A record $5.06 million AML penalty has been agreed for Christchurch Casino after a Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) investigation uncovered extensive and sustained breaches of New Zealand’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. The high-profile settlement, which now awaits High Court approval, puts New Zealand’s casino sector in the regulatory spotlight and serves as a cautionary tale for any reporting entity failing to implement robust AML/CFT controls. Christchurch Casino’s admissions of liability, covering a five-year period of compliance breakdowns, send a strong signal about the escalating risks and consequences of poor anti-money laundering practices in the gambling industry.

Casino operators globally are under mounting pressure to implement rigorous controls, yet the Christchurch case stands out both for the scale of its admitted breaches and for the forthrightness of its settlement with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). With the New Zealand High Court expected to rule on the recommended penalty, the outcome will reverberate through the gaming and compliance sectors alike.

AML Penalty for Christchurch Casino: Focus on the Investigation

The focus keyword “AML penalty” is central to understanding the gravity of this regulatory action. The DIA launched its investigation into Christchurch Casino’s AML/CFT programme after observing compliance gaps and following up on sector-wide risk assessments. Between May 2023 and September 2024, investigators scrutinized the casino’s operations and internal documentation, uncovering a broad array of regulatory breaches spanning five years, from late 2018 through to the end of 2023.

The failings were not isolated incidents. The review found that Christchurch Casino’s compliance programme did not meet the basic standards set by New Zealand’s AML/CFT Act, which requires casinos and other reporting entities to maintain robust anti-money laundering controls, identify high-risk customers, monitor accounts and transactions, and maintain detailed records to enable regulatory oversight.

Key findings included a lack of effective policies and procedures to identify and escalate suspicious activity, gaps in enhanced due diligence for high-risk patrons, and inconsistent record-keeping. Notably, the casino failed to terminate relationships with clients whose activities triggered red flags or whose risk could not be adequately managed. According to regulatory records, these failures undermined the integrity of New Zealand’s financial system, leaving it vulnerable to the movement of illicit funds.

Despite the seriousness of the breaches, Christchurch Casino was not accused of facilitating money laundering or terrorism financing directly. Rather, the case centered on persistent systemic failures in compliance processes, which could, if left unchecked, create opportunities for criminal exploitation.

Compliance Failures and Sector Risks: Lessons from the Christchurch Casino Case

For AML professionals and compliance officers, the Christchurch Casino penalty serves as a stark reminder that regulatory expectations have matured significantly in recent years. The AML/CFT Act sets out explicit duties for casinos, including ongoing risk assessments, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and suspicious transaction reporting.

Christchurch Casino’s failures included:

• Inadequate implementation of an AML/CFT compliance programme tailored to its risk profile.
• Weak or missing procedures for enhanced customer due diligence, particularly for high-rollers and foreign patrons.
• Insufficient monitoring of customer accounts and transactions, resulting in missed red flags and a failure to identify potentially suspicious activities.
• Non-compliance with mandatory record-keeping and reporting requirements, impairing the DIA’s ability to supervise and investigate.
• Lapses in terminating business relationships when due diligence was incomplete or risks were deemed unmanageable.

These failures contravened specific provisions of the AML/CFT Act, which is aligned with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The Act requires that regulated entities regularly update their compliance frameworks, ensure ongoing training, and foster a culture of vigilance throughout the organization.

The DIA’s action underscores its risk-based approach to supervision, prioritizing entities where regulatory breaches could have a systemic impact. The regulator’s willingness to accept a negotiated settlement—while substantial in monetary terms—signals both a pragmatic and resolute stance in enforcing New Zealand’s AML/CFT framework.

The Regulatory Environment: Enforcement Trends and Legal Implications

This case must be viewed within the broader context of escalating AML enforcement in New Zealand and worldwide. Regulators are leveraging new technologies, increased information sharing, and risk-based methodologies to target sectors perceived as vulnerable to financial crime.

The New Zealand AML/CFT Act 2009 (as amended in 2017) mirrors many of the FATF Recommendations, with specific requirements for casinos, banks, money remitters, and other reporting entities. The Act mandates ongoing customer due diligence (sections 15–24), transaction monitoring (section 30), and record-keeping (section 49), with hefty penalties for non-compliance.

