Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anti Money Laundering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada Gaming Commission approves $8.5 million settlement with MGM over AML failures
Summary
The Nevada Gaming Commission on April 24 approved a stipulation resolving a complaint that MGM Resorts and two subsidiaries failed to report suspicious activity tied to illegal bookmakers; the company admitted the allegations, agreed to an $8.5 million fine and to enhanced anti–money‑laundering controls and training.
The Nevada Gaming Commission approved a stipulation for settlement with MGM Resorts International and two operating subsidiaries on April 24, resolving a board complaint that alleged the companies failed to detect and report suspicious activity connected to illegal bookmakers. MGM agreed to pay $8.5 million and to adopt several specific anti–money‑laundering (AML) program enhancements.
The complaint stemmed from facts outlined in two federal non‑prosecution agreements that described failures by marketing employees and other personnel to report illicit funds used for wagering at MGM properties. The allegations covered activity tied to an illegal bookmaker who used casino services and, separately, a different alleged bookmaker who wagered at MGM properties before being banned in 2018.
The settlement requires MGM to maintain and annually update core elements of its AML program, conduct annual in‑person enhanced AML training for casino marketing staff, launch a companywide awareness campaign to encourage suspicious activity reporting, and share audit reports of the AML program with the Gaming Control Board. MGM also agreed to increased internal spending on AML, formalized information‑sharing between compliance, credit and marketing, and new procedures for escalation and enhanced due diligence for large or repeated transactions.
MGM representatives said the company has doubled the number of suspicious activity reports it files annually since 2016 and has expanded currency transaction and wagering reporting. MGM also emphasized that it cooperated with federal authorities and with board investigators, accepts responsibility for the historical failures, and has taken steps to strengthen tone at the top and the company’s compliance culture.
The board’s complaint asked the commission to impose additional penalties beyond what the state steward or board could impose; commissioners voted to accept the stipulation negotiated between the board and MGM. The commission record notes the settlement reflects remediation and mitigation work the company has already undertaken and that the board and the attorney general’s office view the measures as appropriate for the seriousness of the matter.
MGM said in the meeting that the firm has continued to develop its AML program since 2014, including updates after industry guidance and federal enforcement actions, and that the settlements and remedial steps are intended to reduce the risk of recurrence.
Commissioners said the penalty and the program changes were meant to send a strong statewide and industry message about the importance of AML compliance. The stipulation was approved by roll‑call vote; one commissioner recused for a disclosed relationship.
