Fontainebleau under investigation by Gaming for giving $2m credit to a known bookie, Damien "DJ" Leforbes

[Dan Druff]

I’m beyond at expert on how it works at table games.

I don’t play any high stakes poker. But I assume that the AML rules are the same such that the cage isn’t going to convert those chips to a cage check absent a record that the amount of chips exceeds the buy in via a documented win. It’s very easy to track exactly what a player buys in for, no?

And if there is no record of where the chips came from I guarantee the cage will not issue a check for any of them. Otherwise the poker room cage would be the go to cage for money launderers. (So someone has to fabricate such a win record if there is in fact none.)

I’m back to that you need to step back and think about all of this if you’re thinking that “quietly adding chips to their stack” will help anything.

Have you ever actually done any of this, gotten casino checks for wins, or just speculating? When I get my checks at the cage they won’t issue the check for anything over the amount of the sum of the verified wins that pit bosses have documented during my trip / play.

You're going by your own experience, presumably as just a guy who likes to gamble, and is therefore required to follow the basic casino rules and procedures.

That's why you ran into the restrictions you did.

However, you have a few things incorrect.

First off, poker winnings are NOT tracked, nor are buyins unless they are above a certain threshold. So provided you were really playing at a game where such winnings could be possible (that is, you couldn't get a $200k check for sitting at a $1/$2 game with $300), yes, they will issue you a check upon request. Some rooms don't have the capacity to issue checks, but all rooms associated with large casinos can and do. You are correct that they will probably refuse to issue a check if I stroll up with $100k cash, buy in, then cash out 30 minutes later for $99,500 and ask for a check.

"Quietly adding chips to the stack" will definitely help, if those chips were bought under the radar, and then can be disguised at winnings. I've played semi-high-stakes blackjack before, and nobody is closely watching each hand for wins/losses. They care more what I buy in for, and what I cash out. And, of course, if I'm card counting!

I ask you again, MDawg...

What was Matt Bowyer doing to "wash money at casinos" if not what I described? Note that Bowyer was NOT doing it through poker.

[coach belly]

You are correct that they will probably refuse to issue a check if I stroll up with $100k cash, buy in, then cash out 30 minutes later for $99,500 and ask for a check.

How long does a dumping charade need to take before the casino will issue you a check for your cash buy-in?

[AxelWolf]

I’m beyond at expert on how it works at table games.

I don’t play any high stakes poker. But I assume that the AML rules are the same such that the cage isn’t going to convert those chips to a cage check absent a record that the amount of chips exceeds the buy in via a documented win. It’s very easy to track exactly what a player buys in for, no?

And if there is no record of where the chips came from I guarantee the cage will not issue a check for any of them. Otherwise the poker room cage would be the go to cage for money launderers. (So someone has to fabricate such a win record if there is in fact none.)

I’m back to that you need to step back and think about all of this if you’re thinking that “quietly adding chips to their stack” will help anything.

Have you ever actually done any of this, gotten casino checks for wins, or just speculating? When I get my checks at the cage they won’t issue the check for anything over the amount of the sum of the verified wins that pit bosses have documented during my trip / play.

You're going by your own experience, presumably as just a guy who likes to gamble, and is therefore required to follow the basic casino rules and procedures.

That's why you ran into the restrictions you did.

However, you have a few things incorrect.

First off, poker winnings are NOT tracked, nor are buyins unless they are above a certain threshold. So provided you were really playing at a game where such winnings could be possible (that is, you couldn't get a $200k check for sitting at a $1/$2 game with $300), yes, they will issue you a check upon request. Some rooms don't have the capacity to issue checks, but all rooms associated with large casinos can and do. You are correct that they will probably refuse to issue a check if I stroll up with $100k cash, buy in, then cash out 30 minutes later for $99,500 and ask for a check.

