Last Saturday at midnight, NGC Regulation 6A, which governs the reporting of large casino transactions in Nevada, quietly fell from the Gaming Commission’s books.
It might have been the calm before the storm.
In its place, the state’s casinos will now be subject to Title 31 of the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which many consider more stringent than Regulation 6A, whose repeal was effective July 1.
Both regulations stem from efforts to foil money laundering, and to uncover untaxed transactions.
The main difference between the two regulations — and thus the two reporting requirements — is that Title 31 makes no distinction between transactions: any aggregate cash transfer over $10,000 within a 24-hour period needs to be reported.
Thus, under Title 31 there are no dissimilar transactions, while Regulation 6A did not require the accumulation of dissimilar transactions.
For example, if a casino guest cashes a check for $2,500, redeems chips for $3,000 and takes a marker for $5,000 (and receiving cash), all of the transactions must be accumulated and counted toward the $10,000 threshold needed to file a CTR (Cash Transaction Report).
Following this scenario, the casino would have to file a CTR under Title 31, but would not with Regulation 6A.
Another difference is that casinos will have only one reporting entity — the main cashier. No longer will separate reports be accepted from various satellite cashiers, sports books, slot departments, etc.
All transactions — no matter in what part of the casino — must be tracked via one department, and reported by one department.
Needless to say, casinos will most likely be burdened with more paperwork under Title 31.
Besides the CTRs, casinos must keep a Multiple Transaction Log (MTL) and Monetary Instrument Log (MIL).
In the MTL, the casino employee must record the customer’s name, address, social security (they no longer will accept "refused" from a customer!), physical description and an itemized listing of cash transactions.
The MIL is a one-page, detailed listing of each transaction: name, date, address, social security, amount, type of instrument and nature of transaction.
Basically, all check transactions of $3,000 or more — personal checks, payroll checks, credit card cash advances, money orders, cashiers checks and travelers checks — must be recorded in the Monetary Instrument Log, as well as the Multiple Transaction Log.
Can anyone say "red tape?"
Not only will most casinos be filling out more paperwork and grilling customers, but more casinos will be required to do so.
Under the state’s Regulation 6A, only casinos with $10 million or more of gaming revenue were required to file reports on cash transactions of $10,000 or more. Title 31’s threshold is only $1 million, so hundreds of smaller casinos, including taverns and grocery stores, will now be required to report big transactions.
Of course, small slot operations, such as the corner 7-11, won’t likely handle too many $10,000 transactions!
While some casinos are concerned about the new reporting requirements, Nevada regulators are somewhat relieved to be out of the cash transaction oversight business.
"Having the responsibility without the authority is not a sound position to be in," former Gaming Control Board member Bobby Siller said at the time of the repeal. "We’d have no control over disciplinary actions."
Siller added that repealing Regulation 6A would free up time for other pursuits, such as auditing casinos and enforcing tax collection.
Jack Binion was thinking about the way the first World Series of Poker event began at the Binion family’s Horseshoe Casino on Fremont Street.
Casinos along the Gulf Coast and on the Mississippi River both showed gaming revenue gains during the month of April. The statewide revenue showed an increase of 8.1 percent during April to $177.1 million compared to April a year ago.
Gambling is not scheduled to get attention during the Florida Legislature’s special session, but the higher numbers being generated at pari-mutuel facilities suggests there are plenty of continuing reasons for conversation.
Owners of the Casino Queen in East St. Louis, Ill., believe they have a unique solution to the dispute that has pitted the casino and its interests against those of nearby Fairmont Park.