Global Casino Money Laundering Crackdown: Canada’s FINTRAC Fine Meets Philippines’ AMLC Budget Boost
Governments are increasingly cracking down on casino money laundering. Canada recently imposed a CA$1,175,000 (about US$867,000) fine against a casino operator for failures in anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, while the Philippines is pushing to restore the full PHP 333 million budget for its Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) after severe cuts. The developments highlight both enforcement and capacity building in the global fight against illicit money flows in gaming.
On August 28, 2025, FINTRAC (The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada) issued an administrative monetary penalty of CA$1,175,000 against the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority (SIGA), which operates seven casinos in Saskatchewan.
The penalty followed a compliance check that found SIGA failed to:
FINTRAC’s Director and CEO, Sarah Paquet, emphasized that the AML regime in Canada is designed not just as guidelines but as legally enforceable obligations. She noted compliance is critical for public safety and economic integrity.
SIGA has denied wrongdoing and has indicated it intends to appeal FINTRAC’s decision.
In the Philippines, lawmakers are debating restoring the full PHP 333 million AMLC budget for 2026, after it was previously cut to about PHP 170 million. The restoration is proposed in response to increasing evidence of large-scale casino money laundering, especially tied to alleged corruption in public works and flood control projects. Budget cuts and proposed restoration are reported to be implemented in recent media and Senate proceedings.
A major scandal that has stirred public outrage involves former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers in Bulacan. Between 2023 and 2025, this group—dubbed the “Bulacan Group of Contractors” allegedly laundered over PHP 1 billion (approx. US$18.3 million) through 13 casinos in Metro Manila, Cebu, and Pampanga. Their gross gambling losses are reported at PHP 950 million (≈ US$17.4 million), while the full cash-to-chip and chip-to-cash exchanges pushed the total transaction volume higher.
Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson described their methods. They buy casino chips with cash, place low or minimal bets, then cash out, declaring winnings in order to mask the source of funds. The scheme also involves use of aliases and possibly fake IDs.
The AMLC has already said it is going to investigate the casinos, check on compliance of its covered persons and ask for asset freeze orders against those who are liable.
Despite the distance and differing legal frameworks, both Canada and the Philippines face similar challenges in their efforts to enforce AML laws in casinos. These problems include:
Regulatory frameworks are evolving under international pressure. The Philippines, for example, passed Republic Act 10927 in 2017, which designated casinos (land-based, online, etc.) as “covered persons” under the AML law. That means they are now bound by requirements such as customer due diligence, record keeping, CTR (covered transaction report) thresholds, and filing of suspicious transaction reports.
In Canada, scrutiny from FINTRAC has increased; compliance examinations are more frequent, and penalties are significant, sending signals to all covered entities.
International bodies like FATF and requirements for meeting international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) standards are pushing many countries to tighten regulations and oversight. The Philippines’ removal from the EU’s high-risk jurisdictions list is partly attributed to improvements in its AML/CFT regime.
Canada’s approach leans heavily on retroactive enforcement. This includes detecting failures, imposing large fines (like SIGA’s CA$1.175 million), and using regulatory teeth to deter noncompliance.
The Philippines, while also pursuing enforcement (e.g. investigations, asset freezing), is putting more emphasis on increasing institutional capacity. This is by restoring AMLC funding, improving technology and resources, closing legal loopholes, and tightening regulatory oversight of covered institutions.
Each strategy has trade-offs. Fines can punish noncompliance, but only after damage is done. Budget and capacity improvements have longer-term effects but require political will and sustained funding.
The casino sector is preparing for tougher oversight as regulators worldwide clamp down on money laundering. Canada’s hefty penalty against SIGA underscores the downside of non-compliance. This alongside, the Philippines’ bid to restore the AMLC’s full budget highlights the efforts to reinforce institutions before scandals get worse.
Casinos can expect tighter reporting rules, closer audits, and rising compliance costs, with technology playing a bigger role in detecting red flags. Subsequently, regulators are relying more on cross-border cooperation, since laundering schemes rarely stay within a country’s borders.
Together, these steps indicate that compliance is no longer a check check off list item, but a business imperative. For operators, investing in strong AML programs is not just about avoiding penalties. It’s about survival in an industry under increasing global scrutiny.
Shuffle casino