"Quietly adding chips to the stack" will definitely help, if those chips were bought under the radar, and then can be disguised at winnings. I've played semi-high-stakes blackjack before, and nobody is closely watching each hand for wins/losses. They care more what I buy in for, and what I cash out. And, of course, if I'm card counting!

I ask you again, MDawg...

What was Matt Bowyer doing to "wash money at casinos" if not what I described? Note that Bowyer was NOT doing it through poker.

On WOV I used poker as an example of how one could easily launder money at the casinos. I have only had them ask for my ID one or two times while cashing in or out. Once for sure at the Palms when I was playing 25/50 NL.

[coach belly]

On WOV I used poker as an example of how one could easily launder money at the casinos.

What was Matt Bowyer doing to "wash money at casinos" if not what Druff described?
Note that Bowyer was NOT doing it through poker.

[MDawg]

I went back over Dan the Dandruff man's posts.

I believe that when he's talking about that "Quietly adding chips to the stack" will definitely help, he must not be talking about poker, because he has stated that

poker winnings are NOT tracked, nor are buyins unless they are above a certain threshold.

What he must be talking about is public table games, but even there, he must not have played much at any sort of high end table (or even a middle one), because although adding a little here and there might help manipulate the pit boss into recording an incrementally higher win than the actual win, thus leading to the ability to get a verified win check for a tiny bit more than was actually won, even at public tables the rack is counted regularly including whenever a player of any size leaves. Obviously Dan the Dandruff man hasn't followed my posts much, because I have talked about this in detail before. Anyone who has played at higher end tables regularly knows what happens when a player of any size leaves: the pit boss instructs the dealer to count the rack (which is something that happens pretty regularly anyway).

As far as my play, or any player at the level to which we are alluding, I play at private tables where I am the only player. The rack is counted before and after each session, and the exact amount of my win is tabulated, exactly. There is no room for error. I could add all the chips I want to my stacks would make no difference.

Secondly, probably just an oversight, but this,

John then cashes out $200k. He takes a check from the casino, and deposits it in his bank account. It looks the same as if John sat at a game with $5k, got really lucky, and wiped the floor with everyone and won $200k. There is no indication anywhere that this was a heads up match, and unless the government is already suspicious, it doesn't appear abnormal.

as Coach Belly has already pointed out, is inaccurate. Assuming this would even be possible (seems to contradict the Dan the Dandruff Man's statement of that

poker winnings are NOT tracked, nor are buyins unless they are above a certain threshold.

, the amount of check would be $100,000. not $200,000. The casino would not cash out via check for anything above the verified win.

I ask again, Dan the Dandruff Man, how many checks have you obtained from casinos for verified wins? (Not tournaments, but for - poker play at public tables, table games or slots.) I have received multi millions in winning checks, and I know what will fly and what will not.

Times have changed. Especially in the past two years, but also very much so, over the past five years. Casinos are paranoid about AML fines.

Wynn agrees to settle anti-money laundering violation, pay $5.5 million fine to Nevada regulators

You might be referring to ancient times, just doesn't work like this anymore, absent collusion between player and casino, no casino will knowingly allow someone to convert cash directly to check.

As far as A.Wolf, he has no idea what he is talking about (as usual), he has never received a check from a casino for a win in his life as far as anything to do with this discussion. Even the example he trumpeted turned out to have absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant. He is a strictly money in the mattress type, and low end at that.

Even sports books these days are not going to allow someone to put in some huge amount of cash, and then end up with a check that encompasses both the cash input and the win. Those days are over.

As far as what exactly Matthew Bowyer did on the money laundering side, I haven't researched it closely enough to answer but next time I talk to the top dogs at RW, I will find out.

[Tasha]

I'll give MDawg a simple example.

Let's say John Smith sells $200k worth of cocaine today. He wants to be able to declare and deposit the money, but obviously can't say it was a coke deal.

John then calls his friend Mark Jones, so they can stage a phony heads up match at a local poker room.

