Las Vegas Casinos Boost Compliance, Avoid Government Monitors

Las Vegas casinos are recalibrating their approach to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance in the wake of a series of high-profile regulatory settlements, yet the industry remains wary of adopting independent monitors, a remedial tool common in banking.

At last week’s Global Gaming Expo (G2E), executives from Wynn Resorts, MGM Resorts, and Resorts World Las Vegas detailed extensive reforms to their compliance programs following a wave of illegal betting activity that exposed vulnerabilities in their systems. In the first half of 2025, the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) reached settlements with the three companies to address widespread AML deficiencies, prompting measures such as enhanced Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, regular staff training, and periodic regulatory reviews.

Category	Details
Event	Global Gaming Expo (G2E) 2025
Casinos Involved	Wynn Resorts, MGM Resorts, Resorts World Las Vegas
Regulatory Action	Nevada Gaming Commission settlements for AML deficiencies
Fines	Wynn: $5.5M, MGM: $8.5M, RWLV: $10.5M
Compliance Measures	Enhanced KYC protocols, staff training, periodic internal audits
Independent Monitorship	Not adopted; considered costly and intrusive by casinos
Comparison with Banking	Banks often appoint independent monitors for AML enforcement (e.g., TD Bank $3B settlement)
Future Outlook	iGaming growth will require digital AML tracking, hybrid oversight models, and stronger regulatory compliance online

 

The Developments

Despite these efforts, none of the casinos have embraced the appointment of independent AML monitors—a practice often deployed in the banking sector to ensure rigorous oversight. “Nobody wants a government monitor, but we’re doing it on our own,” said Omar Khoury, chief global compliance officer at Wynn Resorts, emphasizing the company’s hybrid approach that combines third-party audits with internal risk assessment reporting to its compliance committee.

The reluctance is understandable. Monitorships can cost millions annually, and some compliance experts argue they can be overly aggressive in seeking violations that may not exist. Barak Cohen, a former federal prosecutor, described monitorships as a “proxy for prosecutors” and urged companies to self-manage if possible.

The settlements carry substantial financial penalties. Wynn Resorts paid $5.5 million, MGM Resorts $8.5 million, and Resorts World Las Vegas $10.5 million. These fines follow historical settlements such as Wynn’s 2024 $130 million non-prosecutorial agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged global AML violations. While the current cases did not involve narcotics-related laundering, they illustrate the ongoing scrutiny of high-risk financial activity on the Strip. Mike Dreitzer, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, highlighted the importance of corrective measures over headline-grabbing fines. “Certainly, we are not afraid to continue to ramp up enforcement,” Dreitzer said at G2E, signaling a continued regulatory focus on cultural compliance rather than punitive spectacle alone.

The casino industry’s approach contrasts with the banking sector, where independent monitors have become a standard tool. TD Bank, for example, appointed a monitor as part of a $3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities after deficiencies in its AML programs allowed illicit funds to flow through the institution. Such measures, while costly, are viewed as an essential layer of oversight that can prevent systemic lapses. In the casino context, the debate centers on whether self-imposed audits can match the rigor of a government-sanctioned monitor.

As casinos strengthen terrestrial compliance, the rise of iGaming presents a new frontier of regulatory and operational challenges. Virtual betting platforms, mobile sports wagering, and online poker are expanding rapidly, both within Nevada and in other U.S. states, creating additional AML exposure. Regulators are likely to demand integrated systems that can track cross-platform transactions in real time, ensuring that KYC protocols extend seamlessly into the digital sphere.

 

Las Vegas casinos have overhauled their AML compliance programs after regulatory settlements, focusing on internal audits and staff training while avoiding costly independent monitorships.

 

The Future

For Las Vegas operators, the growth of iGaming also represents a potential cultural shift. Unlike traditional casino floors, online platforms require continuous monitoring, sophisticated risk modeling, and proactive fraud detection algorithms. Casinos that successfully adapt may gain a competitive advantage, leveraging digital innovation while maintaining regulatory credibility. Conversely, failures in compliance could trigger fines or, in extreme cases, licensing scrutiny similar to the recent in-person cases.

Industry observers suggest that hybrid models—combining internal audits, third-party oversight, and advanced analytics—may become the norm for iGaming. Such approaches could allow operators to avoid the high cost and intrusiveness of traditional monitorships while meeting regulators’ expectations for accountability and transparency.

As Las Vegas balances historic gaming traditions with a digital future, the interplay between regulatory enforcement, compliance culture, and technological innovation will shape the next era of both on-site and online gambling. The Strip’s willingness to self-regulate may prove critical, not only for financial security but for sustaining its reputation as the world’s premier gaming destination.