LVRJ put out an article about how MGM is changing things, and pre-banning people suspected of wrongdoing or illicit funds, even without proof.

One such person on Twitter shared the letter he received, which came as part of this effort:

Name: mgmban2025.jpg Views: 168 Size: 218.1 KB


Here's the article: https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...sinos-3366359/

MGM was recently fined $8.5m over similar matters to what earned Resorts World a $10.5m fine. Both had Scott Sibella in charge at one of their properties during the times in question, and both were alleged to have looked the other way during money laundering activities.

Here are 8 changes MGM is making:

— Formalized a process to share credit information between the credit department and the compliance department to assist in the company’s “Know Your Customer” program.

— Adopted a requirement for compliance to reach out to a customer’s casino marketing host to obtain information. Formerly, that was an informal communication.

— Enhanced due diligence has been ordered annually for the company’s top 25 cash customers in addition to its top 50 customers.

— Created a new procedure to address transactions in excess of $100,000, regardless of whether the customer comes in with large or small bills.

— Formalized a process to escalate reviews within the compliance department for patrons with multiple suspicious activity report files.

— Spending more than $1 million on anti-money laundering compliance.

— Ordered additional enhanced training for casino marketing staff, emphasizing its responsibility to know its customers, including their source of funds, and to report any suspicions to the compliance department.

— Added an awareness campaign for all line-level employees about anti-money laundering compliance responsibilities.
As part of "formalized a process to escalate reviews within the compliance department for patrons with multiple suspicious activity report files", it is believed a number of people recently recevied ban letters like the one above.

This is not expected to affect APs, aside from the ones whose sources of funds are in question.