John has a friend at the poker room who works as a floorman, who is aware of what's going on, and gets tipped well for keeping his mouth shut.

John and Mark come down, each buy in $100k chips, but the floorman makes it to where no CTRs or SARs are filled out. Mark then dumps the chips to John in the match, and John ends up with all of them.

John then cashes out $200k. He takes a check from the casino, and deposits it in his bank account. It looks the same as if John sat at a game with $5k, got really lucky, and wiped the floor with everyone and won $200k. There is no indication anywhere that this was a heads up match, and unless the government is already suspicious, it doesn't appear abnormal.

Understand yet?

You can apply the same to a casino. Someone with a large cashout, whether by cash or check, can appear to have just gotten lucky, and not bought in huge.

You are correct that it's pointless to, say, buy in for $2m, fill out all of the associated forms, and cash out for $1.8m. That doesn't clean the money. But the above does.

I had pointed out something similar that all a drug dealers most likely put their drug dealing money into Casino games like slots and then press cash out and cash in the TITOs and it will look like he legitimate cash, say a drug dealer makes $10,000 in illegal drug sales. He pulls out a $100 and puts it in and PRETENDS to press spin. He then cashes out the $100 TITO. He does the same exact thing with 99 $100 bills, just going to 99 other slot games doing the same exact thing.

He now has 100 $100 TITOS and goes to multiple TITO kiosks and cashes the 100 $100 TITOS. He now has what looks like $10,000 in legitimate money after putting the $10,000 TITOS in the TITO machine." Posters responded something like,"Karen Nathan, you're an idiot. Drug Dealers wouldn't be putting 100 $100 bills in slots and pretending to press spin and then cash out. What a completely brain dead moron you REALLY are."

The drug dealer posted something like,"Karen Nathan isn't an Idiot nor is she a completely brain dead moron. She's speaking the absolute truth. I am a drug dealer and I put my drug deal money into slots, pretend to play, and then cash out the TITOs and cash them at the TITO machine. I don't want to be caught with drug money, so I pretend my drug deal money came from the Casino, not drug deals." Posters said something like,"I believe you. It makes sense that you launder your drug deal money in Casinos. "

[DGenBen]

I can see why people would want to convert cash into a check at a casino for money laundering.

However is that really necessary?

Real gamblers often take winnings in cash and then deposit it in their bank accounts and advise the bank for the bank’s CTR that it is from gambling winnings.

So if someone is laundering money and establishes a paper trail of being present at a casino, and documents winning in a gambling diary, then deposits the cash in the bank advising on the banks CTR the source of cash is gambling winnings, then proceeds to report the gambling income on their taxes & pay any taxes due on it, haven’t they accomplished the same thing as someone who got paid in a check?

[MisterV]

The drug dealer posted something like,"Karen Nathan isn't an Idiot nor is she a completely brain dead moron. She's speaking the absolute truth. I am a drug dealer and I put my drug deal money into slots, pretend to play, and then cash out the TITOs and cash them at the TITO machine. I don't want to be caught with drug money, so I pretend my drug deal money came from the Casino, not drug deals." Posters said something like,"I believe you. It makes sense that you launder your drug deal money in Casinos. "

Really?

Can you please explain how doing this would prove to the government that the money was legally acquired?

Where exactly is the paper trail?

The TITO ticket is gone when redeemed, and if the player uses a player's card upon examination wouldn't the government quickly see what he's up to, i.e. not much play at all for all the claimed winnings?

Please explain...I could be missing something here and as a former drug dealer (college) I should know these tricks of the trade.

[MDawg]

I've known casinos to issue letters for players to take to their banks to satisfy them that large sums of cash being deposited came as a result of a win, but after I've talked to these players and they figured out that they could just get checks for a verified win, they realized how silly it was to withdraw winnings in cash.

The letters were being used just to get the bank to accept the deposits and not close the accounts.

