble before they can withdraw, knowing fully well that majority of people are going to lose on the process, even some casino put more than 1x requirement.

[KTChampions]

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.

That is a highly questionable rationale. What is to stop someone from depositing illicit funds into two separate accounts and laundering the money by placing bets on mutually exclusive outcomes, incurring a negligible loss of 4-5%? The mere fact that there is a wagering requirement doesn't change the nature of dirty money in any way, so, in my view, it’s an absurd rule. And honestly, whenever I hear about the FATF, OFAC, or similar organizations, I immediately see an attempt to deceive me - they all work against ordinary people, while major fraudsters don't even exist to them and are doing just fine.

[Lannakosa]

Of course, this won't really bother the average player, as many simply don't give such matters a second thought however, those who genuinely want to launder funds and come out unscathed are well aware of numerous ways to legitimize their money. Personally, as a player, I’m not particularly interested in that aspect my focus is simply on playing, having fun, and taking a break from the daily grind. It is unfortunate, of course, but the number of people using casinos and betting for money laundering will likely continue to rise until regulatory bodies in various countries step in to stop them.

I don't think many people use casinos for money laundering, because it is not an easy thing to do if you need to launder large sums on a regular basis. It is always difficult because, as we know, beating the casino is not simple, you are bound to lose a portion of the money being laundered, and there is no way to calculate in advance exactly how much you will lose. That is why I believe people look for more convenient and less risky methods for money laundering.

[Pandu Geddon]

That is why I believe people look for more convenient and less risky methods for money laundering.

Especially now many casinos require KYC, and with wagering requirements intended specifically to limit the desire to use casinos as a method of money laundering. Perhaps if you find a casino that is more friendly with terms and conditions that can be utilized, it can be done. But those who truly have bad intentions will definitely find new ways.

[noorman0]

You know, I sometimes win X lottery events with withdrawal conditions up to 3x the wager. If I don't want to actually play through it, I just place a bet with a 0x multiplier on any game that allows it (usually crash games) simply to clear the requirement. Then I can withdraw without any issues. I’m not sure if large amounts would trigger additional checks; if not, it’s a loophole for money laundering.

[abel1337]

Of course, this won't really bother the average player, as many simply don't give such matters a second thought however, those who genuinely want to launder funds and come out unscathed are well aware of numerous ways to legitimize their money. Personally, as a player, I’m not particularly interested in that aspect my focus is simply on playing, having fun, and taking a break from the daily grind. It is unfortunate, of course, but the number of people using casinos and betting for money laundering will likely continue to rise until regulatory bodies in various countries step in to stop them.

I don't think many people use casinos for money laundering, because it is not an easy thing to do if you need to launder large sums on a regular basis. It is always difficult because, as we know, beating the casino is not simple, you are bound to lose a portion of the money being laundered, and there is no way to calculate in advance exactly how much you will lose. That is why I believe people look for more convenient and less risky methods for money laundering.

It's a popular way to launder money that's why government bodies are making ways to ensure that it won't be easy for them to just launder it. A 1x wager is reasonable for majority of the gamblers and I agree with you that it is painstakingly hard for those who launders money especially if it is large and on a regular basis. Still money launderers are still using casinos. Physical casinos are also being patronized by launderers as I believe there could be a under the table deal using chips to launder money, though it is still much more riskier than online casino.

My personal honest opinion is that casino likes the wagering requirement, it is a way to force people to play their deposit and no turning back. It's a gain for them on earning their money and also being compliant with the rules that is set up to them. Two bird, one stone, who wouldn't want that.

[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.

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?

Individuals who launder money stand out by boasting expensive lifestyle, at same time they don't have how to justify that lifestyle coherently. That is a red flag. If they are investigated, the source of the money will be found.

Thinking about the casino, specifically. The difference between money launders and an average citizen is the frequency they will be depositing and withdrawing from the casino. I can deposit money in the casino and then give up on gambling right after, but I'm not going to do this in a frequent or solid basis, while someone laundering money will.

Moreover, you have to take the amounts involved into consideration. Is it 50$, 100$ or 200$, or is it 10.000$, 50.000$, 100.000$? The bigger the amount, more suspicious it becomes.

In every cases, the money will always have a source, and that source can be investigated to find out who or what is behind it.

[sotelorene]

You know, I sometimes win X lottery events with withdrawal conditions up to 3x the wager. If I don't want to actually play through it, I just place a bet with a 0x multiplier on any game that allows it (usually crash games) simply to clear the requirement. Then I can withdraw without any issues. I’m not sure if large amounts would trigger additional checks; if not, it’s a loophole for money laundering.

I don't really understand how this lottery work but in normal sport betting I think this 3x wagering is too much, they didn't even ask for 1  or 2 they jumped to 3 maybe they are money launderers because it is very difficult for someone to win straight 3 times and sometimes even winning ones can be very hard talk more of 3 times unless the there is no requirements or specification on the odd someone should play but if there is and it is still very high then something is not right.

[Moreno233]

I completely understand why the 1X wagering requirmemt was introduced and like you said,  it prevents people from using the casino for  cleaning money. Some casinos have the rule of enforcing withdrawals through the same means of deposit but this a lone is not enough to prevent abuse of the casino which is why the1X wagering requirement is a way of ensuring that money deposited into the casino is actually for gambling and not other purposes.

[virasisog]

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.

Exactly why would you even put your money in it if you're not going to use it to gamble, if you only want to gamble the 1x requirement is nothing to you.

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.

This is indeed true, if they wanted to use the platform for money laundering then they wouldn't mind paying an amount just to do it, they surely wouldn't mind playing for awhile just to get their money cleaned no matter how many wagering requirements it needs they would surely do it.
They would just consider the amount that they lose while playing as a fee, and winning would just be a bonus for them if they just want to use the platform for money laundering.