Casinos brace for life after Reg. 6A

GamingToday.com is an independent sports news and information service. GamingToday.com has partnerships with some of the top legal and licensed sportsbook companies in the US. When you claim a bonus offer or promotion through a link on this site, Gaming Today may receive referral compensation from the sportsbook company. Although the relationships we have with sportsbook companies may influence the order in which we place companies on the site, all reviews, recommendations, and opinions are wholly our own. They are the recommendations from our authors and contributors who are avid sports fans themselves.

For more information, please read How We Rank Sportsbooks, Privacy Policy, or Contact Us with any concerns you may have.

Gaming Today is licensed and regulated to operate in AZ, CO, CT, IN, LA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, TN, and VA.

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.

 

 

About the Author

Get connected with us on Social Media