Deposit too much cash into any bank and eventually especially these days the account will be closed, and not before a trail of CTRs and perhaps SARs has alerted the government to look into the matter too. I am sure you realize that the paper trail you describe and gambling diary don't prove anything, those could be entirely written off as self serving.

A person might be able to claim that he won the money in Vegas playing craps (like Paulie advised Henry to say if anyone asked him where he got his share of the Air France loot), but it still wouldn't explain where the cash to play and win with came in the first place. Over all I don't think the IRS thinks it is possible for the average person to win over time at gambling, so not sure how willing the IRS would be to believe that all that cash is coming from casinos without any real corroboration.

At least with checks the IRS would realize that the player is going out of his way to report income that frankly, isn't even reported anywhere, at least when it comes to table games, so the assumption would be that he is reporting income honestly.

Quite simply, given that casinos will issue checks for verified wins, what is the explanation for why a given "gambler" who claims he won BIG money in Vegas, decided to take all his winnings in cash? Of course anyone may claim anything, but your scenario involves pretending to play (like UNKewlJ) and then trying to benefit money laundering wise from the imaginary play.

[kewlJ]

A person might be able to claim that he won the money in Vegas playing craps (like Paulie advised Henry to say if anyone asked him where he got his share of the Air France loot), but it still wouldn't explain where the cash to play and win with came in the first place. Over all I don't think the IRS thinks it is possible for the average person to win over time at gambling, so not sure how willing the IRS would be to believe that all that cash is coming from casinos.

It seems like all this clowns "knowledge" comes from movies from the 1990's. And THIS is the kind of crap he spurts from watching too many.

The IRS is well aware that there are players that win long-term at gambling. Especially here in Vegas. If you live somewhere else, they still know, but you might get an agent that pretends he doesn't. Either way I wouldn't and didn't go to battle with them without proper representation.

There has been some talk here about win/loss statements and the role they play. As far as the IRS, they play little to no role. W/L isn't accepted as proof of anything. What does that tell you. I mean maybe if W/L matches your gambling log, it counts as collaborating evidence. Thats about all. I mean just imagine, the IRS accepts, more than accepts, requires a handwritten log over casino records. Again, what does that tell you about casino records. I know someone , that sat down and wrote out his handwritten logs after he was notified he needed to turn something over. I mean he had most of the information anyway, so it isn't like "he" made up anything. That is probably pretty common.

And Mdog, I don't believe you could have gambled the amounts you claim, win or lose for all the years you claim and not have been audited, especially playing on credit and receiving check like you claim. At the very least a document review audit. Just another part of the great adventure that doesn't add up. A cash player actually has a better chance of not drawing that scrutiny.

add on: Oh and you don't need letters from casinos explaining cash transactions. Just talk to your bank manager. I did so when I opened my account. Told him what I do, that I may be moving cash in and out (although chip inventory minimizes that) and even set up special limits as far as ATM withdraws. Don't need a letter, just communicate with the bank manager.

[DGenBen]

I've known casinos to issue letters for players to take to their banks to satisfy them that large sums of cash being deposited came as a result of a win, but after I've talked to these players and they figured out that they could just get checks for a verified win, they realized how silly it was to withdraw winnings in cash.

The letters were being used just to get the bank to accept the deposits and not close the accounts.

Deposit too much cash into any bank and eventually especially these days the account will be closed, and not before a trail of CTRs and perhaps SARs has alerted the government to look into the matter too. I am sure you realize that the paper trail you describe and gambling diary don't prove anything, those could be entirely written off as self serving.

A person might be able to claim that he won the money in Vegas playing craps (like Paulie advised Henry to say if anyone asked him where he got his share of the Air France loot), but it still wouldn't explain where the cash to play and win with came in the first place. Over all I don't think the IRS thinks it is possible for the average person to win over time at gambling, so not sure how willing the IRS would be to believe that all that cash is coming from casinos without any real corroboration.

At least with checks the IRS would realize that the player is going out of his way to report income that frankly, isn't even reported anywhere, at least when it comes to table games, so the assumption would be that he is reporting income honestly.

