I did see a lot of posts along the way were edited or removed along the way too cause they were there and then gone.

I think it was a definite troll

If we read between the lines, he didn't think his transactions were over 10K, so he felt he didn't need to provide his SS#.

I don't know what he means by "They never asked for it specifically". Maybe they said "We're gonna need your social if you're going to cash this in". Who knows. We only have one biased side to the story anyway.

aside from the suspicious transfers what you're doing is rude. just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. the cage employees probably strongly dislike you. establishments will find ways to 86 undesirable customers who contribute little and ask too much.

I don't know what they did say, but I suspect they didn't say "we're gonna need X if you Y."

One of the things that automatically trigger an SAR is if someone changes their cash-in upon finding out ID is required. And I can't imagine a cashier basically volunteering for paperwork by giving someone the option of pulling back their chips.

While I've never tried to refuse so I can't say for certain, I suspect the casino would give someone at least as much trouble as it would be to file an SAR. They'll give up when it's clear that it's more trouble to fight with a customer than to fill out the paperwork.

Ok, this makes sense. I must've read that too quick. Thanks.

Financial institutions are basically government watchdogs in some respects.

If you don't like these practices, maybe you should work towards reducing government's role in the operation of private businesses. Until then it's unreasonable to blame the casino for following the letter of the law. The penalties for breaking these laws are severe.

There's a pretty big space for compromise between "government shouldn't interfere with private business" and "let's make it difficult to launder huge amounts of money."

For example, the CTR limit is not indexed for inflation, so smaller and smaller transactions are getting flagged. Pegging it to, say, the federal poverty line or something would eliminate a class of legitimate cash-users who barely break the CTR, while preserving the spirit of the law against cartel laundering.

I'm not taking that wager sir.

To be fair, a player's got a shot in the pit but you can't win big at the gas pump.

I also get anti-money laundering training yearly.

1. The law is the Patriot Act, originally passed shortly after 9/11 in 2001. With the mood of the country at that time, it was deliberately harsh and unforgiving.

2. There's a list of people who aren't allowed to do any transactions that is kept by the government. If the OP is banned by a bunch of banks, it is likely he got himself on that list. Therefore, it is a FinCEN decision. The casino can't do business with him without being subject to massive fines and employees facing serious jail time. The casino has no choice in the matter. Which is why appealing to the casino is useless. The OP will have to go to government to ask to be taken off the list.

3. Casinos are considered high risk for money laundering. They get lots of extra attention from the government.

4. By law, you can't tell someone why their business is declined. Nor can you "warn" them that their action might be considered a suspicious activity.

5. It isn't a criminal investigation. Once you're on the list, you're presumed guilty which is why they won't let people continue to exchange money.

CTR's were introduced in the 90's, long before the Patriot act.

The Banking Secrecy Act was enacted in 1970. I don't know if a revision was made in the 1990s, but the $10k limit for CTRs was $10k in 1970 and $10k now.

On the next episode of "One Man's hunt for Star Notes!"

"..."

I genuinely feel sorry for you, man. And if I was a manager at that casino, I'd probably talk to you first and tell you to cut it out before banning you for life. But the world is a harsh place and businesses (the bigger the more risk averse) would always rather be safe than sorry. Hope you find another casino you like.

If somebody is suspected of possible money laundering, the last thing the casino should do is give the guy tips on how to not look like he is.

Filing SAR's for anything even slightly questionable (suspicious activity reports on transactions over $3k) and increased scrutiny was a direct result of the patriot act. There is no penalty for filing too many SAR's, but if you don't file one when you should there is potentially big liability, so financial institutions and casino's err on the side of filing one if there is any doubt.

callipygian made a great point in that the limit has never been increased (for either SAR's or CTR's), and should be adjusted with inflation.

Yeah I mean who cares about all that "people have rights" and "constitution" stuff anyway? If it let's them catch a guy selling the devil's weed then we should let them see every financial transaction we make.

I'm banned from all of my state's casinos, which unfortunately includes MGM & Caesars. I wish MGM had not developed a casino here, was able to play at MGM until they came to my state. Sigh. Never will be able to play in a WSOP event I feel your pain.

^^^ OK so what stuff did you NOT do , that ALL those casinos think you DID do???

As stated b y many others on this thread, I am not sure why you are doing so many micro transactions at the cage. It looks very suspicious and when you refused to give your SS#, combined with all the weird transactions like buying black chips at the cage $200 at a time, they figured they had enough. This casino has been fined once already for I believe missing a card in blackjack (or different color card back in a continuous shoe, can't remember) and they don't want to look like they are now allowing money laundering.

Not that it matters now but did you ever use a players card or even have one? I have heard at my local casino cashiers ask players for their card at the cage for largish transactions. You could of just given them that in lieu of a SS#. Bottom line is though that they were most likely looking at you for months before they finally had enough. Maybe you were not doing anything intentionally shady but it sure looked that way.

To be honest, was dumb and naive. Turned 21, went to casino, one weekend got 1 and 2 outed for more money than I should have been playing. Then tilted and lost $1k more in Blackjack afterwards, while in college. Then said I'm never playing again and immaturely same night banned myself for life.

4 years later, graduated college, full-time job in finance, only play poker now, no more table games but sadly can never change the decision I made. And now because MGM and Caesars both own properties here, I'm banned everywhere from them.

Did not realize banning myself at the time meant I could never play in WSOP ever. Its a sad hindsight mistake. Wish I had done a few years as I'm fine now when I visit a casino on vacation.

I now have to travel to play poker which is okay but still saddening.

The government doesn't need to be concerned with money laundering. The acts associated with money laundering themselves are victimless crimes. The original criminal conduct that the laundering is supposed to cover up should be the only concern of the government. I'm not saying it's not okay for the government to profile people based on suspicious financial transactions, but it is absolutely not okay to punish people for suspicious financial transactions without connecting them to a "real" crime. It is also not okay (to a much lesser degree) to coerce financial institutions into providing financial data of their customers without a warrant.

You make a good point about the value of $10k now relative to when the law was enacted. It would be an improvement to the law to account for inflation. It would be better yet to eliminate the law all together, but at least fewer citizens who legitimately deal with larger quantities of cash, such as poker players, would be bothered.

Simply not true. It puts honest businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and makes it near impossible to run a business WITHOUT an illegal connection (for example, post-communist Russia).

What kind of argument is this? Being better or cheaper also puts other businesses at a disadvantage. Should we outlaw that too?

Politics belongs in the politics forum. Trolling each other belongs nowhere. Cut it out.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You'll have to explain in a little more detail.

Regardless, maybe it's wrong to say money laundering is a "victimless crime." My point is that while money laundering implies other criminal activity which is itself harmful, that is independent of the act of money laundering. The activities associated with money laundering would be harmless if they weren't linked to crime by definition. It is wrong for government to police financial transactions, or to punish activity which looks suspicious.