A gaming establishment in Malta has been slapped with a substantial financial penalty by governing authorities for serious deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and terrorism financing safeguards.
The Malta Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) levied a €233,834 (US$247,464) sanction against the undisclosed casino, citing its inability to properly vet its patrons. Essentially, the establishment was not conducting adequate due diligence in tracing the origins of funds.
The FIAU’s inquiry uncovered that the casino had not allocated adequate personnel to its Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO). Moreover, their systems for detecting and reporting questionable transactions were severely inadequate. This led to a multitude of gamblers, who should have triggered alerts due to potential ties to financial wrongdoings, being incorrectly categorized as low-risk.
Among those who went undetected were a “self-employed construction worker” who had been detained for suspected narcotics trafficking and had assets seized – a significant warning sign that was disregarded. Another was an unidentified former high-profile individual (PEP) – persons who, due to their previous positions of power, are inherently more susceptible to bribery.
Additional warning signs that were overlooked included a company proprietor who had received a court summons for €500,000 in outstanding taxes and a chief executive with connections to Turkey who deposited in excess of €1 million in cash across eight separate bank accounts. The casino also neglected to properly examine a gambler who deposited and wagered over €100,000, primarily in cash, utilizing eight different accounts – a typical hallmark of money laundering.
The study showed that numerous players engaged in gambling activities without furnishing casinos with extensive personal details. A fraction hadn’t even supplied a legitimate residence! Apparently, the gambling establishments weren’t exercising proper care in verifying the identities of those they permitted to wager. Consequently, they received a substantial penalty for violating regulations and a firm reprimand regarding the correct procedures to be followed henceforth.
admin