Quite simply, given that casinos will issue checks for verified wins, what is the explanation for why a given "gambler" who claims he won BIG money in Vegas, decided to take all his winnings in cash? Of course anyone may claim anything, but your scenario involves pretending to play (like UNKewlJ) and then trying to benefit money laundering wise from the imaginary play.

Well, the fact that so many people do it.

Regular gamblers love the thrill of getting paid in cash, many of them it doesn’t even occur to them to ask for a check, and casinos certainly will not go out of their way to offer checks as with cash it’s much easier to lose it back before you walk out the door.

Valid point that some banks will close accounts if a person deposits too much cash, but many banks will not. If someone was going to launder money this way they would likely find out in advance which banks are cash friendly and which are not.

Many legitimate business are heavy cash based businesses that require banks that accept large amounts of cash (Bars, Pawnshops, nightclubs, flea markets, etc.)

It’s not illegal to deposit cash as long as a person or business is paying taxes on the income.

The whole point of money laundering is to disguise the illegal source of the cash.

[AxelWolf]

On WOV I used poker as an example of how one could easily launder money at the casinos.

What was Matt Bowyer doing to "wash money at casinos" if not what Druff described?
Note that Bowyer was NOT doing it through poker.

I have no clue what he/they were doing, I didn't pay much attention, I don't really care.

Washing money and laundering money are essentially the same; regardless of the specifics, it's the same category. I use the general term, laundering money, to describe a way to make money appear to have been obtained from a legal/legitimate way.

For example, if someone were to find a bunch of money that had fallen out of an armored truck and they wanted to spend that money at some point on fancy things, they could start playing poker while keeping inflated logs of winning, slowly deposit it into the bank, and pay their taxes. Obviously, one would want to keep it all reasonable and believable.



If you wanted to do a significant amount at once, one could collude with someone else who is known to have a significant amount of money via heads-up poker; however, that opens up a whole new can of worms, it seems like you would be more likely to be caught going that route.

It's not too often that casinos keep track of Poker buy-ins and cash-outs, and even if they did, it would be fairly hard for them to keep track of how much someone actually won or lost while playing. Not to mention, people buy chips from one another at the tables all the time.

Yes, the casinos/authorities could figure it out by going to the cameras or closely watching someone, but someone would need a reason to be suspicious in the first place.

One could do the same thing via sports betting. Just bet all the combinations of long-shot parlays at a bunch of diffrent places, cash in the big winners, and get a check or perhaps a W2G/1099 for winning more than 300 to 1, IIRC. Perhaps a 9 teamer betting all 511 combinations(?) The problem with somthing like that would be the high cost.

I believe there are all kinds of different ways someone could use the casinos to launder money with a low chance of getting caught. Of course, if you're going big, fast, then there's probably a good chance that sooner or later you'll get caught.

[MDawg]

I speak based on personal experience of what will and will not work at table games. Nowadays it’s hard to convince the cage to issue a check for a win where the discrepancy is even a mere 10% different from the chips someone is holding versus what the casino has down as the win.

I also guarantee that no casino will knowingly allow money laundering these days.

Wolf is just spouting nonsense not based on anything other than what he thinks might work. When I say he’s a has been it’s not meant merely as an insult but to delineate why his ideas about this sort of thing are rooted in the past.

[AxelWolf]

As far as A.Wolf, he has no idea what he is talking about (as usual), he has never received a check from a casino for a win in his life as far as anything to do with this discussion.

I have probably had more checks from a casino, for a win, than you. Just not for table games. I use cash to play table games and cash out via the cage, and take cash. Why would I need or want a check? I have walked out of casinos with cash with over 100k in winnings. Oftentimes I would just get a casino BOX and keep the cash in there untill I felt comfortable exiting.



I dont need my family's credit to play, I can use my own cash.

