AML & RG
perspective is similar to that required from clients under AML perspective, especially in relation to behavioral elements which are summarized under transaction monitoring in AML obligations. Despite the similarities of the player information involved, the aim and uses to which the information is put for AML purposes is very different from that under RG obligations. AML is all about the source and destination of funds and establishing their legitimacy, whilst RG focuses on the behavioral elements associated with financial stability and addiction. Distinguishing AML requirements and context from RG requirements is crucial for all relevant parties, especially operators, in the context of any discussions with the authorities. The information collected to meet both AML and RG requirements appears at first glance very similar, yet the reason and purpose for obtaining such information is quite different. Monitoring player transactions from an AML perspective revolves around the transaction profile of the player and establishing their expected source of funds. Monitoring player transactions from an RG perspective revolves around the behavior of the player in terms of the frequency and timing of bets placed, and other behavioral elements that might serve as indicators of harm. The overlapping element between AML and RG is monetary, but AML is aimed at establishing the legitimacy of the total funds wagered whilst it is the total number of bets placed that serve as a possible indication from an RG and consumer protection angle. Respecting the differences Licensed operators will at some point encounter regulatory supervision under the terms of their license. Such supervision may be either a normal check by the regulator or a check by the regulator that is triggered by indications it may have received. For an operator, understanding
the nature and purpose of the regulatory visit is essential when considering the information that must be provided to the regulator and the purposes to which that information may be put. Information shared in addition to what was requested by the regulator can generally be used by the regulator, however a regulator requesting further information that is beyond the scope of the initial purpose of its supervision is generally not allowed and can be considered more of a fishing expedition. In the desire to be as cooperative as possible with a regulator, the online gambling industry is under scrutiny. A reputation for non-cooperation is seen as harmful even if such cooperation might well be result in the handing over of information that was not legally necessary. On their part, regulators should be mindful of the purpose of their supervision and act within its boundaries. As both AML and RG legislation are aimed at contributing to a regulated and controlled gambling environment it is essential remember that all stakeholders within the industry should act within the boundaries of their duties within this environment. It is undeniably the case that the (online) gambling sector is in the spotlight of policymakers, media and regulatory bodies and faces severe reputational challenges. In these times it is incumbent on all stakeholders to understand the foundation and principles of the regulatory and controlling elements as established within the (online) gambling industry. It requires courage and determination to uphold these principles and to continuously evaluate whether the environment remains suitable in light of the AML and RG principles. This objective is best served when AML and RG, despite their superficial similarities, are regarded as two separate principles each requiring specific tools and sets of information.
KEES-JAN AVIS Managing Director - the Netherlands EM Group For information contact ++31 (0)6 8218 5856 kees-jan.avis@the- emgroup.com
PAGE 48
IMGL MAGAZINE | JANUARY 2023
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker