Submission Title
Session Title
Session 2-2-D: Ethics and Gambling Development
Presentation Type
Lightning Talk
Location
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
Start Date
29-5-2019 11:00 AM
End Date
29-5-2019 12:25 PM
Disciplines
Gaming Law
Abstract
Target audience:
Gaming regulators, gaming companies (notably compliance officers), scholars.
Research questions:
This UNLV supported research project has combined valuable inputs from international AML experts, gaming regulators with significant online and AML experience and AML literature alike. It has notably addressed the following questions:
- How are broad and indistinct AML notions - referring to higher money laundering risk constellations - to be interpreted in the (online) gaming sector specifically?
- How can regulators implement these AML notions proportionately (effectiveness without unnecessary regulatory over-kill)?
- What solutions are available to mitigate the AML risks?
Research background:
Both gaming regulators and gaming companies are facing the challenge of implementing increasingly strict AML requirementsthat are driven by laws of international organisations (FATF, EU, MONEYVAL).
These AML laws refer to circumstances of “higher” money laundering risks, in which obliged entities are required to apply enhanced customer due diligence. However, one of the challenges consists in the fact that these AML laws have general applicability (they are not gaming sector-specific) and their key notions are often broad and indistinct. Accordingly, gaming regulators and gaming companies alike may struggle in how to interpret and implement them in the gaming sector.
For instance, enhanced customer due diligence is required when “the business relationship is conducted in unusual circumstances”(4thEU AML Directive). Yet, what is “unusual” supposed to mean in the gaming sector specifically?
Gaming regulators may further wonder, how they can specify effective AML requirements without unnecessarily burdening their gaming industry. At the same time, regulated land-based and online operators have a vital interest in fully being compliant with AML rules. The detrimental consequences for non-compliance can reach from very high fines, significant reputation risk, freezing of customer accounts, withdrawal of the operator’s license to administrative and criminal prosecution of AML officers subject to minimum sentencing rules.
Keywords
Gaming, online, AML, compliance, enhanced CDD, EU, FATF, FinCen
Funding Sources
The research was supported by a grant from the International Center for Gaming Regulation at UNLV. The funding body had no involvement in the actual research.
Competing Interests
In addition to his academic work, the author also practices as an independent legal counsel. He is not aware of financial or non-financial competing interests relating to this research.
Included in
Anti Money Laundering and (Online) Gaming: How to Implement Broad and Indistinct AML Notions - Regulatory Experiences from Europe
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada
Target audience:
Gaming regulators, gaming companies (notably compliance officers), scholars.
Research questions:
This UNLV supported research project has combined valuable inputs from international AML experts, gaming regulators with significant online and AML experience and AML literature alike. It has notably addressed the following questions:
- How are broad and indistinct AML notions - referring to higher money laundering risk constellations - to be interpreted in the (online) gaming sector specifically?
- How can regulators implement these AML notions proportionately (effectiveness without unnecessary regulatory over-kill)?
- What solutions are available to mitigate the AML risks?
Research background:
Both gaming regulators and gaming companies are facing the challenge of implementing increasingly strict AML requirementsthat are driven by laws of international organisations (FATF, EU, MONEYVAL).
These AML laws refer to circumstances of “higher” money laundering risks, in which obliged entities are required to apply enhanced customer due diligence. However, one of the challenges consists in the fact that these AML laws have general applicability (they are not gaming sector-specific) and their key notions are often broad and indistinct. Accordingly, gaming regulators and gaming companies alike may struggle in how to interpret and implement them in the gaming sector.
For instance, enhanced customer due diligence is required when “the business relationship is conducted in unusual circumstances”(4thEU AML Directive). Yet, what is “unusual” supposed to mean in the gaming sector specifically?
Gaming regulators may further wonder, how they can specify effective AML requirements without unnecessarily burdening their gaming industry. At the same time, regulated land-based and online operators have a vital interest in fully being compliant with AML rules. The detrimental consequences for non-compliance can reach from very high fines, significant reputation risk, freezing of customer accounts, withdrawal of the operator’s license to administrative and criminal prosecution of AML officers subject to minimum sentencing rules.