Where there were promotions that called for it, I would just put up front money and take markers.

[AxelWolf]

I speak based on personal experience of what will and will not work at table games. Nowadays it’s hard to convince the cage to issue a check for a win where the discrepancy is even a mere 10% different from the chips someone is holding versus what the casino has down as the win.

I also guarantee that no casino will knowingly allow money laundering these days.

Wolf is just spouting nonsense not based on anything other than what he thinks might work. When I say he’s a has been it’s not meant merely as an insult but to delineate why his ideas about this sort of thing are rooted in the past.

You dont need a check to launder money. You dont even have to go into the casino to launder money under the guise of gambling.

One can simply claim they won money playing table games, keep a log, and file with the IRS. Will this work for large sums of money in a short period of time? Probably not.

[MDawg]

Just that Wolf thinks that any casino, especially nowadays, would issue credit based on anything other than verifiable individual assets, shows how far removed he is from comprehension of any of this.

Part of AML measures right now is that casinos want to know not only that the funds being used to back up or pay off a credit line are legitimate, but also entirely yours (not family, not business partner, not even company).

Wolf knows next to nothing about any of this and it shows in a painful way.

It’s okay to not know something. But it’s not okay to be an ignorant know it all.

Also, you have never had a single check issued at the cage in your life for a casino win, because you are a money in the mattress type, which brings us back to that

Wolf is just spouting nonsense not based on anything other than what he thinks might work. When I say he’s a has been it’s not meant merely as an insult but to delineate why his ideas about this sort of thing are rooted in the past.

[MDawg]

One can simply claim they won money playing table games, keep a log, and file with the IRS. Will this work for large sums of money in a short period of time? Probably not.

The problem with trying to have a discussion with someone with this level of ADD, is that you can't assume that he heard (or in this case read) any of what was already discussed. You will have to repeat yourself constantly hoping that he is capable of retaining even 20% of whatever has been said.

And then with Wolf you add that his memory his shot, such that even that 20% is obscured within a relatively short period of time.

[AxelWolf]

Just that Wolf thinks that any casino, especially nowadays, would issue credit based on anything other than verifiable individual assets, shows how far removed he is from comprehension of any of this.

Part of AML measures is that casinos want to know not only that the funds being used to back up or pay off a credit line are legitimate, but also entirely yours.

Wolf knows next to nothing about any of this and it shows in a painful way.

It’s okay to not know something. But it’s not okay to be an ignorant know it all.

Where did I say anything about the casinos issuing anyone credit? Im proud, not knowing much about having to play on credit. While I'm sure I missed out on some Advantage Play money, not doing so, that afforded me the time to focus on other things.
And again, front money can oftentimes be just as effective.

One advantage to using a credit line would be perhaps using it as leverage when a casino decides not to play you based on some nonsensical reason. But now they have all your information, and it makes it easier to trespass you. I have avoided tresspassings on many occasions by making sure my name isn't attached to anything.

[MDawg]

I dont need my family's credit to play

If you can’t recall what you just said minutes ago or its implications there really is no point in discussing anything much with you.

You could open your eyes and learn about how things are changing, or just keep repeating ideas based on things you didn’t even ever try yourself (in the distant past no less).

[kewlJ]

. I have avoided tresspassings on many occasions by making sure my name isn't attached to anything.

BINGO! I don't think it resonates with the guy you are conversing with. He is not an AP, doesn't think like an AP and is as far away from advantage play as you can get.

Moving on, what advantage would there be for an advantage player to play off credit? Do casinos ever offer some kind of bonus like they do for cashing paychecks? That would be a reason, but not worth surrendering your information IMO.

I mean I guess if there was some kind of unique AP play that required a lot of front money, you might consider credit rather than carrying 6 figures in cash. THAT type of thing is out of my league, but I still don't think it would be worth surrendering your info, unless something really special. I mean that would be like walking into a casino announcing you are an AP and surrendering all your information. Am I missing anything?