Canada’s financial crime enforcement regime took a decisive step when FINTRAC issued an administrative monetary penalty against the Canadian National Exhibition Casino in Toronto. The case reflects how casinos remain vulnerable to laundering risks and how regulators are raising expectations for compliance programs. This article explores the background, the money laundering dimensions, the wider regulatory landscape, and the lessons other operators should take from this enforcement action.
Table of Contents
Money laundering risk exposed at CNE Casino
The CNE Casino was found to have failed in two essential areas of its compliance program. It did not assess or document the risks of money laundering or terrorist financing, and it neglected to conduct the required internal review of its AML program. These failures are not minor oversights. They cut to the heart of what makes a compliance regime functional.
Casinos are particularly attractive for money laundering because of their large volumes of cash, their fast turnover of funds, and the ability to move between chips and currency with minimal oversight. Without a risk assessment, the casino had no structured way to evaluate where laundering could occur. Criminals often exploit such gaps by using methods like smurfing, where multiple small deposits are made to avoid triggering reporting thresholds, or minimal play, where cash is converted into chips, wagered minimally, and then cashed out to create an appearance of legitimate winnings.
The absence of an internal compliance review worsened the picture. Reviews are meant to identify weak training, outdated monitoring systems, or poor reporting practices. Without them, a casino may remain unaware that staff are not recognizing suspicious behavior or that reporting lines are unclear. In practice, this meant CNE Casino was operating blind to risks that could have allowed illicit funds to wash through its operations unnoticed.
As a result of these failures, FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of $199,000. The size of the penalty is significant enough to make an impact, while serving as a warning that regulators will hold casinos accountable when they fall short of their obligations.
The Canadian legal framework and its enforcement tools
Canada’s anti money laundering legal framework is built on the Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act and associated regulations. Under this law, casinos are defined as reporting entities with strict obligations. They must identify clients, record large cash transactions, document suspicious activity, file electronic funds transfer reports, and maintain a compliance program centered on risk based assessments.
FINTRAC acts as both intelligence unit and supervisor. It collects and analyzes financial information, shares intelligence with law enforcement and national security bodies, and enforces compliance through examinations and penalties. Since receiving authority to issue penalties in 2008, FINTRAC has applied them across many sectors including money services businesses, real estate, dealers in precious metals, and financial institutions. The casino sector has always been high priority because of its cash intensity and history of being used for layering schemes.
The current Canadian landscape is shifting. New legislative proposals under Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, aim to expand registration requirements, increase the maximum penalty tiers, and introduce mandatory compliance agreements for entities with systemic failures. These reforms show that regulators are moving from educational approaches toward more punitive enforcement, particularly ahead of Canada’s upcoming FATF mutual evaluation. The CNE Casino penalty is part of a wider trend of heightened scrutiny across all sectors.
Broader impact on money laundering techniques and criminal behavior
The failure of CNE Casino to conduct a risk assessment and internal review created a perfect environment for classic laundering techniques. In casinos, criminals often rely on structuring transactions below reporting thresholds, chip walking, and using third parties or “smurfs” to break down large sums. Without risk based monitoring, these techniques can go unnoticed.
Another common tactic is minimal gaming. A launderer brings in large amounts of cash, exchanges it for chips, makes only token wagers, and then redeems the chips for a check issued by the casino. The check provides the illusion of legitimate gambling proceeds. If compliance reviews are not in place, such behavior might not be flagged.
The implications extend beyond one casino. When one operator fails, it undermines the collective strength of the national AML regime. Criminal organizations are opportunistic, and once they identify weak points in a country’s defenses, they concentrate their activity there. The CNE Casino case highlights that even mid sized casinos can become prime targets if they neglect compliance fundamentals.
From a regulatory perspective, this penalty also reflects a shift in deterrence strategy. FINTRAC is making clear that it will not only punish large systemic failures but also target entities that fail to perform the basic building blocks of compliance. The intention is to create ripple effects across the sector, compelling all casinos to strengthen their risk assessments, update their training, and invest in more robust transaction monitoring systems.
Lessons for casinos and other reporting entities
The lessons of the CNE Casino case extend beyond the gaming floor. They are relevant to all reporting entities subject to Canada’s AML regime.
First, risk assessment is not optional. It must be ongoing, documented, and tailored to the unique exposure of the business. Casinos, with their cash flows and anonymity risks, cannot rely on generic templates. They must analyze customer demographics, transaction patterns, and geographic vulnerabilities.
Second, compliance reviews must be documented and repeated at regular intervals. These reviews serve as internal audits, exposing weak spots before regulators do. A strong review program can reveal whether suspicious transaction reporting is consistent, whether staff training is effective, and whether new risks such as digital wallets or virtual currency gaming are being addressed.
Third, a culture of compliance is crucial. Penalties are only one aspect of the cost of non compliance. Reputational damage, loss of customer trust, and increased regulatory scrutiny can be more damaging than the financial impact of a fine. Casinos that demonstrate proactive compliance not only avoid penalties but also position themselves as trustworthy operators in a sector where public confidence is fragile.
Fourth, upcoming legislative reforms raise the stakes. The Strong Borders Act will expand regulator powers and increase penalty ceilings dramatically. Businesses that currently struggle to meet requirements will face even greater exposure once these reforms pass. The time to strengthen compliance frameworks is now, not after enforcement actions escalate.
Finally, appeals do not erase reputational consequences. While CNE Casino has sought judicial review, the very fact that the penalty was imposed places the institution in the public spotlight. Other operators should recognize that even if penalties are contested, the regulatory message remains clear and public.
Related Links
- Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act official text
- FINTRAC administrative monetary penalties public notices
- Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations under the PCMLTFA
- Bill C-2 Strong Borders Act official documentation
Other FinCrime Central Articles About FINTRAC Covering All Angles
- Criminal Networks Laundering Fentanyl Proceeds Through Online Gambling
- Coordinated Casino ATM Fraud in Western Canada Cost Over One Million CAD
- Vancouver Investment Firm Faces $500k FINTRAC Penalty for AML Breaches
Source: FINTRAC
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, 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.