Recent enforcement actions by the DIA, including the earlier $2.8 million penalty against SkyCity Casino in 2023, demonstrate that New Zealand is serious about tackling regulatory breaches. Each penalty case reflects a deliberate strategy to encourage voluntary compliance, deter wilful negligence, and safeguard the reputation of New Zealand as a clean and well-regulated jurisdiction.

By admitting all seven causes of action and agreeing to recommend the $5.06 million penalty, Christchurch Casino has signaled a willingness to cooperate and remediate its deficiencies. Such admissions, while rare, can expedite the enforcement process and reduce the costs and uncertainties associated with protracted litigation.

However, the case also highlights the ongoing challenges of balancing business imperatives with regulatory duties. Casinos, by their nature, attract high-value transactions and cross-border flows, making them perennial targets for criminal actors. The compliance burden is therefore considerable, and even inadvertent lapses can attract significant penalties.

Strengthening AML Controls: Sector-wide Implications and Future Outlook

The Christchurch Casino penalty settlement is likely to trigger a reassessment of AML/CFT compliance strategies across New Zealand’s gambling industry and beyond. Reporting entities will be compelled to revisit their internal controls, staff training, and technology systems to ensure full alignment with evolving regulatory expectations.

Some sector-wide implications and recommendations include:

• Enhanced focus on risk-based customer due diligence, particularly for high-value and foreign patrons.
• Investment in transaction monitoring technology to better detect patterns indicative of money laundering or terrorist financing.
• Improved staff training programmes to cultivate a culture of compliance and encourage timely escalation of red flags.
• Regular independent audits of AML/CFT programmes to identify and remediate gaps before regulators intervene.
• Proactive engagement with regulators to clarify expectations and report remediation progress.

Globally, there is a trend towards stricter AML/CFT enforcement, especially in sectors traditionally viewed as higher risk. The FATF’s mutual evaluations and typology reports have repeatedly identified casinos as attractive vehicles for money laundering, necessitating continual vigilance and adaptation.

For Christchurch Casino, the path forward involves not only paying the agreed penalty, but also demonstrating that a root-and-branch overhaul of its compliance function has taken place. Regulatory trust must be rebuilt, both with the DIA and with the wider public. Failure to do so risks reputational damage and the possibility of more intrusive supervisory measures.

A Turning Point for Casino AML Compliance in New Zealand

This case represents a turning point for AML/CFT compliance standards in New Zealand’s casino sector. The $5.06 million penalty is one of the largest ever imposed in the country for regulatory breaches unrelated to proven criminal conduct, underscoring the seriousness with which the DIA and the courts approach systemic failings.

The Christchurch Casino outcome reinforces the need for all reporting entities to maintain strong compliance frameworks and to act swiftly when weaknesses are identified. The fact that the penalty arose not from proven money laundering, but from failures in controls and oversight, sends a clear message: regulators will not tolerate complacency or delay.

Looking ahead, casinos and other regulated businesses must take stock of this precedent. The sector can expect continued scrutiny, further refinement of regulatory standards, and a higher bar for demonstrating AML/CFT compliance. For Christchurch Casino, the penalty is only the beginning of a long process to regain regulatory confidence and to operate as a trusted player in New Zealand’s financial system.

---

Related Links

• New Zealand Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009
• Department of Internal Affairs: AML/CFT Supervision and Enforcement
• Financial Markets Authority: AML/CFT Information
• FATF: Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Casinos
• SkyCity AML/CFT Penalty Case 2023

Other FinCrime Central Articles About Growing Scrutiny on the Gambling Industry

• Poker Machine Giant Mounties Targeted by AUSTRAC for AML Gaps
• Dutch Regulator Exposes Major AML Gaps in Gambling Sector
• Northern Cyprus Casino Boom Drives Criminal Finance Concerns
• Sweden Imposes 2m$ AML Fines on Gambling Operators After Systemic Failures

Source: Department of Internal Affairs

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand with us or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.