It's not bad if a casino has a 1x wagering requirement since it is obvious that it's part of the licensing requirement to subject players' deposits to some wagering condition to minimize using the casino for money laundering.
That would make sense but still, there are those that won't be pleased, both genuine users and none genuine once (the once that would want to use casinos for money laundering). Gamblers would see that to be risking more at any time than they would have liked to but, its a system that could tackle money laundering but, is that the most concerns to gambling sites, gamblers or regulators?
You can't archive all but still, your to place more concerns on your customers.
While a 1x waging requirement might prove effective in casino gambling where the uncertainty is higher, I won't see it to work so much in sportsbook where team strengths can be measured by the quality of players and form. This makes it easy to get around.
- I don't think that a casino can be a conduit for money laundering, but it seems that something like this is possible. Because it can't be noticed just like that, maybe that's why sometimes they ask for kyc first for verification purposes only, even though they really have a different alibi.
it's just that often when you play, the invested fund loses, so the risk level is quite high to be honest.
Alot of money laundering was done by most of those high drug orders through casinos and that was why the idea of kyc came into stand and when the kyc policy wasn't covering enough, the wagering requirements was then introduced and I believed that this two principles has truly helped to reduce the rate of money laundering through casinos because most casino will need you to wager the equivalent of your deposit amount before being able to withdraw your deposit and you'll agree with me that its not always easy to wager and come out successfully.